Author
|
Topic: Volunteers Suck
|
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2
|
posted 02 August 2002 02:38 PM
quote: Here are some more reasons volunteers suck: 1. They bring down wages. Volunteers (and their wealthier, smarmier cousins, interns) are responsible for depreciating the value of labor in markets like telemarketing, civic sanitation and light editorial work. Like I need to compete with a fresh-faced 19 year old intern for the chance to decide where the comma goes. Besides: 2. They're anti-union. What's the same about a volunteer and a scab? You can't pick on either of them. I just made that up, in case you couldn't tell. It's not that funny, but you try making up volunteer jokes. It's a frigging serious subject, especially when you consider...
Is it true?
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markhoffchaney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 817
|
posted 02 August 2002 03:10 PM
No it is not. I ran into this attitude as a volunteer in a local emergency room. I did all the shit work, pre-stamping admin forms, folding towels etc. When I complained about the attitude that I recieved from one ward clerk I got the answer from the steward, quote: . They bring down wages. Volunteers (and their wealthier, smarmier cousins, interns) are responsible for depreciating the value of labor,
I told him fine bring me a union card and let's pay me. I'd rather make money than come in here on my own time to gather (very, very) little experience, in a field that I hoped I would find a career.Quit the gripeing and start organizing. [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: markhoffchaney ]
From: winnipeg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 02 August 2002 03:59 PM
At the same time, profitable companies that make use of free labour in the form of "internships" -- media companies, mostly -- are just pure, cynical, scum-sucking evil.Meanwhile, the (young, typically affluent) people who do these internships are more to be pitied than censured, which is to say that while I save most of my ire for the organizations, I haven't, in the end, much respect for the individuals so desperate to become MuchMusic VJs or whatever that they'll work for nothing. I can see volunteering for non-profit organizations, including (for now, and I hope for good) hospitals. I can't see volunteering for profit-making ones. Not long after I started working for my current company, someone I'd known slightly in school wrote to us offering to work for free for the summer. I was still only on contract, but when I got wind of it I strongly urged that we adopt a policy against free labour. It would have meant "hiring" on the basis of family background (or desperation), rather than merit, and would pretty much guarantee that folks like me (a little older, without family support but with student-loan payments to make) wouldn't get hired. In the end it came to nothing, as no-one was much interested in taking the guy on anyway, but I made my point, and to my knowledge we've accepted no "interns" since.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 03 August 2002 05:33 PM
Of course, especially in hospitals. By design, and with malice. (Not from the volunteers! From the budget-slashers.) There used to be candy-stripers (high-school students, typically doing 4 hours a week) to run errands and look after the flowers, and Auxiliary ladies to run the gift shop and book-cart. Now, that's been parleyed into half the work being done by volunteers and patients' relatives, to save money on staff. As far as i know, doctors' and administrators' salaries have not been cut.here is the cutest part: Students are told, "If you want to be employed in this field, you'd better get some experience. Try volunteering." Then, when they apply for a job, only paid work counts as experience. Maybe not everywhere, but i've heard it more than once. [ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 03 August 2002 10:26 PM
Yes it must be - but not at the cost of my son going without proper programming or activities. Besides, when it comes to extracurriculars, that's something that parents should do more of anyhow - that shouldn't all fall on the teachers. But for real classes like gym and library and music - well, what are you supposed to do if your school cuts them? Just say, "Okay, well, because I don't want to take jobs away from teachers, I won't try to fill in the gap"? Parents need to agitate for more change. Parents who do volunteer to do things like lead school choirs and coach sports teams need to talk to the other parents who are not involved and tell them that they need to lean on their school boards and their MPPs to get proper funding back. They should be shamed into it, especially in areas where the majority of urban yuppies are voting for Mike Harris. This stuff isn't free, and parents who think they can get a free ride for their kids on the backs of volunteers should get a rude awakening from the people who are filling in the slack. But I don't think it's something to get on the volunteers' cases about. What about if your grandparents didn't have proper nursing care, so you had to step in and fill in the gap? Is that kind of volunteering also something that is bad because it wrecks home care? When my grandmother was dying in the hospital a while back, the members of my family all took turns staying in the hospital with her during her last two weeks because there just was not enough nursing staff for her comfort. One of my relatives in particular did a lot of nursing tasks for her. Is that "bad" volunteering too, because it means that hospitals will figure, oh people's relatives can take care of it? And hey, let's carry it to another extreme. When wives do more housework than their husbands, is that "bad" volunteer work because it takes wages away from cleaning staff who might be able to do it? Or because the wives who take on most of the housework as well as working full time make "working conditions" within marriages bad for other wives? Where do we draw the line between "good" volunteering and "bad" volunteering? Is there even a line? Is it all bad?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
boadicea
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2987
|
posted 23 August 2002 01:11 PM
Michelle wrote: -posted August 03, 2002 10:26 PM- But I don't think it's something to get on the volunteers' cases about. What about if your grandparents didn't have proper nursing care, so you had to step in and fill in the gap? Is that kind of volunteering also something that is bad because it wrecks home care? When my grandmother was dying in the hospital a while back, the members of my family all took turns staying in the hospital with her during her last two weeks because there just was not enough nursing staff for her comfort. One of my relatives in particular did a lot of nursing tasks for her. Is that "bad" volunteering too, because it means that hospitals will figure, oh people's relatives can take care of it? ----------------------------------------------- I am with you, on this one, Michelle. What you describe is one of the ugliest images to come out of the (con)servative restoration - already overextended families looking after their moribund family members, due to government cut-backs. Volunteerism is a neocon smokescreen for the destruction of community resources and the redefinition of what community responsibility means along indivualist lines, rather than collective responsibilities. I am intrigued by the suggestion, made by some posters, that even volunteerism has been appropriated as a class form of career opportunism. Let's call your example what it is: caring, compassion, and love, being extended to a loved one during a very painful time. It doesn't fit any institutional definition of what a 'volunteer' is. Let's not try to squeeze our emotional identities into a political movement's selfish and unethical world views. b.
From: Maple, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 25 August 2002 07:24 PM
Michelle, I certainly agree with your motivations (re son and grandmother) and would no doubt do the same. However, there is a problem in terms of public services: Health care, and dignified treatment including geriatric and palliative care, must be available to all, not just those who have grandchildren or are on good terms with them. Although I agree that parents (and other family or community members) have an important role to play in education, children whose parents frankly don't give a shit about them have as much if not more need of such services. (Thinking of the children of some ex-neighbours whose idea of cultural activities was sitting out on the porch and swigging some kind of spirit from a clear jug that looked like a bleach bottle, as well as petty theft and drug-pushing, while their children were dirty and hungry looking...). That said, "volunteering" also applies to forms of activism and independent cultural ventures that could never exist on the basis of paid labour as they challenge the established order. There is also informal volunteering (feeding each others cats, helping people during ice storms, floods etc...)
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999
|
posted 06 September 2002 02:28 AM
Two questions:1) Does the new position directly eliminate a job? Indirectly eliminate a job (reduce willingness to create coop positions etc...)? 2) Are resources available to pay for position? Are we paying higher ups a bonus for finding a way to do things on the cheap? If not remember that right now we live in a market economy and resources are needed to provide services and non-profits (with no market related source of income) will need contributions of either time or money to operate. If you don't want volunteer jobs, send them some money to pay people. Come the revolution this and other things will change.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ms-demeanor
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3009
|
posted 06 September 2002 04:11 PM
This is a tricky subject. As a person working in the arts, I can tell you that a lot of culture would not exist without volunteers. A lot of artist volunteer their services, including myself, at times. It is not right to do this on a consistent basis because it leads to major burn-out and poor service all around. Yes, it would be great if everyone could get paid but it just doesn't work this way sometimes and you have to judge cases individually. If someone wants to volunteer for an evening taking tickets or putting out refreshments for an art exhibit, is this exploitation? Is this taking away the meaninful job or career of someone else? Extremism in both views is detrimental in this argument. Volunteering is great in some ways. The people that volunteer are generous and mean well. And this is the spirit that volunteering should be approached in. If you are volunteering to advance your career, you only have yourself to blame for being exploited. If you want to advance your career, get a job! Shame also on the companies that promote volunteering as a way to get experience! And shame on the people that participate! Both parties in the volunteer situation should treat each other with some form of dignity. It should be made clear what the volunteer expects and will do and the same goes for the employer. If someone is doing something for me for free, I appreciate it. If I can't pay them, I find another way of recompensing them. But I don't agree that every volunteer position should be abolished for the good of the labour movement. Volunteerism isn't the problem, abuse of volunteerism is.
From: the edge and back again | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873
|
posted 09 September 2002 03:29 PM
I've done alot of volunteer work - as an activist, a journalist, a board member, a union member and a parent. I've never volunteered to fill a paid position, and I refuse to fundraise for my kids' schools because of cuts to the education system (I pay my effin' taxes so that children can have a great school system, not to subsidize fat corporate bastards who have their taxes deferred year after tax year in order to show higher earnings and attract more investors). I've been forced to provide everything from tissue to basic nursing to my aging mother both in and outside the hospital. I don't like her much, as a person, and I'm really pissed that hospitals are grossly understaffed to the detriment of people's health, but I really don't want her needs to be neglected for the politics of healthcare funding.I've worked as a staff person in volunteer-based organizations and been a volunteer who has worked with staff. Two parts hair-ripping frustration, one part rich and rewarding experience. Much like any worthwhile endeavor. I'm a big supporter of co-op programs for high school students and internships for young people, provided that the kids aren't stuck doing shit jobs the whole time, and that they actually acquire valuable experience and skills in exchange for their time. Employers who exploit co-op students and interns as an unpaid labour pool should be smacked upside the head.
From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lonewolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 849
|
posted 10 September 2002 06:25 PM
ARRRGHHH! Divide and conquer....How have we as civilized social human beings come down to debating whether "Volunteers Suck!" ? IMHO the problem is that government social policies have reduced our elected government's accountability and responsibility for ensuring a fair and just society, to the point that formerly government administrative programs have been axed in the great stampede towards "Duh? Tax Cuts are GUDD, Ain't They?" This shuffles off important tasks like health care, food banks, education to the frustrated and socially conscious volunteer. I don't object to volunteers taking paid jobs. I object to necessary paid jobs being cut by governments in the first place! And even more, I object to the dull sheep (Canadian electorate) that aallow it and don't notice! Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs folks! And do something about it!
From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 13 September 2002 01:05 PM
The practice of any company or group, non-profits included no matter how noble the goal, using the free labour of interns and volunteers, should be abolished. If an organization cannot survive without exploiting their "staff" they should not continue to function. If a company or group has paid positions it is highly unethical to have interns as well. Media companies (including this one), architecture firms, arts groups all function in this manner and it is disgraceful. By offering positions with a company (in many cases highly desired ones) without giving any tangible benefit back to those doing the work, the intern, inevitibly, loses. Plus it obviously sets up a system by which those wealthy enough to work unpaid for 6 months can do so, those who can't miss out. there goes the experience, contacts, etc. etc. A final note, many companies, knowingly or not, are in violation of labour standards by offering such positions, especially those involving day-to-day, profit generating labour. And people still do it. Sheesh
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 13 September 2002 05:46 PM
Rebecca:I'm not just talking about cash. The bulk of internships out there are not filled because someone is seaching for an antidote to their daily lives. Rather they are staffed by those who think think they'll get a leg up in the job market (and as someone said previous unpaid experience tends not to help), a student (many of whom are increasingly being forced to volunteer in the guise of rounding out their education. They get to provide free labour for a myraid of companies and govt. agencies)or someone else just trying to get by. I'll suggest that most who do volunteer for various prositions would not do so if they were not pressured to due to various circumstances or requirements, such as being able to graduate!! If thats harsh so be it. Sure some internships or volunteer positions are great, provided you can afford to do it. Most can't, or are forced into doing so to accomplish some vague criteria such as community service or assistance. Abolish it to protect those people. The rest they can pay. [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ] [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 13 September 2002 06:18 PM
Tommy, your comments in your first post were pretty broad, taking in more volunteerism than internships such as the one offered here at rabble. I'd like to address that. quote: The practice of any company or group, non-profits included no matter how noble the goal, using the free labour of interns and volunteers, should be abolished. If an organization cannot survive without exploiting their "staff" they should not continue to function. If a company or group has paid positions it is highly unethical to have interns as well. Media companies (including this one), architecture firms, arts groups all function in this manner and it is disgraceful.
Now, I'm going to make a little leap here and assume that when you say "arts groups" and "non-profits", you are also including arts co-ops and artist-run centres which have staff positions but rely on volunteerism by their members in order to run. I belong to a film co-op that runs on this model. As a non-profit, we do not exist to generate income. There is no way we could raise the money to pay the manpower to run our programs. Our members do much of the work. We all get something out of it. We program our screenings, and different members get a chance to pick what they want, not what the staff might choose, for example. And then there's the equipment access. Most of us have more time than money, and putting in some time in exchange for the means to make your film is more than equitable. I'd say it's a godsend. Now, if you have a clever way for us to raise enough money to run workshops, screenings and all the mailouts, lobbying and grant writing - oh, yeah, and fundraising - please do let us know. But in the meantime, shut your silly gob. [ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Zoot Capri ]
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|