- About Archives
- About SAA
- Careers
- Education
- Publications
- Advocacy
- Membership
Recently, the BAS Steering Committee put out a survey to solicit the section's opinions on a salary requirement for job postings on various SAA outlets. This was a much talked about topic at this year's SAA Annual Meeting in Austin. As the conversation moves forward, we consider it paramount that any potential statement by the BAS accurately reflect the opinions of its members. We would like to share the results of this survey.
Due to the prevalence of this topic at the 2019 Annual Meeting, we will also be re-opening the survey for two weeks (August 12 - August 26) to give those who didn't respond previously a chance to weigh in. You can visit the survey here.
Additionally, there is a new SAA-wide task force/working group addressing this issue. Please reach out to Melissa Gonazles (melissa_gonzales@icloud.com) if you are interested in participating. The group would like to get as many viewpoints as possible.
Total responses: 78
Yes: 55 No: 23
In which of the following situations should SAA require that job postings include salary or salary range information? (Choose all that apply.)
Results:
None of the above, SAA should not require that job postings include salary information (39 votes, 50%)
On the SAA Job Board (9 votes, 11.5%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity; On blogs and social media, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity (8 votes, 10.3%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity; On blogs and social media, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity; On the section lists, regardless of who is posting; On blogs and social media, regardless of who is posting (7 votes, 9%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity (5 votes, 6.4%)
On the section lists, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity; On blogs and social media, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity (5 votes, 6.4%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity; On the section lists, regardless of who is posting (2 votes, 2.6%)
On the SAA Job Board; On blogs and social media, when postings are from SAA leaders/admins in their official capacity (1 vote, 1.3%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, regardless of who is posting (1 vote, 1.3%)
On the SAA Job Board; On the section lists, regardless of who is posting; On blogs and social media, regardless of who is posting (1 vote, 1.3%)
If you have any additional thoughts you'd like to share on this issue, please add them here.
Results:
1.
"Salary levels for private employer positions are proprietary and confidential information. The public in general and the SAA in particular have no especial right to know in these matters."
2.
"Requiring salaries to be included will severely limit the number of job postings available to SAA members. It should remain optional, but strongly encouraged."
3.
"I’m not sure if including the information helps or hinders a job search - do you all have any evidence or studies?"
4.
"My organization, like many businesses, never includes salary listings in their job posts."
5.
"Salary is not the only benefit provided by an employer. In addition, all benefits, including salary ought to be negotiated between the employer and the employee. Post salary will not benefit either party in the long run when trying to hire a qualified and competent job candidate."
6.
"Only the SAA job board should require it; posts to the listservs should not be included in the requirement."
7.
"Requiring this would make it impossible to use for companies who do not provide salary ranges in a posting."
8.
"The discussion of this policy has already discouraged me from posting any job through SAA."
9.
"I think requiring salary info is a great idea. I think it should be required regardless of who is posting, because otherwise it would be too easy for people to skirt around the requirement. My only question is, how will you enforce? Would the postings be deleted if the salary isn't there? Thanks for doing this."
10.
"I'm torn on this issue because I support what SAA is trying to do, but I think this issue is so much bigger than posting salary in a job posting. It's about archivists getting paid fair wages for their education and their jobs especially new to the field. I encourage SAA to not post jobs that are para-professionals or ask archivists to have an IT degree. So like I said I appreciate what they are trying to do but I think there is a bigger issue at play: archivists are primarily women who are paid less in general and who don't talk about money and aren't comfortable negotiating. I think SAA should provide a forum for those discussions and a platform to change that. I'm sorry I know that's not what this survey is for, but that's what on my mind!"
11.
"I like the statement that encourages job posters to list salary info. If it is required, I fear SAA's job postings will decline and employers will use the generic LinkedIns and Indeed.com's of the social media world. This would be a negative."
12.
"Corporations are likely to follow their own practices on this, and they have different ways of determining salary/compensation than non-profits. If we require a salary they will just refuse to post, and then we won't hear about them at all and they won't get good candidates. It's in the interest of business archivists to request salary info but not require it."
13.
"Is there a way to really explain why BAS members typically would not support having a salary posted? For me, I have nothing to do with the salary and if required, would not be able to post at all. A decision to post a salary or not is made as a business need and at the highest level, not something I decide as Archivist/Records Manager."
14.
"The proposed requirement that salary information be included in any SAA-related position posting(s) a) is inappropriate for a professional organization having as wide a range of representation among its members from all kinds of settings nationwide, b) inevitably discloses information about the compensation of the people who take any/all of the positions, and c) is likely to result in many organizations (not just business archives) simply posting positions wherever the inclusion of salary information is not required."
15.
"SAA could have the most positive impact and be the most inclusive of all its members' needs if it would create a statement expressing minimum salary requirements for different specialty areas within the field (i.e. digital preservation, etc.) and for years of experience (entry level, mid-career, etc.). Organizations that are able to include specific salary numbers can do so in their posts, but those that have stated they cannot, which are largely well-paying business archives jobs, could state that they meet (or exceed) the SAA recommendations."
16.
"I think there are pros and cons. Certainly it would be nice if there was a guide for salary expectations for different roles including geographic locations. Benefit packages and salary range on job posting are good, or at the very least a guide to the company's salary schedule where there may be different levels, i.e. Archivist II versus Archivist III, manager versus supervisor, etc. Would just have to be careful this does not dissuade companies from posting. It should also have better format for clearly identifying what is temporary versus permanent. Sometimes it is not clearly stated or hidden in the description. If there is a form a company has to fill out then there should be check boxes to tick off, and that info be up front including location of the job itself, sometimes jobs are not at the company's address. If includes any salary info, even a range, then leave it at the end. Check out other job sites and see what their requirements are for postings. I also think SAA should list other resources/sites for finding jobs, suggested search terms etc. I find some companies use the word archivist in many different ways or list jobs for which an archivist would be suitable but it's not listed as an archivist job. Thoughts to chew on. Tnx!"
17.
"I appreciate that you're gathering this information and perhaps documenting a perspective that isn't always acknowledged."
18.
"I think that transparency about salary is a very good thing. I am a contractor and I would love to see hourly rates posted, because I have not raised my hourly rate in 10 years and feel I should."
19.
"Requiring salary info is just going to diminish the comprehensiveness of job postings on the SAA board/etc. Many institutions have HR policies around this that they will not change in response to SAA requirements, so as a result I would guess that the job board will see less postings and the value of this resource will decay."
20.
"I can't see how requiring extra effort of hiring agents will create a more equitable set of criteria from which prospective candidates can benefit. The HR departments of the business world will most certainly not change their procedures and policies because the SAA requires salary information for postings. What will result is a diminished number of job postings on the SAA website and a narrower range of opportunities, which will inspire SAA members to search elsewhere. Or worse, lead candidates to assume the salary ranges provided by those postings who do meet the SAA criteria are representative of the actual range of archivists' salaries, rather than just a subset. I strongly recommend NOT requiring salary inclusion from recruiters or their HR business partners for use of the SAA's job posting services."
21.
"I think posting the salary for a job saves everyone involved time. If you know upfront what the salary (range) is or what the institution has budgeted it helps to make the decision if an applicant wants to apply. I wouldn't want to go through a lengthy selection process to find out the salary the institution can pay is substantially less than what I would expect."
22.
"SAA is wasting energy on this issue. If they want to improve salaries, they should focus on inconsistency in the educational tracks into the profession. Professionalize and standardize those first."
23.
"While the issue of low wages is serious and should be one which SAA engages on, this is not a solution as it only increases the possibility of transparency (with no guarantees) & does nothing to increase actual salaries. It does, however, increase the likelihood of decreased revenues SAA receives via its career services - revenues that are critical for SAA as an organization to advocate and support us as professionals."
24.
"While I agree that the present statement is adequate encouragement for potential employers to include salary information if it is advantageous, the statement is likely inadequate. Employers who have a set pay scale usually will disclose that to potential employees unless there is a reason not to. Such situations that I have personally encountered include a candidate that seemed of enough value that the employer ended up offering more than budgeted and reducing budgeted amounts for other items or positions, salary yet to be determined by others in charge of funding, awareness that many organizations do not disclose salaries to other employees due to potential misunderstandings of reasons for compensation that might cause hard feelings, confidentiality agreements, and the need to be flexible in choosing where to spend their money without creating feelings of frustration among applicants.
I also feel that some of our advocates for forcing salaries fail to evaluate the situations. Comments have been made to the effect that it is unfair for employers not to disclose the pay offered. Later others complained that many potential employers ask for a target salary from the employee. In other words, employers paying for the posting of jobs must disclose pay standards because it is unfair to do otherwise, but applicants should not have to do the same because it is unfair. Statements have been made that an archivist might not be employed based upon a 'fair' suggested wage. It is worth noting that while one sets their own 'price' based on their feeling of worth, the employer determines what is fair and worthwhile for their organization to pay for the work. The 2 may not agree, but the employer has the money and job and determines its value. (If the applicant feels that the amount that is refused is what they are worth, they need not be upset if the pay offered, which is not fair, is given to another who is less skilled.)
Some have expressed an unwillingness to research pay for a job, (which also suggests an unwillingness to check differences in cost of living and value of pay), and feel that the employers need to make concessions to have the opportunity to employ archivists. I have worked in enough different fields and served on enough search committees to know that employers are looking for people who are willing to work to get the job, not people who feel the potential employer must jump through hoops. These people will not make more money for archivists in their organization their number one priority.
Which brings us to the big issue. These regulations are being promoted as a way to increase archivists' pay. I see no logical connection between posting pay and increasing pay. I do see a logical connection with putting obstacles to hiring such as paying for advertisements with a lot of restrictions, suggesting to employers that they are the ones who need to do back flips to get employees, and ultimately a decreased willingness to increase pay or even staff. This is all backwards. Particularly with people who should be able to research and to negotiate pay, as well as who are mature enough to know that they often need to interview for jobs that don't work out to eventually find the one they want."
