Intelligent Giving - Taking the voluntary out of volunteering - Comments

Conscription

LMC — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:51:16 +0000

is what it is. I've even got a good name for it - why not call it "New Deal"? Oh, sorry, I remember now, that one went already.

Some of the New Deal conscripts I had in a previous job were wonderful (I shall never forget the guy we had in our office for six months whose confidence improved by SO much - and who successfully got paid work when his time was up. He was an absolute joy and really contributed). However, most of them were an absolute [expletive deleted] nightmare. Reluctant, demotivated, resentful - and who could blame them really, having to work for £10/week - it's slave labour. You can imagine how nice that made the atmosphere for the people who were *actually* volunteering (<<< sarcasm). Martin - it's a dead cert. The amount we got per week for managing conscripts was pitiful and nowhere near made up for the hassle factor and the paperwork.

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Spot on.....

Ginsters Dragon — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:59:27 +0000

Martin. A lame, knee-jerk, ill thought out, headline-grabbing stunt from a government desperate to be seen as tough on whatever people want them to be tough on. Poor but predictable. Must try harder (but won't).

Don't shoot the messenger

Enforced volunteering?

Martin Davies — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:41:35 +0000

Speaking as a charity worker, we don't want unwilling volunteers. Hard enough coping with those who don't resent turning up.
Whereas someone (or many people) who don't want to volunteer who are forced to it can create chaos. Can't see the government giving charities guaranteed money to manage these extra volunteers.

Taking the voluntary out of volunteering

Marianne — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:48:33 +0000

TO BE A VOLUNTEER means 'freely to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task,' according to my dictionary.

But to judge from government plans, those fusty old lexicographers are woefully out of date.

A new proposal from the Home Office says that immigrants should be forced to volunteer if they want to get fast-tracked to citizenship.

This is the latest in a series of initiatives that seek to take the voluntary out of volunteering. Late last year, David Cameron proposed a citizen-service programme for 16-year-olds, a right-on noughties version of National Service. Cameron steered clear of calling the scheme compulsory, but he said he would consider it a failure if young people didn't take part.

Political parties seem increasingly obsessed with volunteering. Perhaps it’s because they look enviously at the charities' talent for getting people involved and interested. As trust in in party politics nose-dives, it’s not surprising that politicians see charities as a providing a magic formula for (as they would call it) 'active citizen engagement.'

"There is a world of difference between encouragement and enforcement"

Is it bad that the government supports volunteering? Of course not. Being a volunteer apparently makes you happier, and anything that encourages people to volunteer can have a positive effect on society.

But there is a world of difference between encouragement and enforcement. Giving time should be precisely that: a gift. What the politicians' plans forget is that the benefits of volunteering come because people willingly choose to give up their free time. And while there might be all kinds of reasons people volunteer, from enhancing a CV to getting out of the house a bit more, the element of choice is crucial.

Instead, too many politicians seem to be promoting a version of volunteering that doesn’t give people much of a chance to refuse. Sneakily coercing immigrants and young people to volunteer won’t enhance social capital. It will simply make people cynical about what it means to volunteer. And that won’t help anyone.

> Our guide to volunteering