We’d deal. Trust me, it’s not an ideal setup and we’d prefer it if people brought their stuff back on time.
Or she could have just called the library and alerted them to the problem. They would have checked the shelf, found the book, checked it in with no fine, and apologized to the patron for the screw-up. No time wasted, no gas/fare money, much less aggravation for everyone. FWIW I am the person who takes care of the billing notices in my library, and I am very thorough in checking the shelf before I mail out a bill for replacement. I check the location where the item should be, a couple shelves around it, and any other location where it may have ended up accidentally. (For instance, if the book’s location should be “New Nonfiction” I’d check in the new section and the regular nonfiction section, just in case the “new” sticker somehow was removed without changing the item location in the record.) However, we only send out bills if the book is more than six weeks overdue. Before that, the patron gets automated phone and e-mail notices telling them that the book is overdue, which I have no way of knowing about unless the patron tells me. If they let me know there’s a problem, I’m happy to search for the book and correct the error if I find it.
Are you a clone and one of you is issued to every library?
Or is there some chance that some other individual may not be doing his or her job in such a thorough manner?
Maybe you’re so busy actually doing your job that somehow you’ve never noticed the more common work style of typical humans. I don’t want to scare you or give you any ideas, but there really are people who will tell you to hold on a minute while they check the shelf and then not actually do it.
Then they get back on the phone and lie. It’s poor behavior, to be sure, and don’t start doing it yourself, but it really does happen, and when you might get arrested as a result of someone’s error in not checking the book in properly, you don’t want to hand them a second chance to make a mistake. That’s how you end up behind bars waiting for a chance to plead your case before a judge. Maybe they’ll care what you have to say, maybe not.
Even if it’s just paying for the lost book, why risk paying for a book you’ve returned? When it’s “society’s money” $20 is significant enough to arrest the asshole scofflaw thief, but when the whole $20 is instead lifted from one person’s pocket, no biggie, right?
Because the ideal set up would be if no patrons ever entered the library, pawing up everything with their sticky hands, peeing on the furniture, and being bothersome. Then you could just enjoy all your books, without pesky disruptions.
If I worked at the library I’d want everyone else to leave too I guess. Then I could read in peace.
I am sure that there are bad employees in some libraries, just like there are bad employees in every type of place that employs people. But I do feel that most genuinely care about their patrons and give their best effort to try to correct problems when they arise. What I was trying to point out in my post was that TBGMom could have made it easier on herself by simply contacting the library and telling them about the issue, so they would at least have a chance to try and resolve it before she had to put herself through (what you portray as) a great ordeal to get herself to the library and deal with it in person.
There certainly been one at every library I’ve ever used. And it takes more than a minute to check the shelves. But they do check. This has happened to our daughters three times where we live now. Twice they called back and told us they found the book. The third time they didn’t find it, but we searched our daughter’s room and found she hadn’t returned it after all. You seem to think this (being arrested because of an overdue book) is an everyday occurrence. It’s not. If it were this wouldn’t have been national news. And if they had really been out to persecute people, he would have been arrested 2 1/2 years earlier.
Wow. We want people to take things out and bring them back so other people can use them. When a patron comes in and requests a GED prep book and I have to tell them we don’t have any because they were due months ago and not returned, trust me I am not happy to turn that person away. Maybe somewhere there is a library employee with this “mine, all mine! hahaha!” mentality that you seem to believe in, but most want the materials back so that we can lend them right back out to other people.
She could have made it easier on herself by not doing the work of going to the library and looking for the book.
An employee could make his or her life a bit easier too, by not going to the shelf to look for the book.
The consequence to TBGMom of the book not being found is having to pay for the book she turned in, and possibly being arrested if she can’t.
The consequence to the employee is probably nothing. Why would she trust that the employee would check thoroughly, or at all, or would not actually locate and take the book, now that she’s been blamed for its absence? That would be a nice little racket, wouldn’t it?
No, she should not place her faith in the system that has already failed to check her book in properly. She must go to the library personally. If you want to be sure something like this is done right, you must do it yourself, not trust that others will take care of you. Often they will, but don’t count on it.
Humans bring books in late. If you’re hoping for patrons that don’t frequently behave this way, you’re not really wanting a human clientele. The library is for everyone, not just the very best citizens that never dog-ear a page or keep a book an extra day.
When the less-educated people get ahold of the books and read them, that’s generally a good thing for society, like free education in general.
And if the library keeps running out of GED books, maybe get more copies and fewer of some less important book.
Well, your anecdotal evidence has certainly convinced me. The existence of a batch of incompetent employees that can’t check the books in correctly must always be paired with hypercompetent workers to follow along behind them correcting errors.
And obviously if something does not happen every day, we should not really care. I know a fellow who sometimes kills a hooker or two, but not every day. No more than five or so a year, actually, but he’s a great guy other than that and I’m not a hooker, so I don’t really consider it a big deal. He’s not killing one every day or anything, and hooking is illegal, so they’re criminals anyway.
Why should she assume right off the bat that everyone at the library is incompetent/malicious? When you handle a lot of materials, occasionally a mistake is made. If she calls and they don’t find it on the shelf (or for some reason lied about looking) she still has the option of coming in to look for it herself, but most likely the problem will be taken care of with much less hassle for her. As for the scenario where the dastardly library employee takes this as an opportunity to steal the book and blame it on the patron–this is extremely unlikely. Many library employees like to read, and it wouldn’t be unheard of for them to be seen leaving the library with books. If an employee wanted to steal a book, it would be just that simple. No one pays attention to the books they are carrying, and everyone would assume they are checked out anyway. Most would be able to delete the item’s record from the catalog, so it looks like the book was taken out of the collection and purchased from the booksale. Why would you involve a patron when there would be so many other ways for a library employee to steal a book? There would be no benefit to doing it that way, and many more risks.
A revolver has six empty chambers. I insert one bullet and give it a spin. Now you’d most likely be fine taking a shot at your foot with it, but you’d probably rather not play my little game, even if it would potentially save you $4 in bus fare.
Are you “assuming” that you’d get the full chamber because it is the most likely outcome? No, but the consequences don’t make it worth the risk.
And do you even read the books? It’s all in there: spite, desire for profit, selfishness, greed… These are themes in literature for a reason. People steal for crack money, pimp out their children, and set dogs on fire. You think the idea that someone might have a system to steal from their workplace is far-fetched?
The slacker patron is a thief, deserving of arrest, but the precious library employees must be considered honest and conscientious by default? No.
Did a librarian kick your puppy or something? Multiple librarians in this thread have told you the system works exactly as you think it should and you just shit all over it (and us) anyway.
Why don’t you tell us what you do? I’m sure we could make jokes too.
You’ve asked where I live and now what I do. I don’t feel comfortable providing that type of personal detail on the internet. Rather than trying to collect material for further ad hominem attacks, do try to focus on the subject at hand.
Librarians are not beyond reproach. I’m sorry if you think that means I’m a big meanie librarian-hater, but a librarian is just a person with a particular job. The suggestion that somewhere a librarian is not following procedure or could be dishonest is not “shitting on librarians.”
Honestly, this thread should be taught to prospective librarians. You hit nearly every negative patron stereotype there is.
[ul]
[li]You expect librarians to be mindreaders[/li][li]You expect librarians to never make mistakes[/li][li]You expect that librarians should just forgive and forget about patrons who steal books.[/li][li]You expect librarians to act like due dates are optional.[/li][li]You think that when an item is lost, a librarian is purposely hiding it to collect more fines.[/li][li]You think that librarians sit around and read all day.[/li][li]You think that librarians expect people to be quiet all day.[/li][li]You think that librarians would prefer it if no one used the library.[/li][/ul]
That’s insane and its patrons like you that librarians hate dealing with.
I don’t think I agree anymore with AnaMen than the librarians in this thread. My point was simply, yes, it’s possible but unlikely for a library to screw up and lose a library book that wasn’t properly checked in. No, I don’t think evil librarians are trying to rack up thousands of 10 cent daily fines, but I don’t think they’re infallible either. A lot of the shelving and checking in (at least in the libraries I’ve observed) isn’t even performed by librarians – it’s done by part-time workers and student helpers. So yes, on the two occasions that the library forgot to check in my books, I could have just called and asked them to check the shelves. But the library had already fucked up at that point and I just wanted to make sure that the same indifferent employee who checked in my book wasn’t the same one to go make a half-assed search of the shelves. Maybe if we increased library funding, they could afford to have more and better trained employees and not have to rely so much on part-timers and students.
Again, I’m pro-librarian. I understand that most are doing a great job with ever-dwindling funding. I’m only suggesting that a sweeping statute to arrest people with an overdue book is silly for about 15 different reasons. I understand that many of the librarians on this thread are sufficiently angry and frustrsted by bad patrons that they support arresting some of them. That’s pretty understandable.
Of course, that’s why I mentioned in my post all the ways in which a library employee might try to steal books. I just think the particular way that you proposed is the most far-fetched out of them all.
No. The slacker patron was not automatically assumed to be a thief by default and never given a chance to make things right. He was contacted multiple times in many different ways and given three years to return the book.
Yeah I can’t exactly wind up a waterfall of tears when I read that the guy blew off the notices for three years. I just can’t feel that bad for a person willfully ignoring repeated notices.
Furthermore, from this news article, we have:
I don’t feel awful that he happened to have a run-in with the police and they saw this on his record. Nobody tracked him down. He could’ve gone on years and years more if he hadn’t been stopped by the police.
I just…can’t work up any anger. I don’t feel threatened in any way by arrest being the final straw, because it’s so easy to fix the situation. If it’s in error, you call them. If not, you pay up or return the book. The fact that this guy is newsworthy means that everyone else was able to manage doing one of these three things and it never went all the way to the arrest stage.
Project much? I’m an individual, not a composite of your bizarre list of hated patron-traits. I don’t even interact with librarians at the library beyond presenting my books to be checked out and exchanging banal chitchat, or paying any fines I owe, so I highly doubt I’ve inspired hatred from any but the most misanthropic librarians.
I can’t read your mind, so I’ve no idea why you keep making the nonsensical claim that I expect librarians to be mindreaders.
I fully expect librarians to make mistakes, and they do.
I expect that librarians should collect fines that are due for books that have been out past the due date. I do not see keeping a book beyond the due date as a moral transgression, let alone one against the librarian, so no, I don’t expect “forgiveness” or to be remembered at all.
I have said nothing at all to indicate that I think “due dates are optional.” I don’t know why you think that arresting someone or doing nothing at all are the only two choices.
I have never said a librarian would purposely hide a book to collect more fines. You are confusing me with a different poster.
If most librarians are like you, it’s obvious that reading isn’t really their thing. Obviously librarians do not read much at work, since they have to do their jobs. This is why I’d make a poor librarian.
I don’t think librarians “expect people to be quiet all day.” I think they should enforce the noise rules, because the library is supposed to be quiet, but I don’t expect them to do their jobs particularly well.
Some librarians would definitely prefer that no one use the library, just as cooks hope no one enters the restaurant, bus station employees hope no one enters the bus station, and lifeguards hope no one uses the pool. Doing nothing and getting paid for it is a desirable situation for many people. Obviously the jobs would disappear if these dreams came true, but they don’t always work out all of the details of the fantasy.
Who wouldn’t want the whole library to themselves and for every book to be present?
You said: