 |
 |
I totally agree with you Pam When you look at our skills and qualifications (especially the latter and the cost of achieving them) you really do have to question your future in the profession. I don't think 'waiting' to reach 20K+ is an option when you have to put a roof over your head. As someone has pointed out on this list before you work to live, not the other way around. Mike Raynor Information Adviser Sheffield Hallam University -----Original Message----- From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bing, Pamela Sent: 27 October 2004 11:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Young librarians Please can someone show me a qualified librarian post paying more that £20K. I have an undergraduate degree, and a postgraduate qualification and I have been working for a university for 2 years. I still earn less than £20K, and don't expect to reach these dizzy heights for another couple of years. A simple search on LisJobnet would reveal to any potential librarians that the profession is not well paid.....and that the professional body is willing to let this be the case. I have just been through the rigmarole of chartership, and while I think it was a worthwhile excercise for my personal development I am seriously considering both my future in the profession and whether I wish to continue being a member of CILIP. I am worth more. Pam -----Original Message----- From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claire Abbott Sent: 27 October 2004 10:43 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Young librarians 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.