[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Personally I'd prefer the self-employed option, but we've set up a committee to go into the ins and outs of all this. Let's wait and see what they come up with. The rather succesful survey was only the first, introductory part of their work.

Like Gwynn has explained it seems that the course of self-employment is in fact and by law not an option.  Indeed there's a conflict of interest with the law and the post being an elected full-time position and paid.

[Brian]

HollyHead wrote:

 [Remember these rates are ten years old! and also lets bear in mind London cost of living rates]

The present average payment in London (2017) for a full-time Office Manager is £31,789 p.a. and for an office administrator its £20,748 p.a.

[Brian]

robbo203 wrote:

I am saying that what we should be doing is adapting the nature of activity to suits the circumstances of the members  themselves – NOT expect the members to adapt to the organisation and the way it has been doing things for the past 113 years or so.   We need to expand the range of activities that the Party currently engages so as to give people  much more in the way of opportunities to participate meaningfully in what the Party is doing in ways that suit them and fire their enthusiasm. 

Totally agree, but this bespoke tailored approach has to be a planned process of project management so there's a steady growth in socialist activity. Project managment ensures there's constant assessment and evaluation on the successes and failures on party growth at each stage of the project.  This precludes a pilot module so the project feeds on 'Best Practice' every step of the way.In regards for the need to expand the range of party activity the committee has already had two brainstorming sessions on this subject.  And no doubt there'll be several more before we write up the report.  So far we have identified that our IT needs upgrading and further applications and platforms procured to enable a general expansion in socialist activity. However, we have also identified there are several activities which can be developed now using the present IT.  Unfortunately, until we have a General Secretary in post with the necessary skills and experience to kickstart them, this is not going to happen.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As a political party, our effective functional membership is less than a hundred. And it is on that figure we must now base all our decisions and proposals, and no longer a fictitious card-carrying number. 

Just because a total of 87 members responded this is not to say its a final figure on party activity.  I strongly suspect that many members made a distinction between what they consider to be party activity and socialist activity. If I'm correct it means directing our efforts at getting rid of that false distinction.[/quote]

Quote:

Perhaps, as Gnome suggests for his own branch, a paring of the dead leaves is necessary, a weeding out, so to permit healthy growth of the Party.I'm not happy with that suggestion and will be pleased if it can be rebuffed with a more optimistic suggestion.

Quote:

 A weeding out wont serve any useful purpose when the problem is for the party to engage with the isolated members and to get them involved in activity of a socialist nature.  This is not to say that the membership data base needs bringing up-to-date when the distribution and returns made this a foregone conclusion.  But it only needs bringing up-to-date in respect of those members who are no longer with us and passed away.

 [/quote]

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).

That's good, isn't it?

Yes its a good return in respect of surveys generally, which usually require at least two returns per thousand. But for myself I would have prefered around 100 returns so it represented the views of 30-33% of the membership.  Nonetheless, its a sufficient total for the purpose of collating trends and patterns so we have a rounded view of what is actually occurring in regards to party activity and the members thoughts on organisation and structure.

[Brian]

jondwhite wrote:

 At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.

[/quote]Yes the party does have a member whose  a highly qualified IT 'Consultant'.  He's currently the Assistant Secretary and a member of the Internet Committee.  No he's not employed by the party.

[Brian]

The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

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.

Not true.  I know of two members who get paid for maintenance work at HO.  Also the current upgrade of this site involves paying one ex-member and a non-member several thousand for their services.

[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.

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Matt wrote:

Gnome wrote:

In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.

I don't think paying for this will resolve that difficulty. Paying for training of a willing treasurer and assistant treasurer might be money well spent, also expenses of traveling, but the motivation has to be one of service I would say.

Absolutely spot on.  I don't recall us having a particular problem filling these posts in the past but that was when we apparently had more members who were both committed and competent.  And personally I'm ideologically opposed to paying socialists to do party work.

Your ideological opposistion contains volumes of past traditions.  Time for an update it seems.  For instance, name one organisation composed of volunteers who are not supported by paid staff?  Also why imply that if we had paid posts they could be filled by persons who are not committed and competent?There are ways and means to get around this issue.  Indeed we are half way there already with every party election calling for a supporting statement.  With suitable adjustments this supporting statement could include a CV listing both.

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Or a combined paid position, Brian….two birds with one stone

We agree on something, Alan. Yes, a combined General Secretary/Treasurer also doing the work of the Head Office Organiser and Enquiries Committee. Paid, but not necessarily employed. That was the idea behind the Investment Committee — to provide a regular income to pay someone rather than (of course) getting a better rate of interest on our legacies.

That's a possibility Alan but like Adam is suggesting there are other tasks which a General Secretary could be included in the TOR/remit. But why stop there there?  Why not set up an Admin Section – under the remit of the GS – composed of af all the general workload being done at HO?Also if its a paid post it would require continuity of three years.  Which means the post is elected every three years.  But again why stop there?  Why not make all party elections every three years?

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment. 

So why is this?  Do members consider that the posts carry too much responsibility?  Or is it because the posts are unpaid?

In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.

Which suggest to me they should be paid posts.

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment. 

So why is this?  Do members consider that the posts carry too much responsibility?  Or is it because the posts are unpaid?

[Brian]

robbo203 wrote:

As you might know, I recently re-joined the SPGB and in response to the questionnaire being sent around to members, I put forward a number of suggestions of my own as to how to stimulate greater involvement by members – (and also sympathisers incidentally, since the importance of sympathisers should not be overlooked and a greater role should be made available to them and their active support solicited in my view).   These suggestions spring from a conviction that a major reason for low level of activity and the decline in membership has to do with what can be summed up in a single word: ISOLATION.  It is because of the brute fact of physical isolation that members feel powerless and disheartened about making any kind of impact.  Some of them then lose interest, become disillusioned and drift way 

I can reveal that ISOLATION is one pattern – amongst others – I have observed from the responses.

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Not so different from my own appraisal, Brian, and i won't nit-pick over your list.Now eliminate those functions that can be carried out equally as well by alternative methods that does not require a substantial premises on a high-cost thoroughfare. 

There are none which can be eliminated for they are all necessary to the effective administration of the party.

[Author]

Posts