Compulsory volunteering...

posted by Yellow Page on Tue, 12/06/2007 - 2:36pm

Over the weekend the issue of compulsory volunteering was raised again, this time in the context community cohesion.

 Darra Singh writing in the Observer on Sunday said:

 It is to be welcomed that many young people now take part in volunteering and give something back to their local area. The benefits are great - bringing together young people from different backgrounds to work together towards a common goal. I think we need to consider a national community service and we should not be afraid of asking whether this should be compulsory...

Darra Singh is chairman of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion.

Should we campaigning against this on AVM? 

Forums: 
Legal issues, policy and campaigns

On Tue, 12/06/2007 - 6:17pm
whilst there is much to be respected and advocated for about the idea of encouraging young peopel to engage in community activity and perhaps even developing schemes and structures within which this can be done, this would of course no longer be called volunteering if it were compulsory and I would want AVM to campaign on this even if it were only in terms of developing a nationally understood definition of volunteering - what do other members think?
By debbieu -- Debbie Usiskin

On Wed, 13/06/2007 - 11:36am

This doesn't appear to be thought through.  Compulsary volunteering just isn't volunteering at all.  If they mean community service / national service / some kind of Americorps equivalent, then those terms or similar should be used. 

Who is going to provide the operational management?  The voluntary sector would be unlikely to be able to provide huge numbers of additional placements.  Surely the quality of the experience that the people have is very important if one of the objectives is for people to try out "volunteering" with a view to them taking it up independently?

 

Steve Gee

Volunteer Development Manager

Cancer Research UK

By Steve Gee --

Steve Gee

Volunteer Development Manager

Cancer Research UK

On Sun, 17/06/2007 - 12:59pm
I would agree with Steve and Debbie that volunteering can never be compulsory, and AVM should vigorously campaign against it. However, at the risk of being pedantic, he doesn't say volunteering should be compulsory but rather national community service, and he draws parallels with the benefits that volunteers give and receive. Of course I may be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
By johnramsey

On Tue, 19/06/2007 - 10:00am
I get so annoyed when someone tells me I was 'volunteered' to do something. I am quick to correct them and tell them that I volunteer myself, it suppose to be an expression of free will and when I am told to do something I am 'nominated'. There is a difference. I actually have only a few issues with national community service - 1) it is never called volunteering, 2) that it is not just an assumed given by policy makers that the voluntary sector, and more importantly volunteer managers, are not expected to just co-ordiante it on top of their work without investment of the policy makers, and finally 3) that means we are asked whether we think we have the capacity to undertake 'compulsary national community service programmes' and that there is some education about how this may impact upon current volunteering schemes.
By Nikki Squelch -- Nikki - AVM Member & Director (volunteer)

On Fri, 03/08/2007 - 4:22pm

I don't disagree with what others have said but I do think we need to get more sophisticated in our arguments when it comes to what is an isn't volunteering.

For example, I think we'd all agree that a scheme that requires people to volunteer or lose state benefits is not volunteering. When New Deal was introduced in the late 1990's Alun Michael MP (then the equivalent of Minister for the Third Sector) made it very clear that the scheme would work with the VCS but was not about volunteering.

However, for an alternative view, what about student volunteering in HE? I was involved in a panel debate at this year's student volunteering conference this year where a delegate explained that yes volunteering at university was optional (an act of free will) the realisty was that if you didn't do it you were at a disadvantage in the labour market. So, by extension, this form of volunteering operates under a degree of compulsion, but we don't argue it is compulsory and so not volunteering. Why not? How is it different? whay does that make a difference in how we view it? This example also leads on to two other related points.

First, volunteering is a self defining activity. Volunteering has been happening for thousands of years before it was called volunteering and formalised as it is now. Volunteering is an individual act of the citizen (except in this country we're subjects!) Volunteering has evolved over time (for example, during the creation of the welfare state)and will continue to do so, probably for thousands of years to come.

The point is, who owns the definition of volunteering? Who has the right to decide for society if an activity it or isn't volunteering? AVM, government, VE, volunteers? Does society care if an activity fits with a definition of volunteering so long as the activity brings a common good? Answers on a postcard! Second, student volunteering may well be the scene of the biggest debate yet about financial benefit arising from volunteering. Government continues to toy with the idea of students receiving reductions in the cost of Higher Education (HE) in return for volunteering whilst at University.

This is spun as incentivising those who couldn't otherwise afford to go to university to get help with the incredible cost of HE. Is this wrong? At face value yes, this isn't what most of us would call volunteering. But consider: * This financial offer is an incentive (something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort) not a reward (something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship)? Does this make a difference? How? Why? * Is this kind of incentive/reward different to a student volunteering and, as a consequence, gaining a better paid job i.e. accruing a financial benefit from their volunteering? How? Why?

As I said at the start, I'm not disagreeing with others who've posted on this topic. I'm simply trying to open up debate so we recognise and tackle the grey areas that lurk at the edges of what we all to often view as nice tidy definitions.

Oh, and as a parting shot, as many in our field don't like the idea of volunteers in private profit making firms, has anyone stopped to think that LOCOG (2012 organising body) is a private, profit making body and so perhaps the sector is being a little hypocritical in falling over ourselves to get involved in the olympics?

Rob Jackson Founder and moderator UKVPMs http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKVPMs/

By robjackson -- Rob Jackson Founder and moderator UKVPMs http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UKVPMs/

On Mon, 06/08/2007 - 10:18am

The problem with systems whereby students can only get jobs in certain industies if they have worked in them unpaid, is that it does mean that students from low incomes will struggle to access them.  When I was a staudent, the majority of my spare time was taken up with paid work which I had to do so that I could afford to eat and pay the rent.  I did volunteer, but only in an opportunity that was extremely flexible, where I only did one evening a month.  Schemes like the government is proposing, would have had to 'reward' me at national minimum wage rates for me to be able to consider doing them. Not because I was mercenary and uncaring, but because, not being entitled to any benefits, I needed to work to survive. 

 It is ironic that I am now working in a museum, because when I was a student that is exactley what I wanted to do.  However, having to do a postgraduate degree AND then work unpaid as an intern for a considerable amount of time, meant it was a career that was completely inaccesible to me.  The fact that they have created a career route that is only accesible to people of 'independant means' is something that the museum sector is now really struggling with.  They really want to diversify their worforce, yet they have become completely reliant on unpaid interns.

 It now seemes to be taken for granted that to get into some careers (museum work, anything in the media) you HAVE to start off unpaid,  generally full time, often for months at a time.  If we acquiesce to this we accept that these careers are only accesible to rich kids.  I would be worried to see, not being able to commit to extended periods of unpaid work cropping up as a barrier to more carreers.

By Kate Bowgett