"● Libraries shouldn’t have to choose between paying their staffs fair salaries and buying books, adding hours or updating their technology."
I'm not really sure what kind of argument this is. Sure, libraries shouldn't have to choose between these things, but that doesn't mean libraries don't have to make these choices. Choices always have to be made between scarce resources. There's a whole social science dedicated to this. It's called economics. Perhaps you should learn something about it. And what precisely is a fair salary? How is this determined? If someone will work for those wages, how can we be sure the wages aren't in fact fair? This is the kind of stuff you might discuss in your librarian economics discussion group. I like this because it's actually pointing out someone else logical fallacy: the false dilemma. This statement is not so much fallacious as irrelevant.
"● Starting salaries for systems analysts and database administrators are almost twice those for librarians, who also have a master’s degree—$61,000 a year compared to $34,000."
So what? What about social workers? They also have a master's degree (of sorts), and for a lot of library jobs social worker would be a more apt comparison than systems analyst. This assumes that an MLS means something, rather than being an incredibly easy degree with no coherence and no core curriculum. Investment bankers often have an MBA. Why aren't we comparing ourselves to them! According to this website--which I carefully chose as being the first one that came up when I Googled "investment bankers" and mba--"Starting salaries with an MBA degree range after bonus (associate position) range from $60,000 to $135,000." Now that's more like it! And of course there's the obvious response, "well, why don't you go become a systems analyst, then." Logical fallacy--definitely the false analogy.
"● Nearly 60 percent of librarians will reach retirement age within the next 20 years. At this rate, who will take their place?"
Who cares? We'll just have fewer librarians. Are all those librarians we have now really worth it? Oh yeah, prove it! My response would be, good, then the librarians left will theoretically have more money to go around. Fallacy? Hmmm, possibly Non Sequitur. You be the judge.
"● Everyone loves libraries, but library workers can’t live on love alone. Just ask our landlords, doctors, and families."
Reminds me of another little known "Annoyed Librarian Fact"--Everybody loves Raymond, except the Annoyed Librarian! First of all, everyone doesn't love libraries. Just ask Linnypooh. Most people don't even use libraries. And of course librarians can't live on love alone, but this sounds more like a plea for charity than a pay raise. "Just ask our landlords"--this fallacy is the appeal to pity, technically known as the argumentum ad misericordiam
"● Inability to pay is no excuse for salary discrimination. Achieving equity generally costs less than 4 percent of the payroll budget."
What exactly is equity? I hope this doesn't mean anyone thinks all librarians should make the same wage. Equity with whom? However, they're right--inability to pay is no excuse for salary discrimination. An excuse for salary discrimination is that people pay what the market will bear, and if there are a bunch of library school graduates stupid enough to take a job for $27K, then that's what the market will bear. Maybe if we had higher library school standards and weeded out the chaff then the library school graduates could command higher salaries. Fallacy? A Non Sequitur of sorts, because the second statement doesn't follow from the first. Also, the lack of definition for "equity" make the argument problematic.
"● Computer/information scientists, who are mostly men, earn almost twice as much as librarians who have comparable education and responsibility."
Do they have comparable education and responsibility? The slash between computer and information is interesting, since one computer science professor I know thought information science was computer science for people who couldn't do the math. Are we really expected to believe that a master's in computer science is as easy to get as an MLS, and that duties of a computer scientist include directing people to the restrooms and clearing printer jams for the public? Under logical fallacies, I'm trying to decide if this is a false analogy or a red herring. Probably both.
"● According to the U.S. Census Bureau, men with advanced degrees are paid more than twice as much as women—$87,000 per year versus $51,000 in 1998."
Maybe the ALA-APA should read How to Lie with Statistics, just to make sure they don't think they're actually saying anything significant with this statement. The obvious response is, so what? "Advanced degrees" would cover everything from MD/PHD to MSW. This doesn't mean anything at all. This is the sort of statistical gibberish rife in the library literature, though. All those English majors who couldn't get jobs and so went to library school are now quoting statistics at us. This would have to be controlled for type of degree, job experience, years in the workplace, and probably a few other factors for it to have any relevance at all. Logical fallacy: definitely a non sequitur, and probably a red herring as well.
"● Libraries are the mind and soul of their communities, and librarians are the mind and soul of the library."
Poppycock! The "mind and soul" indeed. We are full of ourselves today, aren't we. In addition to just being gobbledygook, basing arguments for better salaries on silly metaphors isn't usually a good idea. No logical fallacy, because no attempt at logic.
"● Libraries work because library workers make them work."
This is the sort of statement that sounds clever until you start to analyze it. Okay, great. And gas stations work because gas station workers make them work. So what? Logic fallacy: Begging the question, perhaps?
"● You can’t have good education without good libraries, and you can’t have good libraries without good staff."
Possibly, but it really depends on what we're talking about. In academia, the first clause is probably true, but definitely arguable. What exactly is a good library, for example, or even good education. One could probably get a fine college education with a library of 20,000 books, if they were the right 20,000 books, and with minimal library staff. And if we're talking about school libraries, I suppose I would agree again for the most part. But what about public libraries? Can we really have no good education without them? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. Not a logical fallacy. This could be put in strict syllogistic form. It's a valid argument with questionable premises.
"● Today’s librarian is a technology-savvy, information expert who can enrich the learning process of any library user—from early reader to graduate student to young Web surfer to retiring senior citizen."
Do all, or even most librarians fit this description? Look around at your colleagues. Would you really classify most of them as technology-savvy information experts? Me, either. What logical fallacy would this be? Hasty generalization. The claim that because a lot of librarians do actually fit this description, then it's an accurate description for "today's librarian."
"● Librarians are the ultimate search engine. They are trained experts in helping others find the information they need—in books, in archives, and on the Web."
But people don't want the ultimate search engine if they actually have to interact with it. They want stuff quickly and online. If librarians were like that chap in Tron, then maybe people would want them. But this is another hasty generalization. The Annoyed Librarian may be the ultimate search engine (this is another Annoyed Librarian Fact), but that doesn't mean you are.
"● Students from schools with school library media specialists score higher on achievement tests."
Keep this in mind: correlation does not imply causation. Just keep repeating it until you get it right. Fallacy: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
"● In schools and universities, librarians teach information literacy skills that students will need to succeed throughout their lives."
Well, some reference librarians do. The rest of you are just out of luck. Not so much a fallacy as a half truth. Consider this instead: "In schools and universities, librarians surf the web and eat chocolate." True, but hardly likely to raise our salaries.
"● In a world that’s information rich, librarians bring valuable expertise. They connect us with our past, enrich our present and prepare us for the future. Library workers put the high touch in high tech."This is all so precious. We "put the high touch in high tech." That's a catchy little phrase. Too bad it doesn't really mean anything. Librarians can bring valuable expertise, but this whole past, present, future mumbo-jumbo isn't very persuasive. Another hasty generalization of sorts, I suppose.
The toolkit notes that arguments for higher salaries have to be made locally, not nationally. These talking points are supposed to help you persuade your local group holding the purse-strings that your salary should be raised. If these are your best talking points, then I wish you good luck, because you're going to need it.