BW VOLUNTEERS

[Mikeonb4c]

And of course there still remains the BIG question of who pays for this new Waterways Trust. Currently all taxpayers contribute to the waterways and BW has a legal obligation to maintain the system. Will that legal obligation pass to the Trust? Is there a funding plan proposed or are we going to end up rattling collection boxes to towpath users and begging people to volunteer to help run it?

 

You are right, and its all quite serious. The only cautiously optimistic note I could sound would be (thinking of what my situation may be in a year or two's time) that people committed to canal boat living and with time on their hands and wanting a focus to their existence, may be a useful resource that may act like one community and contribute to maintaining the waterways. But, against that, they may be ageing and with limited physical ability. And anyway, they are unlikely to want to commit to staying in one place with one volunteering commitment that prevents them from leading the peaceful wandering existence that drew them to the canals in the first place. The alternative is rising taxes for staying on the canals.

 

Tough times all round I fear and a real concern for someone like me who may be imagining the canals will provide an affordable retreat in retirement.

[Big John]

Talking to one of the BW union officers recently, he said that BW are talking about not re-employing their paid summer lock staff, but hoping that they will volunteer to help on a rota basis in subsequent years.

How can that be right? From what I know of summer lock keepers, they rely on the pay they earn as a living wage. I can't see asking them to be volunteers as being just. It doesn't put bread on their table.

[rgreg]

Talking to one of the BW union officers recently, he said that BW are talking about not re-employing their paid summer lock staff, but hoping that they will volunteer to help on a rota basis in subsequent years.

How can that be right? From what I know of summer lock keepers, they rely on the pay they earn as a living wage. I can't see asking them to be volunteers as being just. It doesn't put bread on their table.

 

They can hope, but I think very quickly they will get a reality check

[sueb]

Sue, we are talking about the same period aren't we? My recollection is very clear that the block on the voluntary working in the 80's (actually it started in the 70"s) that hamsterfan mentioned was solely due to the Union objecting to voluntary workers on the canals.

That is what BW told us but the unions weren't consulted

Sue

[Guest]

Talking to one of the BW union officers recently, he said that BW are talking about not re-employing their paid summer lock staff, but hoping that they will volunteer to help on a rota basis in subsequent years.

How can that be right? From what I know of summer lock keepers, they rely on the pay they earn as a living wage. I can't see asking them to be volunteers as being just. It doesn't put bread on their table.

 

If that is correct it's simple....

 

Do not re-engage fixed term staff.

 

Hope they volunteer, if they don't, (and If I'd been paid to do it I wouldn't)

 

seek alternative volunteers....

 

Plan doomed to failure...

[sociable_hermit]

I am not sure I agree with that. If the canals were run by their own societies, for example if the Chesterfield Canal Trust actually owned, or leased, the Chesterfield Canal, and were responsible for maintenance and operation, then that would be equivalent to the preserved railways. BW is a publicly funded and owned body with a statutory responsibility to maintain the waterways network. Preserved railways have no obligations other than those they choose to set themselves. I have considerable doubts that BW would be able to discharge their statutory duty if they were reliant upon voluntary labour.

 

The key distinction I'm making is that both preserved railways and BW are predominantly heritage and leisure orientated, and are viewed by the public (with rose tinted spectacles sometimes) as quintessentially 'British', historic, and in need of care and protection. In essence, people care about them enough that they are willing to volunteer. That simply doesn't apply to Network Rail. There are already plenty of waterways volunteers and they're not always doing the glamorous jobs - WRG spring to mind here.

 

It is possible to run services day to day using volunteers. Just because they're volunteers does not mean they can't be rostered or managed. A train service requires a large number of staff - to run one train will require a Driver, Fireman, Guard, at least two Signalmen and two Booking Clerks, probably a Porter or two, maybe some catering staff... Volunteer railways make the work attractive for people to do, and part of this involves planning ahead. Asking people to work on a roster makes it easier for the management (who may themselves be volunteers) but it also makes it easier for the volunteers to organise their diaries to suit.

 

Someone who can't take responsibility and turn up when they've promised to will probably be asked to leave. There's no point in having people you can't rely on. The key thing most commentators forget is that these people really want to work there - that's why they volunteered in the first place. The difference is that the desire to work isn't driven by money, and that's why the management of these roles has to be handled differently. It becomes all about job satisfaction, teamwork, fairness, recognition, opportunities for personal development... 'cos it isn't about the money.

 

If that is correct it's simple....

 

Do not re-engage fixed term staff.

 

Hope they volunteer, if they don't, (and If I'd been paid to do it I wouldn't)

 

seek alternative volunteers....

 

Plan doomed to failure...

Depends how many new volunteers they get, doesn't it?

 

The interesting bit is going to be BW's attitude towards some of the fringe benefits. If I go lockwheeling for a day to pass the time, and someone offers me a beer, I can drink it. Presumably if I had a BW name badge on, though, I couldn't. So even though I quite like lockwheeling I wouldn't want to go on the roster for doing so, because turning up unofficially is better.

 

Tricky...

[Timleech]

Someone who can't take responsibility and turn up when they've promised to will probably be asked to leave. There's no point in having people you can't rely on. The key thing most commentators forget is that these people really want to work there - that's why they volunteered in the first place. The difference is that the desire to work isn't driven by money, and that's why the management of these roles has to be handled differently. It becomes all about job satisfaction, teamwork, fairness, recognition, opportunities for personal development... 'cos it isn't about the money.

 

 

Depends how many new volunteers they get, doesn't it?

 

 

Tricky...

 

For it to work, they need to be able to develop a culture which sees volunteering as being a good and worthwhile thing to do, as well as an infrastructure such as you describe for the management.

Simply advertising previously paid and maybe skilled/qualified jobs as volunteer posts will just get peoples backs up and get them nowhere, IMO.

The knowledge that the top brass are on seriously big money and often seen as out of touch will not help their cause.

 

Tim

[sociable_hermit]

For it to work, they need to be able to develop a culture which sees volunteering as being a good and worthwhile thing to do, as well as an infrastructure such as you describe for the management.

Simply advertising previously paid and maybe skilled/qualified jobs as volunteer posts will just get peoples backs up and get them nowhere, IMO.

The knowledge that the top brass are on seriously big money and often seen as out of touch will not help their cause.

 

Tim

Yep, absolutely. That's what I've been trying to say, rather clumsily.

 

The majority here on the forum don't seem to understand why volunteers, um, volunteer.

 

It has to be a mutually beneficial process for all involved, if it is to work. The organisation, the volunteers and the customers (that's you and I) all need to get something out of it.

 

Any perceived 'unfairness' shoots a big hole straight through the whole thing.

 

That's why preserved railways generally have voluntary management (or lowly-paid) and are usually owned in some form by their own members. For example the Bluebell Railway is a PLC but 51% of shares are always retained by the Bluebell Railway Preservation Society. All volunteers are BRPS members, not PLC employees.

[luctor et emergo]

Yep, absolutely. That's what I've been trying to say, rather clumsily.

 

The majority here on the forum don't seem to understand why volunteers, um, volunteer.

 

It has to be a mutually beneficial process for all involved, if it is to work. The organisation, the volunteers and the customers (that's you and I) all need to get something out of it.

 

Any perceived 'unfairness' shoots a big hole straight through the whole thing.

 

That's why preserved railways generally have voluntary management (or lowly-paid) and are usually owned in some form by their own members. For example the Bluebell Railway is a PLC but 51% of shares are always retained by the Bluebell Railway Preservation Society. All volunteers are BRPS members, not PLC employees.

 

 

This is not about the reasons why people volunteer, those reasons are obvious, and varied.

 

The issue here, is that BW are hoping to replace paid positions, with voluntary labour. Fine when it involves a few hours of weed cutting, or general tidying up, not so good when they expect fully qualified people to do a (full-time, and commercial) job for free.

 

Will the directors become volunteers?

[seaandland]

B/W have just released a memo saying 300 people have shown an interest in volunteering, ill try and find it and post it.

[daves6guitars]

This is not about the reasons why people volunteer, those reasons are obvious, and varied.

 

The issue here, is that BW are hoping to replace paid positions, with voluntary labour. Fine when it involves a few hours of weed cutting, or general tidying up, not so good when they expect fully qualified people to do a (full-time, and commercial) job for free.

 

Will the directors become volunteers?

 

 

I think it's irrelevant whether they are highly skilled professionals or labourers, the point is, they choose to volunteer, no one expects them to or makes them!! If people want to offer whatever skills they have for the benefit of others, and I mean all canal users, not just the top brass, then that's fine by me. What we're seeing here is the natural progress of life whether we like it or not. More and more organisations use volunteer staff as a means of helping their business's survive and in the current financial climate, this will only become more prevelant. The NHS that I work in would collapse completely if it were not for volunteers and highly skilled Professionals giving extra time for nowt!

[sueb]

BW have to get a better record on looking after volunteers. Some on the K&A worked hard last year. This year a volunteer meeting was called and these volunteers weren't invited. Result a whole group of people who won't volunteer again.

Sue

[luctor et emergo]

I think it's irrelevant whether they are highly skilled professionals or labourers, the point is, they choose to volunteer, no one expects them to or makes them!! If people want to offer whatever skills they have for the benefit of others, and I mean all canal users, not just the top brass, then that's fine by me. What we're seeing here is the natural progress of life whether we like it or not. More and more organisations use volunteer staff as a means of helping their business's survive and in the current financial climate, this will only become more prevelant. The NHS that I work in would collapse completely if it were not for volunteers and highly skilled Professionals giving extra time for nowt!

 

So, how many consultants come in for free?

 

Again, we are not talking about a few hours of spare time, talking to patients or pushing a library trolly around.

 

BW are asking a fully qualified Boatmaster, to offer his services for free. Now unless he (or she..) is expected to do one or two trips on a Saturday only, they seem to expect somebody to do a job for free. How, or when, is the boatmaster supposed to earn a living?

 

And where does the volunteering stop? You can replace every job with a volunteer after all. Something tells me, that Robin Evans is not going to volunteer his services however...

[daves6guitars]

BW have to get a better record on looking after volunteers. Some on the K&A worked hard last year. This year a volunteer meeting was called and these volunteers weren't invited. Result a whole group of people who won't volunteer again.

Sue

 

Exactly my point, you've made two choices here, firstly to volunteer, then after your experience, not to volunteer! If BW wishes to continue to rely on volunteers, they must treat them as equally as their paid staff. If they are not, shame on them, they seem to be missing opportunities.

 

So, how many consultants come in for free?

 

Again, we are not talking about a few hours of spare time, talking to patients or pushing a library trolly around.

 

BW are asking a fully qualified Boatmaster, to offer his services for free. Now unless he (or she..) is expected to do one or two trips on a Saturday only, they seem to expect somebody to do a job for free. How, or when, is the boatmaster supposed to earn a living?

 

And where does the volunteering stop? You can replace every job with a volunteer after all. Something tells me, that Robin Evans is not going to volunteer his services however...

 

You're missing the point again....if a fully qualified boatmaster doesn't want to offer his or her services, they dont have to respond to the ad. If they do...fine, why should you worry!!

 

Please dont trivialise people talking to patients and pushing library trolleys around, they have just as much value as other skilled staff who often work many extra hours for nothing.... possibly patching up unfortunate boaters

[luctor et emergo]

You're missing the point again....if a fully qualified boatmaster doesn't want to offer his or her services, they dont have to respond to the ad. If they do...fine, why should you worry!!

 

The point I'm making, is that BW are trying to get paid jobs, that people can make a living from, replaced by free voluntary labour. Today the tripboat, tomorrow the lock keeper, the mainanance people, the office staff dealing with the licences. Hang on, would you volunteer to work 9 to 5 in the office?

my 'worry' is, that Robin et al, replace the paid jobs with volunteers, putting people out of a paid job, claim the resulting savings as their hard work, and award themselves a mighty fine bonus for it...

 

Unless I missed the advert for a 'volunteer Chief Executive' ...

 

 

Please dont trivialise people talking to patients and pushing library trolleys around, they have just as much value as other skilled staff who often work many extra hours for nothing.... possibly patching up unfortunate boaters

 

I certainly did not mean to trivialise the volunteers who do such worthwile work. But doing such volunteer work is not a full time job, and is rarely done by people who need to work to earn a living.

[daves6guitars]

Well lets put it another way....If someone with the right skills and equipment offered to recondition your engine and black your hull for nothing, would you choose to pay someone else the going rate? I think not.

[sociable_hermit]

So, how many consultants come in for free?

 

Again, we are not talking about a few hours of spare time, talking to patients or pushing a library trolly around.

 

BW are asking a fully qualified Boatmaster, to offer his services for free. Now unless he (or she..) is expected to do one or two trips on a Saturday only, they seem to expect somebody to do a job for free. How, or when, is the boatmaster supposed to earn a living?

 

And where does the volunteering stop? You can replace every job with a volunteer after all. Something tells me, that Robin Evans is not going to volunteer his services however...

 

While people will volunteer for jobs like cutting grass or pushing a trolley around for a couple of hours, they won't generally do those jobs five days a week, because they aren't rewarding enough to make it worthwhile without pay. I think writing those adverts in the singular is naive. They won't get one full-time volunteer, so they need to be advertising for a small gang of volunteers each prepared to do half a day or a day a week. You're also assuming that volunteers can only be given relatively simple, low-responsibility jobs to do, which is not only wrong, but counter-productive. Volunteers actually thrive on responsibility and achievement, so assuming they're only good for covering the more menial jobs is a big mistake.

 

I agree with you about a Boatmaster earning a living, they wouldn't want to do it as a hobby as well. But what about a mixture of newly-retired Boatmasters, who might miss doing their old job (lets say BW can find two, who are each prepared to volunteer for one day a week) and new volunteers willing to be trained up by the experienced guys? That might work.

 

Edited to add: another way of getting the menial jobs covered is to have some sort of pay-off for doing them. We have guys who do yard work, emptying ash pits and breaking up wood and so forth. It can be fun, but the main reason they do it is because they then qualify for engine turns (more fun, more responsibility).

Edited August 6, 2010 by sociable_hermit

[Rick-n-Jo]

The boatmaster job is a very odd one to be recruiting volunteers for. I can see why grass cutting, litter clearing, even lock keeping might be considered. They're tasks that need to be done, but are just a cost to BW, there's no income derived directly from these activities.

 

But aren't they missing the rather simple financial point of a trip boat? You take say 25 people for a boat ride for £3 or so. Do it say 4 times a day. £300 in the kitty. Bung the skipper £60 and his crew £45, and BW trouser the rest. Even allowing for running costs, that's a net income, so why chuck the paid staff out of a job? Apart from greed or stupidity, of course.

 

Rick

[Morat]

Expressing an interest is not the same as volunteering and volunteering isn't the same as turning up at 9am next Saturday with suitable clothing and footwear - especially if it's raining.

 

I would be amazed if those 300 people actually provide more than 100 man days next year. It will take a very long time to build up a core of dedicated volunteers who will bring on others. Recruitment needs to take place on a very local level so that small teams can be built, and the managers need to learn very quickly that they can only lead volunteers - never direct. Plus the salarymen need to get used to working on a weekend, every weekend or they may as well not bother.

[twbm]

Huh??!!

 

Given that everywhere the Queen goes, the area she visits is painted and cleaned, there's a long standing joke that she thinks the whole world smells of paint. When she visited Worsley in the 60's to stand on Queen Victoria's bridge (which was repainted) for 30 seconds, it's suggested that the Ochre orange Bridgewater canal was dyed green.

[Natalie Graham]

Expressing an interest is not the same as volunteering and volunteering isn't the same as turning up at 9am next Saturday with suitable clothing and footwear - especially if it's raining.

 

I would be amazed if those 300 people actually provide more than 100 man days next year. It will take a very long time to build up a core of dedicated volunteers who will bring on others. Recruitment needs to take place on a very local level so that small teams can be built, and the managers need to learn very quickly that they can only lead volunteers - never direct. Plus the salarymen need to get used to working on a weekend, every weekend or they may as well not bother.

 

Plus: The volunteers need to feel they a connection to whoever they are volunteering for. If they feel they are simply being used as a free alternative to paid labour to allow BW to save/make money they will soon become disillusioned.

 

Given the track record of BW's management on issues like the three compulsory trip hazards for every lock, do we really expect them to get this right?

[twbm]

The boatmaster job is a very odd one to be recruiting volunteers for. I can see why grass cutting, litter clearing, even lock keeping might be considered. They're tasks that need to be done, but are just a cost to BW, there's no income derived directly from these activities.

 

But aren't they missing the rather simple financial point of a trip boat? You take say 25 people for a boat ride for £3 or so. Do it say 4 times a day. £300 in the kitty. Bung the skipper £60 and his crew £45, and BW trouser the rest. Even allowing for running costs, that's a net income, so why chuck the paid staff out of a job? Apart from greed or stupidity, of course.

 

Rick

 

You are presuming sufficient fully occupied trips to sustain employees wages and expenses. I've run trips on Bank Holiday weekends on the John Pinkerton (Basingstoke canal) where we've had three crew and two passengers at a fiver each. If you use minimum wage as a basis that trip would cost £35.28 to run just for the crew, assuming there were no additional employers NI contributions to be made, and there's all the other costs such as MCA licencing etc. so nobodys trousering anything.

 

As it is, the Pinkerton produces an income to the Surrey and Hants Canal Society of circa £20 to £25k each year, crewed as it is by volunteers - Boatmasters an'all.

 

I fully agree with the sentiment that BW Board members should not be paid silly wages, but it's a fact that the UK Inland waterway system is not financially self sustainable, and it's a fact that the government will not continue to prop it up. I sympathise deeply with the employees: I work for one of the organisations that is to be dismantled despite that fact that we provide some pretty important front line support to the emergency services.

 

If we are to retain the waterways in a such a state that we can continue to use them, we are going to have to get used to volunteers doing a lot of the work under the current governments master plan, which incidentally includes similar plans for provision of policing and other public services as part of David and Nicks 'Big Society' if I've been paying proper attention to Radio 4.

 

It also occurs to me that anyone involved in restoration should have a finacially viable in-life maintanance plan ready if the work is not to have been for nothing. That would presumably have to be be a continuation of the volunteering that re-opened the waterway in the first place.

[Smelly]

Indeed, and what is the situation with voluntary workers who suffer industrial injury, decide they can't be bothered to turn up for work because its a sunny day etc. etc. - how are the organisation and the volunteer tied into legal obligations to each other?

 

Interestingly (well for me anyway) if a decision of HMRC I have seen is to be relied upon, volunteers in this kind of arrangement would be.treated as in employment and could.fall back on the statutory schemes, at least as far as industrial accidents. I've no idea of the legal basis for this and would be keen to hear of others experiences.

[TheWilk]

Just looking at the waterscape site cos I'm having a go at getting some press attention to this story... I found the best job title ever:

 

British Waterways - Volunteer Volunteer recruiter

 

It's quite frightening - there are no job vacancies at all advertised at the moment, but 6 pages of 'volunteer opportunities'. A number of them are backroom office staff, not the type of thing you'd expect people to volunteer for at all.

[seaandland]

For every position filled one less real job gone,