The problem is that unlike associations in the health and education areas,
Cilip neither has a single negotiating opponent nor does it represent a
decent proportion of staff in any sector.  Individually, either of these
considerations would make converting to a trade union uneconomic, together
they make it hopelessly unfeasible.  The other consideration is that the
change of focus would require a change of legal status, and trade unions
are subject to the most complex and restrictive regulations and
requirements.

The BMA's legal status is as a registered trade union and it's sometimes a
bit of a minefield.  For example, it's by no means sure that we can refuse
to lend any more books to a BMA member who is refusing to return the ones
they already have, because a trade union must make all services available
to all members.

Tony Mcsean
BMA Library






                      "Bing, Pamela"
                      <[log in to unmask]        To:       [log in to unmask]
                      >                        cc:
                      Sent by:                 bcc:
                      Chartered Library        Subject:  Re: LIS gazette: Watson
                      and Information
                      Professionals
                      <LIS-CILIP@JISCMA
                      IL.AC.UK>


                      16/01/04 12:08
                      Please respond to
                      Chartered Library
                      and Information
                      Professionals






Dear Geraint,

I think you have hit the nail on the head - I too am reluctant to
continue paying union subs as well as cilip subs - I also don't think
that Unison will particularly back us librarians if push came to shove.
Maybe it is time we had a specialised library union to look after our
interests - I posted something to this effect on Lis-cilip-reg, although
not as detailed as your post!

Pam

-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jones, geraint
Sent: 16 January 2004 11:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: LIS gazette: Watson


There may be very good reasons why 'we' are confined to just wingeing
about our lot.  I believe I'm right in saying that that most of us look
on Cilip as our main representative.  Given this, is it not strange that
most of us are probably also represented either by some union or other
or by a staff association.  I believe that, for the following reasons,
most of are reluctant to put our heads above the parapet in case we get
it shot off

The problem as I see it that Cilip seems to use the fact that we are
mostly unionised as an excuse not to get directly involved in the
workplace.  They could claim some justification for this IF we were all
in the same union and had some collective weight.  This is unfortunately
not the case.  There is the further problem that in most unions we are,
especially if we have the word 'manager', 'director' etc., tagged on to
our job description, looked upon with deep suspicion.  In short, as a
white collar workers and manager, I would not be holding my breath
expecting my - non-librarian - fellow union members to turn up at the
picket should I ever need them

It is my contention that we as a profession are largely unionised
because Cilip (and the LA before it) refuses to get directly involved in
direct workplace negotiations on pay and conditions.  Personally, I'm
not in a union from choice and I certainly don't want to pay what is
effectively a double subscription for the dubious privilege of belonging
to one, but I feel I have no choice as I don't want to be left entirely
hanging in the breeze should I ever be in conflict with my employers.

I believe that we need to decide what we are .  Are we professionals.
If the answer to this is yes, then we should automatically assume that
we have the RIGHT to remuneration at similar levels to other
professionals, especially if we have gone to the trouble of Chartering.
If we really are Cilip, - if WE the membership own Cilip, THIS belief in
ourselves as professionals is what we need to get clear in our
collective minds as a first step.  I'm afraid that while our policy
making body appears not to believe this and whilst it continues  to
behave as if direct workplace negotiations is somehow 'getting it's
hands dirty' or 'behaving like a Trade Union', it will make little
difference whether we 'prove' ourselves to our employers or not.  On
this point  of 'proving' ourselves and of 'demonstrating our
effectiveness in the workplace', - I do wish that Cilip members who
provide tight fisted employers with ammunition by constanly harping on
it would just stop!

Other professional associations seem not to have any problems with
direct workplace negotiations, - why should ours?

Geraint Jones,
Islay, Scotland



________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
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
**********************************************************************