Manager asks to volunteer for a charity they are connected to

[thezoz]

I work for a large employer and one of the priorities for 2019 for staff development was to encourage volunteering - everyone got a couple of extra days off, people are encouraged to share their charitable activities and stories on the intranet etc.
My manager organised a group volunteering opportunity for the team with a small charity. The choice was surprising for some people (not a pet / family / sports / health organisation, but rather supporting a very niche cause, not close to everyone's heart, and some even may say controversial). After some social media research, it turned out that the manager's close family member is involved in managing this charity (this was not disclosed to us), and it is very likely that another family member is a user of the charity's services.
AIBU to raise an official concern about this situation? I am all pro volunteering (and do volunteer and fundraise myself), but it does feel like we are just being used as free labour to someone else's benefit, and this does not sit right with me. Shouldn't there be a transparent selection process in such cases?

Isn't the point of volunteering for charity is that you give up time for free?

If it's a charity close to your heart it's still entitled to time to volunteer if that's what the employer allows.

They support immigrants from a particular overseas country (the manager is originally from) with an equivalent of Citizens Advice (in their own language) and English courses.

Well, that sounds great. I can't think of a single reasonable objection to that. Especially since your manager has a personal connection.

It really doesn't matter though what charity the manager is suggesting. If there is a company policy to encourage volunteering than this voluntary work should be up to each employee to choose. I think there is a conflict of interest if a senior employee is using a company's scheme to push his own agenda. I am also conflicted about volunteering in certain sectors. In some places, it replaces actual jobs with people who do it for free, usually those that can afford to work without money.

This whole argument reminds me of the thankless task that is organising an office Christmas party - no one wants to do it but everyone is happy to criticise what the organiser does! Similarly, I suspect if the OP did the organising of this volunteer day she'd very quickly discover why her manager didn't do it to her lofty standards.

I'm assuming that you are not a big fan of the manager in general, OP?

I would expect people to have a link to a charity, they or a family member might have used them and that is why they will come to mind. You can volunteer for any charity of your choice by the sound of it.

My DD's school has had a local company provide workers to tidy up a school garden/forest area, nothing wrong with that. If you don't like the manager charity just pick another one to work for.

I'm a trustee of a small charity and while group volunteering like painting walls etc wouldn't work for us, there are definitely small projects individuals could do...review some of our policies to make sure they're up to date, do some financial modelling for a new project, compile a list of portential donors for a specific scheme etc. We've even had a few people from large companies helping us out in this way as part of their corporate volunteering.

The real value comes when you match the charity's need with the volunteer's skills, but many of the group volunteering activites are more about corporate team building (or virtue signalling) than being genuinely useful to the charity.

Yanbu OP.

You should be able to volunteer for a neutral charity. Or at least one you can feel enthusiastic about.

Is it political or religious?
No, but linked to a topic that often causes conflicting opinions (think abortions, sex ed, same sex marriage - not one of those, but you get the idea).

No I dont get the idea , you said in your forst post that you think one of his family members uses the service , so cant think of anything that remotely fits the description

Tbh I think you havent liked peoples reactions to your first post so you are trying to change their minds by making stuff up !

I can't think of a single reasonable objection to that
That's kind of the point though - everyone's definition of a reasonable charity to support is different. If OP feels this one isn't for her, she shouldn't have her work time directed towards supporting it. Or feel negatively judged by the manager if she declined.

It's all very well saying that organising these things are a thankless task. But maybe that's because most people would prefer to just get on with their contracted job or choose their own way to support a charity which is meaningful to them.

OP has left, I think.

Main issue is that OP thought of her and her colleagues' untrained one day's labour as a precious commodity. If you start from that premise, you'll be very dubious about wherever your boss picks.

I suspect in reality they were less a desperately awaited crack-response team, and more like a gang of work experience kids.

So what's the point in companies doing this. If it's just to look good, that is even more reason to opt out

You can't win with picking a charity to support en mass.

Pick a cancer charity. I don't want to support that, it is too over done and gets to much publicity and help anyway.

Pick something niche. Why are we doing that? That doesn't affect me and I don't know anyone who needs that service.

Pick something with animals. Animals? WTF when there are actual children out there that need help!

Etc etc etc

So what's the point in companies doing this. If it's just to look good, that is even more reason to opt out

Team-bonding event for free. Those activity days with ghastly trust-building exercises cost money, you know.

It's all very well saying that organising these things are a thankless task. But maybe that's because most people would prefer to just get on with their contracted job or choose their own way to support a charity which is meaningful to them.

Given she says that she works for a large company and it's a company wide initiative to focus on volunteering I doubt that this was her manager's idea. He probably didn't feel very keen about the whole thing either!

So what's the point in companies doing this. If it's just to look good, that is even more reason to opt out

It is 100% to look good, if they actually wanted to help charities they’d just hand over the 2 days pay per employee to charity but they’d rather have pictures of office staff in branded polo shirts picking up litter or running a 10k for their website.

It is 100% to look good, if they actually wanted to help charities they’d just hand over the 2 days pay per employee to charity but they’d rather have pictures of office staff in branded polo shirts picking up litter or running a 10k for their website.

Totally accurate in my experience. Corporate charity volunteering days are a total PR scam that I really don't think benefit anybody.

YABVU. Yes, if it were me I think I would have mentioned my links to the charity, but who cares?! Even contemplating raising an 'official concern' (whatever you mean by that!) is a massive overreaction.

No I agree with op.

Isn't the point of volunteering for charity is that you give up time for free?

It is, yes, but OP said they were being given a couple of extra days off (presumably paid?) to do this. That puts a different slant on things if the manager takes the view - to put it bluntly - that "the company's paying so we can call the shots on who you help"

Which is why I suggested that if volunteers aren't doing something willingly there's little point in them doing it at all, and that IME it's much better if folk choose for themselves