Is Volunteering a moral duty to "give something back"?

the library service has faced savage cuts. At the same time, it is more difficult for people to train as qualified librarians

There used to be many routes into librarianship back in the 1960s when I entered and subsequently took the professional exams. However the nature of the profession changed in the late 1970s to that of a degree oriented qualification. At the same time local authorities began to cut back on services like libraries, museums and art galleries because they did not bring in funds. Having seen the writing on the wall I returned to education in my mid years to do a series of degrees. I never returned to the profession since I became an academic.

Its true that the profession of librarianship - now known as librarianship and information science - has changed out of all recognition. Libraries are no longer quiet havens for study but have had to try to become all things to all people. Never a good thing.

Volunteering is a 2 way thing. It both gives to society and gives to the Volunteer. I don't think there is a moral duty to volunteer but morally it is right to help others if you can

i think one of the joys of volunteering is that you can choose what you do. Unlike working where you quite often need to do a not very interesting or boring job because you need the money, with volunteering you can pick and choose to make sure that your do work you enjoy and therfore enables you to give more to other people.

When my children were small i was involved with the PTAs and a children's charity my children received benefit from. I was also politically involved.

When I retired the first voluntary job I took, enabled me to continue to use my work skills in different circumstances. The second one with a heritage organisation, followed up on an interest I had. I also have a longstanding hobby which is centred on history and heritage and I there isn't aa post on the committee (chairman, secretary, treasurer, etc etc etc) that I haven't held.

M0nica

i think one of the joys of volunteering is that you can choose what you do. Unlike working where you quite often need to do a not very interesting or boring job because you need the money, with volunteering you can pick and choose to make sure that your do work you enjoy and therfore enables you to give more to other people.

When my children were small i was involved with the PTAs and a children's charity my children received benefit from. I was also politically involved.

When I retired the first voluntary job I took, enabled me to continue to use my work skills in different circumstances. The second one with a heritage organisation, followed up on an interest I had. I also have a longstanding hobby which is centred on history and heritage and I there isn't aa post on the committee (chairman, secretary, treasurer, etc etc etc) that I haven't held.

That is fine Monica, you chose to do it though, others choose not too and that is ok too. It is not a moral duty, which is the question the OP posed.

I wanted to do something with my time once I retired. Having worked as a Nurse and with disabled people all my working life I wanted something completely different.
I am an avid reader and now help run a small English Library and information centre here in France. We have a cafe and run language groups for French and English people. It has rather taken over my life but I love it. Benefits all round as far as I can see.

My comments were in reply to someone who equated volunteering with the boring unenjoyable job she needed to do to earn her living.

My comments went to no further than that. I have yet to say whether I think it it is a moral duty or not. The reason for that is because I am not sure and think it will vary from person to person and their circumstances.

One of my father's many sayings was that the more you get out of society (through luck or by hard work) the more you owe it in return.

I tend to think of library-, school- and hospital-building Victorians as prime examples of this notion.

Industrialists built whole villages for their workers, Baggs!

Whether that is considered to be paternalism or not now, I expect the employees liked their new homes.

Now many are des res.

They were nice estates too, they didn't scrimp

My Mum retired at 60 and went from a 30 year career as a
shop assistant with Debenhams to a volunteer in Scope. She
loved it.
I'm 68 and still need to work for the income. Looks like I'll
be doing an extra 10 years compared to my Mother. Retirement has already changed for many of us and we started younger, 17 in my case. No I won't be volunteering or 'giving
back'

I would like to add that my 4 children didn't come out of
Education until mid twenties , they will never work 50 years.

Mollygo

No. Volunteering is something I do at the weekend in our local park because I enjoy it. Duties, moral or otherwise might be enjoyable but volunteering is exactly that.

Absolutely.

I don’t feel any moral duty whatsoever to volunteer. I have cared for both parents in their last years and supported my daughter with her care. I give to the food bank every week a sizeable chunk and that is it.

halfpint1

I would like to add that my 4 children didn't come out of
Education until mid twenties , they will never work 50 years.

It's quite common to go on working in the US. My brother worked until he was 74. (He did have a job where that was possible, of course).

It would not be impossible for your children to work for 50 years. Improbable though.

You will find a lot of lawyers practising well into their 70s and beyond. A 50 year career isn’t unusual.

Germanshepherdsmum

You will find a lot of lawyers practising well into their 70s and beyond. A 50 year career isn’t unusual.

That depends on how physical your work is

When I retired 8 bought a campervan so that me and my two pooches could head off whenever I felt like it.
I do care for my old dad, shopping, cleaning, sorting out his life basically - but I do that when it fits in with my routine. I volunteer in a community cafe every Tuesday, but it is so informal and easy going, that if I can't make it, there are no histrionics ( very rare I can't, docs appt/ taking dad to apply etc).

I did try to volunteer for several charities, but they all wanted a minimum amount of hours per week, holidays booked well in advance, multiple references, an undertaking that set hours were enshrined in mh calendar.
To me, that is going to work without the salary - not at all what retirement is all about.

I was lucky and found my cafe. I work every Tuesday and then work for a couple of hours a week on their behalf from home.

I simply found too many charities too inflexible for me to be able to commit. There are some roles that need to be 'guaranteed' - shop workers etc,, but the roles I was most interested in could have been done at any time, and anywhere.

Gosh - that was a ramble ?

DH is still working at the age of 79. In fact he has been paid more as a self-employed engineer since he retired than in all his years of employment.

He limited his travelling to Europe only when he was 70 and ceased to make site visits shortly afterwards, but as COVID struck he was about to go to Munich to a meeting. Since then he has had a heart attack and has a damaged lung, but travel is no longer necessary as all meetings are done online.

He is gradually doing less work, but while people want his expertise and he can work from home, he will continue working. He enjoys it.

GagaJo

*Wonder if those on Mumsnet criticising us greedy boomers will feel the same when it’s their turn*

Except it won't be their turn for much longer than it was for most boomers. They won't be retiring at the same age. They'll be working almost 10 years longer. It isn't a level playing field.

The resentment against boomers isn't selfish or unrealistic. Young people are angry about a whole range of things that they have harder. This is a terrible time to be 30/40. And yes, they do look to the older generation and see us as having had it much easier than them.

Things the young never knew about "Boomers":

We grew up in homes without central heating and had ice on the inside of the windows in the morning.

Some of us suffered from asthma due to winter smogs caused by coal smoke.

We had a bath once a week, not a hot shower twice a day.

We had to make our own way to school, or indeed anywhere we wanted to go. Mum's taxi service didn't exist.

If we wanted something we had to save for it, not expect it yesterday.

The bank of Mum and Dad hadn't yet been established.

Most of us didn't have the benefit of free childcare while we concentrated on our careers.

We endured 16% mortgage rates.

Stay-at-home mums were not permitted to pay into a pension.

Every generation has its hardships, and I wouldn't wish some of the things I have had to go through in my life on any of my children, which is why I have always helped them in any way I could. But it makes me mad when they turn round and suggest I have had life easier than them. I haven't, and now that life is good for me I feel perfectly entitled to enjoy the time I have left.

Superb post GrannyRose15! Apparently some Gransnetters didn’t suffer the things you mention either.
Some of us will already still be working as long as they will be, with less warning.

Good post GrannyRose15

I don't think my DC feel resentful at all

Many 30 to 40 somethings are far more comfortably placed than we were at their age.
Some are not, of course, but it was ever thus.

People forget that house prices were lower because interest rates were so much higher. They also forget how much less we earned and the effect of inflation.

In ten years time current school leavers will be telling these whinging 30 plusses, how lucky they were to be able to get mortgages with such low interestrates and 3 or 4 years of high inflation will make the current price of houses look like peanuts and those who bought houses between 2000 - 2020, will have significant equity in their homes and will have to put up with being the recipients of all the compaints we are currently receiving.

I have nothing against volunteering (I do it myself) but often feel angry that this is mainly necessary because of poor underfunded services.

M0nica

People forget that house prices were lower because interest rates were so much higher. They also forget how much less we earned and the effect of inflation.

In ten years time current school leavers will be telling these whinging 30 plusses, how lucky they were to be able to get mortgages with such low interestrates and 3 or 4 years of high inflation will make the current price of houses look like peanuts and those who bought houses between 2000 - 2020, will have significant equity in their homes and will have to put up with being the recipients of all the compaints we are currently receiving.

What I don't understand is that the young people buying today (or those wanting to buy) are doing it for the same reasons we did - to give us some security in the form of a saleable asset. They also forget that yes, those of the 'Boomer' generation who went to University paid no fees, but only 5-10% of people went. Most left school and worked, paying a chunk of their wages to the family budget. Plus, many of those who did get grants vociferously opposed the introduction of fees when they came in.
Not only that, but the bank of Mum and Dad is funded by the fact that some of the 'Boomer' generation did well out of being born when they were, and this will leave them an inheritance they wouldn't have had otherwise. They are, of course, free to reject it as 'unfair' and give it to the children of those who weren't so lucky.

I don't think anyone has a moral duty to volunteer it is down to the individual. I volunteered for 15 years and had to stop due to Mr J's increasing health problems. It can be difficult for some charities to differentiate between an employee and someone volunteering their time. Often their expectations and pressure they put on volunteers does not meet what the volunteer was hoping to achieve. It has to be a two way process not just what the charity expects of you.