To follow Mike Morris's email yesterday...(Thanks Mike - particularly liked this morning's offering (= )

On other pages: "Why don't young people want to earn nearly 20k a year in graduate-level librarianship?"

£10, 500  for a GRADUATE Trainee post, anyone? (I know these are meant for pre-library school people, but even so, it's still asking for graduates....), followed by a year of study at high cost = lots of debt, not necessarily followed by employment in a post paying nearly 20K a year, unfortunately. 

The issue of recruitment and retention of young people is an issue bound up with that of pay and status, and one that CILIP must address, if it is to increase (or keep) its members in the future.





>>> [log in to unmask] 10/26/04 03:41pm >>>
Can I just say "Hear, hear" to both of you. Not that it will make a tiny bit
of difference to CILIP.
ip?"On other pages: "Why don't young people want to earn nearly 20k a year in
graduate-level librariansh

Mike Morris, Librarian, ISCA
51 Banbury Rd., Oxford OX2 6PE 01865 274671


-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim
Sent: 26 October 2004 15:12
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Personal statement from CILIP Councillor Tony McSean supporting
the subscriptions reform proposals

I totally agree with Frances.  I am agnostic on the question of sliding
scale or fixed subscriptions (as an Honorary Fellow, I don't pay either
way), but feel that the way CILIP will retain members is to fight more
strongly and publicly on members' behalf, especially on pay and working
conditions.  I would also like to see a higher profile in lobbying
Government on issues of concern - CILIP should be having regular meetings
with relevant Ministers to keep them informed about the concerns of members,
but if such meetings do take place, CILIP keeps very quiet about them.

Charles

Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU

Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053
e mail [log in to unmask] 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frances Hendrix" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Personal statement from CILIP Councillor Tony McSean supporting
the subscriptions reform proposals


Tony makes some good arguments for the case. However what concerns me (and I
have not made a decision yet on where I stand, and had always been in favour
of paying more as I earned more), is that because of what appears to be
bureaucratic inefficiency and bad timing and the administrative overlay
being too costly to be efficient and actually accidentally 'losing'  members
year on year, more income is needed. Can this possibly be the case, and if
it is why isn't it being addressed.

One major concern many members appear to have is what they get for their
sub, and again some simply clear statement about the true value of
membership, needs to be addressed. A major concerns over the years is Cilips
lack of support and action on incredibly low paid jobs being advertised, and
jobs being advertised requiring the skills of the professional librarians
but not supporting the case for employing one, and yet Cilip does take the
fee for these advertisements and therefore supports the practice.

To gain members support nothing makes more impact than not just publishing
salary surveys, but actually trying to fight for better salaries and
benefits?

The BMA has a much higher profile, and is involved often in a very public
way in support of a range of activities for their members, and seem to have
a more 'legalistic' role. Maybe a comparison of the percentage the BMA sub
is in comparison with BMA members income, and the package of support
provided under that fee., for instance is professional legal advise and
indemnity covered, would be useful? I have heard of Cilip members who have
been very badly treated by employers and Cilip has not risen to the occasion
and gone out on a limb to support a member?

Frances

-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Buckley Owen
Sent: 26 October 2004 13:23
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Personal statement from CILIP Councillor Tony McSean supporting the
subscriptions reform proposals

In order to stimulate discussion on LIS-CILIP, CILIP Councillor Tony McSean
explains why he supports the subscriptions reform proposals.  (In a parallel
posting, J Eric Davies opposes them.)

Why CILIP must move to a flat-rate subscription

Why change?

Under the present system, calculating and collecting our annual
subscriptions is a cumbersome, labour-intensive business.  Every year we
accidentally shed several thousand members and lose thousands in income.
CILIP's membership department works flat out to reconnect with members who
have lapsed through accident or inertia and are unable to run the proper
recruitment campaigns needed to boost our membership within the traditional
library world and beyond.

The proposal

What you are being asked to vote on is a recommendation that we adopt a flat
rate subscription system, with reduced rates for low-paid members to ensure
no-one faces a substantial increase because of this change.

The evidence

Almost every other professional association manages its subscriptions in
this way, with members and staff enjoying a hugely reduced administrative
burden and the benefits of automatic renewal.  Since the BMA abandoned
salary-related subscriptions 20 years ago the reduced costs and steady
growth in income have transformed its finances and the same is true of other
comparable bodies.

The alternative

If we persist with the present procedures, we will see the continuing
year-on-year decline of member numbers and membership income.  As is made
clear on the ballot, a NO vote is a vote for higher subscriptions for
everyone because of the bureaucracy and lower numbers that will follow from
rejecting this proposal.

Practicalities

CILIP's renewal round is a convoluted process, made all the worse for being
imposed on the pre-Christmas whirl.  Complex forms, multiple checking,
errors and queries to be chased up, all overlaid with data protection and
cash handling problems. Under the proposed arrangements, flat rate payments
will allow direct debit payments to become the norm and will provide
automatic renewal for the great majority of us. We would not put up with
this level of avoidable complexity in our own working lives, and we should
not put up with it in CILIP.

Low pay

Many CILIP members are low-paid, and the new system takes account of this.
The proposal retains low subscriptions for members earning less than
£17,000.  Why £17,000?   Because this is the level that gives the fairest
outcome.  The 44% of members who earn between £17,001 and £22,000 and pay
£144-£156 (at the undiscounted rate) under the present system will pay £150
at the full rate or £138 at the discounted rate (at 2004 prices) under the
new system when fully implemented in 2008.  Increasing the threshold above
£17,000 would exclude so many from the flat rate that the whole scheme would
lose viability because there would be no savings.

To conclude

This proposal has been carefully worked through.  It is financially and
operationally sound - prudent, even - and as the comparative tables show it
will not result in our lowest-paid colleagues having to face big rises in
their subscriptions.  It has been endorsed unanimously by CILIP's Board and
overwhelmingly by Council and is important.  Please return your ballot paper
as soon as you receive it, and vote YES for lower subscription rates and
more money for CILIP to spend on useful things.

Tony McSeán
CILIP Councillor and member of the Membership Recruitment & Retention Panel,
which developed the flat rate subscription proposal.