Had anyone suggested this? I must have missed it! Oh dear!
>>> [log in to unmask] 06/08/04 11:08am >>>
I must be very naïve, but I confess to being quite shocked at the idea of librarians lying about their salary level in order to pay less. I had thought that librarians were probably one of the most honest and straightforward professions about: in my experience, we are predisposed to obey rules, we like order and organisation, and we tell the truth. I might not like how much I have to pay, as it is an awful lot of money for what can seem like scant return, but I wouldn't lie to make it a few pounds less.
Liz Martin
Librarian
Nuffield College
Oxford OX1 1NF
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Fletcher [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 June 2004 10:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
But should CILIP membership be equated with the tax system? If I choose to join the AA/National Trust etc. or purchase a season ticket to support my fottball team I pay the same as anyone else, with a few general exceptions for the unwaged, special cases etc. We all then get the same service for our money. All members of CILIP whether they many years in the profession and possibly earning more or a newly qualified member just starting out get the same level of service - how much they participate in CILIP is another matter.
I very much like the idea of being able to opt out of Update and get a reduction in subs as appears to happen in the Netherlands. This makes great sense to a multi-librarian household.
Tim
-----------------------
Tim Fletcher
Library Systems Manager
Birkbeck College
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 020 7631 6060
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Cook
> Sent: 08 June 2004 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
>
> With all due respect to CILIP's administrative problems, I'm afraid I
> cannot agree with the flat-rate proposal. I can see a need to tidy up
> the present wage band system but I personally see it as a fair system.
>
> People are very lucky if their employer pays their subscriptions for
> them. Good luck to them. I wish mine did.
> If there is a flat-rate subscription imposed then the better off will
> be even more better off whilst the lower paid, which constitute the
> majority of CILIP members will be worse off, having to pay more, in
> effect subsidising the better paid. Is this fair?
>
> As a comparison and as a previous member has outlined, income tax is
> paid according to earnings.
> Council tax according to value of property.
>
> A library student starting their first job will pay more because the
> majority of them will be going into jobs that fall within the wage
> band that will have their subs increased.
>
> Stephen Cook
> Assistant Librarian: Systems & Technical Services The Markland Library
> Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
> 27 Sussex Place
> Regent's Park
> London.
> NW1 4RG.
> Tel: 020-7772-6309
> Fax: 020-7262-8331
> Website: www.rcog.org.uk
> "Setting standards to improve women's health"
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tony McSean
> Sent: 08 June 2004 10:06
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
>
>
> The assumption behind the plan, as I understand it, that the
> changeover will be set up to be neutral in its effect on Cilip
> subscription income. Because of the distribution curve of members
> amongst the salary bands it is likely that most members will be paying
> about the same while the lower earners pay a bit more and the higher
> earners a bit less. No firm figures have been published because
> constitutionally it is the Treasurer alone who produces the new year's
> subscription recommendations which are then put before the AGM for
> approval.
>
> As reported in the new Update I spoke very strongly in favour of the
> new proposals when they were debated at Cilip Council, and have been
> supoortive since the scheme was first aired at the recruitment and
> retention working party some time ago.
> The existing scheme is an administrative nonsense, taking a hugely
> wasteful amount of effort to administer. Every renewal round sees a
> more or less accidental haemorrhaging of members, which in turn means
> that the whole year's recruitment effort is taken up with trying to
> get back into membership those who lapsed by falling over the
> tailboard rather than by definite decision.
>
> I can see the argument for a Marxian subscription system.
> This position was very eloquently expressed in Council, but in my view
> didn't put any dents in the proposal.
>
> Like Charles Oppenheim I feel the need to declare my interest, which
> is that it makes no difference to me personally since my employer pays
> my subscription, and that over the dozen or so Cilip subs paid through
> my budget there will probably be a very small reduction.
>
> Tony McSean
>
>
> I think the biggest gap in the information on the website is the lack
> of actual detail regarding the level of charges. It implies that
> these have been calculated, and yet doesn't give the actual figures.
>
> Without this information it will be extremely difficult to make a
> judgement on whether or not we will all be better or worse off under
> this new system.
>
> Alex
> --
> Alexandra Stearn
> Deputy Head of Library Services
> Newcastle College
> Scotswood Road
> Newcastle, NE4 5BR
> 0191 200 4017
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tassoni, Laura [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 04 June 2004 17:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: New flat-rate subscription for CILIP
>
> http://www.cilip.org.uk/member/newsubscription.html
> Hi everyone, what do people think about these changes to the CILIP
> subscription system? Seems rather regressive to me.
> Have we had a consultation?
>
> Laura
> ----------------------
> Laura Tassoni
> Information Adviser
> Learning Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University
> 0114 225 4700
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
|
