I have nothing against the people who find it useful, but it is built on the fundamental assumption that the world would be better off if--overworked, underpaid, and underappreciated as people in my subset of the profession tend to be--every single one of us were all fired on the spot and agreed to come back and do just as much (if not more) work as smiling, happy, unpaid volunteers.
It took ten years of on-the-job experience and an uncheap master's degree to get me this job, but apparently my job can be done just as well or better by any sufficiently large, sufficiently random group of the general population (and a few computer programmers), with little to no knowledge of the century-plus of scientific research in the field, by the simple fact of being a large, random group of people.
Also, as far as I can tell, counted among the leaders of the library field that LT's founder frequently touts as being emphatic supporters of, users of, and volunteers for LT are several of the same "leaders" who seem to have worked their hardest over the last several years via frequent journal articles, editorials, blog posts, task force edicts, reports, lowering hiring requirements, removing class requirements in graduate programs, letting vacated positions stay vacant, and the like to undermine, devalue, and ultimately destroy my subset of the profession.
I worked hard to gain the experience and knowledge necessary to do my job as well as I do (and I'd like to think I'm quite good at it), and I don't appreciate having the last 14 years of my life--and the last century of research and experience of the true leaders in my profession--belittled and hand-waved away.
And I need that paycheck.
Feudalism: Serf & Turf