Mottistone Gardeners sacked without warning !

StoneofDestiny

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 totally agree.
And where will the NT be without volunteers? The gardens alone needs plenty of them, then there’s the other jobs within the houses and tearooms.

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

Yes. But how the whole thing is approached to get everyone on board with that makes all the difference.

Madgran77

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

Yes. But how the whole thing is approached to get everyone on board with that makes all the difference.

That goes for both sides. Some volunteers seem to think they are in charge, some get taken advantage of. None of us know enough about this to judge. If the NT have good reason with evidence of why they needed to do this they can't come online and share it so we only hear one side. We don't know the whole story

Surely health and safety training should take place during 'working hours', whether you are an employee or volunteer.

Surely it is time someone in the NT realised that when in a hole, stop digging.

They should accept that the way they dealt with the supposed issues has not been helpful and made the situation worse. They should aplogise graciously, re-instate the volunteers. Undertake training during the volunteers usual hours and start again.

It was partly an insurance issue as all NT volunteers and staff are required to undertake training to be insured as is the case with other charities. I understand that the volunteers were offered a meeting and decided not to attend. Very sad all round as these people had given so much of their time and energy but as a previous poster indicated what has been in the press is not the whole story.

“I understand the volunteers were offered a meeting and decided not to attend”

Could you post where you got that information?

The volunteers said ‘ we have attended numerous courses and are well aware of our responsibilities “.

The initial dismissal only referred to “attitudes and values” It was only after negative publicity in the press that the National Trust raised an issue of training.

I live locally and know some of those involved.

Nacky

I live locally and know some of those involved.

Really?

Obviously different people to the ones I know🤔🙄

The need to keep up to date with training is a requirement for insurance and I understand that was an early issue (before any publicity). If you know some of the volunteers, Lathyrus, maybe ask them about that and why they did not take up the offer of a meeting before going to the press.

What can I say except that your “understanding “ seems to be entirely at variance with that expressed by the volunteers.

The judgement really has to be whether a group of dedicated volunteers, who have worked for years in the gardens, voluntarily and with real dedication would give that up for the sake of attending a training meeting. Especially since in the past they have attended many such meetings.

Or whether a large organisation with a fixed agenda, which has been the subject of much criticism in last few years for their autocratic decision making is desperately trying to save face by unsubstantiated allegations.

I think most people can make a sound judgement on that.

Lathyrus
Some volunteers are highly resistant to changes. Any changes!

I think most people can make a sound judgement on that too.

In reply to Lathyrus3 I think we can agree that it is very sad that a group of committed and talented people are no longer volunteering. If you are involved with the NT you will be aware that it is a requirement for volunteers to keep up to date with training (as is usual and needed for insurance purposes).

That goes for both sides. Some volunteers seem to think they are in charge, some get taken advantage of. None of us know enough about this to judge. If the NT have good reason with evidence of why they needed to do this they can't come online and share it so we only hear one side. We don't know the whole story

Ofcourse it goes for both sides. However if you end up with a group of long serving dedicated volunteers refusing to oblige; resigning; complaining to the press then it is patently obvious that the issue of change; why its needed etc has been poorly managed.

I'm not saying the volunteers have behaved impeccably etc. I'm not saying they are necessarily right in their views/behaviours! I'm saying that to have ended up with them in the press and the NT adding additional "criteria" after the publicity makes it patently clear it was poorly managed ...and that is on the NT!

But apparently not a requirement for management to provide that training in an accessible and relevant form.

Training is the responsibility of management and NT management failed utterly to provide correct training for its volunteers.

That may have been inept management or a deliberate ploy.

Either way the NT was at fault. Which is why it refused to hold any discussion with volunteers or with its members.

As indeed it refuses to hold discussion on any number f concerns expressed in recent years.

A very model of poor management and trusteeship.

Many years ago I was running a one day course on Assertiveness to a mixed group of people. One of the attendees was in her Mid 80s and she had been told by the company she worked for, that she would lose her job if she didn’t attend. I asked her what she did and she answered she was a washer-up and sometimes made the tea.

She told me she didn’t even know what assertiveness was, but she was desperate not to lose her job, as she lived alone and met few people.

I assured her I would support her throughout the day and she would get her Certificate of Attendance.

At lunchtime the class all decided to go to the local pub for lunch. She got out her box of homemade sandwiches and told us all to go. The class invited her along and she was treated to lunch, she said she hadn’t been in a pub in years.

She left with her certificate and her job in tact. 👍

No idea why the Mottistone 'Friday Group' of volunteers did not take part in the required and routine training (which all staff and volunteers sign up to do) nor why they decided not to take part in a meeting offered some months ago to discuss their concerns.

No idea why the Mottistone 'Friday Group' of volunteers did not take part in the required and routine training (which all staff and volunteers sign up to do) nor why they decided not to take part in a meeting offered some months ago to discuss their concerns.

I have no idea either. But clearly something in the management of it all created that situation!

Madgran77 - you mentioned earlier about change and there has indeed been unexpected change at Mottistone. The Head Gardener died suddenly last year having worked there for 30 years. Some volunteers then took to social media to challenge decisions made by the new gardener and later went to the press having declined a meeting to discuss their concerns. I can understand the views of people here who have just read what has been in the media but that is far from the whole story. I don't intend to post further on this as I have made my points as a local person who knows some of the people involved.

Nacky

Madgran77 - you mentioned earlier about change and there has indeed been unexpected change at Mottistone. The Head Gardener died suddenly last year having worked there for 30 years. Some volunteers then took to social media to challenge decisions made by the new gardener and later went to the press having declined a meeting to discuss their concerns. I can understand the views of people here who have just read what has been in the media but that is far from the whole story. I don't intend to post further on this as I have made my points as a local person who knows some of the people involved.

That is certainly different to what has been reported in the press. And I have said that I think neither group has painted themselves in glory with their behaviours. However even within that context I think the management of the issue can be at least queried. How were those decisions communicated before being implemented? How did it get to such poor relationships that attendance at a meeting was refused and social media came into the equation?

I don't expect answers to those questions or others I could ask, obviously. But I do think that such a breakdown in relationships and communication brings the management of change into question.

...And the acceptance that change is necessary.

If it was true that it was the “Friday group” involved it is pretty classic, the previous head gardener had allowed or instructed them to workin a certain way. The new head gardener wanted things to be done differently, new managers always have this siuation, who rules the garden the Friday group or the head gardener

Yes it happens. And it the role of the manager is to manage that.

That’s what they’re paid to do and if they haven’t got the skills to do it then it’s manager that needs to go, because clearly they are not up to the job.

Just plain bad management. That’s all it comes down to.

Lathyrus3

Yes it happens. And it the role of the manager is to manage that.

That’s what they’re paid to do and if they haven’t got the skills to do it then it’s manager that needs to go, because clearly they are not up to the job.

Just plain bad management. That’s all it comes down to.

Sometimes people are beyond managing and dismissing them is the only option. What do you expect a manager to do if someone refuses to follow direction? There can be bad managers but there can also be employees or volunteers who refuse to be managed.

There is lots of information on good management and there are lots of skilled managers who do manage change and bring people along with them.

The previous head gardener was one of those and the volunteers were immensely supportive of all the changes he introduced.

And there are managers who create hostility, are autocratic and dismissive, who think their role is to dictate and who are frightened of employees and volunteers who may be more competent and have greater expertise than themselves.

The climate they have created then leads to two alternatives, they must leave or the people they have failed to manage must leave. If this group were employees they would take the Trust to a tribunal.

As volunteers they cannot. Which is why the Trust has been able to act in such a high handed manner.

If I wasn't wanting things to change I think I would be very hard to manage - and could easily see myself in a radical group threatening to leave... but I hope I could negotiate sensibly and work with new management "must dos" to a more satisfactory outcome.
I don't know who spoke for the Friday group but some spokespeople are not negotiators.

I say this as someone who has managed paid staff and volunteers.
I think I was a fair manager but managing volunteers is way harder!