@herewegoagainy@TempestTostyou're both focusing a lot on the fact that people in commercial or hospitality settings aren't required to do the training. Like it's not 'fair'.
Again it's like you're seeing the training as a punishment. The more people who do it, the better. I find it bizarre that you would advocate fewer people being trained on how to keep an eye out for abuse in vulnerable people because of a perceived unfairness. It's attitudes like that that make it a box ticking exercise, not the training itself.
It's nothing to do with being fair it's about being proportionate. Not all jobs and roles require first responder training, not all even require first aid. You need to make distinctions.
And logical. You cannot argue it is essential for tea pourers in a volunteer organization to have a course like this, and not Walmart employees. If the latter type of role actually doesn't need it, that means it isn't, in fact, essential.
No one is stopping volunteers, or indeed parishioners, from doing whatever kind of training they want to if it interests them. Ideally really valuable training in that case rather than these 30 minute online things. But not all volunteer roles are equally involved or demanding, and require the same level of involvement.
Serving tea or washing up is a volunteer position that is typically very easy for almost any congregation member to slot into, even at short notice. Including sometimes people who are themselves "vulnerable." In my parish people who sometimes take on that job include parishioners with intellectual disabilities, addicts, people living in tents, or relative newcomers to the parish. These are the same people who the week before would have been standing in the hall talking together drinking the tea. They do not suddenly become more at risk because now one of them is pouring tea or washing spoons. These are not authoritative positions, they are often a way for someone who doesn't have much else concrete to offer to feel like they are giving something rather than being a recipient of the largess of others, or a way for someone shy to be social without the pressure of small talk.
The result of increasing demands like this is that you don't get enough volunteers, and so the event doesn't happen at all, and then there is no one for the vulnerable to chat with while drinking a cup of tea in the first place.
I'd also take issue with the idea that this 30 minute training is having any kind of significant effect in that setting and role. It's not an evidence based claim. More training does not always mean better results, it has to be meaningful, and employed in a setting where there is some context.
You don't get leaders in parishes or other organizations without giving people a chance to integrate into the group in less demanding ways.