Both Chris and Andrew have made some sensible points, in particular the
deduction from salary by employers, and what ever happens shouldn't
Cilip be negotiating this?
As regards salaries, I have for some time wished Cilip would do a real
'bench marking ' exercise with other comparative professional posts, and
see where we do actually stand., again I think members would find this
of benefit. It is done in many many organisations, on a regular basis,
and can be extremely useful. There are companies who provide the service
to the employer/organisation, on a regular basis.
Is there an alternative for Cilip at this juncture., and would members
accept, i.e. a no change this year and a thorough look at all the
options and possible solutions, plus a consultation exercise to include
benchmarking, alternatives to the 2 options before us, and other matters
members may have major concerns about, rather than risk losing more
members and dissatisfying many what ever side they are on?
Cant help thinking about a number of things:-
'Fine mess you've got us into'
And as Barristers and Market Researches do, don't ask a question you
don't know the answer to
I just feel maybe all this could have been amicably arranged with a
little more thought and skill, and acknowledging the way the membership
appeared to be leaning?
f
-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Armstrong
Sent: 27 October 2004 09:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP AGM- subs. Response to Andrew Coburn
Andrew Coburn wrote:
> Meantime the issue is all but polarised around the flat-rate versus
> banded issue.
This is unfortunate as it seemed to me that much of the discontent with
the proposed new system was about the detail - particularly the detail
of the point at which an information worker is or is not 'low paid' - as
opposed to being discontent with the principle of the system itself. The
Hon. Treasurer has said that the figure of 17,000 which was arrived at
for the proposal will be under review and certainly could be subject to
change
- figures of 20,000 and 22,000 were mentioned during the debate at the
AGM. Unfortunately that will have to wait for next year, but it, and the
other issues of detail, do not seem to me a good reason to condemn the
whole proposal. To me, it seems sensible to try the new system and
fine-tune it over the next couple of years rather than condemn it out of
hand. (After all a motion for return to the old system or for a new
system can be put to next year's AGM.)
The new proposal, at least according to figures we were given, will
reduce everyone's subscription by a small amount and will have the
enormous merit of working against the leakage of members through failure
to renew.
With the alternative system, to which we shall be returned if the vote
goes against the motion, numbers of you will not me members in March
2005 and a percentage of those will never bother to rejoin again.
While the new flat-rate system will cure this "symptom", I do agree with
other writers that it is important for CILIP to realise the message
underlying member leakage: many members and potential members do not see
a clear set of benefits from membership. I believe the benefits exist -
CILIP has to focus on marketing them.
Andrew Coburn also wrote:
> Keeping banding would allow the matter of deduction from pay to be
> pursued.
I think this is something of a red herring as the issue could be pursued
whichever route is chosen. I suspect that the time taken to negotiate
this through the Unions, etc would mean that any benefits will not be
short-term, and so will not work against the loss of members in 2005 or
even 2006.
Chris Armstrong
National Councillor
Information Automation Limited
|