Aran,
You, and others who put forward similar arguments in support of the status
quo, have missed the whole point. CILIP membership is quite simply not
worth 200+ Pounds a year.
If CILIP offered professional support in employee/employer disputes or
campaigned publically and actively for better pay I might feel it was
reasonable value for money. However it does not so for the first time in
23 years I am not a member of a library/information professional society.
Also, as others have pointed out I don't pay for other professional
services according to how much I earn. If I consult my solicitor he
doesn't adjust his fees according to what earning band I am in. Why should
this approach apply to CILIP's fees?
With regard to the proposal in your note. It will not work because all one
has to do to remain a member and yet avoid paying more each year is
'nothing'. Doing nothing is easy. One doesn't even need to read the
letter.
Regards,
John Smith,
University of Kent.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, No Name wrote:
> More apologies for cross posting!
>
> It is beyond question, I think, that the way Cilip administers subscriptions is
> inefficient and needs reform. This does not imply a need to move to a poll-tax
> style flat rate. The foundation of Cilip's case for a flat rate is this: "We
> can't renew members automatically until we no longer have to ask what they
> earn." This is not correct. In fact, Cilip will always have to notify members
> that their subscription is about to be renewed and give them the option not to
> renew. A few weeks before the renewal date they could simply send out a
> notification like this:
>
> "Dear member, your subscription is due for renewal on [date]. You may either
>
> 1. If your circumstances have not changed since last year, do nothing, in which
> case your subscription will be automatically renewed at the same rate;
>
> 2. Notify us of a change in your income or employment status, in which case
> your subscription may be adjusted (see attached list of tariffs*);
>
> 3. Cancel the renewal, thereby ending your membership.
>
> * - NB if your circumstances have altered but not enough to make you eligible
> for a different tariff, you do not need to notify us of the change."
>
>
> Nobody at Cilip has been able to give any reason why this could not be done, so
> why not keep the socially responsible and fair income-based subscription
> system, and switch to automatic renewal, direct debit with discounts, and
> rolling renewal (each year after the member's joining date). This seems the
> fairest, most efficient and most equitable solution, and will avoid the decline
> in revenue per member that the flat rate would bring. I therefore recommend
> that members (1) vote "no" to the flat rate and (2) ask Cilip to reform the
> current system along the lines suggested above.
>
> Regards, Aran Lewis.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
>
|