On this page we extrapolate upon the results of our research, both from mapping data and in the stories gathered from scanning workers. From the results of our map we can see that the majority of scanning has been taking place overseas and outside of the much publicized library partnerships. From the results of gathering workers’ stories we can see a trend of dissatisfaction, underwhelming compensation, and pain among workers. It is important to note that while most of the scans are happening in Asia, of the stories we’ve been able to gather, none of them specifically name working at any of the Asian sites.
From investigating the scraped data we can see IA moving much of its scanning operations to China and the Philippines. This move to China happened in July 2009. And the move to the Philippines happened in September 2018. However, IA does not report a relationship with either contractor until 2017 in their I990 tax returns. 990s require an organization to report relationships with any contractor paid more than $50,000/year. Through comparing the scraped data with the 990s, we deduced that IA never paid a digitization services contractor more than $50,000/year before 2017. Then, IA began paying Datum Data Co Ltd. $738,677/year for book scanning services.
Compared to other scanning sites, the sites in China and the Philippines produce scans at a much greater volume than that of its Global North counterparts. Meanwhile, the current (2022) daily minimum wage in Cebu in the Philippines is between $6.75-7.69.
From various workers’ accounts IA has a quota system in place per shift. From one source, we have an account of quotas being “3000 pages per day, high pressure”, from another:
In another account, the worker calls the environment “competitive,” stating “You had to write the number of pages you scanned on a public board at the end of the day. If the number didn't meet your quota, you were criticized for not working hard enough or not as hard as your co-workers.” The coercive culture of the scanning environment is relayed in another account, “If you met your quota, you were treated well. If not, you would be called into the office frequently to be lectured.”
Lastly it is important to note that while scanners are measured by how many pages they can scan a day, they are simultaneously creating and organizing metadata for the very pages they scan. Moreover, adjusting their scribe machines depending on the size of the book and creating proper cradles for books, especially books from special collections, are all time consuming tasks that must precede the scanning process itself.
Why does IA push their workers like this? Some worker anecdotes offer different clues:
Potentially the most common answer, and the answer Internet Archive gives itself is that their mission is meaningful, impactful, and about spreading information access. In fact, this vocational awe comes up quite often in worker stories as well:
It feels difficult to disagree that IA’s mission of improving and preserving information access is noble and one that they generally seem to be making headway on. This is not the, or even our project’s, question but rather what are the conditions, and consequences, of labor that make (this) large scale scanning possible?
Once more, we turn to worker stories. A major theme in the stories we’ve gathered is that of repetitive strain injury (RSI):
Another theme we sought out in the stories was that of compensation:
A most troubling aspect of our research is a feeling of fear and trepidation we felt from those we spoke to and the stories we found online. Many feared retaliation from speaking about their working conditions, asking for anonymity in our research. Lastly, we received a concerning, mildly confusing, response from a worker about surveillance: “we are being monitored... fyi.”