Why Does the CTC Discriminate Against Joint/ Family Members?

[LollyKat]

The sending of membership cards will be contracted out to someone. The CTC will supply a data file containing a list of names, addresses, and membership numbers, and the contractor will laser/inkjet print the details on pre-printed form letters/cards, which they then mechanically put into separate envelopes and send off to the post.
Putting several membership letters into the same envelope won't be an option.

My husband and I have joint membership to the RSPB and Historic Scotland. Each year we get from them ONE membership letter with TWO cards attached. The RSPB ones are thin card that peel off the letter, Historic Scotland ones are plastic, like bank cards.

Why can't the CTC (sorry, cuk) do this????

[croissante]

It is up to the couple to decide how to run their own affairs. If the man applies without asking the woman, or the other way round, then any discrimination exists in the couple, not the CTC.

It is not the CTC's job to cure discrimination and sexism within couples, or to assume it exist because of the way they apply for membership.

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

If not, what is the problem?

Now that the CTC is a charity I can see the advantages in spotting discrimination where none really exists, as it helps with grant applications.

But I don't want the CTC going down that cynical path.

I respectfully must disagree. You say it is not the CTC's job to "cure discrimination and sexism", but I would argue that everyone has a role to play in this. Discrimination does not necessarily require intent; if the outcome of your actions largely leaves one group of people disadvantaged then I would argue that one is discriminating. In this case, in making a small change by sending membership cards to all members (which I imagine should only cost an extra tuppence), the CTC can help foster a stronger feeling of belonging within the organisation. You state that the CTC is/was primarily for touring cyclists who are largely middle age men, but the fact of the matter is that the CTC has many female members who should not be made to feel like second class citizens simply because there may be less of them.

[Heltor Chasca]

It is up to the couple to decide how to run their own affairs. If the man applies without asking the woman, or the other way round, then any discrimination exists in the couple, not the CTC.

It is not the CTC's job to cure discrimination and sexism within couples, or to assume it exist because of the way they apply for membership.

Is there any evidence that this matter is an issue with the wider membership?

If not, what is the problem?

Now that the CTC is a charity I can see the advantages in spotting discrimination where none really exists, as it helps with grant applications.

But I don't want the CTC going down that cynical path.

I respectfully must disagree. You say it is not the CTC's job to "cure discrimination and sexism", but I would argue that everyone has a role to play in this. Discrimination does not necessarily require intent; if the outcome of your actions largely leaves one group of people disadvantaged then I would argue that one is discrimination. In this case, in making a small change by sending membership cards to all members (which I imagine should only cost an extra tuppence), the CTC can help foster a stronger feeling of belonging within the organisation. You state that the CTC is/was primarily for touring cyclists who are largely middle age men, but the fact of the matter is that the CTC has many female members who should not be made to feel like second class citizens simply because there may be less of them.

I like this

[Psamathe]

...In this case, in making a small change by sending membership cards to all members (which I imagine should only cost an extra tuppence), the CTC can help foster a stronger feeling of belonging within the organisation.....

They are getting a reduced membership. If both parties want to be treated equally then they should purchase two full memberships. Otherwise it is down to the couple to determine who will be listed as the main member for correspondence. I agree with backbite in that it is a matter for the couple to decide not for the CTC to decide.

And if the CTC has to introduce significant changes to its membership processing to e.g. send out one letter with multiple cards, etc. the entire "financial saving" case for family membership disappears anyway.

Changes to software systems are not always cheap. Just posting a letter these days is not cheap.

Ian

[LollyKat]

Family membership means that only one magazine is sent out - so saving not only the cost of the mag but the extra postage to send a second one.

Cutting back to just one card is relatively recent.

[Tangled Metal]

Family membership means that only one magazine is sent out - so saving not only the cost of the mag but the extra postage to send a second one.

Cutting back to just one card is relatively recent.

That's what I was thinking. The cost of two cards over one card is a red herring, the real savings come elsewhere I reckon. If they used to send out two cards for this class then was there a reduction in the fee at that time? If not then if cost of 2 cards is an issue then back when the second card was stopped you'd expect a reduction unless CTC are money grabbing beepbeeps.

Personally I think the application could have a check box for one or two cards which then saves the second joint member from having to apply for it. Plus anyone who isn't bothered then you get their agreement for one card. Give the choice at the time of applying for membership and you won't have an issue. You'll end up sending a second card out anyway to those for whom it is an issue.

[Psamathe]

Family membership means that only one magazine is sent out - so saving not only the cost of the mag but the extra postage to send a second one....

When I was a member I found Cycle Magazine took little more than a few minutes and I'd have happily done without it (for a reduced membership fee). They should maybe consider allowing people to select an electronic download (e.g. pdf format) and have a reduced membership fee. would seem fairer and would not mean they were discriminating against single/unattached people (or those with no families).

Ian

[gaz]

It would mean that they start discriminating against members without on-line access who still want receive the magazine.

[JohnW]

It would mean that they start discriminating against members without on-line access who still want receive the magazine.

Absolutely gaz - such a move wouldn't get my vote.

[geomannie]

Thanks to everyone who voted and replied to this thread. The comments were enlightening and can be broadly summarised as follows.

• Those who agreed with the proposition that joint/family members are full members and should therefore receive a membership card by default. This is the model adopted by the National Trust and other charity organisations.

• Those who suggested that the terms of the joint/family membership were clear and fair, specifying that only the principle signatory had the right to get a card by default.

• Others raised the question of how much the CTC saved by only sending out a single card by default. Was the money saved on a joint family membership (£60) vs 2 single memberships (2 x £43 = £86) reliant on the saving of the issuing of a membership card(s) to be viable?

• It was suggested that the joint/family membership was inappropriate in this day and age and only single memberships should be available.

• Some people took disagreed strongly with the proposition that the policy of only sending out a card to the principal signatory might be discriminatory against women, either intentionally or unintentionally. The initial proposition was based on the idea that men are considerably more likely to cycle than women and are thus more likely to be the principal signatory in a joint/family application; ergo, their predominantly female partners will disproportionately receive fewer membership cards by default. The point was made that it is up to the couple to decide who makes the application.

• Arguably the most telling comment is the actual poll voting, as of the 4th August, standing at 27 to 2 for the proposition that all full members should receive cards.

The question of joint cost is worth considering here further. A joint/family application with 2 members is £26 cheaper than 2 single memberships. There are 6 magazines a year at a cover price of £18 (6 x £3) with second class postage at about £7.20 (6 x large letter second class). This sums to £25.20, just under the saving on the joint membership. If the CTC are holding back on issuing additional cards by default for the sake of the £0.80 difference, then they could consider looking at the price of the joint membership. If cards could be given to everyone paying £60.80 for a joint membership, who would complain?

There is also another issue here, and that is on membership numbers. As a political organisation the CTC wants membership numbers as large as possible. I strongly suspect that they have made the joint/family membership price relatively low to encourage joint applications. You can imagine the scenario in many households, “I am joining the CTC, oh look you can join (and the kids) as well for only an additional £17”. Every single name on the joint application will be claimed by the CTC as a full member and membership numbers mean political clout (as well as the additional £17). The cheaper joint/family membership is very much in the CTC's interest.

In conclusion, it seems that members of this forum broadly agree (strongly agree on the poll) with proposition that every full member should get a membership card by right. We shall use the complaints procedure highlighted to us by gaz to take this up with the CTC quoting this thread.

Thanks again to all for your time.