A hearty congratulations to the members of the newly formed ALA Workers United (ALAWU)!
In March, employees at the American Library Association announced their intention to form a union, and last week, they voted on that proposal. More than 95% of the employees who voted were in favor of forming the new union. Now that the union has been approved by the members and the vote certified by the National Labor Relations Board, ALA will need to negotiate wages, benefits, and working conditions in good faith with union representatives.
The new union will be part of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 in Illinois. AFSCME is already home to more than 35,000 library workers across the U.S.
The American Library Association currently has 154 employees, down from 198 employees in May 2025. A series of layoffs and voluntary buyouts have led to significantly increased workloads for those who remain. This year, ALA suspended their 3 percent match on employee contributions to retirement funds.
Statements from the new union members have emphasized the need for greater transparency in decision making and for a review of the significant benefit cuts that have occurred in the last few years.
Why It Matters
Since I first joined ALA in 2012, and I’m sure long before that, there’s been much discussion and a good amount of dissatisfaction with ALA’s actions. Library workers have criticized ALA for many things, including membership being too expensive or not having enough benefits, or attempting to silence those who criticize the organization. Much has been made of the fact that it’s the American Library Association, and not the American Librarians Association.
I’ve certainly had difficult experiences within ALA. I co-wrote a chapter that outlines what I would describe to be dismissive treatment and underhanded actions from both ALA members and staff during the multi-year effort to revise the LCSH “Illegal aliens.” When I was laid off, I let my membership lapse, and not entirely for financial reasons. Still, on the whole, I agree with Lindsay Cronk’s perspective that while the complaints are absolutely valid, the profession as a whole is better off when library workers are willing to get involved and fight for change within ALA.
Alongside the new union members, I see the unionization effort as a great step towards positive change within ALA. In 2025, the treasurer of ALA sounded the alarm about ALA’s fiscal health, describing the future of the organization’s finances as “challenging.” ALA’s employees have been bearing the brunt of the “rightsizing” efforts for years now. A fair contract would likely reduce job losses and turnover, providing stability and job satisfaction to ensure workers are able to provide knowledgeable, thoughtful service to ALA members. Union members have called for greater transparency and less top-down decision making not just in the decisions that impact them, but in organizational decisions as a whole. That has the potential to radically shift the way that ALA does business.
What happens at ALA matters to all of us in libraries, whether you’re a member or not. A strong organization fighting for libraries at the national level is a net good for all library workers. Individually, none of us owe ALA our energy or money. But it’s worth considering: in a time when libraries are under sustained attack, would librarians be better off with a secure, stable organization fighting for funding for our workplaces, or with an increasingly shrinking organization, or perhaps none at all?
