Thanks Frances.
I just think we should do something. Innocuous = ignored nowadays. If
it turns out to be the wrong thing at least we tried!
Paul
Frances Hendrix wrote:
>Good idea Paul
>
>And it would add some flavour to the endless numbers of rather innocuous
>press releases cilip send out every day?
>f
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Clarke
>Sent: 17 February 2005 15:55
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Gazette Feb 11th
>
>How many librarians does it take to change a light bulb? 4 to discuss
>Edison s life, 3 to contest whether he invented it in the first place, 3
>to debate the merits of screw to bayonet fit, 2 to look into the energy
>efficient options&.. you get my drift. Here is a huge debate, involving
>our professional association, on rubbish salaries and what have we
>decided, and what are we doing?
>
>How about some press releases? Graduate Librarians expected to live on
>a quarter of the salary of a toilet cleaner at National Gallery - - and
>I get given a brush says toilet cleaner .
>
>OK I m being facetious (!) but make it a genuine comparison and list
>expenses involved in buying a house/food/heat etc. and send it to the
>papers. Others have done this. (I remember recently wondering whether I
>should re skill as a train driver, their derisory pay being better than
>our derisory pay) One paper may bite even if they get a retired
>bookseller to tell us we don t know what we re doing (where could that
>idea have come from??) at least it opens the debate to a wider audience.
>
>In reality most people don t want to rubbish libraries; they think
>rubbishing them makes them look like barbarians. So there may be some
>support. And there is an election in view&..
>
>Generally, employers will be under budgetary constraints, if they can
>get the right quality of staff for less money they ll do it. If someone
>is unemployed and the salary is better than the benefits they are being
>offered, they ll take the job. Employers won t care about a professional
>body savaging their ankles; they will care about broader public opinion.
>
>I don t think this would be CILIP acting as a TU, I think it would be
>opening a legitimate debate about the recruitment and retention problems
>faced by the profession to a wider audience. After all in local Govt we
>are always being told that we should involve all stakeholders.
>
>Paul Clarke
>
>
|