At a meeting back in May a large group of QVM traders agreed to adopt a subscription model to support the formation of a traders association and the employment of a professional executive to oversee trader issues and negotiate with management as needed.
The process of signing up traders has been progressing steadily and next Friday, 11th July, QVMAC Representatives Greg Smith (PE Traders) and Stephen McLennan (SL Traders) will be doing the rounds in J, K, RK, RL, and L sheds to discuss the concept and gain your signature.
A key ingredient of the Association will be agreement by every trader to contribute 1.25% of their rent to the Traders Association. That money will be placed in trust with QVM Traders Inc. to fund the employment of an executive and possibly part time staff to look after our affairs. We have yet to draw up our job description but we will be seeking sound managerial experience in a retail environment preferably with a sound knowledge of leasing arrangements and strong negotiating skills.
The subscription model is an essential ingredient of a traders association and we look forward to getting every trader on board. Application forms are available from your QVMAC Representative.
07/07/2014 12:01:33 Traders Subscription Fee "In regards to the 1.25% fee, how was this calculated? Is it fair that some traders are paying more, due the fact they have larger stalls than others?
I ask this question, because the my understanding is that the purpose of employing this person, to be our legal representative with the QVM and CoM in relation to the renewal development. This is being done on a whole, and all traders will receive the same representation during this process. A trader with a double stall will receive the exact same benefits as a trader with a single stall, so should we not all pay the same fee.
I see a discrepancy in this fee, given that so many newer traders are trading on a single stall license but are taking a double stall at no extra charges (this happens almost every day). I am not bashing the newer traders here, it is just an example. I am 4 stalls a couple of days a week, but l will be paying more than the trader on a single stall, but getting the exact same representation.
Why could this fee not be based on a flat amount per license. If you have 1 license you pay 1 fee, if you 4 licenses then you pay 4 fees. Would that not be a fairer and more equal way?"
ED: You raise a fair point here and at least part of the reason the subscription was tied to rent was that it was equitable in the majority of situations and was most likely to reflect the return each trader could expect to get from their subscription.
For instance, if the efforts of the traders association reduced rent, the multiple stall holder would gain more than the single stall holder. The same would apply if the efforts of the trader association resulted in increased sales. So maybe it could be said that the multiple stall holder stands to gain more from the representation and therefore should pay more.
It was a point for discussion and QVMAC Representatives agreed that a flat percentage on rent was the fairest way of calculating the subscription.
10/07/2014 19:35:19 1.25% response "Response to the ED: In relation to your theory that if sales increase then l have benefited more from the association, because l have a larger stall. l do not agree with this at all.
It means that my share of the increase is relevant to the size of my stall. I pay more for the size of my stall, and therefore an increase in turnover should be reflected by that, but in saying that, there is no guarantee that my sales will increase because more people attend the market. In relative terms my increase based on my rent, say 4 stalls, should be 4 times that of someone on a single is what you are saying, so l should pay 4 times that of the single person, not taking into account my overheads are 4 times that of the single stall holder........ What about all these casual single license holders that set up on a double everyday, and only pay for a single, are they not already receiving a benefit by less rent for a larger size stall than everyone else? And going forward, if sales increase then they get the benefits, and pay less than those on a double stall for it.
I think the logic here needs some thinking..... Lets say 800 stall holders all pay $5 per week, thats $4000 per week. A single stall holder 5 days a week, will pay approx $2 A double stall holder 5 days a week, will pay approx $4 (if my maths are correct, as l have different size stalls each day, so my rents are little all over the place). I guess the thinking is, will you actually generate the same income, from 1.25% of rent or a flat fee, and will it then become a case of I'm paying more than you, so l want more representation, and l want more done in my area, than yours. After all, majority of the traders think of themselves first, and everyone else, and the consequences second."