College and Research Libraries I· To the Editor: "Participative Management or U nioni- zation?" These are not mutually exclusive if the bargaining unit of the faculty includes librarians. Hans E. Panofsky Curator and President Assembly of Librarians Northwestern University Library To the Editor: I have just read Mr. De Gennaro's edi- torial "Participative Management or Union- zation?" So, what else is new?! May I welcome Mr. De Gennaro to the 20th Century? To the Editor: Ted Alezizos An Idealistic Associate University Librarian Harvard University Library Charles Martell's discussion of manage- ment theories ( CRL, Mar. 1972) strikes home: a basic fact of administrative the- ories is that they work only so far-and never when they are needed most! How- ever, I was disappointed that Martell should limit his discussion to the McGregor and Blake theories. Clare W. Graves introduces a too-little known theory of personality behavior in "Deterioration of Work Standards" (Har- vard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1966, p. 117-28). Graves believes that different in- dividuals can be identified as falling into seven levels of human existence and that, at each level, a completely different set of motivations, values, and expectations oc- cur. Hence, a theory of management which seems ideally suited for handling one per- son simply doesn't apply to another person. A disadvantage inherent in Graves' the- ory is that not everyone can see different persons in a multilevel set of existences: to the authoritarian person only authority has any meaning or validity; the gregarious Letters teamworker finds the loner equally in- explicable. Perhaps this is why Graves' work, although well accepted in some lim- ited circles, is generally not well known or understood. To the Editor: Larry Auld Head, Technical Services William ] asper Kerr Library Oregon State University It is always with interest that I read ar- ticles and question librarians regarding the cost of duplicating cards on the Xerox and so I was happy to see James F. Anderson's article "Break-Even Point for a Proof Slip Operation" in the March issue. However, I was sad to see that his article gave no definite answers regarding labor costs or actual man hours used in reproduction. These are figures I have been unable to get from almost all librarians I have ques- tioned regarding the cost of Xeroxing cards. Anderson "assumed that his [operator] time is offset by the time saved by typing the call number on the proof slip . . . elim'- inating the typing of the call number on each card in the complete set." He makes no effort to prove his assumption and he says nothing about labor time involved in cutting or tearing cards apart, sorting cards into sets, and time spent cleaning the ma- chine. I would challenge the assumption that all this labor time equals the time to type four call numbers-and if his assump- tion is incorrect, his formula is not valid. Anderson also states that there are three constants in his formula, one of which is the cost of Xeroxing a complete set of cards. The last rental costs I have from the local Xerox office, which was about a year ago, quoted a flat monthly rental for which an organization could get 3,000 copies per month; or, on another plan the organiza- tion could get 7,500 copies per month for 3 cents per copy, 7,501-20,000 per month for .026 and over 20,000 per month for I 329 330 I College & Research Libraries • July 1972 .020. While it is true that there might be variation in amounts depending on area, I have never heard Xerox costs described in any way except per copy or monthly rental fee. If Anderson knows of a different way of pricing, I would be happy to know about it. In line with my local quo- tations, in Anderson's example he could not qualify for the 7,500 per month since for 4,222 titles per year he will have with 6 cards up 704 units, run 5 times each or 3,520 copies per year. With 5 cards up he will have 1,056 units, run 5 times or 5,280 copies per year. At my local quoted month- ly rental rate, spreading the cost of 4,222 titles out over the entire year, the cost per card would be more than 5 cents per card for rental costs alone. It must be remem- bered that Anderson states that "the re- production of catalog cards from proof slips must defray the entire cost of the Xerox 914." It would be helpful to know if Anderson plans to rent his Xerox ma- chine for one month to do his 4 ,222 titles per year; or, how he arrived at the .01 con- stant for his library for Xerox costs. Ac- cording to my local information from the Xerox company, Xeroxing costs per copy depend on the number of copies repro- duced and therefore becomes a variable and not a constant. Obviously if Xerox costs are a variable and not a constant, Anderson's formula is not valid. Another reason I would question Ander- son's figures is that there is a nonprofit, cooperative library project which repro- duces catalog cards for any library at a cost of 3 cents per card. True, users may be defraying some overhead costs but the project is producing in great volume and hence Xerox costs would be cheaper. Anderson must prove that Xeroxing costs, including all labor costs of reproduc- tion, is a constant before his formula is valid. Christina Landram Head, Catalog Department Georgia State University Library