Sort out confusion over union life membership
CHRIS REEKIE (Letters, August) raised the question of the changes to the union’s rules that now require 40 years of NUJ membership as qualification for free life membership, rather than the 15 consecutive years or accumulated 20 years at retirement, as was the case before.
The only exception now will be for members whose “caring responsibilities” may have kept them out of membership.
The union’s reason, quoted by Chris Reekie, was that many people were working on well beyond normal retirement age and needing to use union services while not paying subscriptions, and this put a strain on union resources.
The problem with that reason is that the rule ended with “at retirement” — so that they should not have been paying subs or receiving benefits and thus putting no strain on union resources.
But the amendment to the rule took away the concluding phrase in the old one, “and still working” and put nothing in its place, so now members with 40 years’ membership and still working will be able to take Life Membership but pay no dues and ask for union services!
The added exception of “caring responsibilities” throws up other problems — effectively introducing another category of membership — without stipulating the responsibilities involved and creating yet more anomalies.
We really need to revisit these rules and seek a more considered position, taking into account the fact that as well as Life Members there is also a category for Retired Members (who pay £10 a year in subs), whose rights and responsibilities are framed around retirement — and that we have now in our union a retired members section, which wants to encourage over-60s to continue to be active in the union.
Roy Jones
Colwyn Bay