Mumsnet not paying staff disgusting

[stepuporshutup]

Just read that mumsnet do not pay their night staff.
This cannot be true can it mumsnet?
If it is true then what is going on at mnhq
Aibu to be shocked by this
Or do fellow mumsnetters think it is ok to work for free
If the story is true

Read my 2nd comment

Op

do you understand what a volunteer is?

and based on my experience of some mumsnet posters… they would be orgasming at the opportunity of censoring threads and would probably my pay to do it

I think you migth think it's more of a "job" than it actually is because it's called "the night shift"

It's just people who would be on mumsnet anyway who have volunteered, and been given the power, to hide threads that they think might be problematic so the proper staff can look at it later.

They are volunteers, as others have said.
Big shout out to the Night Watch team who really are super at this.

I do think there is a discussion to be had for HQ being staffed overnight, partic on weekends/Bank hols.

Thank you I did not know this.
I guess that makes sence

It is voluntary but comparing Samaritans and mn is just ridiculous.

Aren't most of the night mods volunteers who are non Uk based or similar so are on anyway overnight.

Presumably, those who volunteer do it by choice, so I don't really see the problem. If they're not happy doing it for free, they don't have to do it.

Lots of people take on all kinds of responsibilities for free...I have a couple of volunteer roles that can be quite onerous at times, but I choose to do them anyway because I consider the work to be important and worthwhile. If others choose to spend some time keeping an eye on MN overnight, then all power to them.

If there are too few people who want to do it on a voluntary basis, then MNHQ will clearly have to rethink their model and find another way of getting this work done.

I'm on the fence. Samaritans are a voluntary organisation, MN is a business, so not comparing with like for like, but as the MN volunteers do it knowing the deal, that's up to them. Might be useful on a CV?

🙄

This isn’t gonna turn into another m and s thread is it..

why on Earth do we have all this word inflation on posts on Mumsnet like this

”it’s disgusting” that night staff aren’t paid. It’s a “travesty”.

I can’t wait to get a load of Mumsnet night staff volunteers and interview them as they first emerge from the hole at Mumsnet Towers, blinking at the bright sunlight and dreaming of a life beyond the servitude of “taking this post down while we have a look behind the scenes”.

I mean really… volunteers are everywhere. Do you want to free the V&A volunteers also, or lobby for them to get paid? Same at other public visitor attractions with paid staff?

the irony is that people who post this stuff will rail at the RMT (excuse the pun) and anyone else who tries to organise for better working conditions

Exactly.

Personally, I wouldn't choose to volunteer my time for a business as I would rather give my time to non-profit making organisations instead, but if others choose to do the work, then I don't see a problem with that. It's their free choice.

Not paying staff and having volunteers are two very different things.

Not paying staff would be disgusting behaviour on behalf of any company. Recruiting volunteers, who give up their time willingly and know that they are not being paid is a very different thing.

I would imagine most forums rely, at least some of the time, on volunteers.

Mumsnet isn't raking in the big bucks you think it is OP. Facebook et al basically wiped out the old school forums.

That was my point.

It isn't about WHAT they do, it's about the fact they CHOOSE to do it VOLUNTARILY for free.

I've also heard the manager leaves at 4pm.

Just saying.

If you mean 'the nightwatch' they are ordinary mners who have volunteered to help out, normally they live in countries in different timezones so are up and about when we are asleep.
They are not obliged to help out and can stop any time.

They are different from moderators employed by mn. They have very limited access and can only do things like hide threads overnight.

Volunteering for a charity, either manning phones or as a Trustee, is very very different from 'volunteering' for a business which is making the owners rich. BIG difference.

"Mumsnet generated £2.2 million in profit ($2.7 million) on £8.6 million ($10.6 million) in 2018, according to its most recent financial statement filed with Companies House. The company had £1.7 million ($2 million) in cash on hand as of Dec. 31 2018"

It can quite afford to pay it's volunteers

I think having no paid staff overnight is slightly odd given that when they were looking for people to move to premium in lockdown they said they had around 100 staff members.

I think you could argue that paying people in some of these roles (not
necessarily MN but similar) would actually make people less efficient/effective/unbiased - Just sit on line to earn money; “You’ve handled so many calls/reported posts today - have a bonus!” without necessarily considering quality and ethics.
Also, working as a volunteer can often be a valuable stepping stone to paid roles for those who want them.

It is and it isn't.

As I said above, I wouldn't personally choose to volunteer for a profit-making business, though I do volunteer my time in two charitable roles.

However, people have a variety of different reasons for volunteering, and those reasons aren't always altruistic. Even in charities, many of the volunteers may not be volunteering for "the cause" as such... they might have their own personal reasons for wanting to do what they do that have nothing to do with the charity or its objects. They might do it to gain new skills, to feel part of a community, because they find it interesting or any number of other reasons. For some (including me), the non-profit element will be fundamentally important; for others, that side of things might not really matter because it doesn't impact on their motivations for doing the role.

As long as people are volunteering their time freely and without any coercion, then I see no problem.

This. Although there can be grey areas. Some business are only profitable in theory, and actually it’s pay owners not much more, or even less than, the minimum wage, and do a lot if unprofitable good works anyway. It’s theoretically possible for a charity to pay it’s senior staff very inflated salaries for poor or limited work, and not benefit anyone very much. I’m guessing MN does fall into the first category.

I've moderated for free on other forums. I don't see the problem. I enjoyed it.

They don't do the same as the paid mods, or have the same access and powers.