Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

Can you actually be “sacked” if you’re a volunteer?

No but you can be told you are no longer required

Yes Peasblossom.

IMO it is a disgrace, as mentioned above, that J K Rowling is being vilified. She stands up for Women’s Rights and keeping children safe.

There are increasing issues as to how volunteers are treated at the National Trust. Remember, these people work unpaid, week in week out, and very often have more professional experience than those in the National Trust.
Being asked to complete various ‘training’ documents in your own time, many of which don’t even apply to you at all, is ridiculous. All they have to do is do a days training and get it out of the way, and trim the training to fit the post the volunteer is doing. Too often the National Trust tries to fit one cap on all heads!
There is a dearth of real management ability in the National Trust at every level and few have worked anywhere except the National Trust - their idea of normality is therefore very shrunken and narrow.
The National Trust put out surveys to volunteers to complete - but the questions are so skewed and don’t really give the scope to elicit the problems volunteers face. In other words - skewed to get the answers they want.
Getting rid of volunteers without explanation is incredibly disrespectful and at odds to what the National Trust claim their values are. Unbelievable - or increasingly, maybe not.

I should say - I am a volunteer at the National Trust and everything Ali61 says I recognise and agree with. I’m also a member of the National Trust and will give that up when it finishes next year.

First rule of organisations like this must, absolutely must,be to look after and respect your volunteers. Every dissatisfied volunteer will on average tell at least 10 others why they have been badly treated. Big mistake on the part of the NT.

NotSpaghetti

I assume they each had feedback at the reviews and were afterwards grouping together to complain.

It's difficult to manage volunteers well - they are generally expected to adhere to the philosophy and ethics, rules etc of the company/charity but if they are long-term volunteers they don't tend to like change - in my experience.

I'm not sure one can assume that re feedback individually at reviews. Management of volunteers is decidedly varied!

No, but feedback at reviews is "usual" I would say.

Management of volunteers is decidedly varied I'm sure.
Management of paid staff is too... in my experience.

NotSpaghetti

Did anyone else read this?

From the NT July 14th:
Problems included:
*Delays in completing mandatory training related to health and safety and garden procedures.
*Instances of behaviour, language or attitude that do not reflect the respectful and inclusive culture we strive for.
*Hesitancy to raise concerns or engage constructively with team members, including new staff, volunteers and managers

It sounds to me that they had become a bit of a clique - not wanting to work with new volunteers and not doing H&S training etc.
The whole thing happened after their individual working reviews.
You do have to do these as volunteer managers.
I think there is more to it than meets the eye, personally. They aren't going to turn them away for no reason.

Anyone can make vague generic remarks like tbis. To have any validity they should be describing specific incidents that are more than just a 'one off', but continuous mis bahaviour despite warning. No names need be given.

It seems to me that if people feel 'hesitancy' raisig concerns with management then that is amanagement failing. Its probably significant that management is so bad they cannot see that.

You are right M0nica but this had to be a generic letter as it was written to a group.

lixy

Fair enough then - face book is not the place for that kind of debate, and volunteers should have known better.

It’s called freedom of speech.

The National Trust are going very woke. I pay a lot of money to them to find out certain visitors get it for free. A lot of people have stopped paying and are boycotting.

NotSpaghetti

You are right M0nica but this had to be a generic letter as it was written to a group.

that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this.

If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards.

Monica that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this. If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards

I absolutely agree Monica. Even if the group or individuals have not followed procedures or whatever they are still entitled to specific examples of what behaviours etc have caused the problem. Even before protocols or procedures, frankly appropriate communication about a problem is both good management AND good manners!

IS there a grievance procedure?
Probably...

NotSpaghetti

IS there a grievance procedure?
Probably...

Not for volunteers apparently. It was one of the comments made by one of the group on Facebook.

That the National Trust has impugned their characters “Instances of behaviour, language or attitude that do not react the respectful and inclusive culture that we strive for” and yet refuse to discuss this or give examples.

The group believe this presents a totally untrue character of the group and of them as individuals and could well lead to hostility towards them on-line and within their local community.

I think they have a right to feel aggrieved. If they were employees a tribunal would demand the proof of specific of instances. But volunteers who have given time and energy have no redress.

This is shameful behaviour by the National Trust.

react = reflect

This is shameful behaviour by the National Trust.

But behaviour that now seems to be the norm for this group.

NotSpaghetti No, but feedback at reviews is "usual" I would say

Yes but the quality of the feedback is key isn't it. Giving difficult feedback in a way that it can be "heard"" by the person (rather than being affronted or upset etc) is an art....and I suspect is missing in this scenario judging by what others with recent experience of NT management have said.

Yes, I'm sure you are right, Madgran77.

nanna8

First rule of organisations like this must, absolutely must,be to look after and respect your volunteers. Every dissatisfied volunteer will on average tell at least 10 others why they have been badly treated. Big mistake on the part of the NT.

I've told far more people about how volunteers upset me and my husband. I'll never give NT a penny. They need paying customers.

Madgran77

*Monica that makes no difference whatsoever. they group are entitled to be given examples of the specific behaviours that caused the problem. As i said anyone can make vague generic criticims like this. If these volunteers were employees there would be a grievance procedure and I think that something like this should exist for vounteers as well. Especially as the NT consider themselves to be the quintessence of perfect moral standards*

I absolutely agree Monica. Even if the group or individuals have not followed procedures or whatever they are still entitled to specific examples of what behaviours etc have caused the problem. Even before protocols or procedures, frankly appropriate communication about a problem is both good management AND good manners!

Failing to do health and safety training is specific and very important.

They were asked to carry out a generic series of on-line training in their own time, in addition to the hours they normally gave.

The on-line training covered all areas, much of which was not relevant to their roles. It was a one size fits all, employees at all levels and volunteers in every role.

The volunteers asked for health and safety training which was relevant to them and necessary for them. Instead of spending hours completing on-line tasks that covered roles they would never undertake. Their request was refused.

If this was an employee at a tribunal , the management would be held at fault. It is management responsibility to ensure that employees and volunteers receive relevant, necessary training for their role.

There really is no excuse for the appalling management in this case.

Lathyrus3

They were asked to carry out a generic series of on-line training in their own time, in addition to the hours they normally gave.

The on-line training covered all areas, much of which was not relevant to their roles. It was a one size fits all, employees at all levels and volunteers in every role.

The volunteers asked for health and safety training which was relevant to them and necessary for them. Instead of spending hours completing on-line tasks that covered roles they would never undertake. Their request was refused.

If this was an employee at a tribunal , the management would be held at fault. It is management responsibility to ensure that employees and volunteers receive relevant, necessary training for their role.

There really is no excuse for the appalling management in this case.

If they were volunteers everything they did was in their own time. If part of the conditions of their volunteering was to complete the online training then they needed to do it.

They weren't employees so it is irrelevant what would apply to employees. Paid work brings different rights and responsibilities. Personally I think people should be paid for work.

I used to volunteer in a charity shop. Sorting out the bags of donations. Nice a year we had a morning session for shop volunteers where the Health and Safety aspects of our role were covered and updated.

Then new management switched to an on-line training model. The package contained Health and Safety fir every role in the Hospice. Food safety, handling patients everything. It all had to be completed. All of it.

I’m pretty quick at dealing with that sort of stuff and I reckoned around 20 hours. Some of the volunteers found the language impossible to grasp, especially the medical terms.

It was just lazy, lazy management that couldn’t be bothered.

Just like the National Trust. And just like the Trust they lost the people that actually keep things running.