Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Making no underlying assumptions on values ...

The idea is that single people actually _use_ facilities more than families.

I think this theory holds water only so far as we discuss adults.  Married
persons [especially those with children] have less 'discretionary time' [weak
choice of words, but I'm groping here] than do single persons; hence each 
partner in a marriage will tend to use the facilities less. [Obviously, there
are exceptions, but this would seem to be the rule from reading American
Demographics, et al.]

The whole rationale breaks down when there are one or more children in a family
who spend a significant portion of their time [especially in summer] at the
club.

  Ann

    
    
    I think what really needs to be done is redefine family.
    
    There are many nevermarried single parents who consider
    themselves families.  There are many divorced single parents
    with kids who consider themselves families.  My boyfriend
    and I consider ourselves a small family.  
    
    I agree that there should not be any distinct financial 
    benifits to being married vs being single.  Have any ideas
    as to how to get these things changed?
    
    Michele

    This packaged pricing for families is found in many areas, from
    swimming to skiing.  I don't believe that any of the organisations
    involved are really out to discriminate against single people.
                                            
    Generally speaking if a family had to pay full price for each of
    it's members then either only a subset of the family would be able
    to go or none at all.  To encourage use by all members a discount is 
    given.  This makes particular (business) sense in somewhere like a 
    ski area where no extra facilities need be supplied (in general) but 
    other income is brought in (for food etc).
    
    In a way it's similar to kid's pricing at the cinema.  They use
    up the same size seat so why shouldn't they pay the same.  This
    could be viewed in a similar way as discrimination against adults.
    
    Just some thoughts.
    
    	Bob

>    There are many nevermarried single parents who consider
>    themselves families. 

 There is nothing to prevent a virtual family from using "family plans" simply
because surnames differ.

 Ya cain't fix it if it ain't broke.

 The Doctah

    
    I agree with .3,  It's just a business/marketing practice. To intice
    families to get out as a whole group together to spend cash for an
    activity...
    
     .0, You may be reading too much into the family discount idea. I've
    been married 16 years...and I never viewed singles as less important
    etc... I got married right out of high school so I guess I've never
    expierenced single life...so I often don't see what you might see.
    I've heard talk about singles getting guilt trips from relatives
    i.e...."when are you gonna get married?" as if your not whole until
    so.  That's is just crap!!!!   We do whats right for us.
    
    Jack
    

    From what I have heard on news radio in Los Angeles indicates the main
    goal of the Singles "organization" is to stop discrimination for big
    ticket items: Insurance or Apt. rent - not healthclubs or recreational
    activities.  There should be no reason two single people sharing an
    apartment may have to pay more than a married couple.  Likewise why
    should auto insurance cost more for singles than married people?  Are
    there some proven statistics that show singles are more of a risk than
    married couples/families?
    
    As for the recreational facilities, it seems like they give price
    reductions to "groups" (usually 25 or more people) as well as
    "families".  It is only a way for those facilities to get more people
    to attend - as the 25 people in a group obviously are made up of
    singles and married people mixed.  Someone mentioned in a previous
    reply that families would not go anywhere if discounts were not offered
    because most recreational facilities charge too much for a family to
    afford it (kids are almost always 1/2 price at Amusement parks).
    
    -Jill-

    I too saw the report on TV, one issue never raised was the penalty
    a single person pays for vacations (and I'm not talking about
    Club Med).  I have reached the point where I will only stay at
    hotels that charge by the ROOM not by the occupancy.  I think this
    is DEFINITELY discrimination.  I don't know how many times I have been
    all set to make a reservation to notice the fine print that states,
    "Add $40 per night for single occupany."  Why? I will make less of
    a mess, and what difference does it make if one person is in the
    room than two?  I don't buy the argument that two people will eat
    twice as much in the dining room or order twice as much from room
    service.

    It wasn't too long ago that myself and a very pregnant single
    girlfriend of mine spent a day at the beach.  After a long day we
    decided we didnt' want to drive back.  There were plenty of vacancies
    everywhere but 5 times we got turned away "Sorry we are a family
    place", "sorry we only rent to families" etc ad nauseum.  Finally I
    went in to a motel alone, turned my college ring around backwards and
    told them the room was for myself and my husband.  We got it.
    
    Probably thought us two single women would be wild and crazy.  Or maybe
    they didn't want young impressionables to see a pregnant woman without
    a wedding ring on.  Or....who knows but it sure left a bad taste in my
    mouth.
    
    Suzanne

    re 8 and 9
    
    What difference would it have made to the hotel?
    The two single women would have had to pay the same
    amount as the others for the same type room.
    What difference would it have made?  I fail to
    see the reasoning.

                          
    Another side to this question is whether or not singles without
    children should be forced to pay for services for which they
    may never have a use.  School systems are a good example, should
    only adults with children pay for schools?  The question is should
    single people subsidize the standard of living of married people
    and people with children?
    
    Re .8
    
    You were the victim of discrimination.  You should have insisted
    on a room at the first place and screamed bloody murder until
    you got your way.  It doesn't matter if you are male or female
    on this one either, my parents raised thier children not to take
    any s??t from anyone who is selling a service and you would regret
    the day were born if you crossed my 90 lb sister on an issue like this.
    
    Remember your rights are only as strong as you and your society
    are otherwise they are not worth the paper they are written on.
    
    
    

>    is DEFINITELY discrimination.  I don't know how many times I have been
>    all set to make a reservation to notice the fine print that states,
>    "Add $40 per night for single occupany."  Why? I will make less of
>    a mess, and what difference does it make if one person is in the
>    room than two?  

Oh that one is simple, and I don't see anything wrong with it.  If a room
typically rents for $80 a night - and they want to sell a package intended
for couples, they will say $40 per person (based on double occupancy.)  
It is just a marketting tactic...the room costs $80 for the night, regardless
of whether one or two people are staying in it - but it costs only $40
*per* *person* if two people are in it.  It is just division (perhaps
presented a little misleadingly.)  They aren't discriminating against
anyone.  They aren't charging you extra because you are single, they are
just saying that you have to pay the whole cost instead of half the cost.

D!

    In re: .7, .13
    
    Surely D! is basically right, but it likely isn't pure arithmetic
    flim-flam.  The rates might be something like $70/person/night, Double
    Occupancy, with a $40 surcharge for Single Occupancy.  Thus $110 for one
    person, $130 for two.  The author of .7 may well be giving away money
    by sticking to flat rate/room hotels.  A similar price structure is the
    norm on tours, cruises, etc.  Thus: two weeks to the Bahamas and the
    Pyramids -  $3,500 (per person, double occupancy;  $1,500 surcharge for
    single occupancy)!!!!!!
    
    			- Bruce

    Re .12/13
    
    No, I am referring to the SAME room that for two people is charged
    $80 and for ONE person $120 (check out any AAA tour book, sometimes
    they clearly state the distinction).  I find this also typical of
    package tours.
    
    I like the idea of booking for two people.  Who is ever going to know
    that the "other person" isn't "parking the car."
    
    As for the woman and her pregnant friend being denied a
    room...supposing they were sisters on vacation? I bet anything they'd
    get a room.  Actually, a major chain would probably not even blink
    twice.

>    flim-flam.  The rates might be something like $70/person/night, Double
>    Occupancy, with a $40 surcharge for Single Occupancy.  Thus $110 for one
>    person, $130 for two. 

Oh sure, I am aware of what is basically a "double occupancy surcharge" but
I didn't talk about that because I was responding to a note that said the
price differential was discriminatory *against* singles.

It wouldn't make any sense to charge singles more to rent a hotel room than
a couple, so if it happened it would be discrimination.   It does make sense
to charge a couple more, because two people create more mess that has to be
cleaned up, more wear and tear on furniture and carpets, more electricity
and hot water, etc.

>    norm on tours, cruises, etc.  Thus: two weeks to the Bahamas and the
>    Pyramids -  $3,500 (per person, double occupancy;  $1,500 surcharge for
>    single occupancy)!!!!!!
 
Heh heh.  Sounds like the thing to do is claim to be single and sneak someone
into your room.  :-)

D!

    Re .15:
    
    I have been looking over package tours, and they typically state a _per
    person_ rate.  E.g., if it says $80 and a $40 surcharge, that is 80
    dollars per person for two people, or 160 dollars for two, and 80
    dollars plus the 40 dollar surcharge for one person, or 120 dollars for
    one.                              
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    This seems really weird to me (ie. charging extra for singles).  In my 
    experience (in Australia)you are charged by the TYPE of room.  It
    doesn't matter whether one or two people use it.  I would consider a
    surcharge for singles on package tours discrimination, a couple pay $80
    EACH (as per .17) but if you are alone you have to pay $120.  Did I
    understand this right?
    
    With regard to family concessions that is a different matter.  If you
    have kids you are less likely to have as much disposable income.  By
    offering lower rates you don't LOSE custom as might be possible if you
    didn't do so.  Very often you find though that a 'family' must include
    at least 1-2 children, just being married does't qualify.  I have no
    problem with this.
    
    As for the problem with two single females trying to get a room for the
    night, it never even occurred to me that they might be turned away
    because of reasons suggested in .9.  Have I been leading a sheltered
    existance?  (I didn't think so).
    
    	Holly

    A little light....
    
    Hotels base room rates on double occupancy because "most" hotels
    offer rooms with 2 double beds. Some hotels are switching to one
    king sized bed and getting more than the double. The reason for
    a surcharge is that the hotel expects that they will get no room
    service or restaurant, or bar tabs from single occupants, so they
    get it through the surcharge. 
    
    If your running a cruise to the Carribbean, the lost revenue from
    a single person taking up an entire stateroom is considerable. That's
    $$ that won't be spent in the casino or in the lounge or gift shops
    too. In reality, they're getting the expected revenues from a week's
    stay from the single because they know that most pairs will spend
    more.
    
    Ken 

    Excerpted from an Associated Press article:

    SINGLE STATUS MAY BLOCK CAREER GOALS

    "Single workers, especically those over 30, have a tougher time getting
    hired and promoted than do their married counterparts"

    "Managers looking to the future for that big position or promotion
    should be prepared to shed their single status by age 30," says James
    Challenger, president of Gray and Christmas Inc. "Employers expect
    younger job seekers to be single, but once the person becomes 30 and is
    still unmarried an invisible barrier springs up."

    He said married managers present the stable, settled image of one who
    is more likely to be a team player. A single person may be percieved as
    being too indiviualistic. Employers do not advance people who appear to
    be out of the normal patterns of appearance and behavior.

    These observations were based on interviews with with top managers, not
    on studies.

    Most of the bias appears when the potential employee is interviewing
    with the comapny. If the martial status is not listed on the resume,
    interviewers often try to steer the conversation toward the candidates
    family life.

    Gays are especially vulnerable to not being hired. The bottom line is
    that people want to hire people who appear to be like them.

    *They also made mention that older managers disapproved of the
    "excesses" of the late 60s and early 70s and disliked candidates that
    looked like they were part of that - liesl*

    re .21   
    
    I bet that discussion is only true of people hiring *men* with
    families.  It used to be that if you, as a woman, admitted to being
    married or to having a family, the next question the potential employer
    would ask would be what form of birth control you use - a question
    which is now illegal (good thing, too! - not that I am normally in
    favor of laws regulating common sense, but...).
    
    /Charlotte
    
    PS - I never had any trouble checking into a hotel when travelling with
    my mother.  We must look innocent, or something.

    In re: .21
    
    What kind of firm is Gray and Christmas?  It sounds as if it may be an
    employment firm, generating "news releases" to try to get free
    publicity.  I'm not sure these "findings" should be taken seriously.  I
    also agree with .22 that it sounds as if Challenger is assuming that
    "Managers" means white males.
    
    			- Bruce

    <--(.21)
    
    Read "The Organisation Man" for the full, frightening picture of an era
    when the only humans were white, male, and compliant.
    
    God help us if that's the future too.
    
    							=maggie

    The only information in the article on Gray and Christmas is that it's
    a Chicago firm. I agree that it's probably taken from a "white male"
    manager's viewpoint. But then, that's who most of the "top" managers
    are. They never defined what a "TOP" manager was.

    Another item they mentioned was that if the job involved lots of
    entertainment outside of work, where couples go to dinner, that the
    issue became very important. They didn't even mention divorce. Maybe
    top managers don't believe in it. liesl

Some time ago when I was married, I went to an art fair in Indianapolis with
my mother and my two children.  The entrance fees were:

		Single Person    $ 5.00

		Family           $10.00


Just in front of me was a family with 4 children.  They were admitted for
$10.  

When I tried to pay my $10, I was told that it would be $15 since either 
myself or my mother was not part of the family.  A family was defined 
according to the art fair people as a man and a woman and their children.

The extra $5 didn't bother me so much since the money was going to support the
art museum.  The principal of the issue was very troublesome.  What gave these
people the right to define the family so narrowly. I protested loud and long,
but finally had to pay the $15.  Later the director of the fair came up and
returned the extra $5.  He said they had discussed the issue and finally
decided that I was right.  Sometimes you do win.  

WOW!  This is a subject that hit home recently!

I just called a frequent flyer club to get two coupons for free flights.  I
had booked two mileage saver flights and the rate for the coupons was
20,000 miles per person.  When I gave the representative the two names, he
asked if we were related and, if so, how?  I asked what difference does it
make and he replied that the 20,000 mile award could only be used for a
spouse or child.  I asked what the rate would be if we were not related.
Turns out that it would cost 70,000 miles total to arrange the same trip!!!

What difference should it make to the airline if the person next to me is
my husband, child or friend?  A seat is a seat.....

Kelly

These problems are the same ones that I often come up against as a lesbian.
The YMCA will not accept my membership through Digital as a family membership
because my spouse and I are of the same sex.  Airlines have rejected the
frequent flyer tickets for same sex spouses for the same reason: they have
decided that we are not related.

        Carol

    re: a few back
    
    You asked how insurance was handled in the states.  Well I'm not sure
    about liability insurance but car insurance companies discriminate
    against singles to some respect.  E.g. my boyfriend and I live together
    and have one car between us.  The car is registered and insured in my
    name.  When I tried to add my boyfriend to my car insurance, my
    insurance agent informed me that because we live together and are not
    married, he could not be added to my policy, nor could the car be
    registered and insured in both of our names.  If we did not live
    together or if we were married, then he could be added.  So in other
    words, if he drives the car and gets into an accident, we are not
    covered.  I think this is very discriminative.
    
    My mother told me of the same situation happening to someone she worked
    with that used a different insurance company, so I believe this is a
    state law and not just the rule of the insurance company.  Has anyone
    else ever experienced this?
    
    Lori B.  

    Lori, by your nodename you live in Mass, right?  It is *illegal* for
    the insurance company not to allow you to both be on the policy as
    drivers!  Marital status doesn't matter a hill of beans!
    
    						=maggie

    It may well COST you more to list two unrelated drivers (this is a
    sneaking suspicion, I have no facts to back it up - anyone else had any
    experience with this?) than to list two "married" drivers...
    
    -Jody
    

    Rathole alert, but it's relevant to the discussion:
    
    While we're checking out auto insurance facts, could anyone supply
    accurate information about whether a driver has to be listed on the
    policy before an accident involving that driver is covered?  My
    =understanding= is that any licensed driver who is driving the vehicle
    =with= the owner's permission is covered by the policy.
    
    Also part of my understanding is that the requirement that all
    household members who will be driving the vehicle be listed on the
    policy has to do with making sure drivers who have "given up" their
    vehicles and coverage to avoid paying surcharges cannot continue to
    drive another household vehicle free of surcharge.
    
    Facts, anyone?
    Karen
                                           

>    =understanding= is that any licensed driver who is driving the vehicle
>    =with= the owner's permission is covered by the policy.
 
When we first put my name on Mom's insurance policy, this was true:
driver's that had "occasional access" to the car were covered.  If
someone had free access to the car and/or was a regular driver, they
*must* be listed on the insurance policy.  Whether someone actually
has free access is hard to determine - but by law, someone *living*
in your house is considered to have free access.  Therefore, anyone
living in your household must be listed on the policy to be covered
by your insurance.
   
On the other hand (I am not positive about this part) if someone
living with you has their own car, and their own insurance policy,
and they drive your car and crack-up, you car won't be covered
under your insurance but it will be covered under *theirs*.

D!

[rathole approaching NH, please watch your step...]

speaking from experience: if the person (unrelated and not listed on the policy)
driving the car at the time of an accident is doing so WITH YOUR PERMISSION, any
damage/liability is covered by:

	1) your insurance (if any?) up to any limits on the policy, THEN
	2) by their insurance, up to the limits of their policy.

At least this was true *in NH* when the driver of your car is judged to be at 
fault; don't know how it would be handled if other driver were at fault, or
how driver's injuries would be covered in either case (didn't apply).  I'm also
not familiar with how this applies to uncovered 'members of the same household'.

Other states may differ (and probably do! :-)
		Helen

    The whole thing sounds specious to me. One of my housemates and
    I both have our cars insured with Metpay. Each of us has the other
    listed on his insurance policy, solely because we, on occasion,
    use one of the other of our cars to drive out to Minneapolis. We
    certainly are (a) living in the same house, and (b) not married
    (he's not my type :-)).
    
    (This is in Massachusetts.)
    
    --- jerry