Volunteer or Scrounger?

Unfortunately it goes on in the best quarters. I have to agree that an awful lot of these volunteers scrounge and scavenge or just take what they want,It gets decent honest hardworking volunteers a bad name

I really hope that none of the thousands of kind volunteers who work in these shops read the vitriol and accusations in this post. It may be that there are charity shops where some take advantage of getting first pick, but the people on here are so judgmental. Bearing in mind, if these people had to be paid rather than volunteer it would cost those charities huge amounts of money - even at minimum wage, the average working day would be £80.
As someone who has relied on grants from charities, I am so grateful to these people who give up their precious time to work for free in these places. I appreciate how hard they work, they're often treated in the same way that paid retail staff would be (in that they're expected to work a certain number of hours per week minimum, have to pay parking / transport etc, have to do the dull parts of the job as well as the more fun, social stuff).
Much of the research around cancer diagnosis, treatment and care, Heart disease, Alzheimer's disease is funded by charity grants - the government funding is very low, so we have to thank these people hugely for the time they give that allows the research to save our loved ones.
Maybe those of you complaining should look at wheat you do to help?

This does not surprise me one bit. I have never worked in a charity shop but I have friends who do and who also work in food banks and the amount of stealing that does on from both volunteers and the paid staff shocks me and them. The managers seem the worse!
The problem is what do the honest volunteers do? In their case they can’t tell the managers as they are in on it and is it really their responsibility to go higher than that?

I am yet to find a well run charity. The food bank that my friend works at is shocking. Useless manager who is line managed by a vicar who has no management experience and never says anything to her. It makes my blood boil the stories I hear.

It would make a great ITV drama but no one would believe it!

I personally don’t think you should be allowed to do that. I give my stuff to my hospital who sell it to buy toys etc for the children wards and you receive a letter saying who much your goods sell for I sold over £300 it actually made me think. I can’t be bothered with selling online then ppl saying didn’t receive it etc and find same ppl selling your stuff on as I had one do. But I did get my money back after I had to repay them for their false claims

When i volunteered we used to get 25% off which is reasonable. However there’s always someone who lets the side down and that was apparent when i managed a small charity shop and 1 particular volunteer would just turn up when they wanted and stay long enough to buy something. Got wise to that. It’s difficult to sometimes retain enough volunteers which is why i think some charities allow it. However at the end of the day the idea is to raise money for the charity….

If volunteers are taking stock it is stealing and they should be reported.

NannaJeni

I volunteered for Age Concern in the past and their rules state that volunteers cannot even purchase any articles from the shop until they have been made available to the public for at least one week. I thought this an excellent idea.

So do I, NannaJeni. It does suggest that there has been a problem there, too, doesn't it.

I volunteered for Age Concern in the past and their rules state that volunteers cannot even purchase any articles from the shop until they have been made available to the public for at least one week. I thought this an excellent idea.

Fair enough. Our opinions differ - it happens on discussion forums.

I'm not remotely in a tizzy though - there are a lot of assumptions going on. We were just discussing different attitudes to pricing when accusations of jealousy etc started flying.

Re Gladys and the coats (G is real, but called something else) the whole point of the shop is to raise money for the charity, and there are people in the town who could do with a new coat but can't afford a new one. G taking all the coats in her size is preventing those people from being warm in winter, and cutting the profits to the charity. To me it's about fairness, not jealousy.

Doodledog, I actually do agree on a fair price properly set, but after that so what if Gladys has 20 of the coats? Sorry but I really couldn’t get in a tizz about something I had discarded.

Oh, and I wonder at the ‘psychology’ that objects to full disclosure and suggests that those in support of it are ‘jealous’ . I’m not a psychologist, but what I see there is just a different moral compass. I am not jealous or taking the moral high ground - I just believe in informed consent for the donors. If Gladys wants an evening dress and one come in in her size, she should absolutely get first dibs. But it should be properly priced as though a member of the public were buying it.

dogsmother

Doodldog, probably unclear why it’s that much of an issue. If you are done with something then you are done with it. Do not begrudge people who get something extra out of a voluntary role.
It’s actually better than sitting around at the back of my wardrobe or cupboard.
I wouldn’t be too quick to judge maybe.

So people should have no say where their donations go because they are done with them? No, I disagree. I choose the charity shop I use based on my personal preference, for instance. I choose whether to sell on eBay, what to donate, what to put on Freecycle and what to take to the tip. It’s not a case of ‘oh, let’s let someone with time to volunteer have another new coat for £1’ instead of it selling for £10 and the money going to charity.

If you read my posts you would know that my own mother volunteered until recently, and ‘her’ shop had a policy of allowing volunteers to take what they wanted before the items were priced or put out. Another volunteer would price them, knowing that their friend was planning to buy them. The policy was not explicitly stated, but custom and practice was to price much lower for colleagues, who then got a further discount. The staff knew no different, were open about it to friends and family, and saw no harm in what they were doing. I am not suggesting that it was dishonest, as it was made clear in their induction that this was the system. What troubles me is that the donors had no idea that Gladys had 20 coats in her cloakroom, that all new shoes in size 6 were to be left for Betty’s perusal before being displayed, or that there was a book in the staff room saying that Elspeth was looking for an evening dress in a size 14, preferably beaded, and that Beryl’s granddaughter was expecting again, so please put all new baby items on the table until she’s in on Thursday. All of that is fictional but based on fact.

Do you think that if there were a notice to this effect on the shop door, people might have taken their donations elsewhere? Don’t you believe that they should have had the right to choose whether to donate in those circumstances, or take things to the shop along the road where the policies were akin to those in BlueBelle’s one?

me too. I lost/left a waterproof jacket in the park where I'd taken grandchildren. a few weeks later I found it in a charity shop and was happy to pay and get it back. well done to the finder too.

Grammaretto

I once bought my own donated garment back from a charity shop. It looked so nice on the rail!
it had probably been washed and ironed

This has just made me choke on my tea Grammaretto!

I once bought my own donated garment back from a charity shop. It looked so nice on the rail!
it had probably been washed and ironed

In bhf shop I heard a volunteer talking down to another helper. Some seem to think they are 'holier than thou' because they are volunteers. some need to remember their manners.
in another charity shop a volunteer on the till was having a shout that she hadn't had a tea break so as shutting the shop for 15mins. she locked the door with customers instore. fortunately another person came to let us out. this person wasn't signed to use the till. so full of own importance.

Your comments are all very interesting, thank you. My experience is similar to that of Ailidh, but there is still scope for cheating as the manager is a soft touch.... too kind and generous. However, that does encourage lots of regular customers

I volunteer in a community hub. Its not a charity but a community benefit organisation. There are several paid, parttime staff snd lots of volunteers.
I'm on the till but there's a café and I'm always asked if I'd like a coffee. I don't pay but I do pay if I have lunch there.

My DD brought her family there recently and wanted to give the young waitress a tip.
"I'm not paid so what's 10% of nothing?" She replied.

One point I would make here is echoing what Ailidh said and what we did in the shop I managed. Everything had to be priced and on the rails/shelves in the shop before a volunteer could buy. What I would not accept is what biglouis described - someone having first dibs before goods were shown to the public.

While it makes no difference to takings if goods are sold to staff or public at the same price, letting staff have first dibs can have a knock-on effect.

The amount of good-quality donations to charity shops is low. It would not be an exaggeration to say that up to 80% of donations are unsaleable other than to rag and paper merchants. A lot of donations goes straight in the bin at a cost to the charity to have taken away. It’s no secret that people use charity shops as a way of dumping their rubbish.

If staff are getting first dibs on the 20% of goods that are saleable and are nabbing the better stuff, that means that fewer items of good quality are going out on the rails and shelves.

Shops for different charities build reputations for having good or poor quality stock. Customers who find a good range of good quality stock can and often do become regular customers.

I know which shops in town have good, well-presented stock and which have a jumble of mostly rubbish. I no longer bother to visit the latter.

All other things being equal, why is there such a difference? Could it be because the latter shops are the ones where staff are taking or buying the better quality donations before the public ever gets to see them?

Yes, but it would be better still if these people who presumably are comfortably off and don't need to work, paid the asking price.

Perhaps they need budgeting advice, in which case I'd be happy to oblige.
I want my extra pennies to go towards antibiotics and birth packs.

Doodldog, probably unclear why it’s that much of an issue. If you are done with something then you are done with it. Do not begrudge people who get something extra out of a voluntary role.
It’s actually better than sitting around at the back of my wardrobe or cupboard.
I wouldn’t be too quick to judge maybe.

Agreed, MissA

I'd rather the full amount goes towards the people or cause, not even a tiny bit towards filling up some woman's bathroom with stuff.

The items are sold cheaply enough.

Having first choice, yes, that's fine, but pay the asking price.

Sorry, I didn't proofread. 'go into shape' should read 'go into the shop'

dogsmother

I’m still unclear on some of the comments. I do give a lot of items that are no longer of use to me to local charity shops. I am happy to think that these items can be reused and money can be made from them.
If a voluntary worker takes first dibs then do I need to worry? Not really, I was done with it and money was made.
I do volunteer but not in a money making area, I would never judge others motives but whatever they get out of it long may volunteers keep working.

I don't understand what's unclear. If you are suggesting that people shouldn't feel a bit annoyed that something they gave in good faith to be sold at a fair price to benefit both a charity and the buyer, as well as cutting the amount going into landfill, then IMO it is very clear that some don't like the thought that their good intentions are intercepted by (some) volunteers and what may have been a fair price is cut. That means that the charity gets less money and the public are less likely to go into shape if the best deals never make it to the hangers. You may view your donations differently, which is absolutely fine, but surely it is clear that others don't agree with you, which is also fine?