More apologies for cross posting!
It is beyond question, I think, that the way Cilip administers subscriptions is
inefficient and needs reform. This does not imply a need to move to a poll-tax
style flat rate. The foundation of Cilip's case for a flat rate is this: "We
can't renew members automatically until we no longer have to ask what they
earn." This is not correct. In fact, Cilip will always have to notify members
that their subscription is about to be renewed and give them the option not to
renew. A few weeks before the renewal date they could simply send out a
notification like this:
"Dear member, your subscription is due for renewal on [date]. You may either
1. If your circumstances have not changed since last year, do nothing, in which
case your subscription will be automatically renewed at the same rate;
2. Notify us of a change in your income or employment status, in which case
your subscription may be adjusted (see attached list of tariffs*);
3. Cancel the renewal, thereby ending your membership.
* - NB if your circumstances have altered but not enough to make you eligible
for a different tariff, you do not need to notify us of the change."
Nobody at Cilip has been able to give any reason why this could not be done, so
why not keep the socially responsible and fair income-based subscription
system, and switch to automatic renewal, direct debit with discounts, and
rolling renewal (each year after the member's joining date). This seems the
fairest, most efficient and most equitable solution, and will avoid the decline
in revenue per member that the flat rate would bring. I therefore recommend
that members (1) vote "no" to the flat rate and (2) ask Cilip to reform the
current system along the lines suggested above.
Regards, Aran Lewis.
This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net