... to think the gov can eff off if they think I'm going to do voluntary work?

[woollyideas]

I'm really fed up with reading about this hypothetical army of volunteers who will run our libraries, patrol school crossings etc., etc. as part of the old Big Society thingmy. AIBU to think that if I was to be made redundant due to government cuts, I would prefer to lie in bed a bit later than usual, write, paint, read, bake cakes, stick two fingers up to the Condems, etc., after 30-odd years of working? Or do you think I should just pop along and be an unpaid slave happily work for nothing in a local school or something worthy?

What would you do?

You are absolutely right sethstarkadder. There are volunteer run museums at both ends of the spectrum. I have experience of both kinds, one very successful and enterprising and the other a horrible mess (the volunteer 'curator' was actually stealing some donations - cash and artefacts) and you have never seen such a filthy, woodlouse infested shambles store room as this one had, I hope.

So much for creating a Big Society. These cuts have driven me from the work I fought to train for, fought to get a job in, and then slogged for very little pay or thanks. I am hoping to retrain in something more mercenary

Apologies if this comment has already been made, haven't had time to read the whole thread. But ever since Dave started going on about volunteering, I have wanted to ask why he doesn't put his money where his mouth is. He is so wealthy, and has a working wife, so I'd like to see him doing his work on a volunteer basis. Politicians are always going on about how they went into Government to serve the people. And yet even with his family fortune, he has been happy to claim mortgage payments on expenses etc etc. I'll start volunteering when I see some leadership from the top.

Iwantanotherbaby , the underlying issue isn't that people don't want to do their bit. Trained, experienced workers are being made redundant, with the expectation that someone else will step in, either unpaid or as a condition of their benefits. You work full time - how happy would you be if you were made redundant from your job, in order for it to be done by a benefit claimant? Especially if the same applied to every other job in the field ? And all retraining facilities were cut, to rule out that option? Would you be willing to then see your family go without while you work for no pay ?

TDave isn't funding libraries, care homes, meals-on-wheels etc out of his own pockets; it comes from taxes. The taxes that are supposed to pay for the services that the nation needs.

I don't know. Both my parents take for granted that they would volunteer their time and skills to various charities. Church flowers, cleaning, bell-ringing, sorting out fetes, making cakes and biscuits and christmas wreaths for sale, helping in school, selling christmas cards for charities, ferrying old ladies about, doing shopping for old people in a residential home, endless coffee morning in aid of this and that, even now at 79 they volunteer as vistors guides at the Bishops Palace in Wells.

It was what you did. I was brought up thinking it was the normal thing to do. But mum didn't work and as i did I couldn't do the same, which made me feel guilty. I got round the guilt but giving money by DD every month. That is the transaction now - you give money instead of time. Which I guess is why it now seems anathema for some people to work for nothing.

I'd do it. If I lost my job (assuming I didn'[t need to get out there and get another one asap!) I'd spend a few months licking my wounds and doing all the jobs at home I'd not had time to do. But then I'd volunteer, with pleasure.

I am with many many of the posts on this thread and the rage at the whole idea makes me almost incoherant.

Filmbuffmum - IME a lot of richer people do do a sort of volunteering - but it is a pleasant, posh, high-status sort. So where the retired teacher spends her time in the museum stores cataloguing potsherds, the rich person gets to be the trustee of a national museum which involves being treated with a great deal of respect and getting to schmooze with celebrities and other rich people, rather than actually getting their hands dirty.
Probably if you looked into it you would find that SamCam and co consider they already devote a lot of hours to unpaid work. But none of it will involve serving meals on wheels or picking up litter.

Ormirian, your parents sound like my own.

Unfortunately the mass movement of women into the workforce has meant that it's not possible to go back to having a household where 1 able-bodied person tending home duties + volunteering is the norm.

The moment our society stepped into needing 1.1+ incomes to support an average family home is the moment when women confirmed that housework and volunteering are things possible, in general, for either for the independantly wealthy or the big bucks earners.

Have you seen all these newspaper stories recently about how being a SAHP is a luxury? That's not a recent thing in the last couple of years. Think back to the 1950s - my dad was a lowly clerk in a shop, yet he could still afford to buy him and my housewife mum their first home.

They weren't rich, but they could afford to live and buy a tiny house (just!). There's no way I could do the same on minimum wage.

We tallied it up on another thread a few weeks ago - to live in my area (with condensation on the walls, cars getting stolen like it's going out of fashion) you need to be earning about £12/hr for the basics of life (non avoidable bills) OR get tax credits/top ups.

It's a massive mess we're in right now, and casting a forlorn look back to the era where households had the spare manpower (or woman power) to help out en masse with volunteering isn't realistic at all. I don't think it ever will be again.

p.s. I'm not an advocate of going back to the 1950s way of living/economy/family setup, just to say.

But at a recent feminist discussion group I was at one of the talks was called something like "Did Big Business knowingly drive the women's lib movement, knowing they'd get 2 able bodied workers instead of 1 in exchange for 1 household value of wages"? Very interesting points raised there!

my parents do pots of volunteering too (the pleasant sort, like running the library for the WEA) - they both retired in their 50s....

Also to add - doing it at retirement isn't much of an option with these generations. People are living longer, but retiring later. And many occupations aren't suited towards a happy retirement pottering around museums anyway - my sister works on a building site, she says that half the laborours on there have fucked joints by their late 40s. No idea how they fare when it gets to retirement.

Our local volunteer agency which helps many of the local voluntary groups with training, legal and grant application advice looks like it may well be being cut. Which leaves those of us running volunteering groups somewhat snookered if we need help. I guess we will blunder on and hope that we dont get things badly wrong.

Fgr - frankly your comment that people will want to do 'nice' jobs like be a library assistant than clean up litter and empty bins

you don't need any skills to pick up litter

running a library isn't like running a coffee morning

it's a skilled job and not always 'nice'

er, compo, I don't disagree with you on the skills comment. I've worked in a library myself (one public, one university department one). did you confuse me with someone else's post?

It is much nicer to work in a library than pick up litter though. Or else, to say more accurately, "most people think it's nicer/more pleasent" than wiping arses or litter picking. Is it that which you are arguing about?

I'm confused

Erm - will probs be shot down in flames for this, but IF you are claiming benefits then effectively aren't you being paid for any voluntary work that you do? Just a thought ...
People seem to be up in arms about being expected to do unpaid work, but perfectly happy to get paid for doing nothing! The welfare system is supposed to be there to catch you for a brief period of time if circumstances dictate that you are out of work, it is not supposed to be a career option!
I appreciate that jobs are not always easy to come by - and even harder when you have to factor in childcare arrangements, but you cut your cloth accordingly when you have kids

'People only volunteer for the nice things e.g. library assistant, who on earth would volunteer to do some of the horrid things that need doing in this Big Society, there's a reason why people are paid to do certain jobs.'

it was the above that you posted. It implied that you don't think library assistants should be paid which is baffling if you've worked as one

I agree with most of the points raised on this thread.

I run a service for children with disabilities. I am the only paid member of staff with lots of experience, training and qualifications. The rest are volunteers. Due to Dave's big ideas, I will be unemployed as of 31st March and the council will attempt to replace me with a volunteer. I can't help but wonder how many parents of disabled children with a high level of needs would be happy to leave their child with an unqualified volunteer? I don't think I would.

There's a reason why library assistants are paid : because it's a skilled job not one that anyone off the street can do
we have loads of volunteers but theydont work unsociale hours, they're not involved in stock selection, cash management, chucking drunks out, challenging thieves etc. It's not always a nice job you know ?

muminthecity. And who will carry out crb checks on all these volunteers? A volunteer?

So where are the weekend volunteer bankers?

Quite. Boris has just made a shouty speech telling bankers &co to donate/give to the Big Society. The finance sector's level of giving, which is usually wearily trawled out to justify the inequalities we all know about, is not exactly admirable right now.

As Boris's speeches are usually asking for bankers to be recipients of money, rather than the other way round, his latest pronouncement shows you quite how low levels have got.

Cazza, the problem arises when trained staff are made redundant from jobs providing essential services, with the aim of replacing them with benefit claimants . If benefit claimants were allowed to carry out appropriate voluntary work, ideally with a view to getting back into work, that's a different story.

:( Muminthecity. Hope you find something else (paid work) soon.

Cazza - so you think someone made redundant and claiming benefits should then go back to their workplace and volunteer? Nice . Do the same job but for no money

"It implied that you don't think library assistants should be paid which is baffling if you've worked as one" Well just to clarify compo that isn't what I think at all. Apologies if I've written something that comes across like it.

My point was that you have to pay people to do generally shitty jobs, whilst generally more pleasent jobs get more volunteers. That isn't to say jobs in a nicer environment don't need skills, or are 100% nice all the time. I certainly know from my own time working in libraries (three years in total, 2 years in a public one, admittedly a tiny one though) that properly qualified and skilled librarians are worth their weight in gold. I'm not going to pretend that if i was forced to 'volunteer' for trash pickup, or checking out books**, that i'd be as likely to choose one or the other.

** I know librarianship is more than this ;)

Provincial Lady & Seth Stackadder, thankyou, I'll throw my lot in with you.

Museums - I've done National, Local Authority, Trust in wealthy area and had my heart broken by a fantastic, funny, private affair with amazing scholorship and passion but no capital and aging founder.
I can't live with'em, can live with out 'em. But I do need to be paid in order to put food on the table.