But CILIP wouldn't be marking low paid jobs for your attention as a potential applicant, but for the attention of the employer who is offering the low salary. And any other employers thinking of trying to offer a low salary for a similar job.

It's not that separating the job adverts into 2 sections or kitemarking them would be useful to you as an applicant, but that CILIP would then be seen to be doing something about the low paid jobs in our sector. I gather from CILIPs posts on this subject that they are doing something, contacting the employers and monitoring the number of low paid jobs etc, but I think that what we all need is for CILIP to be SEEN to be doing something on this issue.

If CILIP were to do somthing visible then the members would feel that their interests were being looked after, and as has already been pointed out, members' perceptions are very important. 

I am also of the opinion that although employers could advertise low paid library jobs elsewhere if CILIP refused to publish them, the employers would not be able to reach so many professionally qualified and experienced librarians if they advertise in other publications. This could lead to them employing people without appropriate qualifications. Is this a good or a bad thing? 

If a professional librarian who has fallen on hard times takes a low paid job that is at least relevant to his/her qualifications and career then he/she could use that as an opportunity to demonstrate what a professional can do and try to raise the remuneration for that post from within the organisation. He/she could also use it as a stepping post to another, better paid job. I'm sure that a potential employer would be more impressed by a candidate who had been working in the sector, even at low pay, than by a candidate who had not been working at all.

On balance, I think that CILIP should advertise the low paid posts, and that it should continue to draw attention to its recommendations to the employers who advertise jobs that are low paid. One way in which it could draw attention would be through separation/approval marking of the adverts.

Jen


Jenny Delasalle
Service Innovation Officer
Research and Innovation Unit
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/subjects/riu/

University of Warwick Library
Gibbet Hill Road
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Tel: +44 (0)24 765 75793 

>>> [log in to unmask] 02/16/05 11:50am >>>
The thing is though, I don't need "Auntie CILIP" to tell me whether a job is badly paid.  And I can make up my own mind whether to apply or not.
 
Sometimes I won't apply for a job as it is too low-paid to make it worthwhile.
 
Equally, there may one day be circumstances in which I can't afford not to apply, even if I feel the employer is undervaluing the post.  
 
And this suggestion, though well intentioned, could stigmatise those who apply for the jobs, many of whom may be doing so through financial necessity.  
 
Andy Zelinger
 
 

	

--------------------------------------------------------

UK Parliament Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
	
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dobson, Malcolm
        Sent: 16 February 2005 11:20
        To: [log in to unmask] 
        Subject: Re: Gazette Feb 11th
	
	

        Perhaps the jobs could be listed under the heading 'The following posts have been advertised at salaries below CILIPs recommendations. Members are advised not to apply'

        And, given that Librarians are members of other bodies as well as or instead of CILIP, and other bodies or organisations advertise jobs (eg TFPL), perhaps some partnership working on the issue would be in order, so that the profession presents a united front? (or is that another part of Tony Mcsean's 'bigger picture' that we don't see?)

        Malcolm Dobson 

                -----Original Message----- 
                From:   Fintan Codd [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] 
                Sent:   16 February 2005 10:53 
                To:     [log in to unmask] 
                Subject:        Re: Gazette Feb 11th 

                If CILIP is intent on taking the low-paying employer's advertising shilling 
                (and personally, I do not think it should), why does it not separate those 
                ads which do meet CILIP pay rate standards from those that do not ? How 
                difficult could this be ? 

	
	
        ***********************************************************************************************************************************************
        NHS Lanarkshire Confidentiality and Disclaimer Notice
        ***********************************************************************************************************************************************
	
        The information contained in this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
	
        This email is intended only for the addressee named above and the contents should not be disclosed to any other person or copies taken. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of NHS Lanarkshire (NHSL) unless otherwise specifically stated. 
        As Internet communications are not secure NHSL do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or responsibility for any change made to this message after the original sender sent it.
	
        We advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment, as we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses.