Despite the alleged administrative advantages of the flat-rate system (which
of course begin to seep away with every exceptional category introduced) I
remain a firm supporter of the salary-related approach - and I say this as
someone who has been in the top salary band for the last 15 years or so and
also as someone who advanced this argument within the IIS, though it fell on
deaf ears. I also favour changing the current approach of broad salary bands
to a direct percentage of salary to deal with some of the anomalies already
mentioned.
I see membership of a professional body as being rather different to
membership of the National Trust, AA, etc. I have always welcomed the
opportunity for more highly-paid members of the profession to subsidise
their less well-off colleagues, as belonging to a professional association
is not just about getting value for money from your subscription (though I
recognise that is still an issue) but is also about sustaining and
developing a professional community. I am not persuaded by the fact that
other professional bodies don't have salary-related subs. Many of them are
able to charge much lower subs than CILIP because of the sheer size of their
memberships (eg CIPD and CMI, to name two others that I belong to) but that
doesn't invalidate the merits of a salary-related approach.
Introducing a different higher rate for Fellows would be better than
nothing, but actually ignores the fact that Fellows - and potential Fellows
- are NOT necessarily among the highest-paid members and we surely do not
want to place additional financial barriers in the way of worthy candidates.
Sheila Corrall
Professor of Librarianship & Information Management
The University of Sheffield
Department of Information Studies
Regent Court, 211 Portobello Street
Sheffield S1 4DP United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)114 222 2632
Fax +44 (0)114 278 0300
Email [log in to unmask]
www.shef.ac.uk/is
|