Organisation update

[robbo203]

 

Brian wrote:

 Obviously, because your brain is focused on not paying the rate for the job you have forgotten the lessons learned here:  http://struggle.ws/pdfs/tyranny.pdfAnd we are talking about a job that will carry a lot more responsibility and working in London and not the backend of Spain!

  Not quite sure what the “tyranny of structurelessness” has to do with the rate for the job, Brian.  I only suggested a figure somewhere in between the two figures you provided for Office Manager ( £31,789 p.a) and office administrator (£20,748 p.a).   Of course I understand the job will entail considerable responsibility but if what you are saying means that it should therefore attract a higher rate of pay than the £25K I suggested, then fine.  So be it.  What rate of pay do you suggest in that case? I’m just a country boy from, as you say, the “backend of Spain” and 25K to me will be a small fortune.  I’m quite happy to leave the question of the appropriate rate of pay for working in London to those who have the misfortune of living in London; it’s the principle of having a full time paid worker at HO I’m more concerned with. 

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

I have a worry that we may well have a number of applicants for the job and that the rejected will feel aggrieved.There might be office politicking (for a better word), in the competition for the job, especially if it is only on a yearly contract. Complaints and protests about how the duty is carried out by the incumbent by those hoping to replace him or her, in the coming yearThere may well be a lot of lobbying for the job by the applicants and their respective supporters. In fact, it may well be a motive in some members standing for the EC if it is the selection committee for the job applicants.And these are not hypothetical concerns for anyone who has been active in his or her trade union and seen the jockeying for the full-time release and well-rewarded union jobs with generous honoraria  – i am not talking about those Party politics interference. Plus my query on those from outside London and the need for accommodation has not been addressed. Or is it to be assumed that only Londoners are eligible for the job?

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

Actually , offering a temporary contract to the person concerned would, if anything, incentivise that person to make a big impact  in order to secure the contract for the following year.

I have a worry that we may well have a number of applicants for the job and that the rejected will feel aggrieved.There might be office politicking (for a better word), in the competition for the job, especially if it is only on a yearly contract. Complaints and protests about how the duty is carried out by the incumbent by those hoping to replace him or her, in the coming yearThere may well be a lot of lobbying for the job by the applicants and their respective supporters. In fact, it may well be a motive in some members standing for the EC if it is the selection committee for the job applicants.And these are not hypothetical concerns for anyone who has been active in his or her trade union and seen the jockeying for the full-time release and well-rewarded union jobs with generous honoraria  – i am not talking about those Party politics interference. Plus my query on those from outside London and the need for accommodation has not been addressed. Or is it to be assumed that only Londoners are eligible for the job?

Offering a temporary contract with a lower rate of salary is the last thing you want to do. If you go down that road you can forget all about continuity and sustainability (see my link on tyranny). In fact we need to be thinking along the lines of ensuring the post holder is in post for three years so both are maintained and enables any transition to be as smooth as possible.You also seem to be thinking that if the post is paid the EC does the selection.  Not so under the present party rules. Nonetheless, if such a post does become our new reality it will by necessity mean quite a few changes in the rules.The ones that immediately come to mind: is the post remains an elected post by the membership, but every three years for the purposes of sustainability and continuity; due to the conflict of interest all paid party offices are not allowed to stand for the EC; the present election statement becomes a CV.

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

You also seem to be thinking that if the post is paid the EC does the selection.  Not so under the present party rules. Nonetheless, if such a post does become our new reality it will by necessity mean quite a few changes in the rules.

If a change in the Party Rulebook is going to be required nothing will be able to be done until at least the second half of 2019 when the votes on the motions discussed at 2019 Conference are counted. It's not clear what you are proposing anyway. You seem to be suggesting that it's one of the existing Party officers, presumably the General Secretary, who should be paid as someone not selected by the EC, but the General Secretary is subject to annual re-election so any employment contract would have to be temporary…One of the remits of the Ad Hoc Committee of which you are a member (not the only one) is to propose any changes of rule that may be necessary to implement their recommendations. Which are going to have to be a lot more precise than the brainstorming going on here.As to the salary, when we discussed this at our branch £1000 a month was suggested as reasonable to do the present, part-time work at Head Office. If converted into a full time post that gives a figure nearer Robbo's, which is also roughly Lenin's famous "workers average wage" which I assume is what the SWP and SPEW's full-timers get.

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

It seems to me that we are saying on the one hand that we are organised and plan to create a world wide social revolution which will possibly be one of the most important events in human history and will involve billions of people on a world wide scale, however on the other hand having a full time employee might just be a bit difficult for us to get our heads around!I have run a small company, mainly employing myself and my Partner, for the last 13 years. I have acted as a consultant to several charities, etc. who have gone down the employment route. I have also helped put together a staff team to provide the care for two family members using the direct payments model, which employed several staff over several years. The process is fairly straightforward. Yes you need to have certain policies and procedures, but I have copies of current approved policies and procedures, etc. and am happy to offer advice, adapt any of the Policies and Procedures I have in current use and I am sure the woman that does all of my wage slips and calculates tax returns for us, would be happy of the work, she charges buttons and it keeps you compliant.There are literally 10s of thousands of small organisations employing staff, I refuse to believe that the process is too complicated for the SPGB. Lots of clubs, organisations, etc. have elected paid officials (Working Men's Clubs, Golf Clubs, Allotment Societies, etc.) so having a one year elected paid worker should be very easy.

You have to admit, tho Tim,  it is amusing to observe such a fiasco.  Everyone in the organisation takes part in the interview of the prospective candidates!!  Should be sorted by 2025 and that would be really fast for the SPGB.And Robbo's call for 'let's be daring' is priceless. Surely he shouldn't have to make such a plea to the only revolutionaries in the village.As for candidates, are there any?? You would have to be insane. Not just one Hunter breathing down your neck but a hundred

[robbo203]

Vin wrote:

 You have to admit, tho Tim,  it is amusing to observe such a fiasco.  Everyone in the organisation takes part in the interview of the prospective candidates!!  Should be sorted by 2025 and that would be really fast for the SPGB.And Robbo's call for 'let's be daring' is priceless. Surely he shouldn't have to make such a plea to the only revolutionaries in the village.As for candidates, are there any?? You would have to be insane. Not just one Hunter breathing down your neck but a hundred

Indeed, Vin.  You would expect an organisation with an incredibly bold objective to be at least a little bold in its behaviour. I really cannot understand how any member can object to the idea of a full time paid officer, given the huge benefits it could potentially deliver.  The project is completely do-able as Tim has pointed out and the Party has more than enough money to fund it.  It’s really just a case of tweaking the terms of employent in such a way as to put to rest any nagging doubts that members might entertain. Of course the remit of the officer needs to be carefully considered beforehand and put down in writing.   I think it is very important that it should include, not just some of the basic administrative work of the Party but serious proactive political work too so the candidate for this post would need to be an effective propagandist as well, with good verbal and writing skills.  In my view, yet another very important aspect of the job should be to initiate ways and means of encouraging the currently inactive membership of the Party to become more active and I have already put forward a number of proposals as to how this could be done. I think the post should definitely be a temporary contract – partly because I believe this will provide a strong incentive for the person concerned to make a good impression if he or she wants the contract to be renewed at the end of its term and partly because it gives the Party greater flexibility in the event that its financial circumstances change.  However, I take Brian's point about the need for continuity.  Perhaps a compromise figure of a two year contract could be put forward, with the possibility of the contract being renewed after the 2 years is up.  I dont think the salary it attracts should be too generous or too mean, but middling.  I put forward the figure of 25K per year which sounds about right to me but I am quite happy to be guided by others such as members who actually live in London as to what is an appropriate sum.  I definitely dont think that this paid officer should be the Gen Sec and agree with Adam on this point.  Rather I think the Gen Sec should be the liaison person who oversees the work of this officer on behalf of the EC As for the process of appointing this officer, I really don’t see the need for the Party as a whole to “elect” such a person.  That’s just ludicrous, impractical and democratic tokenism.  How on earth is a member like myself living in Spain to assess the relative merits of one candidate for the post vis-a-vis another when I might never have even met either in person and know absolutely nothing about them. Seriously, the only really practical way as I see it is for the EC to set aside one day for interviewing candidates at HO itself and that these candidates be interviewed in depth by the whole EC.   I’m would be quite happy to trust the judgement of the EC as to who is the most suitable candidate. I doubt there will be a flood of candidates for the post especially if the salary it attracts is only an average one but it would be nice to think it is not primarily for the salary that members would apply (and it goes without saying the post should only be open to members thenselves).  If the vacancy for the post attracted say half a dozen applicants then, speaking personally, I would be quite pleased with such a result.

[Anonymous]

If I were living in Great Britain  I would have taken a party post without any salary. Due to my discriminatory experience with the WSM forum, I would not take any post at the present time. I come from a political school which we use to dedicate our lives to the socialist/communist party. When I move to Spain I would apply to become a member of the SPGB 

[Anonymous]

Any update on this. I note KSRB has sent a resolution to the EC, would it be pertinent to discuss it here? Motion to EC.Motion 6. Cox/Fabian. “The Branch is concerned that the EC’s consultation has not carried out the instructions of Conference 2017 (Motion 1) to consult members on their views to support the “urgent review” called for by the motion, and by omitting the full text of the motion, has failed to provide members with the context of the survey, but instead has presented members with a series of random questions (with pre-set answers), few of which are related to the consultation demanded by the motion” AGREED 4-0-0. 

[ALB]

I think that earlier on in this thread someone suggested that we should also survey ex- members, but has anyone else noticed that most of the nasty discussions going on here at the moment involve ex-members. At least 5 of them. I think the conclusion of such a survey would be that in the past we tended to atract cantankerous types. As to other ex-members, we know that a dozen or so who have left recently have gone reformist and lined up behind the Corbynite Labour Party. They should know better of course but at least we'd get a more usful discussion with them than with the lot we've currently got..Anyway, the good news is that the report on the surve should be out this weekend.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I think the conclusion of such a survey would be that in the past we tended to attract cantankerous types.  As to other ex-members, we know that a dozen or so who have left recently have gone reformist and lined up behind the Corbynite Labour Party. They should know better of course but at least we'd get a more usful discussion with them than with the lot we've currently got..

Hmm, that's debatable of course.  However, we've finally reached the stage, and it very much goes against the grain, when we have to remove the "cantankerous types" from this forum once and for all.  The self-indulgent antics of these prepubescent idiots, which in one or two cases have been relentless, is doing the party irreparable harm.

[Anonymous]

Yes perhaps we should remove all users who draw attention to the party's short comings in the area of internal democracy and while we are on, delete all past posts that have revealed any weaknesses. Present the party as squeaky clean.Alternativey you could remove those who would like to suppress any political dessent, which is anti socialist. Wouldn't that be even less attractive? As a positive suggestion:  Perhaps separate the forum into two – One for discussing the party's case and one for internal organisation. Simples.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Perhaps separate the forum into two – One for discussing the party's case and one for internal organisation. Simples.

What we did have with the Yahoo lists were for non-members read-only SPINTCOM – for party administration and SPOPEN for internal party policy and position debates and WSM FORUM being the only list that non-members could participate in and contribute to.Perhaps there is a case that parts of this forum are made redundant and party-relevant issues are returned to SPINTCOM and SPOPEN but i have to say there will be some who quite justifiably will see this as a surrender to disruptive forum-users and a retreat from the current policy of strict moderation by the existing moderator who's respect i think is increasingly deserved considering the challenges he is constantly facing. I myself found the acrimonious disputes too much to continue as moderator. And i'm nearing the stage that even visiting the forum and witnessing as ALB says, the self-destructive antics of supposed comrades too much to bear. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

[Anonymous]

Alan, it is the people holding grudges from years ago that are causing the problem. I only reply to posts that refer to me or ask a question of me. I have begged to move on. It is for the moderator to control these members and posts and to nip the problem in the bud. No one believes that abuse should be tolerated and abusive comments should be removed which would make the forum a safer environment.Apart from all the abuse of late, from people still bitter from something alleged to have happened years ago,  I was even attacked when trying to contribute to this thread. Is there any need for it?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/suggestion-close-web-forumsAnd here you are dragging up the past, is there any need for it?Three warnings about abusive comments should result in permanent suspension for non party members and a reort to the EC for party members.  

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I think that earlier on in this thread someone suggested that we should also survey ex- members, but has anyone else noticed that most of the nasty discussions going on here at the moment involve ex-members. At least 5 of them. I think the conclusion of such a survey would be that in the past we tended to atract cantankerous types. As to other ex-members, we know that a dozen or so who have left recently have gone reformist and lined up behind the Corbynite Labour Party. They should know better of course but at least we'd get a more usful discussion with them than with the lot we've currently got..Anyway, the good news is that the report on the surve should be out this weekend.

They are not reformists , they are renegade

[Author]

Posts