I've followed this debate with interest from a dual perspective of
long-time official of the BMA and member of the LA's policy and resources
committee. There are several reasons that stick out why the LA would find
it difficult to follow the BMA/RCN route into trade unionism:
1. Numbers. There are many many more doctors and nurses than there are
librarians, which gives a sufficiently broad base of membership to finance
the enormous expense of running a trade union in the four legal domains
that no constitute the UK. The BMA has over 120,000 members. On paper the
top subscription bands of BMA and LA are closely comparable but (as a wild
generalisation) doctors on the career grade pay subs at the highest rate
whereas I have heard it said that there are less than a dozen LA members in
the top salary band. Also the BMA is historically fairly well off and has
income from property, the BMJ and elsewhere. Older readers will recall as
I do the day when the LA nearly went broke, and although LA Enterprises
contributes a healthy dollop of income the situation is not the same.
2. Unified negotiating. More or less all BMA members are employed by the
NHS on national pay scales and/or national rates of allowances and
payments. These are negotiated centrally witht he Doctors and Dentists
Review Board (bless 'em) This is also an oversimplification but will serve
to illustrate the crucial difference with the LA, which has substantial
slabs of membership in local government, academia, central government, the
NHS plus a comet trail of small clusters in workplace libraries etc etc
etc.
3. Unified problems. Because our members are all doctors, there is a
certain regularity about the types of trouble they get into with their
employers, and therefore a fairly tight core of knowledge that our
industrial relations officers need to have to stuck up for members
excellently. Tis would not be true of the LA's membership.
4. Registration. Only registered doctors can be doctors, which is a
source of huge negotiating strength to the BMA. As many LA members,
particularly in public libraries, know to their cost this is not true of
us.
5. Legislation. Being a registered charity makes for difficult
governance, but this is nothing compared to the legal complexity of trade
union status. The last government passed a sizeable volume of legislation
none of which was meant to make running a successful trade union easier and
less bureaucratic. For example, it may be true that we cannot bar a member
from borrowing because because they have refused to return recalled items
because trade union law says clearly that all union members are entitled to
all union services full stop. In practice we think we are ok because of
the way the Library Rules have been worded, but this is an example of the
problems involved: accounting and elections are particularly fraught.
6. Participation. In my opinion, democracy in the BMA is much more of an
active process than it is in the LA . In particular senior elected members
exercise much more real power - essentially, I think, because they want to.
So long as the great bulk of LA members wheeble about moaning dismally and
perpetually think about letting their subs lapse because "the LA is
useless" they will get the LA we deserve - and so, sadly, will the rest of
us. God knows the library is a small and unfashionable aspect of BMA
operations, but there are several members who will sit as welcome guests in
my office talking about (and, as those of you who know me will understand,
listening about) information provision to doctors worldwide - and really
caring that the BMA should do as good a job with the library as it does
sorting our GP partnerships beset by internecine disagreements. So far
none has asked me what the LA does in terms of library provision for
members, which has an answer that even I would struggle to extend beyond
two short words!
So - much as I would like a white knight to cilip through my working life
transforming my profession into a glorious aura attracting deference and
large sums of money and repelling the need to do work, it ain't gonna
happen. Nothing at all is gonna happen unless we individually work to make
it happen
And even then, there is no practicable chance of the LA going down the
trade union road, and in the end nor should it. The only thing that gives
a trade union strength is where it represents and has the active support of
a sizeable slab of an organisation's workforce. In my case at the BMA,
that means the GMB to which I happily subscribe and which I would not swop
for a newbie union that at best would speak for 4% of BMA staff.
Tony McSean
"Stock Sara (RDE)
Essex Rivers" To: [log in to unmask]
<Sara.Stock@ESSEXRIV cc:
ERS.NHS.UK> Subject: Re: Salaries survey
Sent by: This is an
open discussion list
for members of the
UK medical/
health care library
<LIS-MEDICAL@JISCMAI
L.AC.UK>
19/02/02 09:55
Please respond to
"Stock Sara (RDE)
Essex Rivers"
But is salary and status not a professional issue? And what union
represents
just information professionals? I suspect many of us are either not
unionised or belong to general unions who have greater numbers of other
professional groups with claims on their time. Or are you suggesting that
CILIP should wear two hats as per the BMA?
Sara Stock
Colchester
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager ([log in to unmask])
www.bma.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|
