What’s your take on this?

[r0wly86]

Good lawyering. So as long as when I hire people I give everyone the same opportunity what happens afterwards doesn't matter! I don't have to have female or disabled toilets in my building - I don't even need to pay them the same as men. As long as getting through the door is equal.
Is your law practise still in business?

You are conflating two very different issues, I mean they are so different I can't even understand how you have managed to confuse them.

You have basically said, we want a Vibrant and active membership for everyone therefore we should be able to discriminate against certain groups in order to get a better spread of genders. You have confused that with not discriminating is somehow the same as not providing toilets. Your initial point is essentially "we have built female toilets, therefore we must get more women in the club". They are also covered by different areas of law.

Any place that serves food and drink must provide an adequate number of toilets, this will be provided under Local Government policies and probably enforced through planning/building control.

You have to make reasonable adjustments for those who are identified as having a disability, please note this does not mean you have to attract more diabled people to join the club.

What we are discussing here is discrimination, and the law is quite simple. You cannot discriminate directly based on gender, you just can't despite what your end goal is. As Imurg pointed out, it doesn't actually solve anything either, if the goal is to get more women to join and stay then the product needs to be good enough to keep them there.

England Golf have said that it is possible to reduce fees for women if they are under represented, however:

o Discounts should be a last resort: There are many ways to encourage female representation (see Example Part 1). Discounts are unlikely to be proportionate if a club has any other means of encouraging female representation which is less discriminatory towards men;
o There is always a risk: Even if granting discounts is the only way to encourage female participation it is still risky. A judge may still find that the discriminatory effect caused by the discount outweighs the benefits of the positive action.

They are claiming it is possible, however i cannot see how a judge would ever see it as proportionate, especially where you are talking about 50% reduction in fees

 

[Deleted member 15344]

1. Irrelevant as the reduced fees are nothing to do with the gender pay gap
2. Presumably this club thinks that getting more women into the club has a benefit to the club as a whole. Purely speculation, but maybe they want golf to be a family pursuit and see that as growing the game? Maybe they just want to grow their ladies section?
3. Hard to say, isn't it? I guess we'd have to ask the club.

On your final point, at many clubs the unfortunate reality is still that as a woman, you do have restricted membership with prime tee slots on weekend mornings taken up by mens comps, or otherwise women not feeling welcome at that time at the weekend. Again though, that's not relevant to reduction in fees.

My view is how can trying to get more women to be members of a golf club and grow the game be a bad thing? Yes, I take the point that just reducing the fees for 1 year doesn't deal with the primary issues, but at least it suggests to potential joiners that it values having women members.

1. May not have worded it well but imo some should not be paying less than myself based on their gender. When it comes down to age related a lot of it is down to pay and available finances

2. More than happy for clubs to grow sections - but using fees imo is the lazy way , make the club appealing to all based on more than just getting it cheaper

When it comes to course access - many people are unable to access tee times depending on their situation- if people can’t play many weekends then club off 5 day memberships but clubs don’t offer “2day” for those that can only play on a Saturday for example.

You could end up tying yourself in knots

Two people the same age regardless of gender should pay the same fee for the same services given

 

[backwoodsman]

See post #4. I knew I didn't buy a big enough bucket ...

 

[evemccc]

there is a lot of outrage from, what I perceive to be, older males on here - and yet it doesn’t affect any of them (unless some are actively looking to join this one club in particular). It’s pretty comical to watch the outrage….

Major lolz

Nice piece of generalising, and exposing your own prejudice, sexism, and ageism there

Playing at identity-politics and not the issue??...? But I suppose that is par for the course with the new ideology isn’t it

 

[Canary_Yellow]

1. May not have worded it well but imo some should not be paying less than myself based on their gender. When it comes down to age related a lot of it is down to pay and available finances

2. More than happy for clubs to grow sections - but using fees imo is the lazy way , make the club appealing to all based on more than just getting it cheaper

When it comes to course access - many people are unable to access tee times depending on their situation- if people can’t play many weekends then club off 5 day memberships but clubs don’t offer “2day” for those that can only play on a Saturday for example.

You could end up tying yourself in knots

Two people the same age regardless of gender should pay the same fee for the same services given

Yeah, I think the main thing is making golf clubs more appealing to women, if clubs desire to attract more to the game. A 1 year fee reduction won't achieve much if there are bigger issues at play.

 

[WGCRider]

Forum lawyer says..

What we are discussing here is discrimination, and the law is quite simple. You cannot discriminate directly based on gender, you just can't despite what your end goal is.

People that are likely to face lawsuit and therefore would be wise to talk to a lawyer say...

England Golf have said that it is possible to reduce fees for women if they are under represented,

Understood.

 

[doublebogey7]

Sorry but the law is the law, intention when it comes to Direct Discrimination is not at issue (unless it is age related) there is no defence to Direct Discrimination. Having a goal of getting more female member is a honourable goal, however treating those of different gender at a disadvantage because of that gender is not permissible and as I said would likely not survive a legal challenge.

The club could very easily argue that it is taking steps to increase the number of female members to improve the club for existing members.

As above that is not an argument for discrimination, when it comes to disability they must take all reasonable steps to prevent a disabled person from being at a disadvantage, but people who are disabled have that alone, women down not get the same treatment. Unless the golf club previously had policies that discriminated against women, it is not their job or role to get the membership more representative of the general population. They are not a public body and there is no wider reason why a golf club should be 50/50.

In fact you law hat would have a reasonable argument that the club isn't doing enough for existing female members.

As above no, that isn't an argument. There is no defence against Direct Discrimination, they could half the fee for all new joiner as an incentive, and try and promote the ladies section and side, but you cannot discriminate against a whole other group to try and encourage women to jon

I am by no means Lawyer and if legally trained at all you are clearly not an expert in this field. Golf clubs are entitled under the law to take steps to encourage participation from an underrepresented group. If you wish to further your training I would advise you to read this from England Golf (Para 4 - Positive action) https://www.englandgolf.org/wp-cont...gland-Golf-Equality-Guidance-June-20182-1.pdf

 

[Wabinez]

Major lolz

Nice piece of generalising, and exposing your own prejudice, sexism, and ageism there

Playing at identity-politics and not the issue??...? But I suppose that is par for the course with the new ideology isn’t it

sure, you go ahead and believe that…I’m not the one shouting from the rooftops that a lower membership rate for women is discrimination against men

 

[KenL]

CV op
P


Nobody ever seems to mind the seniors getting a discount (for the record I don't mind)

Yet normally they have more disposable income, kids left home, can usually play more than the average 7 day member

However that's taken as given but if the ladies or the youth get a discount for whatever reason there's always up roar

At a lot of clubs seniors receive a small discount only if they have been a long time member.
Over 65 and a minimum of continuing membership for at least 15 years.

 

[PJ87]

At a lot of clubs, seniors receive a discount only if they have been a member for a long time


At a lot of clubs seniors receive a small discount only if they have been a long time member.
Over 65 and a minimum of continuing membership for at least 15 years.

Im glad you felt the need to repeat the point? ?

Seniors or senile? Is that what gets the discount.

Discounts happen in different ways. It's really not a big deal

 

[KenL]

Im glad you felt the need to repeat the point? ?

Seniors or senile? Is that what gets the discount.

Discounts happen in different ways. It's really not a big deal

A slight error, I went to check constitution and on my phone l couldn't see the previous edit.

Glad I brightened your day. ?

 

[clubchamp98]

At our AGM it was asked “ in this day and age why do we still have a Joining Fee?”
The answer given was “ to promote loyalty to the club”
“ so your saying you don’t want Female members to be loyal to the club as they don’t pay one.”
No Answer

Let’s be honest here ,nobody likes being charged more than someone else for the same thing.
Imagine a pint in the pub was £5 but only £2.50 to a woman.
The men would never go the bar.
But golf is a luxury item and if you want to be a member you should pay the same as all the other members.
Only exception anyone still in full time education.

 

[Tashyboy]

So there is a 50% reduction for women to join. Apologies if it has been explained why. But am not reading through 6 pages. If it is because they are underrepresented. Then my thoughts are it’s because the club is not proactive enough to keep or seduce women in the first place. Will a 50% reduction keep them at the club after a year. I don’t think so.
Just spoke to Missis T about this and she said it is massively wrong. In a day and age of women burning bras and wanting equality. How is that equal?
Re the golf club and it’s survival. It’s dog eat dog re a club having members. Is it struggling? I don’t know, but if so it has missed a trick pulling in other members from other local clubs by not having 50% across the board.
Someone or a group of people have made this business decision and probably thought they are doing a great service for womens golf. Personally I think they have scored an own goal. A lot of the publicity from this is negative.
everyone from kids to pensioners of all sexes should be encouraged to play golf. For me all incentives should be similar.

 

[RichA]

Having never knowingly been discriminated against, I don't really have an opinion on this issue, but I've just asked my wife for hers.
The price of female membership at a club, compared to men, wouldn't be a factor in whether she joined or looked elsewhere. The deciding factor for her would be the cleanliness of the toilets.
When I told her that the issue has some middle-aged male golf club members complaining that it's discrimination against them, she nearly choked on her tea.

 

[BiMGuy]

At our AGM it was asked “ in this day and age why do we still have a Joining Fee?”
The answer given was “ to promote loyalty to the club”
“ so your saying you don’t want Female members to be loyal to the club as they don’t pay one.”
No Answer

Let’s be honest here ,nobody likes being charged more than someone else for the same thing.
Imagine a pint in the pub was £5 but only £2.50 to a woman.
The men would never go the bar.
But golf is a luxury item and if you want to be a member you should pay the same as all the other members.
Only exception anyone still in full time education.

When I was younger I would 100% be going into a bar where women were getting half price drinks.

I would also do it now. Let the ladies buy the drinks all night and both of us get cheap drinks.

 

[clubchamp98]

When I was younger I would 100% be going into a bar where women were getting half price drinks.

I would also do it now. Let the ladies buy the drinks all night and both of us get cheap drinks.

Yes me to.
But seem to remember the half price drinks all had umbrellas in them.
Brown bitter wasn’t a ladies drink then,

 

[BiMGuy]

Yes me to.
But seem to remember the half price drinks all had umbrellas in them.
Brown bitter wasn’t a ladies drink then,

Brown bitter shouldn’t be a drink for anyone. Then or now ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The real question is Why is this section struggling..?
Halving the price for the first year and then putting it up to normal rates is a good way of attracting transient members - those who skip from club to club depending on offer availability....especially if there's no joining fee to tie you in for a few years..
The product is, obviously, not attractive enough for women to join..half price makes it cheaper, not necessarily more attractive.

If its anything like our ladies section the demographic is high and so there is a real drive to get more women into the club in general (the academy has been great at helping this) and to get younger ladies into the club as well. It's starting to happen but like anything like this it'll take time to see a huge and permanent change

 

[sunshine]

Little course near me is

£525 a year,
£425 if over 65
£90 a year for under 18s

So the over 65s potentially can play more and pay less .. but no-one complains of pensioners getting discount or kids getting it cheaper

They would if they posted on here