Rank: Forum user 
|
To be fair to the mods, they have to apply the rules as set down so my gripe is not with them but IOSH who have set the rules.
Given that this issue is frequently being revived, it it is telling that rarely anyone from IOSH actually makes a post and address members comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Pragmatic SHEQ Officer wanted by Distribution Group
This posting has lasted 6minutes, so far!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Don't spoil it... it's now into 2nd page!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hector41649 wrote:Yes IOSH should do more for members,but do your conceited replies help anyone in particular to find work?
And why re visit these forums if you (obviously) couldnt possible gain anything from them? Spot on Hector I agree 100% correct me if wrong but those "letters" are the ones that get us the jobs and such arrogance is normally associated with jobs worths and those full of self importance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As far as I am aware, I do not think that Corporate members have ever had the commercial information regarding the saving IOSH makes with its commercial agreement with UBM, the publishers of SHP. Yes, the "IOSH Council" is likely to have considered this matter and been presented with the figures.
We have been through this over and over several times and the issue is to do with the commercial arm, IOSH Services is subsidising IOSH, the Charity. Specifically, its is to do with the contribution / saving with the SHP being published by UBM with IOSH having its representation on the SHP Editorial Board and the revenue UMB gets through job advertisements.
If you look at the latest annual report (2010), the membership fee is being subsidised to the tune of £ 73.03 per member or £ 2,731,000=00 in total in 2010. Obviously, not all of it is from the commercial agreement between IOSH & UBM for SHP, but there would be significant costs in trying to publish our own journal/magazine. Even IIRSM has a tie-up with HSW. it does not publish its own magazine.
IOSH has its Board of Trustees and the IOSH Council that looks after the overall interest of IOSH, and primarily its membership and I have faith in both. as they would have looked at the hard figures and taken the right decisions for overall interest and not to jeopardise IOSH's financial position.
If we have doubts even after looking at the figures, the way forward is via the IOSH council and speaking with you representative, i.e. the Council member your branch has supported.
It is easy to criticise, but perhaps those who are saying other professional bodies manage it should present the business case of IOSH publishing SHP in-house and generating surplus revenues that will subsidise the membership!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The comparision with RSC providing its members with a career advice service and its membership fee being a mere £ 30=00 more does not take into account the huge revenues RSC's publishing arm generates that subsidises the RSC http://www.rsc.org/Publi...g/AboutRSCPublishing.aspSome extracts from the 2009 RSC Trustees Report:- House Journal :- Revenue fell from £1,103K in 2008 to £987K in 2009, due to the recruitment market sufferingin the current economic climate which had a direct effect on recruitment advertising revenues. The expenditure increased from £1,767K in 2008 to £1,831K in 2009; with the main item of expenditure in this area being the postage costs of Chemistry World. Publishing:- Despite the economic downturn, 2009 saw an excellent performance from the RSC Publishing activities. In 2009 overall revenue increased to £26,231K from £23,972K in 2008, partly due to increased Journal subscription revenue. Overall Publishing expenditure increased from £14,094K in 2008 to £19,152K in 2009 due to an increased number of articles being published in RSC Journals during 2009, resulting in higher staff and overhead costs. http://www.rsc.org/image..._Report_tcm18-183426.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Perhaps IOSH could simply provide a page with each person who is looking for work, listing their "Linkedin" Profile link.
This would streamline the process, and if graded into membership categories, then one would just need to click on the link...taking the prospective employer to that persons profile.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.