Low wage membership

[Claireysmurf]

I'm not sure how often the topic arises but I am a fairly low wage earner. I find it hard to justify the full membership fee, but haven't been out of work since January and haven't been a student since last year.

Should there be a low wage membership fee? If so, how much should that threshold be?

A post on here about an accident got me thinking about third party insurance...

[Mick F]

I think the whole subject is open to review.

I don't work.
I'm retired and don't earn a "wage" therefore I'm a member under the "unwaged" rates.

I make no apologies for this even though my pension is probably more than some folk earn, and combined with the fact that our mortgage was paid off years ago and our children are grown up and long-since flown the coop, we have a reasonable level of disposable income. Unless the CTC change the rules, I'll continue with Unwaged thank you very much.

I must say, that at no time has CTC ever checked that I'm unwaged. They have never asked me, nor wanted to see any proof of my status.

Morally, you have a better claim on a membership discount than me, but until they change the rules ........................

[robgul]

As Mick suggests it's all a bit woolly ... but to start some form of means testing to assess membership rates makes no sense - the bureaucracy is bad enough now.

I receive the old age pension, plus some other pensions etc and pay the CTC "unwaged" or whatever they call it subscription.

Perhaps a more valid issue on subscription cost, opening an already writhing can of worms, is value for money (or "what do you get for your money?") . . . . . which is perhaps where the "affiliated club" route with a subscription of about £15 a person kicks in.

Rob

[NUKe]

In line with other charitable bodies perhaps there should be a recommended donation with a minimum to cover costs for everbody

[Mick F]

Yes, that could work.

The CTC was a club before, now it's a charity. Therefore the membership charges should be reviewed.

[lescargo]

Yes they should be reviewed.
What is all the extra income received from change to charitable organisation being spent on?

[Psamathe]

I can get complex. Low wage in some areas might be considered different from low wage in other areas (e.g. "I live in London/Oxford/Bristol/..."). Then you could find people who whilst above the threshold e.g. have a large family to support (i.e. low disposable income).

And as somebody else has pointed out, at what point does the bureaucracy cost get too expensive ?

What about a "reduced benefits" membership option for those on less than some threshold income ? e.g. no 3rd party insurance, magazine available through electronic download (pdf) rather than printed/posted ...

Ian

[Si]

When I was claiming the reduced membership due to being a student I think that they took my word for it, dunno if they still do. But if we introduce a reduced membership for the low waged, I wonder if they'd still take people's word for it or would it involve the dreaded means-testing?

My view is, as said above, there should be a standard membership and a 'reduced' membership, both of which are open to anyone, but with the latter you don't get the bells and whistles. The current unemployed membership should also continue.

Of course, the other way to do it is to start up a "CTC Forum Riders Group", affiliate that to the CTC and then everyone can join as affiliate members at £16 + group membership (which would be group affiliation cost of around £70 divided by the number of members who join)

Normal caveat: I'm a 'lifer' and so no longer pay a yearly sub, thus I can happily chuck ideas about knowing that they won't impact on me.

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the only reasonably fair form of income-based subscription is to make it dependent on evidence of receiving means-tested benefits eg income supprt, earnings-based jobseekers or pension credit. The real plus with this is that the govt has already gone through the odious and onerous admin of the system. AFAIK<, It's also what most organisations use as their definition of entitlement to "concessions."

On the matter of membership-lite, I'm not clear what could be trimmed to give a significant reduction. Third party insurance is given as the reason for many riders retaining their membership, and they do say it's not expensive to provide. The last time I suggested a "no-mag membership" somebody (cj?) explained that the ad's made it self-financing. Afaik, the CTC makes a (probably small) profit from the collective conditional fee arrangement of Accident Line. The only obvious thing I can see left is something which didn't allow participation in DA rides which seems a bit self-defeating.

[Psamathe]

IMO, the only reasonably fair form of income-based subscription is to make it dependent on evidence of receiving means-tested benefits eg income supprt, earnings-based jobseekers or pension credit. The real plus with this is that the govt has already gone through the odious and onerous admin of the system. AFAIK<, It's also what most organisations use as their definition of entitlement to "concessions."

You are assuming the gov. systems are sensible. I am unwaged, and get nothing from the gov. and, having recently filled in my tax return, found my income way below basic JSA. I did try to get JSA a couple of years ago but my situation basically "slipped through their net" and it ended-up I could jump through all their hoops in a futile attempt to find work (which they pretty well admitted would be futile) and all I would achieve is they would effectively maintain my NI record.

So, I think "unwaged" if a far safer "catch-all". And I would never have joined if I had had to pay full price because I was not "recognised" by the government as being in their pre-defined categories.

Also, not all organisations follow the government categorisations. I also maintain "professional membership" of the society for my (professional) discipline and they also follow the "unwaged" definition. My own experience (being somewhat "sensitive" to the financial impacts for membership fees) is that more and more organisations are "breaking" with the government categorisations and moving to a simple "waged/unwaged" system.

Ian

[Si]

The only obvious thing I can see left is something which didn't allow participation in DA rides which seems a bit self-defeating.

"DA"

Even affiliate membership allows you to ride with any MG sio I couldn't really see that being cut. I guess you just have to compare affiliate with standard and see what the missing benefit are (and hope that half the membership done thus join the "Fridays").
The latest blurb infers that there are to be new member benefits announced..wonder what they'll be?

[thirdcrank]

... The latest blurb infers that there are to be new member benefits announced..wonder what they'll be?

How about personal domestiques? When you are ready to go out, a strong rider arrives who is trained to pace you at just the right speed, deal with punctures and carry things like spare togs and bottles. If you were out with a group, your domestique would either lead you out or give a handsling in the charge for the tea stop. Cost could bekept down by dressing it up as work-experience, possibly leading on to greater things. (eg a place in the CTC racing team or with Wiggle, as I'm only dreaming. )

[Si]

... The latest blurb infers that there are to be new member benefits announced..wonder what they'll be?

How about personal domestiques? When you are ready to go out, a strong rider arrives who is trained to pace you at just the right speed, deal with punctures and carry things like spare togs and bottles. If you were out with a group, your domestique would either lead you out or give a handsling in the charge for the tea stop. Cost could bekept down by dressing it up as work-experience, possibly leading on to greater things. (eg a place in the CTC racing team or with Wiggle, as I'm only dreaming. )

don't laugh, you are almost describing what I already do for a local cycling project (apart from the handsling to the cafe - I leave 'em to fend for themselves there)!

[gaz]

"DA"

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... inal_0.doc

• Groups must no longer use words such as ‘District Association’ or ‘Section’ in their titles as these terms are now redundant.

Yet it is a term still officially used by National Office.

CTC Third Party and Organisers’ Liability Insurance
- Frequently Asked Questions
...
33 Is the Cover CTC provides to its DAs the same as that provided to Affiliated Clubs?

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... stions.pdf

If its good enough for them....

[Ian Evans]

The unwaged membership should be changed to low wage membership there are a lot of members on low wages paying full membership while other members on high incomes are claiming unwaged membership hence paying significantly less