ofthe T o r o n t o news, the s e n i o R e c e n - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

Va Regular

Mail

Toronto Public Library W

• r

k e r s Union

Local

4948

A f f i l i a t e d with

C U P E

a n d t h e

Toronto

&

Y

• r

k

Region Labour Council Maureen O’Reilly P r e s i d e n t Brendan Haley V i c e

• P

r e s i d e n t V i v e c a Gretton Recording Secretary C a r m e l a Corrado Secretary-Treasurer Brian R a y m e r Toronto Reference

Library

Brandon Haynes N

• r

t h

York

Central Library

Jenna

L i u

North Region Karen Smith S

• u

t h Region

J

• h

n P u u s a

E a s t Region K a r e n DeSimone W e s t Region

F i t z g e r a l d Steele

F a c i l i t i e s

S t e v e n B u r d i c i t S u p p

• r

t S e r v i c e s

20 Eglinton A v e n u e West S u i t e 1 1 9 , B

• x

2 5 3 T

• r
• n

t

• ,

ON M4R

1

K8

Telephone: (416) 440-7981

FAX: (416)

440-7984 Email: i n f

• @

1

• c

a t 4 9 4 8

• r

g

w w w . l

• c

a l 4 9 4 8 .

• r

g

591G 707

A p r i l 1 8 ,

2017

Ron

C a r i n c i C h a i r ,

T

• r
• n

t

• Public Library Board

Toronto P u b l i c

L i b r a r y 7 8 9 Yonge

Street Toronto, Ontario

M4W 2 G $ Dear

• Mr. Carinci:

RE:

S W A N S E A A N D TODMORDEN OPEN

FACILiTY P1LOT P R O J E C T

R e c e n t l y

i n

the

news, the s e n i

• r management
• fthe

T

• r
• n

t

• Public Library

compared the

• p

e n facility pilot p r

• j

e c t proposed f

• r

Swansea and T

• d

m

• r

d e n t

• a

2 4 / 7 f i t n e s s c e n t r e .

May w e remind y

• u

, we are

a

public l i b r a r y . O v e r

the

l a s t several rounds of collective bargaining, senior management and

the

L i b r a r y B

• a

r d

committed to

a

c

• m

p r e h e n s i v e l i b r a r y service

in

the event

• f

the extension

• f

hours. (See Letter of Agreement Number 4 :

R e :

Extended branch open hours).

This

letter forms part

• f

the current c

• l

l e c t i v e

agreement

which you ratified less than

a

y e a r ago.

It i s

• ur

view

that

y

• u

are now reneging

• n

that c

• m

m i t m e n t .

Y

• u

have the highest level

• f precarious workers

in

the

City

• f

T

• r
• n

t

• .

(See: C i t y

• f Toronto

C

• u

n c i l Briefing B

• k

,

• p. 6)

One

• f

y

• u

r defenses

in

going f

• r

w a r d with the pilot p r

• j

e c t

is

that

no

s t a f f

will

be laid

• ff
• r have

their hours affected.

Y

• u

are d i m i n i s h i n g the opportunities for future library workers, especially our youngest workers.

T h i s p i l

• t

p r

• j

e c t

i s

a l s

• characterized

b y

d e p r

• f

e s s i

• n

a l i z a t i

• n

and d e s k i l l i n g . Library w

• r

k e r s are an integral p a r t

• f

the

l i b r a r y s e r v i c e .

T h i s

pilot

will

r e s u l t

i n a

m a j

• r

erosion of morale amongst the 80 classifications

• f

trained p r

• f

e s s i

• n

a l s who deliver the l i b r a r y service

nOW.

In

light

• fthe

fact

that

TPL

s t i l l

d

• e

s not have

a

“People Plan” almost twenty

(20)

years since

its

inception, the impact

• f

the pilot upon staffing

l e v e l s c a n n

• t

be measured

• r

q u a n t i f i e d .

To

the b e s t

• f our knowledge,

n

• n

e at the c i t y

i s

a s k i n g for this t e c h n

• l
• g

y t

• be put

in

p l a c e .

Y

• u

a r e proposing

i t . Y

• u

s a y

that

i t

i s

“just

a

pilot project”. O n c e

the

c i t y

sees the p

• t

e n t i a l

• f this

to cut costs, the p r e s s u r e to expand

i t w i l l

be enormous. I r e l a n d

started

• ff

w i t h

a

pilot

Page

1

• f

2

SLIDE 2

Affiliated w i t h C U P E a n d

the Toronto

&

York

Region L a b

• u

r Council Maureen O’Reilly President B r e n d a n H a l e y V i c e

• P

r e s i d e n t Viveca Gretton Recording Secretary C a r m e l a C

• r

r a d

• S

e c r e t a r y

• I

r e a s u rer Brian R a y m e r T

• r
• n

t

• R

e f e r e n c e L i b r a r y B r a n d

• n

H a y n e s North

York

C e n t r a l L i b r a r y

Jenna

L i i i

N

• r

t h Region K a r e n S m i t h South Region

J

• h

n P u u s a

East Region K a r e n D e S i m

• n

e W e s t Region Fitzgerald Steele

Facilities

Steven B u r d i c k S u p p

• r

t Services

20 Eglinton A v e n u e West S u i t e 1109, Box 2 5 3 Toronto,ON M4RIK8 Telephone: (416) 440-7981

FAX: (416)

440-7984 Email: i n f

• @

l

• c

a t 4 9 4 8 .

• r

g

wwwJocal4948org

59TG 707

project and within

a

year, twenty three “staffless libraries” a r e now

• p

e r a t i

• n

a l .

(See:

CUPE

brief: S t a f f i e s s a n d O p e n Libraries, March 2 1 7 )

T P L W U Local

4948 views

the

pilot p r

• j

e c t

a s

another attempt t

• privatize

the

library service. More m

• n

e y

wifl

now f l

• w

to non-Canadian companies t

• p

u r c h a s e the hardware and s

• f

t w a r e t

• implement

the

p i l

• t

p r

• j

e c t . D u r i n g

the

2017 b u d g e t p r

• c

e s s , y

• u

d i d

not receive your

full a s k

for your capital b u d g e t request and your “State of Good R e p a i r ”

(SOGR)

w a s characterized b y the city as

in

crisis. Yet,

s e n i

• r management

has f

• u

n d m

• n

e y f

• r

t h i s p i l

• t

project. During

the

2017 b u d g e t process, y

• u

did

not receive

f u l l

funding f

• r

the e x t e n s i

• n
• f

W I F I

hotspot e n d i n g

w h i c h f

• r

m e d

a

k e y

component

• f

y

• u

r Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Y e t ,

s e n i

• r management

h a s found money for this pilot p r

• j

e c t .

I n

a d d i t i

• n

t

• t

h e r e d u c t i

• n

in

service quality,

the

l

• s

s

• f

l i b r a r y j

• b

s a n d attempts t

• p

r i v a t i z e t h e l i b r a r y ,

there

are g r e a t c

• n

c e r n s around the s a f e t y of our p a t r

• n

s and the vandalism

• f

l i b r a r y property.

I n a

recent

poll

that

TPLWU Local

494$ c

• m

m i s s i

• n

e d , (see attached:

MAINSTREET Poll:

T

• r
• n

t

• n

i a n s throw the book a t staffless l i b r a r i e s ) O u r p u b l i c s a i d

that they

would not send t h e i r children or p a r e n t s t

• a

l i b r a r y w i t h

• u

t l i b r a r y staff.

This

pilot will entrench

a

t w

• tier

library s e r v i c e and d i v i d e

the

c i t y

further along equity lines.

Often, children are b a n n e d from u s i n g this type

• f

facility f

• r

h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y r e a s

• n

s . Torontonians love t h e i r libraries and they love their l i b r a r y staff. W e ask y

• u

t

• j
• i

n

u s in advocating for

r e i n v e s t m e n t

i n

T

• r
• n

t

• P

u b l i c Library

i n s t e a d

• f finding

w a y s t

• d

i m i n i s h the l i b r a r y service. T

• r
• n

t

• P

u b l i c L i b r a r y

i s

the b u s i e s t

public library

in

North America, and

• ften,

the

world.

Let u s

be leaders and not followers. T h e cost of i m p l e m e n t i n g

the

pilot

will

far surpass

the

d

• l

l a r amounts

• f

the hardware purchased

• r

the handful

• f uses this

p i l

• t

w i l l

g e t . Y

• u

r s s i n c e r e l y ,

,

iMQL/

M a u r e e n

O ’ R e i l l y

P r e s i d e n t ,

TPLWU L

• c

a l

4948

cc. TPLWU

E x e c u t i v e Board Page

2of2

Toronto Public Library W

• r

k e r s U n i

• n

Local

4 9 4 8

SLIDE 3

2O16-•2Of9

CoctIveAgreement

181

L e t t e r

• f

A g r e e m e n t N u m b e r 4

Re: Extended

branch

• pen

h

• u

r s

The parties agree t h a t funding received for l a t e night l i b r a r y service h

• u

r s p a s t 8:30 pm. and for e)cpanded Sunday open h

• u

r s

will

r e s u l t

in

amendments

t

• Article

i

based

• n

t h e

f

• l

l

• w

i n g

terms and conditions:

I

.

P e r m a n e n t tate night positiofls

will

be c r e a t e d and posted

i n

accordance *ith

Article 16O1

.

Funding for l a t e night hours shall b e used to c r e a t e n e w f u l l

• t

i m e an1 part-time jobs. 2.

A l l

h

• u

r s b e y

• n

d 8:30

pm.

shall be voluntary. P

• s

i t i

• n

s f

• r

these

late night hours shall be posted

in

a c c

• r

d a n O e with A r t i c l e

16 end

are not subject to the ‘regular shift selection process

(Article 19.06). With

regard

to h

• u

r s

• f

work

issues for these positions, s e n i

• r

i t y shall apply. T h e late night positions are Monday to Friday

• nly.

3 ,

S

• m

e

f u l l

• t

i m e p

• s

i t i

• n

s

will

b e c r e a t e d b y combining n e w tunding

with existing part-time

p

• s

i t i

• n

s .

4. Full-time

and part-time (including 3art-time Page) employees w h

• work

any hours after 8:30 p.m. between Monday and Friday inclusive, shall be paid a premium

• f

$1 . 5

per hour.

I t

is

understood that shift premiums shall not be p y r a m i d e d

with

• vertime

pay.

• 5.

Open h

• u

r s shall

n

• t

extend beyond 10:00 p.m. Monday

to Friday

at District libraries and Research and R e f e r e n c e libraries. Sunday hours shall b e

within

the b a n d s

• f

12:00 p.m. (noon) to 5:00 p.m.

6.

The Board

will

ensure that management staff

will

be available t

• b

e contacted during l a t e

• n

i g h t service.

7.

Suitable measures, including s e c u r i t y

gL(ards, will

be put

in

place to ensure the safety

• f

a l l

e m p l

• y

e e s

working beyond 8:30 p.m. 8. Full-time custodians

in

the b a r g a i n i n g u n i t may be introduced

into l

• c

a t i

• n

s

with late-night

hours.

9.

There shall b e staffing

t

• provide

reference and circulation s e r v i c e s

for all late night locations. 10. E x p a n s i

• n
• f

Sunday service

will

be

in

accordance

with Article

20.08 and at c u r r e n t rate

• f

time a n d a half.

11.

Any concerns arising f r

• m

late night service may b e d i s c u s s e d a t Labour-Management C

• m

m i t t e e .

SLIDE 4

C

UPE

“

Canadian Union of Public Employees

A / Syndicat canadien de Ia fonction

Staffless and Open L i b r a r i e s

March 2017

Library services have increasingly been a victim of budget cuts and a target for companies that

seek to monetize their services in various ways. There is a history to trying to monetize these valued public spaces. Examples include discussion on advertising or sponsorship for commercial companies in branches or including advertising on patrons’ borrowing receipts. There has also been attempts to privatize library services outright, with companies like LSSI’ entering the U.S. market and running entire library systems, including managing staff. Staffless or ‘open’ libraries are branches that are either operated remotely through card access and machines or branches that have regular staffing but allow special access outside regular hours (before opening, after closing or both). In either case, companies have developed both computer software systems and furniture, display, sorting and check-out furniture to service patrons. There is recognition ofthis development in Ontario. Currently in Toronto, there is a proposal to

• pen small staffless branches. Staffless or open libraries have also been noted in trade
• literature. In Ontario, the Southern Ontario Library Service noted the concept in their 2011

Environmental Scan for Ontario Public Libraries2, stating the following: Where community needsfit the service model, some libraries are investing in

automated kiosks to provide access to library collections. Ottawa Public Library5° has installed a kiosk to increase library reach in smaller communities, and

Toronto Public Library will be installing one at Toronto’s Union Station as a way to serve commuters. At a kiosk, library users can access books in the same way they might buy candyfrom a machine, and sometimes also pick up holds which they’ve ordered online. Elsewhere, ‘staffless’ libraries are made possible by restricting entrance by borrower card, with staff visiting regularly to restock and maintain the collection51. As part of the Ontario government’s $15 million investment in public libraries, nine public access points (called ‘kiosks’) have been installed in remote, northern communities, providing access to provincially

funded e-resources, interlibrary loans and virtual reference52.

The following is an introductory and cursory scan ofjurisdictions that have started using staffless or open library systems, the resistance to them and some of the companies providing

the service.

Page 116

SLIDE 5

Denmark:

Initial searches reveal that the origins ofstaffiess oropen libraries come from the Danes. Denmark has 180 open libraries (out of450) and more are expected. The first one opened over

a decade ago (2004) in Jutland with the 5i!keb.orgbranch. One ofthe drivers ofthe initiative

was service to small remote locations ttat would have been difficult to staff. Like the frish example below,this was done through pubJic ministerial-level funding. The off-hour model was used at Silkeborgthrough radiofrequency identifica±ion (RFJD) and patrons could access the branch outside business hours.3 Denmark is not the only Scandinavian country that is looking at this model; others in the region have also looked at implementing the concept.

United States:

The U.S. has seen a spectrum of library service delivery models over decades; these can involve

the private sector. In late 2016, American Libraries Magazine profiled a staffless library in Gwinnett County, Georgia, that was done in partnership with.company Bibliotheca using their system Open÷. In 2015, the company approached the County and pitched their open-library technology; thelibrary isthe first in North America to use the technology. The system is not new though and appears to be similar to those set up in other jurisdictions

— automatic

entry/exit, self-service kiosks, automatic tighting, computer stations, etc. Staffing costs were also noted as a spending pressure in the County, while at the same time there was a desire to expand branch access. This is a commonpretect to moving to a different operating system

—

doing more with less. The pilot began at the County’s Lawrenceville branch in the summer of last year. This pilot shared another characteristic of other jurisdictions, which is the branch was age-restricted to patrons aged 18 and over. There was. also a one-time fee of $5 for the pass, which gave patrons access from 8 to 10 a.m. for all the systems branches.4

England:

,

Severe government underfunding of Ioca[services has led tocrises in community services across England. One ofthe outcomes ofthis has been for Local Authorities (municipal governments) to look at cuts and one of the targets has been libraries. Local Authorities have made the decisionto move to volunteer-run branches, open. branches and even closures. Alan

Wylie, a librar’worker and activist with Voices for the Library, highlighted the action over Barnet’s staffless library.. In that community library workers’ jobs were under threat and the Local Authoritywanted tornove t.o.avolUrteer—run open library, which would also operate

under an age restriction of 16 yea.rsófage.5.Another example that underscores the cost control motivation fondevelopingopen1ibrariescanbefound in North Somerset. In the winter of 2016, the Local Authority disclosed that staff reduction and sharing of buildings in their library system would result in an estimated savings.off2SO,000for five branches.6 These are several examples

• f the pressure on library systems in.the U.K. which has ledto the push for staffless

transformation.

Page 216

SLIDE 6

reIand:

Along with those in Scandinavia and the U.K., communities in Ireland have been looking to

implement open library systems. Ireland also appears to be home to some of the most inspirational resistance as well as some of the strongest challenges with the new systems. For example, in January of this year 111 memberships were suspended in County Offaly. These membership suspensions came after it was found patrons were breaking the terms of service for their library cards. The matter also only came to light following a successful access to information request by an activist group

— Staff Our Libraries Community Group. Many of the

issues appear to deal with branch access issues; for example, the admission of unauthorized people into the branch. The Staff Our Libraries Group also indicated that this information was suppressed when discussing the open library pilot report, which indicated no incident.7 Open libraries are being sold as a method to keep libraries open in the face of fiscal pressures.

Irish Minister of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government Simon Coveney said, uThere will be no closure of library branches as a result of the Open Library service.” He went

• n to add, 5imilarly, there will be no reduction in staffing levels or staffed hours as a result of

the service, either in the short or long term.” Comments like these seem to be aimed at patrons

as an inoculation to less service and programming being offered in an open library. The library workers union IMPACT have pushed back against library system restructuring (closures, restructuring and staffless systems). For example, workers have gone so far as to

threaten job action over one decision to move ahead with staffless libraries. Following a pilot program that was deemed a success, staffless libraries are scheduled to open this year in 23

• branches8. The Irish Times published a map and costs, available here, of each of the branches.

There are examples of local councils taking a stand as well. Dublin Council, the largest city in Ireland, rejected staffless libraries for their city saying it would instead support workers and their union.9

Pushback

There is resistance to the implementation of staffless libraries and other restructuring. Community groups and unions alike have banded together to demand that libraries remain community resources that require investment. The following examples are from the U.K. and Ireland, where there has been a move for significant restructuring of library services.

Voices for the Library:

A coalition ofgroups, including UNISON (the public service union), formed to focus on libraries’

services issues in the U.K. Although the coalition’s manifesto is silent on open libraries, it takes

a stand on public ownership, staffing, accessibility and other key tenets for which CUPE

members advocate. The group’s website seeks to foster a place to celebrate libraries and its staff, as well as to share patron’s positive stories.’0

Page 316

SLIDE 7

UNISON:

The large U.K. andIrishunion representing public service workers has advocated for public library services

— even publishing a campaignpack for members and advocates. UNISON

represents about 27O.OO library workers in the U.K. UNISON highlighted similar concerns as the

Voices for the Librarygroup, but isfocused moreon issues like privatization and non-profit and

volunteer groups operating branches, UNISON also defined the problem noting that as many as 500 branches weretthreat;”

..

.

IMPACT:

An example of this push-back is found in the Irish union IMPACT. Below are some of the

highlights from their multi-year campaign which has focused on service and job loss: March 2014: when the first open libariés were piloted in three locations, the union responded by calling members together for action and instructing them not to cooperate with the plans for rollout.’2

,

July 2016: in response to aplan that would have seen library services amalgamated in 12 counties, IMPACTthretened job action. In response, the government halted plans and agreed withthe unlon’sdemand to staffvacant positions across various systems.’3 .

October2016: oneofthedtiversof open libraries is downward pressure on funding.

IMPACT and its partners were able to secure service levels and stop a branch closure in Sligo County1 Where thelocal governmentauthority was seeking a dramatic 42% staffing

reduction.’4

,

,

December 2016: the union’s members overwhelmingly approved job action if necessary

in response to the 23-branch expansion of staffiess libraries. They union’s leadership

also asked any members with responsibility in the expansion not to perform those

• duties. “IMPACT national secretary Peter Nolan said there were also fears about health

and safety protections for: library users and workers. ‘This is the thin end of a wedge

that will lead tojob losses and poorer library services. Local authorities already treat

libraries as a Cinderella service and,if this goes ahead, nobody seriously believes they

will resistthe:te:mptationtosave morecash by replacing staffed libraries with the much

more limited range ofservicesavaiIab1e on a staffless basis.”5

Companies:

Even a cursorysearch reveals’a.number’ofcompanies across the world that offer an array of

services for stafflesslibraries.The offerings range from items such as access RFID gates to full service systems.Thefoilowing is a brief overview of some of the market players: Bibliotheca: astheapparent industry leader, this company provides a full range of productsfram central back-end systems, to hardware and security for library systems.

Page 416

SLIDE 8

T h e c

• m

p a n y was formed

i n

2011

• ut of

an

amalgamation of the following companies: Bibliotheca from Switzerland, Intellident from t h e

U . K .

a n d Integrated Technology Group.

E a r l y in

2 1 2 , Trion

AG

joined the company and

i n

2015, 3M’s library company was acquired. T h i s c r e a t e d

a

company which c a n

• ffer

a

n u m b e r

• f

services,

a l l

w i t h global reach. They boast

• ffices on several

continents, distributers

in

7 countries, and

thousands

• f libraries

a s c l i e n t s . B a s e d

i n

New

Y

• r

k ,

C h i c a g

• and

F r a n k f u r t , t h e company’s principle owners are listed as

O E P

C a p i t a l Advisors

LP.’6

D-Tech:

located

i n

t h e

U . K .

and s t a r t e d

i n

2002, they are

a

private technology f i r m that got

its

s t a r t

in

library services. The c

• m

p a n y

• p

e r a t e s

i n

the

U.I<.

and has recently looked t

• e

n t e r t h e

U.S.

market and counts

a

New Zealand installation through

a

local d i s t r i b u t

• r

. They have

a f u l l

r a n g e

• f

products that includes staffing stations, people counters, furnishings, automated return and s

• r

t i n g , a n d s e l f

• s

e r v i c e reservations and lending products.’7 A x i e l l : h e a d q u a r t e r e d

in

S w e d e n , they c l a i m to have

• ver 4,000

c l i e n t s

i n

v a r i

• u

s l i b r a r i e s around t h e world, i n c l u d i n g a c a d e m i c locations. T h e c

• m

p a n y services various institutions, such as museums and archives, but has

a

d i v i s i

• n

f

• c

u s e d

• n library

s e r v i c e s . The c

• m

p a n y h a s

• f

f i c e s

i n

Canada, although their l i b r a r y division

• perates
• n

l y

in

S w e d e n , D e n m a r k , F i n l a n d , I r e l a n d a n d t h e

U . K .

Axiell

• ffers

a

variety

• f

t e c h n

• l
• g

y p l a t f

• r

m s for library management, as well as data management a n d consultant

• services. They are

a

p a r t n e r

• f

B i b l i

• t

h e c a for hardware.’8 Circulation Technology: a s

a

reminder that staffless libraries are not l i m i t e d to European

• r

U.S.

markets, a n initial search located

a

company serving A s i a n markets. Circulation T e c h n

• l
• g

y

• f

f e r s

a

v a r i e t y

• f
• p

e n library a n d technology products for schools a n d libraries. O p e r a t i n g

• u

t

• f

Singapore, t h e y are

i n

C h i n e s e , Taiwanese a n d

• t

h e r S

• u

t h

A s i a n

markets. T h e company

• f

f e r s v e n d i n g machines,

RFID

technologies and even furniture installation and set-up.’9 T h e r e a r e

• t

h e r companies that a r e focused

s

• l

e l y on

the technology

• r back-end

s y s t e m s

• f

libraries.

A s

this ‘sector’ develops, we could see a n expansion

• f

services

• f

f e r e d

by

these c

• m

p a n i e s . One of t h e

• utcomes
• f

public policies

that

d e v

• l

v e c

• n

t r

• l

and constrict spending

• n

libraries and staffing

is

t h e creation of marketplaces that c

• m

p a n i e s

l i k e

t h e a b

• v

e

fill.

Conclusions:

I n

t h i s i n i t i a l review,

there are

positive reports from patrons about their experiences with s t a f f l e s s

• libraries. However,

i t

i s

difficult

t

• r

e a d t h e s e without k n

• w

i n g t h e main drivers b e h i n d t h i s n e w open-library trend.

It i s

clear that t h e m

• t

i v a t i

• n of

f u n d e r s / g

• v

e r n m e n t s w a s t

• reduce

c

• s

t s of l i b r a r y systems under their c a r e . This m

• s

t

• ften took

the

form of l i m i t i n g service a c c e s s , w h e t h e r

it

be through staffing or open h

• u

r s .

I n

the c a s e of robust programs that

h a v e b e e n r

• l

l e d

• ut,

i t i s a

c

• m

b i n a t i

• n
• f

both

• f
• these. Notwithstanding the patron

Page

5 1 6

SLIDE 9

experience, this is an effort to reduce the cost oflibraryservices. The outcomes are not completely clear yet, butthere is.Uocumentation.of unwanted patron behaviour in some

• branches. There must also be an accounting of thêfUI1.extënt of what has been lost on the

programming and personal services side Although conclusions cannot yet be made, this initial review raises serious questions about the trade-offs becng made for these open branches As

IMPACT National Secretary Peter Nolan ha.s said:

• “These proposals will shortch6nge cothdnitiThre’ll be no school visits, no

storytelling, no help to find what you want, no security presence, and none of the hundreds of educational and artistic events that libraries provide throughout the

• year. Everyone will lose out, especially the. elderly, students and peoplefrom

disadvantaged communities and backgrounds. Meanwhile, management’s own data from the initial three pilots clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of us prefer towisit our local library during coreho,urs when expert staffare there to

help.”2°

, ‘ . ,

1 http://www.Isstibraries.com/home

. .

2 Southern Ontario Library Service. EnvironmentaiScanforOntarlo PUblic Libraries. 2011 3 http://slg nu/?articIe=voIume46-no-3-2013-5 4 https://americanIibrariesmagazine.org/20i6/11/01tIibIiothecgcpI-self-service-experiment and 5

protest

• .

6 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-engIand-scmerset-32i9337 7 Ibid. 8 thejournal.ie. Librarians say roll out of 23 staffless’Iihraries isthe beginning of the end for them. Nov 16th 2016.

http://www.thejournal.ie/Iibrarians-staffless-iibrary-beginning-of-the-end-3083733-Nov2016

9 thejou rn al. ie . Staffless libraries: 111 people had membership withdrawn in pilot libraries, one over drunkenness.

ia n 1st 2017. http://www.th ejournaLie/statfless-Iibraries-membership-withdrawn-3093866-Jan2017

10 http://www.voicesfortheIibrary.org.uk/a bout

.

11 http://web.archive.org/web/20121031092259/http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/19990.pdf 12 http://www.impact.ie/staffless-Iibraries-plan-opposed

. .

;

13

p_[_0_

. . : , . :

‘4 ‘5 http://www. impact.ie/Iihra rywokerswithdraoobe.r,atidn-fromtaffIess-services

16 http://www.bibliotheca.co.m/3/index.php/en-uk

• .

‘7 http:/Jd-techinternational.com 18 http//wwwaxiellcouk 19

desigph

.,, , .. ,,

20 http://www.impact.ie/Iibrary-workers-withdraw-cooperation4rom-staffless-services

Page 616

SLIDE 10

bii[ioRoNTo

42

Chart 2: Workforce Breakdown by Affiliation (2013)

Across the Toronto Public Service, 31% of employees are full-time members

• f Local 79, 25% are part-time recreation worker memebrs of Locai 79, i3%

are members of Local 416, 13% are nonunion, and l$% fall into other

g ro u P5

Chart 3: Workforce Breakdown by Employee Status

6O% Of Toronto Public Service employees are permanent, 25% are parttime

recreation workers, 9% are part time permanent, and 5% are temporary.

.L79 RecWorkers

8,274 25% L79 PT LTCH&S

2OI U 10

L79 Unit B PT

—

1,064

NonUnon

4,251 13% L79 FuI14ime— .10,082

al %

L3888

Firefighters

2,982 9% ——L416 Outside 4,173 13%

I ,726 5% Z961 9%

Jer

TRANSITION TO 2014-2018 TERM PAGE 6 COUNCIL BRIEFING VOL.1

SLIDE 11

History of TPL Staff Changes

2,1000 2,012.3 2,000.0 1,900.0 1,860.0 1,820.5 1,824.9

FTE

18000

• 1,717.9

1,737.4 1,739.9 1,741.0 1,732.3 1,700.0

U

.1 16000

I

i [:

1,500.0 1999 2002 2011 2012

2014J2015

2016 2017 Base

EiE

1.0L5

1,824.9 [iJiJ739.9fo 1,732,3

YEAR

History of TPL Budget Increases

— 50% Below Inflation

Net Budget Change vs. CPI (infbticrn)

I1G%

,

.‘ ,

ciu

:

5.0% — ,J

.

40%

—.-%-———--

,

——

fl__ .

,

2%

—-,——...———

r—i——-—

R;-1

• ‘r

r-i

1o Lj_ ————

YR2012 YR2013 YR 2014

YR 21S YR 2016 YR 2017

czzzjChangeko NetBudget

• 3..s%

0.4% 1.4% 2.7% 2.0% 0.9% ‘.-———.CumubtTveRudget .3.1%

• 3.2%
• LOS

0.9% 3.000 4.7%

• ——CumulatIve CPI

1.4% 2.4% 4.101 5.9% 7.7% 9.7%

As shown in the chart above, including the 20 1 7 base budget request for a 0.9% increase, the cumulative budget increase over the last six years is 4.7%, or an average annual increase of 0.8%, which includes the cost of operating the new Fort York and Scarborough Civic Centre

• branches. This budget increase is less than halfthe rate of inflation over the same time

period, as n;easured by the consumer price index (CPI).

2017 Operating Budget Submission

7

SLIDE 12

jEE

11

Our

., ,., .

O7

Great people, great library, great city M A I N S T R E E T

Fot immediate release 30 March 2017

MAINSTREEI Poll: Throntonians throw the book at staffless Hbraries

Toronto -Torontonians overwhelminglyreject the idea of libraries without librarians, according to a new survey by pollster MAINSTREET Research. The survey found that three’in fourrOspondents(73%) would not send their children or parents to a library wfthout librarians or security staff, and more than six-in-ten (63%) would, given the chance, tell Mayor Tory to stop this idea from proçeedirg. These findings emerg.es the ToroiitcPub.lic Ubrary readies a pilot project to test the idea of opening two branch libraries S,ansea.andTadmorden with no onsite staff or security during early morning and late evening hours when the branches wouldherwise be closed.

(A library is more

earning institUtion where important community services and programs are deliverèd.by:.dedicated staff,” says Maureen O’Reilly, President of the Toronto Public Library Workers•U.nion Which:co:rnhii-ssion.ed the survey.

“I agree with the majority of people in this

city

• it is not possi.bieto have.goodiibraries:without librarians.”

Mainstreet found th’at.55% of respondents:do nat think it’s possible to have a good library with no librarian, just 21% said:’it?is..:possibl.etherest wereriot sure. When asked to identify ;thëirrn.a4nconh:withhe idea, most respondents (42%) cited safety, while 16% were worried aboutvandal•ism’and12%ftioughttheft of books and materials would be the biggest problem. “Torontonians loveour public flbraries,5’saidOReilly. “They are one of our city’s great assets and ‘they should be celebrated and valuedwith b.ew’investment, not programs such as this that willjust diminish quality and services.”

,

As awareness of thE:’.foionto RibIici1.bräry’s’p’ian for staifless libraries grows, opposition may e)cpand

and intensify. Righ.tn’ow,oniy i6%aiefoTiowin

..g this issue very closely, another 21% somewhat closely,

and 22% of residents,ar,e’ o;t.!areGft’h.e;prp’osa.[at all. Mainstreet

• nMarch 23, 2017, using Chimera IVR technology calling

through to both and[Ns.a’nd:cell’p.h’on’ësAsample this size produces results that are accurate within +/- 2.02%, 19 times’in.2CRegio.na]rriargi:ns’of etor..’Etobicoke: ± 4.38 percentage points, 19 times out of

• 20. Scarborough: ±‘4

..

timésbut of 20. Downtown: 337 percentage points, 19

times out of 20. Nort’hYok3.93.percta.ge4c’.ints, ]9 times out of 20.

• 30-

For information ortobo.Gk an iiItere,wwith Maureen O’Reilly contact: John Chenery 647-213-2060

jchenerygmail.com