Organisation update

[Anonymous]

Seems to be a glitch on the forum. I didnt post #166.  EDIT Why has the post been removed? Who has access to my account? 

[Anonymous]

A post I DID post has also been removed. 

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Seems to be a glitch on the forum. I didnt post #166.

 No it was me. I don't know how, it happened, but I lost my network at the time. 

Quote:

If the safety of our dosh is the most important thing to us then does that reflect the society we wish to create??  A treasure does not need 'special knowledge' nor does he or she have to be particularly trustworthy.

The safety of our dosh is not the most important thing but is very important. So too is having a trustworthy treasurer.I remember the consternation in a shop stewards committteee I was on when the treasurer had gambled away some of the members funds and I alone advocated jailing him. It is the members dosh and has to be prudently accounted for to enable us to carry the message not jsut presently but in the future.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

EDIT Why has the post been removed? Who has access to my account?

Because I was correcting the misattribution error.immediately i had it brought to my attention.

[Anonymous]

Matt wrote:

 No it was me. I don't know how, it happened, but I lost my network at the time. 

 How were you able to post using my account? Without being logged into my account? An explanation would be appreciated.  Seems to be a security breach. Also you are quoting a post from me that has vanished 

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

Matt wrote:

 No it was me. I don't know how, it happened, but I lost my network at the time. 

 How were you able to post using my account? Without being logged into my account? An explanation would be appreciated.  Seems to be a security breach. Also you are quoting a post from me that has vanished 

It is not  securiy breach.I have access to the whole website, I need this functionality to help members when they lose their ID or other events, but try to post here as 'Matt' in discussions instead of 'admin'. I had a couple of posts open at the same time as doing other stuff when I lost my network.

[Anonymous]

OK Matt, I have moved it to the appropriate section of the forum

[robbo203]

To me – Ive said this before and I will say it again – the basic problem with the Party is that its present organisational structure and its ingrained culture leads almost inevitably to a situation where the bulk of the workload is shouldered by a small and diminishing minority of members while the great majority are effectively excluded and feel unable to meaningfully contribute. They feel increasingly isolated and frustrated and some of them drift away as a result. It is not a question of there being plenty of opportunities for members to volunteer to perform the various central functions.  I know there have been calls for volunteers to fill  various posts have remained stubbornly unfilled.  But this is not the issue.  Blaming the problem on members not being sufficiently motivated to fill these posts is precisely the wrong way to go about doing things.  It leads simply to recriminations , demoralisation  and further decline.  You have to ask yourself, rather, why members dont feel motivated enough to volunteer in the first place As someone who has just rejoined  the Party  I might be disadvanged in some ways because of the lack of familiarity with the internal workings of the organisation but in other ways I have the advantage of being able  to look at the situation with fresh eyes and compare what is happening now to when I was first a member It seems to me that the most basic principle that should inform this whole re-organisation exercise is that the Party should adapt itself to the membership, not the membership to the Party.  We have got to break down this basic dichotomy (which lies at the heart of the Party's current malaise) between an overworked minority and an effectively disenfranchised and alienated majority by taking seriosusly the need to bring about what Brian (G) aptly calls a much more networked collaborative form of orgainisation.  Equally importantly, we need to radically rededine and  enlarge or diversity the very concept of Party work itself , to open up many more channels  of activity through  which presently isolated and inactive members – the majority – as well as sympathisers (who are after potential future members)v can meaningfully comtribute.  In short we need a much more HOLISTIC sense of what Party activity should be about. Furthermore, as far as the central bureaucratic functions of the Party is concerned I think we now urgently need at least one, if not two, fulltime paid Party offical at Head Office with a much expanded brief to, amongst other things,  support efforts to encourage much wider participation by the membership as a whole.  Its high time we did this and the Party has more than ample funds to finance this.  Its ridiculous that it has not already been done.  The Head office should be open five days a week without fail to send out the nessage that the SPGB means business.  It should be transformed into a fulltime throbbing centre of activity  –  a meeting centre,  a social centre, a bookshop,  a centre for socialist reseach and so on and so forth  – not a cold vacant building that remains closed to the public except on a wet thusday or whatever You know, my deep worry is this whole exercise will end up simply as a fudge, as mere window dressing.   The SPGB cannot afford to carry on like this, comrades. We have to shake off this complacency and seriously address what is wrong with Party.   I  understand fully the argument that projecting a picture of doom gloom is counter-productive and that it can become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a declining membership can accelerate the pace of decline.  However, we have to wake up to the fact that the SPGB IS in serious decline .  Nevertheless,  at the same time,  I am totally convicnced that the SPGB is more than capable of arresting this decline and turning around it fortunes in quite a significant way.  In that respect I am optimist, not a merchant of gloom and doom. But turning around the fortunes of the SPGB inescapably requires radical and far reaching change, not just tinkerring around with a few petty bureaucratic reforms.  I want  to see the Party I have just rejoined prosper and grow like it has never done before but that is never going to happen if we contrinue the way we have been doing things the last 113 years or so.  Success breeds sucesss but failure breeds faliure too.

[Brian]

robbo203 wrote:

It seems to me that the most basic principle that should inform this whole re-organisation exercise is that the Party should adapt itself to the membership, not the membership to the Party.  We have got to break down this basic dichotomy (which lies at the heart of the Party's current malaise) between an overworked minority and an effectively disenfranchised and alienated majority by taking seriosusly the need to bring about what Brian (G) aptly calls a much more networked collaborative form of orgainisation.  Equally importantly, we need to radically rededine and  enlarge or diversity the very concept of Party work itself , to open up many more channels  of activity through  which presently isolated and inactive members – the majority – as well as sympathisers (who are after potential future members)v can meaningfully comtribute.  In short we need a much more HOLISTIC sense of what Party activity should be about.

The adhoc committee is taking a holistic approach to the whole exercise of adapting the party structure to the whole membership.  The dichotomy has arisen due to the party structure being based on the trade union model which is designed to participate in the economic class struggle and not the political class struggle.  This trade union structure works fine so long has the membership are concentrated in an urban setting and the branch networking is focused on the political activity taking place within that setting. However, this structure starts to breakdown once the membership become dispersed over a wider geographical area and recruitment of new members takes place online and not at the branch level.  Which effectively means the party structure and its activity is presently misaligned with the class struggle on the political front. With this in mind, we deliberately designed the survey/questionnaire so it redefines "party activity" and to bring this 'activity' in alignment with a members geographical location, skills and experience so they become part of a networked collaborative/collective outcome.  The reason for this emphasis on outcome is that the responses are indicating – as we suspected – members are not that much concerned on the party organisation and structure as such.  But becoming involved in the class struggle as part of a team so to make a difference.In short, the result of the survey/questionnaire should identify and pinpoint where the disconnects are occurring and more importantly if they are occurring through isolation and lack of support.[/quote]

Quote:

Furthermore, as far as the central bureaucratic functions of the Party is concerned I think we now urgently need at least one, if not two, fulltime paid Party offical at Head Office with a much expanded brief to, amongst other things,  support efforts to encourage much wider participation by the membership as a whole.  Its high time we did this and the Party has more than ample funds to finance this.  Its ridiculous that it has not already been done.  The Head office should be open five days a week without fail to send out the nessage that the SPGB means business.  It should be transformed into a fulltime throbbing centre of activity  –  a meeting centre,  a social centre, a bookshop,  a centre for socialist reseach and so on and so forth  – not a cold vacant building that remains closed to the public except on a wet thusday or whatever

Quote:

Yes in my opinion this change in party activity will necessitate taking on two full time paid officials, albeit with a much expanded remit/brief.  But not necessarily working from HO for the structure will need to support the internal administration and external field activity.  And the membership have to be persuaded this radical change in direction is an essential requirement. There will obviously need to be changes in the decision making process so there's no conflict of interest.  And we can make the issue of "employment" easier by drawing up a consultancy self-employment contract.

Quote:

You know, my deep worry is this whole exercise will end up simply as a fudge, as mere window dressing.   The SPGB cannot afford to carry on like this, comrades. We have to shake off this complacency and seriously address what is wrong with Party.

Quote:

This exercise will only end up "as mere window dressing" if the membership decline to address the points  raised by the adhoc committee.

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

It seems to me that the most basic principle that should inform this whole re-organisation exercise is that the Party should adapt itself to the membership, not the membership to the Party.  We have got to break down this basic dichotomy (which lies at the heart of the Party's current malaise) between an overworked minority and an effectively disenfranchised and alienated majority by taking seriosusly the need to bring about what Brian (G) aptly calls a much more networked collaborative form of orgainisation.  Equally importantly, we need to radically rededine and  enlarge or diversity the very concept of Party work itself , to open up many more channels  of activity through  which presently isolated and inactive members – the majority – as well as sympathisers (who are after potential future members)v can meaningfully comtribute.  In short we need a much more HOLISTIC sense of what Party activity should be about.

The adhoc committee is taking a holistic approach to the whole exercise of adapting the party structure to the whole membership.  The dichotomy has arisen due to the party structure being based on the trade union model which is designed to participate in the economic class struggle and not the political class struggle.  This trade union structure works fine so long has the membership are concentrated in an urban setting and the branch networking is focused on the political activity taking place within that setting. However, this structure starts to breakdown once the membership become dispersed over a wider geographical area and recruitment of new members takes place online and not at the branch level.  Which effectively means the party structure and its activity is presently misaligned with the class struggle on the political front. With this in mind, we deliberately designed the survey/questionnaire so it redefines "party activity" and to bring this 'activity' in alignment with a members geographical location, skills and experience so they become part of a networked collaborative/collective outcome.  The reason for this emphasis on outcome is that the responses are indicating – as we suspected – members are not that much concerned on the party organisation and structure as such.  But becoming involved in the class struggle as part of a team so to make a difference.In short, the result of the survey/questionnaire should identify and pinpoint where the disconnects are occurring and more importantly if they are occurring through isolation and lack of support.

Quote:

Furthermore, as far as the central bureaucratic functions of the Party is concerned I think we now urgently need at least one, if not two, fulltime paid Party offical at Head Office with a much expanded brief to, amongst other things,  support efforts to encourage much wider participation by the membership as a whole.  Its high time we did this and the Party has more than ample funds to finance this.  Its ridiculous that it has not already been done.  The Head office should be open five days a week without fail to send out the nessage that the SPGB means business.  It should be transformed into a fulltime throbbing centre of activity  –  a meeting centre,  a social centre, a bookshop,  a centre for socialist reseach and so on and so forth  – not a cold vacant building that remains closed to the public except on a wet thusday or whatever

Quote:

Yes in my opinion this change in party activity will necessitate taking on two full time paid officials, albeit with a much expanded remit/brief.  But not necessarily working from HO for the structure will need to support the internal administration and external field activity.  And the membership have to be persuaded this radical change in direction is an essential requirement. There will obviously need to be changes in the decision making process so there's no conflict of interest.  And we can make the issue of "employment" easier by drawing up a consultancy self-employment contract.

Quote:

You know, my deep worry is this whole exercise will end up simply as a fudge, as mere window dressing.   The SPGB cannot afford to carry on like this, comrades. We have to shake off this complacency and seriously address what is wrong with Party.

Quote:

This exercise will only end up "as mere window dressing" if the membership decline to address the points  raised by the adhoc committee.

[/quote]The consultancy, self employment route may not be as straightforward as you think. HMRC rules have changed recently and the model you seem to be proposing might be counted as employment. That in itself is not a reason not to go with full time paid staff, it's just that we may need to do it on an employed basis. To me this is not an issue. I think proper employment is a better route. We can hardly write about the evils of the gig economy and then rely on it ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

We can hardly write about the evils of the gig economy and then rely on it ourselves.

But it's OK to rely on "proper employment", eh?  For the party to go down the road of paying comrades to do party work would not only be a retrograde step ideologically but fraught with all manner of difficulties. We can't even, it seems, make elementary returns to the Electoral Commission without landing ourselves in trouble and possible sanctions but here we are contemplating involvement in the paying of wages, national insurance, sickness benefit etc., and all that that necessarily entails.

[jondwhite]

We live in capitalism, and saving in an interest bearing account crossed the rubicon in 1967. If the SWP can employ 50-60 people and SPEW once reached 75 paid and 225 unpaid, then couldn't the objections of practicality be overcome? Or do they have something we don't? Is this 'something', the existence of full-time staff, and if so which came first, them being in a position to employ staff then doing so?Isn't the consequence of filing late returns to the Electoral Commission due to the cause of lack of committed volunteers? Rather than the cause being filing late returns and the consequence being proof we are unable to hire paid staff?

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

We can hardly write about the evils of the gig economy and then rely on it ourselves.

But it's OK to rely on "proper employment", eh?  For the party to go down the road of paying comrades to do party work would not only be a retrograde step ideologically but fraught with all manner of difficulties. We can't even, it seems, make elementary returns to the Electoral Commission without landing ourselves in trouble and possible sanctions but here we are contemplating involvement in the paying of wages, national insurance, sickness benefit etc., and all that that necessarily entails.

 Would this be a problem though,  Dave? I dont know what the set up is in the UK but here in Spain you can employ the services of a "gestor" to sort out all these things very easily and for a very modest fee I dont  see the Party going down the road of paying one or two comrades to do Party work at Head Office as a "retrograde" step at all.  To the contrary, I think it will be key to the transformation of the Party's fortunes  and, parodoxically,  could lead to a very significant expansion  of voluntary effort throughout the Party as a whole.  Its not just that having HO open for business 5 days a week full time has multiple  benefits at  both a practical and symbolic level in terms of boosting morale and confidence. If the Party is finally, and at long last, going to start having full time paid  it is vitally important that their remit should be expanded to include  proactively supporting or enabling  a much greater range of party acitivities than the Party currently does.  I cannot stress this point enough.  Its not just the decision-making structures of the Party that need to be modernised and overhauled  We have to look at what the Party actually does in the way of activity itself. As I have argued earlier it is the limited  range of this activity that is part of the reason why  you have this dichotomy between a relatively inactive majority who, because of their personal circumstances, feel excuded and unable to meaningfully contribute  and  a small minority who disrprorportionately shoulder the burden of Party work and are at risk of burnout.  We need to both deepen and broaden the interactions between members and also, though this is a separate matter,  find ways of more fully engaging sympathisers outside of the Party who after all are prospective future members Diversifying and expanding the range of party activity to encourage more people to contribute,  employing one or two full time staff to underpin this and take off some of the administrative burden currently placed on a hard pressed minority and fundamentally reorgainsing the decisionmaking structures of  the Party to create a much more collaborative networked organisation are, to my mind, the three central props of a radically transformed SPGB which will,  in my opinion, then be in much stronger position to finally arrest this serious decline to which it has sucumbed and for the first time in a long long while, enjoy some significant and sustained growth, Nothing less will do.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

We can hardly write about the evils of the gig economy and then rely on it ourselves.

But it's OK to rely on "proper employment", eh?  For the party to go down the road of paying comrades to do party work would not only be a retrograde step ideologically but fraught with all manner of difficulties. We can't even, it seems, make elementary returns to the Electoral Commission without landing ourselves in trouble and possible sanctions but here we are contemplating involvement in the paying of wages, national insurance, sickness benefit etc., and all that that necessarily entails.

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.I don't necessarily see this proposal as one which needs to involve "paying comrades to do party work". I think we should get in skilled and qualified paid administration worker to carry out the admin work for the party. I think people underestimate the skills and values of a good admin worker, if we were to hire non party staff to carry out admin duties, this would release volunteer Socialists from the mundane business tasks and allow them to use their activities more fruitfully in putting out the party case. Not only that, we would have those tasks done by a skilled worker who can do these tasks effectively and efficientlyAs to employment of staff, it is a fairly straightforward thing to do, I run a small company with two paid staff (me and my Partner) we pay a payroll service who we tell how much our salaries are and they work out all of the NI, tax, etc. to pay and then we write the cheques out. We pay them £27 a quarter to do it.

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Quote:

I don't necessarily see this proposal as one which needs to involve "paying comrades to do party work". I think we should get in skilled and qualified paid administration worker to carry out the admin work for the party. I think people underestimate the skills and values of a good admin worker, if we were to hire non party staff to carry out admin duties, this would release volunteer Socialists from the mundane business tasks and allow them to use their activities more fruitfully in putting out the party case. Not only that, we would have those tasks done by a skilled worker who can do these tasks effectively and efficiently

I'm struggling to think of which administrative duties, other than possibly the paying of wages (and I have my doubts about that), the party could safely and securely entrust to non-members.  Would they be let loose on the SS subscription or membership databases, perhaps free to talk to enquirers about socialism, be they callers to the premises or on the phone?  Could they become the General Secretary, Party Treasurer or Central Organiser, maybe serve on the Executive Committee or sub-committees?  Frankly the whole idea is too barmy to contemplate.

[Author]

Posts