Re: Why do you want families to pay more?

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

I see NOWHERE that a "family" have to be married.  In fact, IF it
was true, I would think it is in violation of discrimination
laws!!!  The idea is that a "family" resides together....that's
becasue each "family" gets ONE AERC News.

Teddy

Glenda R. Snodgrass wrote:
> 
> > families? What difference does it make to singles? I understand where
> > Tereasa would be upset because her mother and her rent the same space
> > and have to pay seperatly, when married people get a discount. But that
> > could be solved with a group policy. Why change the family rates? Geezz,
> > you guys, what do you have against families? Families have enough to pay
> > out for.
> 
> We don't have anything against families.  What do you have against
> singles?  Probably nothing.  However, the current fee structure is heavily
> weighted to give married adults a discount on their dues, just because
> they're married.
> 
> You say "that could be solved with a group policy" ... why, that's exactly
> what we have proposed!  Were you able to read Teresa's post to RC (Monday,
> I believe) which outlined our proposal in detail? We want to replace a
> family membership with a group membership, that would enable adults
> (whether single or married) to opt for a single copy of EN to be shared
> among them, in exchange for a discount on individual membership rates --
> essentially extending the existing family discount to all adults,
> regardless of marital status.  Our proposal also includes discounts for
> juniors, whether or not their parents are AERC members -- in fact, our
> proposal creates new discounts for juniors that are not available now.  We
> want to see the actual administrative costs of membership apportioned to
> each adult member equally, whether married or single, or married to an
> AERC member or not, and portion of that cost apportioned to juniors.  In
> this way, all adults are subsidizing junior memberships to a certain
> degree, but no adults are subsidizing other adults (which unfortunately is
> the case now).
> 
> We are not "against families." We ARE against a fee structure that is
> inequitable, that gives a discount to certain individuals due to social
> factors (marriage, blood relation) rather than based on the strict
> economic value of the membership.  The analysis of the history of AERC
> dues posted earlier in the week showed very clearly that the family
> membership rate has not risen in proportion to the individual rate, which
> is not only patently unfair to individual members (whether single or
> married to someone who doesn't ride endurance), but unfair to the AERC
> itself, which is trying to provide services to more members while
> receiving less money per member to cover the costs of providing services.
> We believe that this oversight needs to be rectified for the good of the
> AERC as a whole.
> 
> Glenda & Lakota
> Mobile, AL
> AERC # M18819 & H27310
> SE Region