Page 1 of 2

Membership Rates

Posted: 8 Jan 2020, 9:03pm
by The utility cyclist
Oldjohnw wrote:
Mick F wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:CUK's legal help seems worth the membership.
Exactly.
That's why I'm a member.

BC don't do it, and they don't give a discount for unwaged/OAP like CUK do.

Plus, they are pro-helmet and any organised rides under their banner insist on a helmet too. I wanted to do a ride at the Eden Project last summer, but they insisted on a helmet, so I told them where to stick their rules and their ride.

If I wear a helmet or not, it's got nothing to do with anyone but myself.


I don't do group rides so helmet to be or not be is my unpressured choice - if you don't count my wife!

Agree about the useful old person discount.

Personally I think CUK should stop the discount for older members, they get enough stuff for free as it is and have benefited massively from cheap housing, low taxation, higher annuities, lower pension ages etc
The older age to receive a discount should at the very least be raised, 75 would be acceptable.

Re: When will P Tuohy Leave?

Posted: 9 Jan 2020, 5:55am
by Mick F
The utility cyclist wrote: have benefited massively from cheap housing .......

Not that old nugget! :roll:

Housing for us in the 80's and 90's was massively expensive. Not in the purchase price compared to now, but in the mortgage repayments. 20% at one point.

You knocked two zeros off your mortgage, and that's what you payed per month.
Try that now?
Two hundred grand for a house and pay two thousand pounds a month for it? :lol: :lol:

We had a thirty grand mortgage latterly, and we paid three hundred quid a month. It very nearly crippled us.

Re: When will P Tuohy Leave?

Posted: 9 Jan 2020, 1:47pm
by The utility cyclist
Mick F wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote: have benefited massively from cheap housing .......

Not that old nugget! :roll:

Housing for us in the 80's and 90's was massively expensive. Not in the purchase price compared to now, but in the mortgage repayments. 20% at one point.

You knocked two zeros off your mortgage, and that's what you payed per month.
Try that now?
Two hundred grand for a house and pay two thousand pounds a month for it? :lol: :lol:

We had a thirty grand mortgage latterly, and we paid three hundred quid a month. It very nearly crippled us.

Housing in the 70s and 80s was ridiculously cheap as a % of incomes, rent or buying, it was cheap well into the 90s as well (I know because I bought mid 90s myself in my mid 20s), so sorry but I don't agree with your summation or if you're giving that as a counter to removing the age related discount.

At the very least to show some sort of fairness the age discount threshold should be 75, removing it altogether would be preferable, it's what, a less than £1/week currently for an individual, the unwaged I would still offer the discount but I would think they are few and far between - I was one for some while and recently paid for a 5 year in full once I got back into work which is still very cheap.

Re: When will P Tuohy Leave?

Posted: 9 Jan 2020, 1:58pm
by PH
The utility cyclist wrote:At the very least to show some sort of fairness the age discount threshold should be 75, removing it altogether would be preferable, i

Why not submit a motion to the AGM
Most of the older members I know are life members, they've received a sizeable discount after years of full subs, do you object to that as well?
There's also those older members who no longer ride, so receive little in the way of member benefits, but still like to contribute to something they support.

Re: Membership Rates

Posted: 9 Jan 2020, 6:14pm
by gaz
PH wrote:Why not submit a motion to the AGM

Because the Articles of Association say the the Trustees set the membership rates, the AGM can only approve/reject changes presented by the Trustees.

10.6 The Trustees may establish different classes of Members and recognise one or more classes of supporters who are not Members (but who may nevertheless be termed as “members”) and set out their respective rights and obligations (including payment of Membership Fees save that such fees may not be imposed until approved by the members).


11. MEMBERSHIP FEES The Charity may require Members to pay reasonable Membership fees to the Charity. The Membership fee for each class of Member may not be changed without the approval of the Members in general meeting.

Re: When will P Tuohy Leave?

Posted: 10 Jan 2020, 11:16pm
by The utility cyclist
PH wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:At the very least to show some sort of fairness the age discount threshold should be 75, removing it altogether would be preferable, i

Why not submit a motion to the AGM
Most of the older members I know are life members, they've received a sizeable discount after years of full subs, do you object to that as well?
There's also those older members who no longer ride, so receive little in the way of member benefits, but still like to contribute to something they support.

A life of full subs, how many years is that, how can you know how many years any one member that fits within the discount age grouo have been members for, why should that entitle you to get a discount? it has a direct effect on the ability to fund staff members within the charity, it has a direct detrimental effect on working towards the goals, I just don't see any benefit to CUK by keeping the discounts going except for the younger unwaged/students who are massively more likely to be unable to pay for a full membership than the discount donaters.

Re: When will P Tuohy Leave?

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 1:04am
by PH
The utility cyclist wrote:A life of full subs, how many years is that, how can you know how many years any one member that fits within the discount age grouo have been members for,

I don't, but that's how the discount works, the longer you've been a member the larger the discount.
How many years have you been a member? How much have you put in?
Wouldn't your energy be better spent recruiting new members rather than having a go at the older ones?

Membership rates

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 1:09am
by PH
gaz wrote:
PH wrote:Why not submit a motion to the AGM

Because the Articles of Association say the the Trustees set the membership rates, the AGM can only approve/reject changes presented by the Trustees.

Do you know the Articles off by heart, or do you have to search through them fresh each time something comes up?
I'd be surprised if there wasn't a way to word a motion about not giving preferential treatment on the basis of age without it conflicting with the Articles, but it's a small point. what I was suggesting was doing something, anything, if someone feels strongly about it, rather than just sounding off on a forum.

<EDIT : this digression split from the P Tuohy topic : Graham . . . . . .
: due to the "nasty" title of the old and formerly moribund topic ( which was unfortunately revived ). >

Re: Membership Rates

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 10:06am
by Paulatic
The utility cyclist wrote:
At the very least to show some sort of fairness the age discount threshold should be 75, removing it altogether would be preferable, it's what, a less than £1/week currently for an individual, the unwaged I would still offer the discount but I would think they are few and far between - I was one for some while and recently paid for a 5 year in full once I got back into work which is still very cheap.


Am I understanding this right?

It’s fine to have an unwaged discount because you’ve taken advantage of it. It’s not OK to give pensioners a discount unless they’ve qualified by living to the age of 75. So why choose 75 I thought they were the last of the better off pensioners. Anyone younger than 75 can tell you annuity rates tumbled from guaranteed double figures to a measly few percent.
Perhaps CUK have realised it’s better to keep them old uns, even at a reduced rate, or how else are they going to keep a database of people to target for a legacy.

Re: Membership Rates

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 10:39pm
by The utility cyclist
Paulatic wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
At the very least to show some sort of fairness the age discount threshold should be 75, removing it altogether would be preferable, it's what, a less than £1/week currently for an individual, the unwaged I would still offer the discount but I would think they are few and far between - I was one for some while and recently paid for a 5 year in full once I got back into work which is still very cheap.


Am I understanding this right?

It’s fine to have an unwaged discount because you’ve taken advantage of it. It’s not OK to give pensioners a discount unless they’ve qualified by living to the age of 75. So why choose 75 I thought they were the last of the better off pensioners. Anyone younger than 75 can tell you annuity rates tumbled from guaranteed double figures to a measly few percent.
Perhaps CUK have realised it’s better to keep them old uns, even at a reduced rate, or how else are they going to keep a database of people to target for a legacy.


I was bought a membership in 2009, I could not afford it myself, losing your job and nearly losing your house due to long term disability is no fun but I made the money to carry on the membership by selling the odd bike, the money also helped fund running a car as I couldn't cycle much if at all when I felt like crud.
Did I take advantage whilst my disability meant I couldn't earn, sure, it was a way to help me feel a part of something when I was 'lost', it's why when I started working (14 hours is all I can manage) I decided to commit to purchasing a 5 year membership to support the charity, I bought some raffle tickets knowing full well I'd win sod all but the money helps the cause even if I disagree with some of the things they do.

Changing matters to benefit the charity which in turn benefits us all is what I'm suggesting, 75 is an arbitrary number as a compromise, as I said I'd rather it be removed completely. We know, on average more pensioners are wealthier than the unwaged, this is why I think the unwaged should continue to get a discount.

Perhaps CUK are out of touch and don't realise that charging a flat fee won't lose many, how many unwaged members I wouldn't know but I suspect that there are many times the numbers of those in the 'OAP' category, thus charging a flat fee aside from the unwaged/young student would gain more for the charity in the long run even if some decided to give up being a member. If the 'old uns' want to leave the charity then that's their right to do so.

Re: Membership Rates

Posted: 12 Jan 2020, 9:12am
by Paulatic
The utility cyclist wrote:Changing matters to benefit the charity which in turn benefits us all is what I'm suggesting, 75 is an arbitrary number as a compromise, as I said I'd rather it be removed completely. We know, on average more pensioners are wealthier than the unwaged, this is why I think the unwaged should continue to get a discount.

Perhaps CUK are out of touch and don't realise that charging a flat fee won't lose many, how many unwaged members I wouldn't know but I suspect that there are many times the numbers of those in the 'OAP' category, thus charging a flat fee aside from the unwaged/young student would gain more for the charity in the long run even if some decided to give up being a member. If the 'old uns' want to leave the charity then that's their right to do so.


To be clear I wasn’t questioning why you had taken unwaged membership. I think that is a very good aspect, something I agree entirely with, of CUK membership and should be encouraged. I was wanting you to think why had you chosen aged 75?
So as you say for no good reason at all and yes I agree the avg pensioner will be far wealthier than the unwaged. So moving on from there if the average worker is more wealthier than a pensioner?
I’ve read that a pension is 30% of the average wage in the UK. On that basis I’d suggest why isn’t standard membership proportionally dearer for those working? Why not keep discounts and raise membership cost? If CUK were seen to be doing, facilitating, providing benefits to cyclists I would see no problem with a raise.
As a comparison for £54/ yr my squash club membership I get access 24/7 52 weeks a year to three heated courts and changing/ shower facilities. Yes I’ve more costs while playing but owning and using a bicycle isn’t cost free either. With a CUK membership the benefits I might be able to use are insurance, I’ve got, a regular magazine, access to cycling holidays I can’t afford, a discount to a shop I never use and a long drive to join in any club cycling. So maybe they can’t raise membership costs by much until they come across something to offer which makes it worthwhile.
That something for me was always the Birthday Rides but they are now less than a shadow of their former selves. As for the glow of helping 'hardship' projects I now give my money direct to local cycling needs.

Re: Membership rates

Posted: 12 Aug 2020, 8:35am
by PeterT
Now that the CUk have proposed at the AGM to remove the concessionary rate for those aged 65 and over, this will mean an increase from the current rate of £29? to £48. The proposal is, according to them based on a survey of approx 5000 people, 1000 being non members. Not exactly statistically significant. This is a massive hike. CUK will then means test a concessionary rate for those on benefits. Isnt it in the best interest of CUK to encourage those over 65 to cycle for health reasons instead of discouraging them. Although I am not against a level playing field for all those that can afford it, shouldnt CUK also consider a level playing field for the household rate. A family of 2 adults and 2 children will pay a household rate of £75 per year. If they paid sepatately it would be £140 per year. Why should 2 working adults with children get a discount?

Re: Membership rates

Posted: 12 Aug 2020, 9:07am
by Jdsk
PeterT wrote: Isnt it in the best interest of CUK to encourage those over 65 to cycle for health reasons instead of discouraging them.

It's in the interests of the individuals and the country. But the same is true for those under 65. Why should one group pay less or more than the other?

Thanks

Jonathan

Re: Membership rates

Posted: 12 Aug 2020, 10:04am
by Oldjohnw
But there are groups which will pay less - without means testing. Families.

Re: Membership rates

Posted: 12 Aug 2020, 10:33am
by thirdcrank
The green-eyed monster rears its ugly head.

I don't see any clear plan - ie it looks like wishful thinking - to raise membership levels. There seems to be an imperative to increase income and assuming that the great majority of the older membership will stump up looks like a gamble.

I don't think there's been any explanation of how the various discounted membership rates cost the charity anything other than lost income. I could imagine that apart from the cost of posting the magazine, older members cost the charity little. I suspect - without any way of knowing - that quite a lot of the older end continue their membership out of loyalty and a sharp increase in the rate may cause some reassessment of spending.

On the magazine, which surely would attract zero sales on the open market, AIUI, the advertising income is largely dependent on audited circulation.