Ellyn Ritterskamp
The area YMCA organization is changing its pricing structure; now, the rate will be based on members' income. The first person to mention it to me assumed it would be mandatory, and that her family would lose out, but the email I got shows otherwise, for me and I hope for her.
Membership now will be to all 19 branches, which she needed for pool access and something else. I am fine with just the one site, but it will be nice to know the others are free now.
Members do not have to change to the new structure if it costs more. But as far as that goes, I'm winning here, too: I'd been paying $12 a month less than the single rate in exchange for only non-peak hours access, which suited me fine. I didn't go during the most crowded times like noon and from 4:30-7:30 p.m.
But now? For the same rate I was paying for that, I can get full access. My friend teaches Pilates in the mornings, and now I can get in to take her class, and all the other classes that are offered during those peak hours. Might be trying some swimming classes and who knows what else, now!
Love. It.
Posts
Send your nominations for doctor of the year
9 years ago
15 comments:
I do not share your enthusiasm for this new pricing structure, even though I will be paying a few dollars less when I drop one child from my membership. For a family of four this will actually be a price increase, more if your family is larger.
You neglected to mention that in order to get a reduced price membership you have to earn under $80,000 a year. And, to prove this, the Y requires you go to a member services desk at a branch with your 2010 tax return. Apparently the minimum wage paid staff at the member services desk will then review your tax form to see if you qualify for reduced pricing.
If you've ever tried to register a kid for camp at the Y or even make a slight membership change you know how inefficient the desk staff is and the lines can be long. Now imaging the thousands of members (Harris and Siskey have in excess of 15,000 members) trying to make heads or tails of this.
I am not aware of any organization that I belong to that requires me to bring a tax form with me to justify pricing. I don't know who thought of this or what committee felt this was a good idea but it is absolutely absurd.
I understood that for folks who did not want to show their tax forms, they could stick with their current pricing, with no hard feelings.
I did not mention the $80,000 because I was not trying to explain the whole thing. I've always had great experiences with the membership staff at the Dowd Y. Your mileage may vary, of course.
My perception of the deal is that they are trying to lower prices for those of us who don't make as much money, and this is a good thing. But that isn't going to be everyone's perception, and there it is.
Thanks for writing.
Ellyn
Let me get this straight. I'm now being discriminated against because I am a high earner? Wow. I love it when companies hide behind 'Christian principles.' Same gym. Same classes. I'm just paying more because I bothered to take charge of my career. Nice.
This pricing change by the Y is simply a smoke screen for increased revenue which they have couched as core principle values. Let's face facts - the big branches are Siskey, Harris, Ballantyne. The families that use these Ys are mostly folks who earn above $80K. The pricing structure actually increases prices for families of 4 and is so marginally less ($3/month) for families of three that no one will bother to change.
Therefore, they have increased membership rates for the vast majority of their members while trying to play it off as something else.
The whole tax return proof of income is flat out bizarre. Why haven't they web enabled their membership?
If you've been to any of the suburban Y pools this Summer you will wonder what they are spending their money on. The pools are disgusting and they refuse to enforce the rules, resulting in daily closures for poop in the pool. The staff is all but belligerent towards members and the locker rooms are gross. When I moved here 20 years ago the Y's were different, now they are awful.
Ellyn Ritterskamp
Folks who are unhappy,
I wanted to celebrate that my Y experience has been good. I am sorry yours has not. I suggest that you consider other gyms operated by for-profit companies. This organization is not for profit, so its goals are not always the same.
I am particularly uncomfortable that any of us have commented on how much money a Y staffer may or may not earn, as that should be irrelevant. It seems an especially weak argument if the complaint is about the Y wanting to know how much we earn.
I hear some folks understanding the policy differently than I do: no one is being forced to show proof of income; they do not change rates if they don't want to.
So, what I am asking is, if you have a complaint about the Y, please take it up with the Y. I am a member, and a contented one. I feel as though I get good value for my money, and when I don't attend regularly, I like that my money is being used to support programs for those who can't afford them.
Awesome, you can say what you want about the Y but don't want others to chime in. Our family uses the Y 5-10 times a week and I don't feel any obligation to pay more simply because I make more money.
If how much Y staffers earn is irrelevant, why is it relevant how much I earn? And, yes, you are entirely required to show proof of income if you want a different rate.
If you are going to salivate over how great the Y and it's ludicrous new policy is, expect others to have strong opinions the other way.
I have to concur. You write a blog for the paper and then discourage people from commenting on the subject?
I love the Y, but we are not well-served by the new price structure. The Y remains 2-3 times as expensive as any other gym in town (I exclude the country clubs) but offers the best package for a family.
Ellyn Ritterskamp
I did not mean to discourage all comments, only those that are specifically negative toward Y staffers, who did not set this policy and whose work ethic are not part of the original topic. I could have said that a little better, sorry.
I am not understanding why any current members are upset about the new structure. No one has to change rates. From the site's FAQ: Existing members may also choose to be grandfathered at their current rate. I don't see any issue.
Be well, everyone. See you back in a few days.
You continue to cherry pick the policy to suit your argument, instead of discussing it in totality. Yes, you can make no changes and be grandfathered in. However, if you want to change your policy you have to go to the new structure. If you want to change your policy you have to show your tax returns. If you want to keep your policy under the grandfather provision, they make it abundantly clear it is subject to regular inflationary adjustment.
Of course the work ethic of Y employees is open to discussion. Part of my membership pays their salary, probably the largest part. I want clean Ys, friendly staff and updated equipment for my $93/month. Have you been to the Harris or Siskey lately? 5 year old machines that are broken often is unacceptable. Locker rooms that are putrid is unacceptable. Are you really surprised that the Y starts some new pricing program after they finish projects at Harris, Siskey, Morrison?
You started this discussion on the Y.
Ellyn Ritterskamp
Sunday 11 am commenter: Thank you for your civil discussion. I am glad we can disagree without the conversation being impolite.
I had wanted to let this topic gently die out, to make room for Monday's topic, but we still have some time, so maybe you can help me address a fundamental disconnect:
If the machines are broken and the locker rooms putrid, why continue to put any money into it, whether this rate or a different one? I would have dropped my membership years ago if these were the conditions at my branch. For me, there would be no discussion of paying more or less.
Is this an option for those who are dissatisfied? To walk outdoors and lift weights and ride bikes at home instead?
Thanks.
I am astonished that y-staffers have any part of this conversation-an attack on them because of a policy that they didn't create. And btw-for many staffers, the Y is their second job (I know many who are teachers, counselors, bank employees). I do feel badly for families if there is an increae in fees. As for me, a single person, this brings much needed relief as I have taken a 5% pay decrease over two years and had to cut my gym membership because I didn't qualify for aid under the old structure. I think if I made over $80,000 a year, 80.00 a month would not be that bad of an investment. Percentagewise, I pay more for my gym membership compared to my salary. Oh, and the Sisky Y pool is VERY clean. I went to another non-Y pool and became ill. Yes, that gym was cheaper!
Ellyn (12:39) - it's a fair question as to why my family continues to be Y members. Bottom line the Y's are incredibly conveniently located, which tends to trump all else. And, honestly, even though the Y pricing is aggravating, at least I know they will be around and not pull a Peak Fitness scam on members.
However, 80% of our workouts are outside with the Y facilities filling in the gaps you don't get outside (bad weather, weight machines, classes on occasion, etc).
You are sidestepping the basic issues as to why the Y is increasing dues at it's most popular and successful branches. I don't really mind the annual increases but this policy of tax returns and telling people who make over $80K they should pay more bothers me. What is the magic of $80K? Also, the Y seems to be ignoring the problems of cleanliness in their branches. Last week BOTH pools at Siskey were closed to poop in the pool, at the same time. This is not an isolated incident and I'm flabbergasted as to why the Y's won't take steps to fix this.
As to anon 2:30, if you think the Siskey water is VERY clean, you are grossly mistaken. Go to the MCAC then to the Siskey then report back. And, you telling people who make $80K+ that $80 is a good investment is really irrelevant. Each person values their expenditures in their own way.
Ellyn Ritterskamp
QUOTING: "You are sidestepping the basic issues as to why the Y is increasing dues at it's most popular and successful branches."
I didn't write about it because I don't know anything about it. I did not try to write a news story, but a blog entry about a personal journey. My original point was that I was looking forward to spending more time at the Y because I like it there and it will now be more accessible to me. I am very sorry this does not apply to everyone, but they haven't put me in charge to fix it. Yet.
dear august 7, 2011 3:06 pm. It's not the y staffers pooping in the pool. It's MEMBERS! Maybe a little kid control would be appropriate.
I wish more companies and government entities would embrace this concept. Of course the rich should pay a little more and the poor a little less. And of course the rich wives are going to moan about it. It's what they do while their husbands are off earning the money to support their lavish lifestyles. Slight increases aren't going to impact these bankers', doctors', lawyers' deep pockets. Whereas, when you're struggling to live on next to nothing, slight decreases can make a huge difference. Maybe the money the low income population save on membership can go toward buying fresh produce or a day at the whitewater center. Living healthy is expensive. I commend the Y for trying to make a healthy lifestyle accessible to EVERYONE.
Post a Comment