Responses
to February 2004 Hot Topic
Do
we need a new title for volunteering???
by
Andy Fryar
Submitted
on March 4th 2004 by Darren Williamson, Volunteer
Network, Cape York Partnerships, Northern Australia
I
have an issue.
I
am totally fine with calling a volunteer, a volunteer.
But my employer wants to refer to them as ‘employees’.
I have a problem with this because they are not. There
is a fundamental difference between an employee and
a volunteer. That is, one gets paid and the other
not.
The
argument is that because they want volunteers and
employees to be treated the same. I agree, but I think
calling a volunteer an employee is a clear misappropriation
of both titles.
Does
anyone else have this issue? Are there any legal implications
for referring in documentation to a volunteer as an
employee?
Your
advice would be appreciated.
Submitted
on March 3rd 2004 by Rosie Williams - Team Leader,
Volunteer Support, SA Ambulance Service, Adelaide,
South Australia
I
am always a little nervous when I write on line in
response to a hot topic however here goes!
I
agree in a lot of what Andy has said here, (mmm
that can't be right ... ooh well ...wonders never
cease!) One comment I would like to make however,
is I think that in some instances it is useful for
our customers (or clients, consumers what ever
title we are using) to know that the person who
is answering the phone, visiting them, or transporting
them or supervising their access visits with their
children (or what ever) are volunteers.
Whilst
employed by Family and Youth Services as the coordinator
of volunteers some years ago I had to put out quite
a few fires because the 'Community Aide' (a volunteer
role) for what ever reason, allowed clients to
believe that they were qualified Social Workers
(a very specialist role that is quite different within
the organisation). I understand that it is altermately
the responsibility of the person organising the supervision
or transport to inform the clients that the person
coming is a volunteer, (and this did happen),
however sometimes the people receiving the service
have so many different faces to remember it can become
confusing and they are often not sure who is who!
I
can hear some of you saying ...well with proper training
about boundaries etc volunteers should learn when
to refer the client back to a qualified worker! Yes
they should, however one volunteer in particular got
quite a buzz and into character as the 'Social Worker'
and she didn't want to let on! (oohhh dear I fear
I am opening a can of worms .... :0) ) I do however
agree that rather than change the name of the sector
and move away from the term "volunteering" we need
to continually promote the sector, the realities and
so on.
I
recently had a poke around in another sector for a
short time and when people asked what my experience
was and I responded with "manager of volunteers" I
received lots of fascinating reactions, to a big step
back wards, puzzled looks, to "oohh isn't that lovely
what a sweet thing to be able to do" (yeah easy
peezy!), to "is that a real job"? or "what was
your paid work"? Everyone had a different reaction.
For
fear of getting on my soap box again I believe that
the role of Manager, Coordinator, or what ever the
millions of titles used for paid staff in volunteering,
is still (more often than not) very misunderstood,
marginalised, often underpaid, unrecognised with in
organisations ....so on so on !! I know that things
have moved considerably over the past years, however
I am just saying I believe we have a long long way
to go. Do you think that it would help our credibility
to remove the word 'volunteer' from paid staff titles??
eg: Volunteer Manager ??
Look
forward to hearing what you think
Submitted
on February 3rd 2004 by Jill Mawdsley - Queensland
Community Care Network Inc. , Queensland, Australia
I
couldn't agree more with Andy's thoughts and I think
the analogy of coke says it all, like any good marketing
campaign it give us opportunity to reach more people
with diverse tastes.
The
word "Volunteer" is a collective word, but doesn't
always evoke an image that all would like to share;
I know from my own feedback received that in some
cases they are negative.
· Something that people with far too much time on
their hands do.
· Only retired people volunteer.
· People who are looking for work do.
Conversely,
those that are now educated in the world of volunteering
or of a different generation would (and do) argue
a very positive stance in the word volunteer.
· That it's great to be involved in community at some
level, and for paid staff to know I give my time freely.
· It broadens ones horizons.
· It great to be in a position to give back.
So
to abandon the word volunteer which is recognised
as a known label could be considered fool hardy and
maybe the lesson can be learned from other companies
which add meaning and passion to the original source,
should be considered. I think this will require each
organisation to laterally inject enthusiasm adding
new flavours into each role, thus minimising the labels.
Submitted
on February 2nd 2004 by Michael Collisson, Coordinator
of Volunteer Network, Burwood, Australia
Just
a quick response to this months hot topic, thoughts
that immediately sprung to mind.
a ) The title of Volunteer is one that is proudly
worn by thousands of Australian's, who I feel, would
be both confused and possibly insulted that someone
would want to change a universal term that unites
people across all spheres in the common goal of improving
quality of life for others.
b) I doubt very much that young people do not understand
what the term Volunteer means and that a change of
name is hardly likely to provide further encouragement
for younger people to pursue the idea of volunteering.
c) The challenge for us is to change the perception
of volunteering as being the preserve of mainly older
people and to promote volunteering as a positive action
that encompasses all generations and communities.
For instance many thousands of younger people already
volunteer, a fact that should be widely broadcast.
The best way to encourage younger people to volunteer
is to create or redevelop volunteer positions that
are relevant to to their generation. We must remember
one of the golden rules, that is that people need
to get as well as to give from the act of volunteering.
d) A change of title will leave the role of volunteering
open to abuse, mis-interpretation and possible demarcation
disputes.
Just some thoughts from an immediate reaction to the
proposal
Submitted
on February 2nd 2004 by Clare Doyle, Program Manager
- Community Visitors Scheme, MS Society of Victoria,
Blackburn, Victoria, Australia
When
I read the start of the article I thought Yes he is
right , we need to change, however as the comments
expanded I agree with you. Why do we use labels for
volunteers???
The
term volunteer is known throughtout the world. We
run a Community Visitors Scheme in Aged Care Homes
and call the volunteers "community visitors."
Thank
you
Let's
hear what you think
Return
to current month's Hot
Topic
Visit
this month’s ‘Hot
Topic’ on the Energize web site
The
contents of this Hot Topic are copyright © 2003
- 2004 OzVPM.
You may reproduce this Hot Topic in part or in full
on the condition that the author, source and website
address (www.ozvpm.com)
are quoted.
|
