[--- Please excuse cross posting ---]
One of Cilip's arguments in favour of a flat rate is that other professional
bodies have flat rates and have thrived as a result. Examples cited are the
British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. In fact, although
their subscriptions are not directly income related, both these bodies have
numerous grades of membership with varying fees to accommodate, for example,
the lower incomes of newly qualified practitioners.
However, in comparing these organisations with Cilip, what is most striking is
the difference between what they do for their members and what Cilip does for
us. Both act explicitly as unions, including access to lawyers and workplace
representation; Cilip refuses to do this. Both fight hard for better pay for
their members; Cilip not only refuses to do this, but even offers a survey of
current salaries, in all their shameful inadequacy, "to aid managers
negotiating salaries for their team"! Because Cilip refuses to help members
negotiating with their managers for better pay, members needing such support
must also join a union. Cilip does not even support union campaigns for better
pay in libraries.
Perhaps the most telling discrepancy between the BMA and RCN and Cilip is the
provision of library services; the BMA gives its members "One of the best
medical libraries in the UK"; the RCN provides "4 Libraries, one in each
country of the United Kingdom". And what of Cilip, the Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals? The LA closed its library (invaluable to
me as a LIS student) some years ago, and Cilip has not replaced it with
anything comparable, just a tiny "information centre" with nothing for loan.
Isn't it sad that of these three bodies, the only one which does not offer its
library as one of the benefits of membership is the Chartered Institute of
Library and Information Professionals?
My conclusion is that there will not be a rush to join Cilip if the top rates
are cut as proposed in "Option 1 - flat rate", because the subscription rate is
not the main deterrent to potential members. The main deterrent is the lack of
effective action by Cilip on behalf of its members. If Cilip is not offering
what LIS workers need, they won't join, at any price. Thus the "flat rate" is
likely to lead to a decline in Cilip's revenue, and should be rejected.
As a rough indication of effectiveness in advocacy, compare the following
figures showing the number of stories in UK daily newspapers mentioning the
bodies listed. I was prompted to do this research when I noticed two important
stories in the Guardian last month - "Libraries hit by fall in book borrowing"
(15th Oct.), and "National targets set for libraries" (25th Oct.). Neither of
these articles mentioned Cilip, and I could not find any Cilip response in the
press. Both stories referred to the MLA and Libri.
Number of stories in UK national daily newspapers in 2004 to 1st Nov., as
supplied by Newsbank (exact search terms are shown):
"British Medical Association" - 759
"Royal College of Nursing" - 268
"Law Society" - 646
"Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals" OR Cilip - 14
"Museums, Libraries and Archives Council" OR "Council for Museums, Archives and
Libraries" - 36
"Libri" - 37
Not exactly compelling, is it?
Best wishes, Aran Lewis.
(PS more data is given in the attached spreadsheet, for those with amenable
mail servers etc!)
----------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
|