Even with whuffies, I’m careful to do my part to keep the terms fair (and clear) for both parties, so everyone’s happy. I have never had an issue like this before.

I also believe verbal contracts should not misrepresent written contracts. I expect that on a fly-by-night used-car lot, not with colleagues. The library speaking circuit is no place to have to deal with “caveat emptor.”

Yes, reading contracts carefully is so important…

I agree that this makes a great cautionary tale to read those contracts more carefully and to not be afraid to negotiate for what is equitable!!! It gives librarianship a bad name when this is viewed as being a “miss poopy pants” which in itself is so boomer it makes me cry. (and in the interests of full disclosure – I am a boomer)

Like I said, I screwed up (and I made it clear I screwed up), but I’m not taking it on the chin for womenkind. NASIG had a responsibility to treat its speakers equitably. I actually would have less issue if I had been paid less than the other speakers than to have NASIG lean so hard on me about this “requirement” ten months after they got it in writing through one short sentence on the second page of a contract.

No, I do not agree it was my job to stay on top of this requirement, and it was bizarre to get my first reminder almost two months after I had given the talk. The “girly” thing to do would be to quietly assume responsibility for this requirement, then keep my mouth shut about the guys getting different treatment. I’m cheap, but I’m not easy.

Also note that you’re confusing the copyright agreement with the contract. I was operating under the delusion they were referring to my presentation, as I’ve frequently signed copyright statements for my talks.

Finally, I am not averse to criticism, but anonymous criticism is for wimps. If I can’t or won’t put my name on it, I won’t say it. I posted this because it represents the kind of response I expected on this post, which is why I debated long and hard about it… for a month in fact. But your comment isn’t abusive, just wrongheaded, and surely represents a point of view shared by some of this blog’s readers, so I posted it, and I’ll protect your privacy, as well… that turning-the-other-cheek business I keep hearing about.

It is so contradictory to the earlier post that you wrote about their contract. You were so complimentary of their contract that you even asked to post a copy of the contract on your blog. You specifically noted its clarity. So, what happened Karen?
http://freerangelibrarian.com/2006/11/18/speaking-of-speaking-2/

I have always enjoyed reading your blog and involvement in the library profession. But, to accuse an organization of being sexist in their requirement to make you, Karen Schneider, write a paper is almost funny. What would have happened if you had just asked about this requirement when you signed this very clear contract?

You were given an opportunity to speak in front of an audience made up of publishers, vendors, collection development, acquisitions, and serials librarians who come from a wide variety of institutions and companies. You were given more reimbursement than some of the other speakers (just look at their reimbursement policy on their website) and you probably added some fans to your base. You forget about a requirement and some volunteer fell down on the job on reminding you of this obligation. What is your reaction? Complain and throw out some thoughtless statements. Sure makes us women look good – we can’t be trusted to read agreements.

MISS POOPY-PANTS!

If you have any advice for us pee-standing-up folks to help remove the inequities, please let us know. Not being in a money-determining position leaves my options for this particular social justice fight somewhat limited, it appears.