A lot of food for thought here.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank Daniels
Sent: 31 October 2004 08:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP subs etc
from Frank Daniels <[log in to unmask]>
What Frances Hendrix says in her latest post is correct: a good summary
of the situation now being faced after the AGM. For what it's worth I
would say that we should accept the principle of "rolling" membership
renewal and adjust the line between flat rate payers and salary band
related payers in the light of experience. This is a low pay profession
(by and large). Cilip should be doing much, much more to address that
issue.
However, there are other issues which have nothing to do with money (at
least not directly) and which Cilip also needs to address. Public
librarianship and the way in which it is being practised since the
advent of "New Labour" in 1997 is a cause for concern. Running courses
for chartered librarians to enable them to manage library volunteers,
and running courses to enable chartered librarians to fill in
successfully application forms for lottery funding in order to undertake
necessary library projects do not seem to me to be a good use of Cilip's
resources. On the contrary, it seems to me to be a throwing in of the
towel on the very idea of professionalism in the face of central
government pressure for librarians to view their own profession as a
catalyst for social inclusion. Cilip seems to be aiding and abetting the
idea that it is "normal" now for a librarian to bring his or her private
political convictions into the workplace. Why? Because only in that way
can central government funding be obtained to get the "good work"
done when local authorities continue to practice parsimony towards their
library services. I generalise, I know, but I believe that this is
substantially true, and even understandable given the long years of
parsimony that libraries suffered from under Thatcherism.
Does Cilip lobby government on our behalf, as it says it does, or is
government policy towards public libraries dictating to Cilip? I think
that is a fair question to ask. It also had implications for Cilip's new
ethical principles and code of conduct. I wonder less about value for
money when paying my membership fee than I do about just what it is I am
paying it for in the first place.
Frank Daniels
ex-libris
Frank Daniels
>From: Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: Recipients of LIS-CILIP digests <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: LIS-CILIP Digest - 29 Oct 2004 to 30 Oct 2004 (#2004-219)
>Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:00:25 +0100
>
>There is one message totalling 185 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is actually 36%
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:22:52 +0100
>From: Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is
>actually 36%
>
>I am glad I read this email, as I awoke in the middle of the night
>wondering about all this and what we were really on about and tackling.
>
>It seems to me that Cilip needs:-
>
>To attract and retain more members
>
>To be more cost effective in dealing with membership and collection of
>subs
>
>To bring in more revenue from subs
>
>To do this they have looked at subs and have proposed a new rate
>
>This has meant:-
>
>A discussion on the two options
>
>Concerns about the fairness of the rate
>
>And questions about the value of the membership fee
>
>The overriding concern seems to be ''what do we get for the money'.,
>can we take advantage of what is on offer., do we get support from
>Cilip to improve our rates of pay and status
>
>It seems to me that as Cilip is primarily a membership organisation, it
>needs to satisfy its members, as they after all are the future. If you
>consider the emails on this issue, I am sure they are the tip of an
>iceberg, and many many people may feel disgruntled but done put finger
>to keyboard.
>
>I recall in my last post, in over 10 years I had 2 letters of complaint
>about our services. For the one we did an investigation as to the why
>and what behind the complaint, as I felt one complaint was too many,
>and others must be out there, and we resolved it. For the other, which
>was more fundamental and involved membership subscriptions we got PWC
>to do an independent investigation and report and acted on the
>results.All done with transparency to all emmbers, and with the support
>of the Board.
>
>We do need to retain Cilip, but perhaps the bull at a gate approach of
>just dealing with subs is just not enough. We need to offer some
>transparency to the membership, not in long wordy documents, but simple
>information as to :-
>
>What does Cilip cost to run
>
>What do they have top pay for buildings, rates etc
>
>What income revenue is received from what, including subs, and what are
>the costs of running all of those
>
>What are the average salaries (and mean), of Cilip staff
>
>Are Cilip staff all qualified librarians (as this will affect the
>above)
>
>
>What people, categories of staff,, from where geographically, do people
>attend an London event., what events are held elsewhere than London,
>and do they, as I suspect have to run at a loss.
>
>Then the value added stuff Cilip does do for which the subs pay e.g.
>chartership stuff, policy, advocacy, the excellent email news bulletins
>etc and so on.(I recall filling in a very large form some time ago
>about what Cilip offered how I rated the serices, what happened to that
>and were changes made)?
>
>Then some hard information about subs, percentages of who pays what
>etc=20
>
>I would prefer we put the subs thing on hold (is this possible in the
>constitution), until we provide people with more information and some
>ideas on how Cilip is going to take forward some of the members
>concerns, rather than lose what we have now, and lose more members,
>rather than face the music and re think
>
>Could Cilip not invite some of those people who have raised concerns,
>and a wider spectrum of members who are not on Council, committees etc,
>to a forum to talk through the issues. The members count, don't ignore
>them, get them inside your tent?
>
>f
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stella Dextre Clarke
>Sent: 29 October 2004 19:28
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is
>actually 36%
>
>"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars But in ourselves that we
>are underlings"
>- Julius Caesar, I.ii.134
>
>Those of us with the ambition to earn the average or more need to put
>ourselves out a bit, be prepared to move away from home, take on
>responsibilities and perhaps long hours, pick up new skills, apply for
>better jobs. Most professions have some bottom rungs with quite a lot
>of people doing less well than the others, and I don't expect it is a
>whole lot cushier for them, unless they are in a field where demand
>exceeds supply of trained people. From our professional association we
>should look for support in improving our skills, sharing experiences
>with others, keeping up with developments. But it is no use relying on
>CILIP for personal advancement.
>
>That said, let's continue to press CILIP to do all it should be doing!
>- without incurring costs that unnecessarily raise our subscription
>levels. No-one so far seems to have raised the question of whether
>CILIP really needs to be costing as much as it is. Are they spending
>our money wisely and effectively? Do they need so many staff? Maybe
>some judicious economies could cut subscription levels for all of us.
>
>*****************************************************
>Stella Dextre Clarke
>Information Consultant
>Luke House, West Hendred, Wantage, Oxon, OX12 8RR, UK
>Tel: 01235-833-298
>Fax: 01235-863-298
>[log in to unmask]
>*****************************************************
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Buckley Owen
>Sent: 29 October 2004 15:59
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less) - the figure is
>actually 36%
>
>
>Just on a point of information again...
>
>It is actually 36% of CILIP members who are on income-related
>subscription rates and who declare incomes of 17,000 or less - not 44%.
>
>
>The 44% figure refers to income-related subscription payers who earn
>between 17,000 and 22,000, and finally there are 20% earning above
>22,000.
>
>N.B. These percentages refer only to those members who are on
>income-related rates, and don't take into account categories such as
>affiliated or supporting or expatriate members, who are on a flat rate
>already.
>
>Tim Buckley Owen.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Julia Johnson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 29 October 2004 15:38
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re : 44% of us earn #17K (or less)
>
>
>I was horrified to learn that 44% of CILIP's members are on ?17K or
>less.
>Leaving aside the contemplation of salaries of ?10K- 12K.
>
>As those of us who work in London know, a second-jobber secretary with
>A-levels (and secretarial college, I assume) can earn more than that
>(My
>
>employer is seeking someone of that ilk, and I believe the salary is
>?25K-?28K)
>
>If I had my time over, I would make sure I had decent IT, document
>production and related skills. I think that I might never have been
>unemployed, while I looked for information work. If I had been lost to
>the profession, then that would have been the operation of "market
>forces".
>
>Regards
>Julia Johnson
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of LIS-CILIP Digest - 29 Oct 2004 to 30 Oct 2004 (#2004-219)
>****************************************************************
|
