CRT looking for volunteers

[David Mack]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

When all the overheads are taken into account volunteers will always be cheaper than paid employees.

True. But also probably less productive. I wonder if CRT attempt to measure that.

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

True. But also probably less productive. I wonder if CRT attempt to measure that.

Doing the kind of relatively unskilled stuff that volunteers do, they might well be as or even more productive than employees, they're doing it because they want to as opposed to just to earn a crust.

 

I'm pretty sure that even if they slack a bit they'll still be a lot cheaper per piece of work done than paid employees (or contractors), given the *huge* difference in costs when pay and overheads are taken into account...

Edited January 20 by IanD

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

CRT would probably like to be able to pay employees or contractors to carry out tasks, they are generally easier to manage and more likely to do what they're told, but without the money to do that they have to rely on volunteers - who are cheaper but by no means free.

 

 

It always strikes me there are two types of volunteer. Those discussed so far but also the genuine volunteers who just take it upon themselves to 'do stuff'. If people like you and me and a handful of others decided to walk a few miles of towpath litter-picking, or took one of our boats out offside bush-cutting, CRT would probably never even know we'd done it, let alone born any costs. 

 

 

[David Mack]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Doing the kind of relatively unskilled stuff that volunteers do, they might well be as or even more productive than employees, they're doing it because they want to as opposed to just to earn a crust.

 

I'm pretty sure that even if they slack a bit they'll still be a lot cheaper per piece of work done than paid employees (or contractors), given the *huge* difference in costs when pay and overheads are taken into account...

I just remember chatting to some employees (who were doing a job that had to be done by staff as it involved use of equipment and working at height) at an English Heritage property some years ago. They said volunteers were fine for standing in rooms in the house, answering visitors questions and stopping them touching things they shouldn't, but were pretty useless when it came to gardening - they would turn up at 10.00 in the morning and immediately spend an hour in the tea hut. Then maybe an hour's work weeding before a 2 hour lunch break...  You would get much better productivity from employees or contractors!

[IanD]

21 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I just remember chatting to some employees (who were doing a job that had to be done by staff as it involved use of equipment and working at height) at an English Heritage property some years ago. They said volunteers were fine for standing in rooms in the house, answering visitors questions and stopping them touching things they shouldn't, but were pretty useless when it came to gardening - they would turn up at 10.00 in the morning and immediately spend an hour in the tea hut. Then maybe an hour's work weeding before a 2 hour lunch break...  You would get much better productivity from employees or contractors!

Maybe, but at a much higher cost -- my guess is at least 3x when wages and overheads are taken into account, perhaps more.

 

Do you really think employees/contractors work more than 3x as hard as volunteers, especially when doing the more menial and less skilled jobs? I don't...

Edited January 20 by IanD

[Barneyp]

37 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

It always strikes me there are two types of volunteer. Those discussed so far but also the genuine volunteers who just take it upon themselves to 'do stuff'. If people like you and me and a handful of others decided to walk a few miles of towpath litter-picking, or took one of our boats out offside bush-cutting, CRT would probably never even know we'd done it, let alone born any costs. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I just remember chatting to some employees (who were doing a job that had to be done by staff as it involved use of equipment and working at height) at an English Heritage property some years ago. They said volunteers were fine for standing in rooms in the house, answering visitors questions and stopping them touching things they shouldn't, but were pretty useless when it came to gardening - they would turn up at 10.00 in the morning and immediately spend an hour in the tea hut. Then maybe an hour's work weeding before a 2 hour lunch break...  You would get much better productivity from employees or contractors!

 

Unfortunately some of people who just "do stuff" do the wrong thing or make the situation worse, I've done litter picking on this basis, mainly from a canoe and the biggest problem was disposing of the collected litter (leaving it in a heap beside the canal does not solve the problem, it just moves it). Cutting stuff back can go wrong, because some of the stuff you cut back might have been planted to secure the bank - common sense is not very common.

 

When it comes to the formal volunteers they can be a nightmare and/or they can be very productive, it is definitely worth employing a skilled manager to organise the volunteers and being prepared to "fire" those that don't contribute or cause problems. Even with the cost of a manager the volunteers should work out cheaper than paid staff or contractors.

Edited January 20 by Barneyp

[IanD]

Just now, Barneyp said:

 

 

Unfortunately some of people who just "do stuff" do the wrong thing or make the situation worse, I've done litter picking on this basis, mainly from a canoe and the biggest problem was disposing of the collected litter (leaving it in a heap beside the canal does not solve the problem, it just moves it). Cutting stuff back can go wrong, because some of the stuff you cut back might have been planted to secure the bank - common sense is not very common.

 

When it comes to the informal volunteers they can be a nightmare and/or they can be very productive, it is definitely worth employing a skilled manager to organise the volunteers and being prepared to "fire" those that don't contribute or cause problems. Even with the cost of a manager the volunteers should work out cheaper than paid staff or contractors.

Don't forget that employees and contractors also usually need a skilled manager -- always assuming such a thing can be found... 😉

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, MartynG said:

That has been the case for some years now.

On the River Trent only a very small number of lock keepers are now paid employees . In the not too distant past the non tidal locks were all manned by paid lock keepers , although it was mostly seasonally employed  work and probably a low rate of pay.

 

 

They were planning to replace the Weaver lock keepers with volunteers. Dunno if they did.

[ditchcrawler]

39 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Unfortunately some of people who just "do stuff" do the wrong thing or make the situation worse, I've done litter picking on this basis, mainly from a canoe and the biggest problem was disposing of the collected litter (leaving it in a heap beside the canal does not solve the problem, it just moves it).  

I often think of that when boating and see stuff dumped on the towpath. If I pick it up and put it on the deck, what am I going to do with it. I don't mean cans and bottles but say fridges, porta-potties timber etc.

 

[Barneyp]

41 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I often think of that when boating and see stuff dumped on the towpath. If I pick it up and put it on the deck, what am I going to do with it. I don't mean cans and bottles but say fridges, porta-potties timber etc.

 

I was in a Canadian canoe picking up cans, bottles, other small litter and oddly lots of footballs and tennis balls. After about 10 miles we had about 4 bags of rubbish, we hadn't set out with collecting the litter on purpose, just picked it up because it was there. I took the bags home and filtered them in to my domestic waste over the course of a month or so. And yes we ignored all the larger items. 

[Pluto]

Since Covid, there seems to be more large charities looking for volunteers, and this has made it difficult for smaller charities, who cannot afford to pay mileage or other 'benefits'. The L&LC Society is certainly finding it difficult to find volunteers for helping with our short boat Kennet. This could be because we travel the full length of the canal so have no specific summer mooring. Over winter it is too cold to open up the exhibitions on board. We are looking for volunteers as most of our current ones have been involved for ten years or more, and are now into their mid-70s, so we are looking for volunteers a little younger. If anyone is interested, look at our Kennet page on our website - https://www.leedsandliverpoolcanalsociety.co.uk/friends-of-kennet/ - and there are contact details on the page. It is a good way to find out more about the canal's history, and what it is like to sail on a proper traditional wide boat.

[Tim Lewis]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

I just remember chatting to some employees (who were doing a job that had to be done by staff as it involved use of equipment and working at height) at an English Heritage property some years ago. They said volunteers were fine for standing in rooms in the house, answering visitors questions and stopping them touching things they shouldn't, but were pretty useless when it came to gardening - they would turn up at 10.00 in the morning and immediately spend an hour in the tea hut. Then maybe an hour's work weeding before a 2 hour lunch break...  You would get much better productivity from employees or contractors!

Funnily a friend of mine who is a volunteer gardener at an English Heritage property says similar things about the paid staff! 

[manxmike]

It seems a shame that we have all these illegal immigrants waiting for their cases to be heard before their free flight to Africa who could be earning their keep by litter picking etc - or would that be against their human rights?

 

[Barneyp]

18 minutes ago, manxmike said:

It seems a shame that we have all these illegal immigrants waiting for their cases to be heard before their free flight to Africa who could be earning their keep by litter picking etc - or would that be against their human rights?

 

If they are waiting for their cases to be heard they are not illegal immigrants, once their case has been heard they may be classified as a refugee or an illegal immigrant. The flights to Africa, should they happen, will take place before the cases are heard, not after.

 

To answer your question, they are not allowed to work for money. They could chose to volunteer to litter pick, but if they are forced too that could look like slavery which is illegal, whether that it is against their "human righs" i don't know.

 

Also politically it could look like the government was putting people out of work by useing unprocessed immigrants as forced labour.

[Arthur Marshall]

47 minutes ago, manxmike said:

It seems a shame that we have all these illegal immigrants waiting for their cases to be heard before their free flight to Africa who could be earning their keep by litter picking etc - or would that be against their human rights?

 

Refugees or amnesty seekers are not illegal immigrants.

Also, as there are only about 200 of them that can be sent to Rwanda anyway if it all ever gets passed, don't you really think this is a colossal waste of time and money?

That's if you have the ability to think...

[manxmike]

Oh dear, someone seems to have difficulty recognising sarcasm.

Never mind, I'll just turn my brain back off and wonder why asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are so obviously different.

Now, where did I put that copy of the sun newspaper

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, manxmike said:

Oh dear, someone seems to have difficulty recognising sarcasm.

Never mind, I'll just turn my brain back off and wonder why asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are so obviously different.

Now, where did I put that copy of the sun newspaper

 

It's sometimes difficult to distinguish sarcasm/irony from a poster who understands the issues from the politically-driven racism/xenophobia of one who doesn't... 😉

Edited January 22 by IanD

[Barneyp]

10 minutes ago, manxmike said:

Oh dear, someone seems to have difficulty recognising sarcasm.

Never mind, I'll just turn my brain back off and wonder why asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are so obviously different.

Now, where did I put that copy of the sun newspaper

I normally use the tone of someones ones voice, and/or facial expressions, and/or body language, or possibly emoji's to tell if someone is being sarcastic, without any of those things there is nothing to indicate that your post was intended to be sarcastic.

[manxmike]

To be honest (no sarcasm) the British Government are missing an opportunity. Most of the asylum seekers and refugees arriving by small boat (rather them than me) are from the upper echelons of society and are, in a lot of cases, highly educated and qualified people. Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc etc.

Instead of regarding them as a nuisance who should be shipped off as soon as possible, why not use the expertise that is arriving on British beaches? Surely it should be possible to recognise the qualifications they possess? Maybe a refresher to get them up to speed with the UK systems. That way they become useful members of society, they would cease to be a burden on the tax-payer and in fact would become tax payers themselves.

Just my opinion, I expect there are political reasons why the obvious solution cannot be adopted. I expect someone will be on here fairly soon to point out the idiocy of my ideas.

[magnetman]

20 minutes ago, manxmike said:

To be honest (no sarcasm) the British Government are missing an opportunity. Most of the asylum seekers and refugees arriving by small boat (rather them than me) are from the upper echelons of society and are, in a lot of cases, highly educated and qualified people. Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc etc.

Instead of regarding them as a nuisance who should be shipped off as soon as possible, why not use the expertise that is arriving on British beaches? Surely it should be possible to recognise the qualifications they possess? Maybe a refresher to get them up to speed with the UK systems. That way they become useful members of society, they would cease to be a burden on the tax-payer and in fact would become tax payers themselves.

Just my opinion, I expect there are political reasons why the obvious solution cannot be adopted. I expect someone will be on here fairly soon to point out the idiocy of my ideas.

 

One wonders why they are not welcome in their country of origin. It might be something to do with being politically active against the system. 

 

How clever it could be to import a load of politically active and organised people. We could get a new government ! 

i don't really understand why doctors, lawyers* or accountants would be at risk of harm in their own countries. 

 

*OK I will make an exception for lawyers. 

[MtB]

4 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Refugees or amnesty seekers are not illegal immigrants.

 

Point of Order...

 

Surely any given immigrant *might* turn out to have been 'illegal' all along. It's just that it isn't possible to know until their case has been heard, assessed and a ruling issued.

 

All the delays in assessing the refugee boat people are obviously planned by the government, the question is why? My own reading of it is to serve as a deterrent from coming here. If assessments were completed promptly ans efficiently I imagine the (probably unjustified) fear is the numbers would surge. 

 

But we will find out after the next GE when I imagine Labour will be elected, and the whole system streamlined.

 

 

 

 

 

[Momac]

1 hour ago, manxmike said:

Most of the asylum seekers and refugees arriving by small boat (rather them than me) are from the upper echelons of society and are, in a lot of cases, highly educated and qualified people. Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc etc.

If so why would they want to come to the UK and why would they arrive with no passport and no other identification?

[Barneyp]

11 hours ago, manxmike said:

To be honest (no sarcasm) the British Government are missing an opportunity. Most of the asylum seekers and refugees arriving by small boat (rather them than me) are from the upper echelons of society and are, in a lot of cases, highly educated and qualified people. Doctors, lawyers, accountants etc etc.

Instead of regarding them as a nuisance who should be shipped off as soon as possible, why not use the expertise that is arriving on British beaches? Surely it should be possible to recognise the qualifications they possess? Maybe a refresher to get them up to speed with the UK systems. That way they become useful members of society, they would cease to be a burden on the tax-payer and in fact would become tax payers themselves.

Just my opinion, I expect there are political reasons why the obvious solution cannot be adopted. I expect someone will be on here fairly soon to point out the idiocy of my ideas.

I think it is an exaggeration to say that "most" of the asylum seekers and refugees are from the upper echelons of society. Those that are qualified professionals could choose to come as economic migrants rather than refugees, which would probably be easier for them. 

For those that arrive on small boats with no (genuine) documentation how to they prove they have the relevant qualifications and experience?

 

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Point of Order...

 

Surely any given immigrant *might* turn out to have been 'illegal' all along. It's just that it isn't possible to know until their case has been heard, assessed and a ruling issued.

 

All the delays in assessing the refugee boat people are obviously planned by the government, the question is why? My own reading of it is to serve as a deterrent from coming here. If assessments were completed promptly ans efficiently I imagine the (probably unjustified) fear is the numbers would surge. 

 

But we will find out after the next GE when I imagine Labour will be elected, and the whole system streamlined.

The current disorganised and chaotic system is an attraction to those that are not genuine refugees, it allows them to get into the country and then quietly "dissappear" while their case is (not) being processed.

11 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

One wonders why they are not welcome in their country of origin. It might be something to do with being politically active against the system. 

 

How clever it could be to import a load of politically active and organised people. We could get a new government ! 

i don't really understand why doctors, lawyers* or accountants would be at risk of harm in their own countries. 

 

*OK I will make an exception for lawyers. 

They may not be welcome in their own country because of the colour of their skin, or their religion or some other reason which they have no control over.

People who are "politically active against the system" in dictatorships or other non democratic countries are generally in favour of democracy, so less likely to cause a problem here.

[magnetman]

I suppose I am a bit jaded having spent a decade mostly living in Tower Hamlets which is a London borough traditionally controlled by Labour but now run by a proven fraudster born in Bangladesh who 'likes democracy' but also likes fraud. His housing minister had to go back to Bangladesh because he was doing too much fraud and was getting looked at. 

 

This could happen in other places. People who are traditionally Labour voters form their own parties and win by force of numbers. 

 

 

 

 

Do most asylum seekers come from non democratic countries? 

 

 

[tree monkey]

On 20/01/2024 at 13:26, David Mack said:

I just remember chatting to some employees (who were doing a job that had to be done by staff as it involved use of equipment and working at height) at an English Heritage property some years ago. They said volunteers were fine for standing in rooms in the house, answering visitors questions and stopping them touching things they shouldn't, but were pretty useless when it came to gardening - they would turn up at 10.00 in the morning and immediately spend an hour in the tea hut. Then maybe an hour's work weeding before a 2 hour lunch break...  You would get much better productivity from employees or contractors!

Particularly with houses and gardens one of the benefits of volunteering is it encourages a sort of ownership and support amongst the local community, this is obviously difficult to measure and is somewhat amorphous but it is a benefit.

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by tree monkey