Narrow Boat Trust - where are you?

[sociable_hermit]

Are volunteer organisations as diligent?? - Unless they are involved with the care of vulnerable adults or children I suspect not - which makes the management of the conduct of those who volunteer so much harder....

We're pretty good at obtaining 'gen' on anyone who turns up claiming to be experienced thanks to work elsewhere. Some are, some aren't, it transpires.

 

However getting references has nothing to do with managing the conduct of volunteers. References only affect the initial recruitment of volunteers. What you do with them once they've arrived is a whole different set of procedures, and these should be designed to cope with every eventuality, though you hope the bad ones never happen. Just like the procedures at your paid job, then.

[Guest]

though you hope the bad ones never happen. Just like the procedures at your paid job, then.

 

No no no and thrice no....

 

 

 

 

 

the problem is that a past employer has a duty to both the ex-employee and to the prospective new employer. As a result many employers, including my own, restrict their references to the absolutely unambiguously factual. Dates of employment, office employed at and job title.

 

If they step away from that even for "safe" cases, there is a danger of people reading between the lines when they say nothing in a tricky case.

 

It's a fair point Dave but some employers shy away from accepting such references.....meaning if that is all your employer is prepared to issue it could still lose you that new employment opportunity...

[sociable_hermit]

Sorry no - because if you really had you wouldn't be asking....

Right, I've just read all 17 pages of this all over again and I still can't see what you're on about. The only comment I've found which appears to be relevant, and which you've repeated several times in different forms, is this:

 

"An employer has disciplinary sanctions up to dismissal, a volunteer organisation??? yes you require they no longer turn up to help but so what - hardly a problem. "

 

But I've already answered that.

 

Seeing as it's you, though, I'll do it again.

 

Paid employees are generally largely motivated by the need to earn money, so the threat to withdraw employment is the ultimate means of control.

 

Volunteer workers are generally largely motivated by the desire to carry out the work, so the threat to prevent them from working (i.e. withdrawing employment) is still the ultimate means of control.

 

The motives are different, the repercussions aren't.

 

It doesn't matter that earning a living is more important than having a hobby (only just, in some cases). What matters is whether the hobby is important enough to make losing membership through disciplinary action as a result of poor behaviour enough of a threat to prevent the majority of volunteers from behaving badly. And the answer is yes, it is.

 

That isn't conjecture, I've seen it happen. A few bans (normally for minor damage as a result of youthful high spirits) and one or two more serious incidents with more serious penalties. Believe me, the procedures are every bit as rigorous as the ones you'd face in your paid job. Volunteers know this and accept it. Why? Because they want to do a good job. Knowing what is acceptable and what is unacceptable makes this easier. It establishes the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

 

Some things matter a lot to people, other than cash. Try telling an avid sports fan (football, rugby, county cricket) that they will never be able to watch 'their' team play ever again, and see what the reaction is. Tell an artist they can't paint any more. It's very important to those involved. And that's without even touching on the other issues we've raised regarding networking and friendship. The social side is almost as important as the work, and all that disappears if someone gets themselves barred, too.

Edited July 26, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[Guest]

But I've already answered that.

 

Seeing as it's you, though, I'll do it again.

 

Well its a commendable amount of work and effort just to confirm we still disagree.....I'll give you that..

[sociable_hermit]

I don't want to type the lot out (and there's probably a rule somewhere that prevents me from doing so anyway), but Section 1 of the Scottish Railway Preservation Society rule book is titled "Conduct of Members" and contains the following sections:

 

1.1 Hours Of Attendance

1.2 Alcohol Or Drugs

1.3 Observance Of Rules And Instructions

1.4 Examinations, Reports And Statements

1.5 Change Of Address

1.6 Uniforms And Personal Protective Equipment

1.7 Dealing With The Public

1.8 Travelling In Trains

1.9 Taking Care Of The Society's Property

1.10 Unclaimed Goods, Money, etc.

1.11 Use of Electrical Equipment Not Belonging to the Society

1.12 Miscellaneous Instructions

1.13 Limited Medical Fitness

1.14 Use of Mobile Telephones and Other Electronic Devices

 

That's just a taster of the average railway rule book. Incidentally, the rules apply to all staff, whether paid or unpaid. It is possible to prevent a volunteer from working, by rejecting their membership, which means a. they're not insured to work, and b. if they attempt to gain access without payment / permission, they're trespassing. Problems don't normally get that serious, but it does happen occasionally.

Edited July 26, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[Guest]

I don't want to type the lot out

 

Sorry this is just exactly the same point that has been made earlier in the thread and it adds not a jot to the argument...

[mayalld]

It's a fair point Dave but some employers shy away from accepting such references.....meaning if that is all your employer is prepared to issue it could still lose you that new employment opportunity...

 

I understand that my present employer, when asked for a reference replies something like this;

 

"It is company policy not to supply any opinion as to the suitability of its former employees, and no inference (favorable or otherwise) should be drawn from this. We can confirm that Mr Smith was employed at our Liverpool office from 1/5/1995 to 18/7/2010 as a Depot Manager"

[sociable_hermit]

Sorry this is just exactly the same point that has been made earlier in the thread and it adds not a jot to the argument...

Yes it does. It shows the degree to which rules can be imposed on volunteer workers.

 

There's a brilliant rule in the Bluebell Railway book, based on the 1955 British Railways rules I believe, which states that "staff must be prompt, civil and obliging" at all times whilst on duty. It isn't always obeyed, but a little reminder every so often does no harm. If anyone is ever short with you, tell them that they're not being "civil and obliging" and see how they react.

 

Volunteers really want to work in their chosen field. That's why withdrawing their ability to work is such a severe punishment.

 

The bigger difficulty is preventing volunteers from working beyond their own capabilities, particularly in terms of fatigue but also sometimes in terms of skills. That's where astute management comes in. It's easy to exploit someone's enthusiam, but over-enthusiasm can be just as dangerous as deliberate carelessness. Accidents are far more likely to happen when people are tired and the work is being rushed.

 

If you set a high but reasonable benchmark, people will work to it. Unreasonably high, and people will leave. Where it gets interesting, though, is that setting targets too low will also cause volunteers to leave. There's nothing worse than getting up early on a Sunday morning and arriving in the freezing cold only to find that nothing is going on, no-one is in charge, no instructions have been left and those present are loafing around because they don't know what to do. Might as well have stayed in bed. If nothing is going to be achieved that day, why bother turning up?

[Guest]

Yes it does. It shows the degree to which rules can be imposed on volunteer workers.

 

No it doesn't I'm afraid, of course rules can be imposed on volunteers that is not the point I was making at all,

 

were we are disagreeing is on the significance of the consequences of not doing so.

 

I don't agree with you (and I think Dave postulated the same argument as you) that ultimatley losing your livelyhood is the same as not being allowed to volunteer any more for an organisation no matter how proud you are to do it or however much you enjoy it.

[sociable_hermit]

No it doesn't I'm afraid, of course rules can be imposed on volunteers that is not the point I was making at all,

 

were we are disagreeing is on the significance of the consequences of not doing so.

 

I don't agree with you (and I think Dave postulated the same argument as you) that ultimatley losing your livelyhood is the same as not being allowed to volunteer any more for an organisation no matter how proud you are to do it or however much you enjoy it.

I don't think they're the same, and have never said so, which means we are agreed on that. Earning a living is always going to be more important because so much rests on it (home, family, food on the table etc.). If you go back and read my posts you'll see I've made a point of saying they're different. My point is that when it comes to behaviour at work, the difference affects the WAY in which limits can be set and control exercised in paid and voluntary orgainsations, but it doesn't affect the EFFECTIVENESS of those measures. They have the same effect but work in different ways and for different reasons.

 

The key question is whether volunteers take their roles seriously enough that disciplinary action is a suitable disincentive against misbehaviour. And the answer, in my own direct experience, is "yes". That's all that matters here. Whether a paid job is taken MORE seriously or not is an irrelevance. You're not comparing like for like. If you try to impose paid work values in a voluntary environment it won't work, so don't try it. Get your head around some of the other factors that are involved in volunteering, if you want to understand why the disciplinary procedures can and do work.

[Dalesman]

So it's all a bit of pointless bureaucracy really. Just how did the Royal Yachting Association become "The national body for inland cruising and narrowboats" anyway? Don't they find it difficult to tack on the canals and the masts must be a bit awkward at bridge holes.

The history of the RYA being involved in the canals starts back in 1994 when BW North East region asked the RYA to set up at training course for the inland waterways, BMIF (now BMF) were also keen on the RYA doing this. The RYA scheme was launched at the Nottingham Boat show in 1994. Interesting point is that the IWA also wanted to take a role as the appropriate body to provide testing and training for an agreed syllabus rather than the RYA, but this never happened as we all know.

[mayalld]

No it doesn't I'm afraid, of course rules can be imposed on volunteers that is not the point I was making at all,

 

were we are disagreeing is on the significance of the consequences of not doing so.

 

I don't agree with you (and I think Dave postulated the same argument as you) that ultimatley losing your livelyhood is the same as not being allowed to volunteer any more for an organisation no matter how proud you are to do it or however much you enjoy it.

 

No, it is not "the same".

 

It is different, but of the same relative importance to those who are commited to an organisation.

 

The fact that the same sanction works in a different way with volunteers doesn't mean that it isn't an effective sanction.

[Guest]

No, it is not "the same".

 

It is different, but of the same relative importance to those who are commited to an organisation.

 

The fact that the same sanction works in a different way with volunteers doesn't mean that it isn't an effective sanction.

 

I think it goes back to what you said very early on - it's an issue of perspectives - to me at the moment losing my livelihood would have far more significance than losing the ability to volunteer for a particular organisation – however if I was to lose that livelihood and used that opportunity to then put my 'heart and soul' into volunteering and I too lost the ability to that I may, I agree have a different perspective on it….

Edited July 27, 2010 by NB No Deadlines

[sociable_hermit]

I think it goes back to what you said very early on - it's an issue of perspectives - to me at the moment losing my livelihood would have far more significance than losing the ability to volunteer for a particular organisation – however if I was to lose that livelihood and used that opportunity to then put my 'heart and soul' into volunteering and I too lost the ability to that I may, I agree have a different perspective on it….

I think the real thing you're missing is that lots of individuals work very hard at both paid and unpaid jobs. As in, the same people are both paid employees of one firm and volunteers at another organisation, and are equally dedicated (but for different reasons) to both.

 

Its not one vs. the other, and comparing them doesn't achieve anything.

 

If you cared about the place where you volunteered (which most people do - that's why they join) then you'd be very sad to get a formal warning or a temporary suspension, let alone a permanent ban. What you're up to in terms of paid employment at that moment in time doesn't have any bearing on it. The fact that paid work is MORE important doesn't mean that the voluntary work is unimportant. They both matter to people, but for different reasons, and disciplinary procedures are equally effective for both, if they're fit for purpose.

 

Trying to set up an "importance competition" between paid and unpaid work doesn't make sense. That's like saying that if you have adult children you wouldn't care if your wife/partner passed away, because you'd still have 'family'. It doesn't work like that, does it? They're related, but certainly not the same thing, and not in competition with each other or replacements for one another. So if you lost your voluntary job you wouldn't care because you still have a paid job? I don't think so.

[Guest]

I think the real thing you're missing <SNIP>

 

I don't agree

 

the real issue you are missing is that we both have a very diverse and different opinion on ths subject and no matter how much we try to persude each other that our repesctive positions are correct it ain't ever going to happen....

Edited July 27, 2010 by NB No Deadlines

[sociable_hermit]

I don't agree

 

the real issue you are missing is that we both have a very diverse and different opinion on ths subject and no matter how much we try to persude each other that our repesctive positions are correct it ain't ever going to happen....

I will always accept the validity of a position that is different to mine, provided I can see the logic behind it. I might not agree with the conclusions, but I'll accept the reasoning. But I can't see your logic at all, and I suspect that's because there isn't any. You posed a question, and Dave and I have answered it, with plenty of real-life examples, explanations and comparisons which you chose to ignore because they don't fit with your preconceptions (which you've comprehensively failed to justify, incidentally). And this is despite the fact you're making assumptions about something that I do regularly and you apparently don't do at all.

 

Can volunteers be managed and disciplined without the controlling influence of a pay packet? Yes they can. I've worked in the voluntary sector for 20 years and currently belong to three voluntary organisations, including one of the winners of this years' Queen's Award for Voluntary Service, and the answer from direct experience is "yes". That is a fact, so why are you disputing it? I've tried hard enough to explain why the answer is "yes", but if you can't understand the explanations it doesn't mean the answer isn't true, it just means you don't understand it.

 

Here's a good idea. Why not join the NBT and find out what volunteering is all about? And then we can have a balanced debate about it, involving facts on both sides.

[Roger t' Bodger]

I'm finding it hard to insert a playing card inbetween all the points of view in this last 'Off Topic' of the 'Bash or Support the NBT' - the dedicated number of you, have between you, have got it nailed down to the dirt under the finger nails - congratulations!

I really don't denegrate your procastinations as this was an important debate from all sides of the matter and lots who have read this long long long thread with have had food for thought - including me, who physically is out of the volunteering lark but can still stab a keyboard! Bless you all!

 

Crikey! I'm running out of entertaining waterways videos and I can smell the family dinner starting to overcook above!

 

It's on Uchube that most of you water-based bods find easier to watch

 

 

Very dubious sentiment in the lyrics - but have things really changed that much?

 

Oh no smoke!

[Natalie Graham]

I can't help thinking though, that if you are being treated like paid help at the organisation you are volunteering for, and being subjected to disciplinary procedures, you might start to think you are not quite as passionate about that organisation as you had previously supposed. I recently looked into volunteering for an organisation I would really like to be an active part of and one I support to the point of a fairly substantial financial commitment a few years ago when it was starting up. However when I found that the volunteers were required to wear what amounts to a uniform, along with name badges and identification, I decided not to bother. I had enough of that at work without getting it an environment that is supposed to be for my own enjoyment and satisfaction. I had to put up wit it a work as I needed the money. I don't have that same imperative in a voluntary capacity.

[Guest]

I will always accept the validity of a position that is different to mine, provided I can see the logic behind it. both sides.

 

I'm not trying to get you to 'accept the validity of my position', this doesn't interest me at all, why on earth would it?

 

you are clearly passionate about volunteering and if that's your bag, great,

 

I however currently have different priorities...

 

we can keep repeating our respective positions 'ad nausea' but I suspect any of our fellow CWDF members (who are still following this thread) will have got very bored with such a circular argument.

Edited July 27, 2010 by NB No Deadlines

[sociable_hermit]

I can't help thinking though, that if you are being treated like paid help at the organisation you are volunteering for, and being subjected to disciplinary procedures, you might start to think you are not quite as passionate about that organisation as you had previously supposed. I recently looked into volunteering for an organisation I would really like to be an active part of and one I support to the point of a fairly substantial financial commitment a few years ago when it was starting up. However when I found that the volunteers were required to wear what amounts to a uniform, along with name badges and identification, I decided not to bother. I had enough of that at work without getting it an environment that is supposed to be for my own enjoyment and satisfaction. I had to put up wit it a work as I needed the money. I don't have that same imperative in a voluntary capacity.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. If you give volunteers training and encouragement and allow them to develop and take on responsibility, it's great. Treat people like they're fools and you will only ever retain fools, because anyone with any pride and self respect will leave.

 

It's also a question of finding the right niche for people. I guess we are lucky in that there is plenty of choice where I work, so most potential volunteers can find a place that's right for them. If you raised the issue of the uniform being too much like your day job, I'm surprised no-one said "Well, we do have other roles where it isn't necessary..." but then I don't know the organisation or the circumstances.

 

One of the good things about volunteering is that everyone has the interests of the organisation at heart, though ironically this can also cause some of the biggest disputes, as everyone's idea of what is best can be different. But if there is a problem the volunteers will normally try to sort it out at a local level, before doing anything official. If someone breaks something, they'll normally ensure it gets repaired, before the investigation starts. If someone is unhappy, a quick "Are you all right, mate?" is often enough to get things rolling if there is something amiss. Disciplinary action is only ever used as a last resort, and it has to be a fair process, and if there is a punishment it needs to be in proportion to the offence. And most volunteers who find themselves in the situation where they know they've done wrong will accept as much, and 'take it on the chin'. There's no incentive to lie through one's teeth, because your home and your family aren't dependent on the wages.

 

The work has to be appealing for volunteers to keep coming back to do it. However introducing standards to aim for and making the work challenging will actually make it more appealing, rather than less so, because the job satisfaction is far greater when you know you're meeting or surpassing a high benchmark. It's giving volunteers sh-tty jobs all the time with no pay-off, or no leadership whatsoever (so that their enthusiasm goes untapped), that generally makes them give up and go away.

Edited July 27, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[Guest]

Oh I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Are you sure? - did you read the whole of Natalie's post completely??

 

I think the last line of it (whether she intended to or not) summarises the point I've been trying to make for the last day or two rather succinctly...

 

I had to put up wit(sic) it a work as I needed the money. I don't have that same imperative in a voluntary capacity.

 

 

 

 

Off to make a cup of tea as I can see we are about to get another weighty tomb from SH

 

He's posting as I type....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hes still posting...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup go SH....

Edited July 27, 2010 by NB No Deadlines

[journeyperson]

A weighty tomb sounds like a good idea.

[RLWP]

A weighty tomb sounds like a good idea.

 

I've got a big book about that. Where is that weighty tome?

 

Richard

Edited July 27, 2010 by RLWP

[Guest]

I've got a big book about that. Where is that weighty tome?

 

Richard

 

Hang on,

 

it's under my big pile of BMC engine repair manuals.....

[RLWP]

Hang on,

 

it's under my big pile of BMC engine repair manuals.....

 

<lust>