Age discrimination in membership fees

[glambert]

I suggest a student discount rather than an under 21s discount.

How would you go about proving that people are students? Age verification is tricky enough.

[epriezka]

After those particularly detailed and informative replies, I did some research of my own.

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (page 13) - that wonderfully useful document that we've been using in our arguments against the DEB and similar laws etc. states;

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as [...] age [...] shall be prohibited.

You're misreading this rule. Charging people different prices isn't 'discrimination' in the sense this rule intends. The word has only a narrow sense in this rule. If given the broad sense you intend, then there would be a problem with: nightclubs having 'ladies night' where women get in for free whilst men pay; governments giving bigger benefits to really old people; and fashion models being of above-average height and beauty whilst being of below-average weight. It's not enough to understand laws based on your interpretation of the meaning of the words. There is a two-way relationship between interpretation and application in practice.

And if that doesn't convince you, do some research. For example, check out the membership rates of the Labour Party. I'm guessing they consider themselves compliant with the rule you highlight...

[Again, I don't wish to suggest that I have a problem with this personally, I just would like an answer to what seems like a fairly straightforward question - the answer "because the exec decided to on the toss of a coin" would do, but I hope there is a better one.]

The answer is that the rule was a compromise to suit the people who moaned that a tenner was too much for young people and/or students. Put more nicely, I listened to people and made a judgment call based on what supporters were saying and also the observation that youth-oriented discounts are not that unusual for organizations/commercial propositions with a potentially high hit rate with young people and I guessed, based on the opinions being voiced, that we'd make more money with a much lower rate for young people. The rule was formulated with respect to age as opposed to educational status because we don't have the capability/manpower to check educational status, so a similar result could be more easily achieved through an aged-based rule.

It's accurate to say I made the decision on fees. The rest of the exec lived with the decision - I could try to hide behind a statement saying the exec supported or made the decision but the more important observations are that: this was my call (which is why I won't hide behind the rest of the exec), and that the final decision wasn't controversial amongst the exec team but if there had been stronger voices of opposition amongst the exec I'd have had to consider further compromise.

Anyhow, you missed the more important point I made about how to determine if the fee is right. I said that setting a fee in the absence of data was more difficult than doing it with data. When the fee was set, there was a shortage of data other than to research fees charged by other orgs. After setting the fees and taking on members, we got data. The fees have not changed. I think you can join the remaining dots based on what I posted before.

I know some people aren't going to like what I'm about to write, but that doesn't make it less true. Sometimes it's better to just trust that the people with responsibility and the best information will use both to make good decisions, because debating decisions can sometimes be counter-productive and drain energy and resources from where they are really needed.

*Update* Remarkably, whilst typing this reply I see there has been a stream of responses that either pre-empted my post and/or repeated debating points that could be found in old posts. Please, please, please people - we're going over and over old territory and I can see the net conclusion will be to stick with what we've got. There's got to be better things to worry about.

[Duke]

You're misreading this rule... For example, check out the membership rates of the Labour Party. I'm guessing they consider themselves compliant with the rule you highlight.

Fair enough; that is why I asked about legislation. Oh, and just because the Labour party members do something, doesn't mean it is acceptable (or even legal).

I listened to people and made a judgement call based on what supporters were saying and also the observation that youth-oriented discounts are not that unusual for organisations/commercial propositions with a potentially high hit rate with young people and I guessed, based on the opinions being voiced, that we'd make more money with a much lower rate for young people.

Ok, thank you. That was really all I wanted to know. I didn't mean to say that it wasn't the rights decision (nor that it was...), just find out how it was made and on what grounds. An unfortunate side effect of being a mathematician is the combination of pedantry and curiosity I seem to have developed.

[epriezka]

You're misreading this rule... For example, check out the membership rates of the Labour Party. I'm guessing they consider themselves compliant with the rule you highlight.

Fair enough; that is why I asked about legislation. Oh, and just because the Labour party members do something, doesn't mean it is acceptable (or even legal).

Agreed that anyone can fall foul of the law. It's more that I'm failing to get across a subtler concept which lawyers don't tend to admit but people who have to deal with law and have to do things in life, business etc must accept (whether consciously or subconsciously): the application of the law, and in particular how it is enforced, regularly deviates from what the words say. We've already seen several cases of org paralysis in this party because of naivety about this. The truth is, our society and others have evolved several clever mechanisms to conveniently explain that the words apparently always meant what the outcome happens to be... I know this in detail from the DPA98 where any lawyer or employee of the Information Commissioner will tell you that what they've done is what they always intended to do, when anybody with a memory and the ability to be objective can tell you that plainly the practice of DPA98 is a million miles from the original (ill-conceived) intentions behind it. Hence HMRC loses personal data on CDs in the post yet nobody asks why this kind of 'violation' of the rules wasn't crushingly predictable or the law was flagrantly violated and keeps on being violated over and over yet no enforcement action follows. In other words, well-intentioned but unpractical laws often lead to a severe disparity between the words and how they get applied in practice. A good example of that phenomenon is copyright law, which protects rich and powerful elites, stifles innovation and serves as no kind of protection for original works made by individuals who lack the resources to protect the 'rights' given them in law.

I listened to people and made a judgement call based on what supporters were saying and also the observation that youth-oriented discounts are not that unusual for organisations/commercial propositions with a potentially high hit rate with young people and I guessed, based on the opinions being voiced, that we'd make more money with a much lower rate for young people.

Ok, thank you. That was really all I wanted to know. I didn't mean to say that it wasn't the rights decision (nor that it was...), just find out how it was made and on what grounds. An unfortunate side effect of being a mathematician is the combination of pedantry and curiosity I seem to have developed.

Sorry for coming across as tetchy but I'm hoping avid forum readers will see a connection between this thread and seemingly unrelated threads. We can have a party that does things slowly and carefully with lots of transparency and discussion and always being keen to do the right thing even if it leads to no immediate gain and extending this to being willing to revise and change decisions to make them better. We can have a party which is fast, dynamic and active and is doing crucial things and getting us into fine shape for immediate priorities like the general election and is willing to take risks and tolerate some inevitable mistakes. But there's conflicts between the visions. Stepping back from a lot of forum posts, there is a tension between two camps who don't even realize they form two camps - the people unhappy that the party's development is so slow and the people unhappy that the party's development is not more inclusive. At the moment, those camps talk at cross-purposes, and I'd argue they do not even recognize the existence of each other or the need for compromise in order to normalize the org culture. I see this as early tensions in the inevitable normalization of the party's culture (cf Charles Handy's work on org culture for people interested in such stuff) and hence part of the challenge of increasing the party's organizational maturity. How long it takes to normalize will also influence our speed of development (cf Tuckman Forming-Norming-Storming-Peforming). In a way, some of my responses were more aimed at people in the 'fast and loose' camp, whilst this thread could be a magnet to the 'slow and perfect' camp. (I'm trying to pick names that are equally complimentary and insulting at the same time, to avoid getting stuck in the rut of being associated with one or other when I'm trying to point out the need for practical compromise between ideals). I'm hoping people in the 'fast and loose' camp will look at this thread and see why debates elsewhere about leadership styles etc aren't something fall wide of the mark because leadership styles are not determined by leaders alone (e.g. they get influenced by things like the extent to which members either accept decisions uncritically or they demand explanations of decisions and a right to reverse them). On the other hand, I'd ask people who want to review this particular decision about fees (i.e. may be disposed to 'slow and perfect') to step back and look at some bigger picture debates instigated by frustrated members who feel senior people aren't doing enough. I want the 'slow and perfect' camp to ask themselves if they are contributing to the setting of unrealistic expectations for the party and its leadership.

As I side note, I can indulge a thread like this because I'm no longer an exec, but it's still a drain on my time. Supposing the decision had been made by the current treasurer - would we really want him taking time out from raising money in order to address this? Duke, I appreciate you've consistently played down the urgency of this particular matter, but I'm just trying to illustrate that rights and responsibilities and outcomes are inter-related for both people who run the party and the people who support the party. Whatever compromise we reach will determine the culture and growth rate of the party. And everybody - whether impatient for success or deeply concerned by a decision or keen to give more power to members to make decisions - will need to live with the inevitable compromises and consequences. As Charles Handy points out, no org culture is 'right' or 'wrong' in itself. But the extent to which the org culture is good and productive depends on what the org aims to do and its priorities in doing it. In that sense, an org can have a culture that is misaligned to its aims, and I'm seeing evidence of that becoming a recurring problem in this party. A lot of people want fast success and want to deliver it through slow mechanisms - and they're not facing up to the compromise. Some say they want slow success, but forget that if success takes too long and progress is too slow we'll end up losing support and fizzling out without having done anything of value. Some say transparency etc is key, but obviously they're not key. What's key is that we change our world in line with our policies. How we go about realizing that goal is a secondary though valid debate. But options for how we proceed that stymie the chance of success aren't really options at all. This specific debate is only an example of the issues at stake and I'm hoping by pointing it out, people will understand and contemplate the wider questions of the right compromise between expectations and org culture.

[ez64]

People under 21 tend to be financially dependent on their parents, and so have a smaller income. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask people under 21 to donate less than those over 21. This is not always the case, and many people over the age of 21 are also dependent (especially if they are in university) but it's as good as any place to draw the line.

Under 20 graduates do exist as well

[Aecidius]

I suggest a student discount rather than an under 21s discount.

How would you go about proving that people are students? Age verification is tricky enough.

Could ask for email confirmation with an .ac.uk email address, seems like a pretty robust way of doing it?

[samgower]

I suggest a student discount rather than an under 21s discount.

How would you go about proving that people are students? Age verification is tricky enough.

Could ask for email confirmation with an .ac.uk email address, seems like a pretty robust way of doing it?

Excludes sixth formers.

[Aecidius]

Excludes sixth formers.

During sixth form I was given an .ac.uk email address. Is it only a handful of places which do this?

[borgs8472]

There's no need to confirm proof of student-ship, I say do it on good faith, if we find liars we might publically kick them out.

Technical student verification is not feasibile even by the mainsteam parties. Please accept this fact everyone.

[scuzzmonkey]

Excludes sixth formers.

During sixth form I was given an .ac.uk email address. Is it only a handful of places which do this?

my sixthform college piggy-backed off of the schools' web-domain, so that was org.uk.

[samgower]

Excludes sixth formers.

During sixth form I was given an .ac.uk email address. Is it only a handful of places which do this?

My school didn't give me an email address at all!

[Duke]

There's no need to confirm proof of student-ship, I say do it on good faith, if we find liars we might publicly kick them out.

This. Don't treat everyone like liars and criminals. Leave that to the government and the MPA.

[Cymrobalch]

There's no need to confirm proof of student-ship, I say do it on good faith, if we find liars we might publically kick them out.

Technical student verification is not feasibile even by the mainsteam parties. Please accept this fact everyone.

I agree very much with this.

[AndrewTindall]

At the NEC meeting on monday it was discussed (approved?) to change our discount rate to students/retired/unwaged, and have it work on good-faith.

[cabalamat]

What we need to do is open the member forums for non members and get more non-members to debate on this, maybe hold straw poll or two. Then we'll know the facts.

Relevant facts = what people actually do, not what they say they will do. The two are different.

The other parties all want to maximize both membership and inocme from membership, so lets look at what they do:

Conservatives http://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join.aspx -- £25/y or £5 if under 23

Lib Dems https://www.libdems.org.uk/join_us.aspx -- £10/y, £6 for concessions (under 26, on benefits, students), gives people a choice of payment amounts up to £250.

Labour https://secure2.labour.org.uk/join -- monthly options from £1.63, yearly from £19.50. They require people to pay an amount based on what they earn, which I think is an invasion of privacy. Labour also require you to type in personal details before being told how much membership costs, which I consider underhand.

SNP http://www.snp.org/join -- Monthly from £1 (options (£3, £5), yearly from £12. Reduced rate for people under 5, over 65, or unwaged.

UKIP http://www.ukip.org/helpukip -- £20/y, reduced rate of £10 for OAPs, Students or those on Benefits

GPEW https://www.edirectdebit.com/greenparty/ -- lots of options. Minimum of £2.60/month. If you pay £5 a month, you get a free book. options are: £5/10/20/other at intervals of: monthly/quarterly/half yearly/annually.

Based on these examples, and assuming all these parties are more or less doing it right, I would recommend:

* a reduced rate for people under 21, over 65, unwaged or students

* options to pay monthly or yearly

* options to pay more than the mimimum amount. Yes people can pay more through a donation, but there's no hamr in making it easy for them.

So for example the options could be:

* reduced rate £2 / year

* mimimum payment at standard rate £10 / year

* Other options: Monthly: 20/15/10/5, or yearly 100/60/40/20

If we could get 400 of our members paying £10 a month, that would give us £48,000 a year (plus whatever other membership fees and donations we received). This would allow us to fight elections more effectively than we currently can.

[Hamish]

At the NEC meeting on monday it was discussed (approved?) to change our discount rate to students/retired/unwaged, and have it work on good-faith.

I support this. A party which is only beginning to grow can't afford to be so strict on things like age verification, we should trust any hopeful members that want to join. And student/retired/unwaged discount makes much more sense than age discounts. Someone under 21 could be working full time and can afford full membership, while an over 21 student or over 21 unemployed couldn't necessarily afford it.

[Abedecian]

* a reduced rate for people under 21, over 65, unwaged or students

* options to pay monthly or yearly

* options to pay more than the mimimum amount. Yes people can pay more through a donation, but there's no hamr in making it easy for them.

Also, I would also say for it to be optional (but preselected) to have it as a subscription, so it is reoccurring if yearly