Barriers to volunteering

[Mick and Maggie]

Have you been thinking of volunteering with BW?

 

After a recent ruling by three judges that a Citizens Advice Bureau volunteer is not covered by employment law because he/she did not have a contract of employment and was not paid. He/she did not qualify for protection under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the associated European Framework Directive.

 

The decision was welcomed by the Association of Volunteer Managers. If the appeal had been allowed, they argued, it would potentially have created a huge financial burden for many charities and deterred them from taking on volunteers. The appellant in the CAB case in the appeal court did not have a contract with the CAB, but she had been given a volunteer agreement. This was described in court as "binding in honour only ... and not a contract of employment or legally binding".

 

 

Paul Michell, the barrister who successfully represented the CAB, recognises that the outcome does not leave a satisfactory state of affairs. "If volunteers are not protected under employment and occupation directives, then how are they protected?" he said after the case. "That is the next question."

 

Rob Jackson, director of development and innovation at VE, said it was pleased with the Court of Appeal's decision. "We don't think volunteering is the same as paid work," he says. "Making it so would create another set of problems. It would put up barriers to volunteering when we're trying to encourage more of it."

 

Kate Bowgett, Association of Volunteer Managers, also thinks the appeal court got it right. Volunteers she says, "don't exist legally".

 

 

Mark Restall, a consultant on volunteer management and author of Volunteers and the Law, agrees with Bowgett. "A few years ago I would have said volunteers needed a better defined status," he says. "But now I feel that the status quo is better. At the moment it's based on mutual trust, and any legal changes would risk making it something different - almost a sub-category of employment." Restall also cautions against anything that might look to an employment tribunal like a contract or a form of payment. "They will look at whether something of value has been offered or exchanged," he says. "This can be anything over and above direct reimbursement for expenses." He says that even giving volunteers a flat rate to cover potential expenses or offering them perks such as discounts at a charity shop could be seen as payment. "The problem is that we don't know for sure about lots of issues, but we only ever do when it comes up in a tribunal case, and there's only been a small number of them".

 

 

Victoria Willson, a solicitor at Levenes Employment, which specialises in the third sector, says that such a document or a letter can be helpful. "It should say that they are a volunteer. It shouldn't be too prescriptive, though. Make it clear that the arrangements do not impose any obligations to do the volunteering and avoid using employment law terminology - for example, 'disciplinary' and 'grievances'."

 

 

As for the name change for British Waterways we could call it the "sink or swim" charity.

 

M and M

[NB Lola]

Looks like the big society is getting smaller by the day!

[Laurie Booth]

A very interesting post, needs a lot of thinking about.

[Pete of Ebor]

On a similar related topic, on page 7 of Towpath Telegraph (issue 64, feb) there's an article about volunteer lock operators on the Trent on the big locks between Nottingham & Newark. So, if as a volunteer, you don't have a contract of employment and you don't have protection of employment law, where do you stand if there's an accident, especially if it's your fault ? Does BW the just shrug it's collective shoulders and say ".. sorry guv, not our fault .. not one out our employees.." or more worryingly, in today's litigous society, will the 'volunteer' be held personally liable - we might even finish up needing to buy our own personal third party public liability insurance just to volunteer .... ! If that's not a barrier, I don't know what is !!!

Edited February 21, 2011 by Pete of Ebor

[sueb]

Many years ago my husband hurt his finger pile driving (as a volunteer). As we were seeing a solicitor due to a house move we asked the question. The reply was as a volunteer he could have refused to do the job and therefore had no claim. He received a small amount from the organisations insurance but it did not compensate him for loss of earnings. It didn't stop us canal digging though.

Sue

[cariad]

i wonder if CAMERON and his cronies will work for for nothing just to set an example of how the BIG SOCIETY will work.

they may even give up their expenses claim . what a HOPE we got, bloody HYPOCRITES.

[muddywaters]

Many years ago my husband hurt his finger pile driving (as a volunteer). As we were seeing a solicitor due to a house move we asked the question. The reply was as a volunteer he could have refused to do the job and therefore had no claim. He received a small amount from the organisations insurance but it did not compensate him for loss of earnings. It didn't stop us canal digging though.

Sue

It was about 13 years ago, but when I was a volunteer with the ST John Ambulance Brigade.

Each member was insured, in the event of that situation

[dor]

I do wonder how this volunteering is really going to work out, if BW think that cleaning graffiti off a bridge is too dangerous to be undertaken by local volunteers.

 

On our mooring there are access issues for the contractors to cut the grass as the offside mooring has to be accessed by a dinghy and contractors are not allowed to cross the water. We suggested that if BW bought us some equipment, we would do it ourselves. We had a meeting with the "volunteer coordinator" & mooring manager, arranged a "training day" and thought it would all be quite simple. The word came down from above that we were not even to think about it (despite the fact that most of us were already cutting our own bit of grass). Apparently using a small lawnmower is far too dangerous to contemplate.

 

This would have saved BW a considerable amount of money, which one would think is what they are trying to achieve. I find it difficult to see how having a volunteer looking after a set of locks is going to save them any money if everything has to be covered 10 times over before they allow it. And yes, BW is planning on replacing existing lock keepers with volunteers.

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

And yes, BW is planning on replacing existing lock keepers with volunteers.

 

Tying this into the "contract of employment" thing, what's to stop a volunteer just not turning up for work? "Sorry, these locks are not open today because Fred hasn't turned up - there's nothing we can do about him".

 

This Wizard Wheeze of getting people to volunteer for paid positions is, frankly, crazy and not thought through

 

Richard

[Tony Brooks]

i wonder if CAMERON and his cronies will work for for nothing just to set an example of how the BIG SOCIETY will work.

they may even give up their expenses claim . what a HOPE we got, bloody HYPOCRITES.

 

 

Just like all those councillors who seem intent on cutting wages while still trousering their expenses.

[Randwick]

On a similar related topic, on page 7 of Towpath Telegraph (issue 64, feb) there's an article about volunteer lock operators on the Trent on the big locks between Nottingham & Newark. So, if as a volunteer, you don't have a contract of employment and you don't have protection of employment law, where do you stand if there's an accident, especially if it's your fault ? Does BW the just shrug it's collective shoulders and say ".. sorry guv, not our fault .. not one out our employees.." or more worryingly, in today's litigous society, will the 'volunteer' be held personally liable - we might even finish up needing to buy our own personal third party public liability insurance just to volunteer .... ! If that's not a barrier, I don't know what is !!!

I volunteer as technical crew at my local pro theatre, unpaid, and I'm then covered in the event of untoward occurences by their insurance. However, on the odd occasion I'm asked to work for them (I have a lot of experience in theatre) and get paid, I have to have my own personal liability insurance.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Randwick

[KenK]

As BW are involved in a trial on the K&A with the Trust I would assume they would use similar methods to ours. The volunteer handbook is available on the trust website if anyone wishes to read it in full.

 

The basics Volunteers should be:- Vetted to ensure suitability for the role they will undertake.

Trained for each and every role.

Supervised by a trust member if not one themselves.

Insured if a trust member or supervised by one.

Paid legitimate expenses.

 

BW directors may be living in a different world but the managers on the ground do know their jobs and they are not going to put anyone in position without ensuring their safety.

 

Ken

[sueb]

It was about 13 years ago, but when I was a volunteer with the ST John Ambulance Brigade.

Each member was insured, in the event of that situation

The point I made was that the insurance didn't cover the costs. I think you may find that IWA insurance doesn't cover volunteers sufficiently in the case of not being able to work for some time.

Sue

[bottle]

Apparently using a small lawnmower is far too dangerous to contemplate.

 

It is, a volunteer has died whilst using one, the death was recorded as an 'open verdict'.

 

Link

[churchward]

Tying this into the "contract of employment" thing, what's to stop a volunteer just not turning up for work? "Sorry, these locks are not open today because Fred hasn't turned up - there's nothing we can do about him".

 

This Wizard Wheeze of getting people to volunteer for paid positions is, frankly, crazy and not thought through

 

Richard

There are plenty of organisations who use volunteer workforce for operationally critical roles rather than just incidental ones.

 

Heritage railways are one example. There are plenty of roles where they would not be able to open and operate if it wasn't for the volunteer staff turning up as rostered.

 

In my experience the fact that someone volunteers for something usually means that they are more committed to doing the role and it is unlikely that they will not just decide to stay at home when they should be on duty.

Edited February 21, 2011 by churchward

[canaldrifter]

Hang on. Let me tune into the CEO's mind using my tea leaves, runes and discarded Big Mac chicken wing bones.

 

Yup.... got it.

 

'BW volunteers must get together and form an organisation of waterway volunteers, and then apply for insurance for members, which they must pay for.'

 

H'mm

 

Tone

[sociable_hermit]

It's possible to insure volunteers for a wide range of hazardous activities.

 

A voluntary organisation really needs to exhibit a duty of care to its staff, if it wants to retain any. Volunteers don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool, but they do need to feel valued, and being treated with a basic level of respect is a good starting point.

 

The main conditions where I work are that:

 

1. Volunteers must be fit for duty (D&A policy), and must sign on and off (to prove when they have worked, and thus when they are to be covered by the insurance).

2. Volunteers must belong to the Society in order to work, as it is the Society that insures its volunteers. No membership = no cover = no work.

3. Health & Safety is a 2-way process. While the management are responsible for providing training, PPE etc., individuals are also expected to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their colleagues.

 

Everything else stems from those basic rules.

 

It is in everyone's best interests to be reasonable and to compromise. Volunteers want to work and the parent organisation will want them to work, but that doesn't mean they will be exploited. Someone with a medical condition, for example, could be put onto lighter duties, and also banned from lone working, just in case. It would be wrong to stop them from doing something they love, but on the other hand it isn't in anyone's best interests to run them into the ground.

 

It's no good looking at it from the typical Employer - Staff perspective because that logic simply doesn't apply.

 

Tying this into the "contract of employment" thing, what's to stop a volunteer just not turning up for work?

Because they WANT to be there. It is possible to ban volunteers who have proven to be unreliable, and they really don't like it. Turning up on time and doing a good job are matters of pride - it's all about job satisfaction, because it isn't all about money.

 

You're also overlooking the element of team spirit. If you go AWOL or turn up late all the time, you're letting the other volunteers down, as well as yourself. And they'll let you know about it, too!

[RLWP]

It's possible to insure volunteers for a wide range of hazardous activities.

 

A voluntary organisation really needs to exhibit a duty of care to its staff, if it wants to retain any. Volunteers don't need to be wrapped in cotton wool, but they do need to feel valued, and being treated with a basic level of respect is a good starting point.

 

The main conditions where I work are that:

 

1. Volunteers must be fit for duty (D&A policy), and must sign on and off (to prove when they have worked, and thus when they are to be covered by the insurance).

2. Volunteers must belong to the Society in order to work, as it is the Society that insures its volunteers. No membership = no cover = no work.

3. Health & Safety is a 2-way process. While the management are responsible for providing training, PPE etc., individuals are also expected to take responsibility for their own safety and that of their colleagues.

 

Everything else stems from those basic rules.

 

It is in everyone's best interests to be reasonable and to compromise. Volunteers want to work and the parent organisation will want them to work, but that doesn't mean they will be exploited. Someone with a medical condition, for example, could be put onto lighter duties, and also banned from lone working, just in case. It would be wrong to stop them from doing something they love, but on the other hand it isn't in anyone's best interests to run them into the ground.

 

It's no good looking at it from the typical Employer - Staff perspective because that logic simply doesn't apply.

 

 

Because they WANT to be there. It is possible to ban volunteers who have proven to be unreliable, and they really don't like it. Turning up on time and doing a good job are matters of pride - it's all about job satisfaction, because it isn't all about money.

 

You're also overlooking the element of team spirit. If you go AWOL or turn up late all the time, you're letting the other volunteers down, as well as yourself. And they'll let you know about it, too!

 

It's a bit different though, being a part of a team on a steam railway as opposed to being the only lock-keeper on a flight of locks. Also being a part of a wholly volunteer organisation rather than a corporate enterprise

 

Richard

[gaggle]

Just like all those councillors who seem intent on cutting wages while still trousering their expenses.

 

 

Wonder where you got that line from , as for trousering expenses have any of the mp,s got room to talk.

[churchward]

It's a bit different though, being a part of a team on a steam railway as opposed to being the only lock-keeper on a flight of locks. Also being a part of a wholly volunteer organisation rather than a corporate enterprise

 

Richard

Not really. The closest example I can give (and a real one) is a line is open that requires a single signalbox to open to manage passage of trains over a level road crossing. If the signalman doesn't turn up the trains don't run same as a lock keeper huh?

 

Also it is not true that a Heritage railway is a wholly volunteer enterprise there can be permanent paid management and other employed staff. they also have to make money or they don't stay open there is no public grant in most cases.

[DeanS]

John the lock keeper loses his job.

He is replaced by Bob, a volunteer.

John, is now unemployed. He cant pay any taxes.

John goes on the dole.

John looks for new work, and gets JobSeekers allowance.

Bob gets nothing.

Bob is doing all the work, and getting nothing.

John is doing no work, and getting paid.

 

Who designed this system exactly?

[saltysplash]

Not really. The closest example I can give (and a real one) is a line is open that requires a single signalbox to open to manage passage of trains over a level road crossing. If the signalman doesn't turn up the trains don't run same as a lock keeper huh?

 

 

When I was a Volunteer Guard on the Kent and East Sussex Railway, The Signal box at the Wittersham rd level crossing was rarely if ever staffed.

 

The train came to a stop at the gates, Guard exits the train and opens the gates. train goes through and stops again while guard shuts the gates and climbs back aboard.

 

It used to work quite well as I remember and on the Mk1 BR corridor coaches you didnt have to have a long walk on the ballast from the Brake van to open the gate.

[churchward]

When I was a Volunteer Guard on the Kent and East Sussex Railway, The Signal box at the Wittersham rd level crossing was rarely if ever staffed.

 

The train came to a stop at the gates, Guard exits the train and opens the gates. train goes through and stops again while guard shuts the gates and climbs back aboard.

 

It used to work quite well as I remember and on the Mk1 BR corridor coaches you didnt have to have a long walk on the ballast from the Brake van to open the gate.

Yes that will be true that there are running rules for some railways to do that others there may not depending on the kind of crossing. However that just makes the example akin to someone working their own locks doesn't it? So you don't need an employee or volunteer in that case.

[sociable_hermit]

It's a bit different though, being a part of a team on a steam railway as opposed to being the only lock-keeper on a flight of locks. Also being a part of a wholly volunteer organisation rather than a corporate enterprise

 

Richard

Yes and no. We have lone workers doing trackside clearance work, for example. They are primarily interested in working in the fresh air, and enjoy using strimmers and chainsaws and so forth. The fact that they're on a railway is almost irrelevant, they could just as easily be on a towpath. It's not all glamourous work. For example, what about the carriage cleaners who get up at 6am to sweep, mop, dust and polish the trains?

 

The tricky part is matching the skills to the jobs available. The people who volunteer for the customer-facing roles, for example, aren't always the most suitable people for those roles. So how do you manage that? It's not something that can be done through blanket policy decisions, as every individual is different and must be managed differently. Some people can be re-trained, or mentored, or possibly found a more suitable role elsewhere. And a few will inevitably leave if a suitable niche can't be found.

 

So, twist the logic round. If a busy flight is stressful, why has only one volunteer been allocated to the task? You may as well have two in the Summer months, ideally an old hand and a newer recruit. Or maybe one who likes chatting to visitors and one who likes working the locks. Or maybe a couple who want to volunteer together? Or perhaps if there's a small group of volunteers, they might prefer to do half-day shifts so they only have to do half a day at a time? It's not as though the labour cost will increase, is it? Essentially, provided some sort of system is arranged that keeps everyone happy, that'll do. The next set of locks could be doing something totally different, but again if that's what suits them, so be it. Provided the staff are motivated and the public-facing side remains consistent, that's all that matters.

 

Volunteers do require attentive management, at least initially. They also need a transparent system to work to, with clear responsibilities and lines of command. Volunteers love the job - a Booking Clerk will take pride in selling tickets and giving a warm welcome just as a Driver will take pride in driving a train. In fact in many cases the Booking Clerks never see a train all day. So by the same token a voluntary lock keeper will take pride in assisting boats through the locks and answering questions. Being able to handle the stress is part of the challenge and part of the job satisfaction and the pride. But at the same time there is a break-even point where a challenging but rewarding job simply becomes a balls-aching one. Effective management (whether paid or voluntary) requires local knowledge and a fair degree of cunning, to recognise where this point is and avoid it: knowing the jobs and the people well enough to really get the best out of everyone. And volunteers will not tolerate being fobbed off, and nor will they do things they know to be pointless. If it's a valid part of the job, great, but if it's needless bureaucracy, forget it.

 

From that point of view I agree that BW's current high level managerial attitude cannot remain, and I do think they've badly underestimated just how much change is required. But this doesn't mean it cannot work. You seem to be implying that volunteer-led railways aren't commercially minded or professionally run, and that isn't necessarily correct. Although they aren't motivated by money in itself, they still need to make money in order to survive and improve, so they're often quite sharp financially. Remember, it's all about pride and job satisfaction - about improving, continuously, and taking on new challenges. Being well managed and financially cute actually helps with that.

[greywolf]

I do wonder how this volunteering is really going to work out, if BW think that cleaning graffiti off a bridge is too dangerous to be undertaken by local volunteers.

 

On our mooring there are access issues for the contractors to cut the grass as the offside mooring has to be accessed by a dinghy and contractors are not allowed to cross the water. We suggested that if BW bought us some equipment, we would do it ourselves. We had a meeting with the "volunteer coordinator" & mooring manager, arranged a "training day" and thought it would all be quite simple. The word came down from above that we were not even to think about it (despite the fact that most of us were already cutting our own bit of grass). Apparently using a small lawnmower is far too dangerous to contemplate.

 

This would have saved BW a considerable amount of money, which one would think is what they are trying to achieve. I find it difficult to see how having a volunteer looking after a set of locks is going to save them any money if everything has to be covered 10 times over before they allow it. And yes, BW is planning on replacing existing lock keepers with volunteers.

 

I am a volunteer at an Historic gardens and i was amazed that we were not allowed to make a cup of tea in the admittedly very large tea pot because we might scold ourselves. :rolleyes:We are however allowed to use the variety of sharp implement used in the garden.

Edited February 21, 2011 by greywolf