North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

What an incredible statement.
Are not volunteers a part of ‘society in general’?
My volunteering is split between rail (several organisations) and the Canal & River Trust.
The mission statement of the latter is “Making Life Better by Water”. This encompasses not only boaters, fishermen, walkers, cyclists etc but very much their volunteers too. CRT fully embrace the benefit to their volunteers’ physical and mental health of working as a team, being outdoors, producing something of benefit to the wider community etc etc.
And yes, they are of course a charity too.

 

They’re not usually. They’re typically around 120 operating days and 400 loco days on the mid-size lines. Ability to resource should lead some of that decision making.

As to flipping between types of employee:

1. Don’t pay for anything you can get a volunteer to do
2. Flexible roles (particularly paid ones are very important)
3. A strong (preferably railway) volunteering background within the management
4. A focus on getting the best from everyone
5. (Missing right now I think) some sort of training for managers of volunteers- it is different to managing employees, but no more difficult if the motivations are understood

 

This post should be plastered all over the NYMR's paid staff's places of work and tattooed on the foreheads or wrists of all the management! OK, that's a bit extreme, henna tattoos that wash off and can be replaced every few days until the message has properly sunk in!

 

I agree that the sector requires employees who are not just motivated by money - I suspect that the best way to get many of those people is by initially getting them involved as volunteers .

Jon

 

As has happened but it may cause upset if someone who volunteered previously transitions on to the payroll.

 

I have seen many people who were volunteers become paid staff and have twice made that transition myself and then back to being a volunteer. I’ve not seen it cause a problem. What were the circumstances that you saw?

 

Cause upset to who?
And why would they be upset?

 

You only have to look at the many posts on here complaining about the number and cost of paid staff suggesting both should be reduced with volunteers filling in the gaps. If the reverse happens i.e. someone who previously worked as a volunteer becomes a paid employee doing much the same job why would it not exacerbate such compliants?

 

So it's just something you think may happen, rather than has happened at the NYMR?

 

If the volunteer is respected, the employed role generally accepted as being necessary, and the recruitment process accepted as fair rather than being a “fix”, then I see little issue.

The primary problem being discussed here is not individual employees, but the overall strategy for engaging people to do the work necessary.

 

Why do you always try to find negatives in everything? In my very many years in heritage railways, the norm has been for permanent staff to come from committed volunteers. I’ve never experienced any problem with that. It’s when you start to appoint from outside that the problems often begin.

 

I suspect we are disagreeing over different situations. If a volunteer is appointed to a different paid/ advertised role I’d agree that not only is there no problem but it’s desirable. The problem is where someone who has previously volunteered is paid to do the same role. It has happened on the NYMR although disguised through the individual carrying on through his own service company. We also had the silly situation of volunteers being paid for any turns they did over an agreed minimum. My recollection is that was not well received!

 

I think that you will find that @21B has far more experience in the management of heritage railways and volunteers than you are ever likely to have. His post raised some perfectly valid points, and I am surprised and disappointed in the content of your reply to him.

 

Am I missing something? @21B 's points all seem pretty good to me, I'd endorse all of them, as someone who brings skills to my railway for free, volunteering in a safety critical role, very occasionally getting paid for the odd bit of work in the movement, and as a manager of other volunteers and subject to management by other volunteers and paid staff!

I'm not combing through at this late hour, but I think you could probably find support for some of @21B 's points in HRA guidance on trustees and directors. Indeed I'd say from the outside looking in, one of the reasons the SVR appears to be doing relatively well is because it's actually doing a fair bit of what is summarised above, in stark contrast to the NYMR.

 

As seems to be your wont, you counter arguments that contradict your own point of view by going off at spurious tangents - to put it as politely as I can! You really should be a politician! I don't necessarily advocate compulsory redundancies, because it would take desperately needed funds that will be needed elsewhere. I do advocate taking advantage
of natural wastage (and turnover in the Park Street offices seems, to an outsider, to be quite high. What I do strongly deplore, though is the seeming rush to create new posts and managers. ~It is hard to see whether there has been a serious attempt to combine posts and shift responsibilities to reduce numbers. I'm sure I'll be told that this has indeed been the case, but in the absence of evidence I'll take an "anecdotal" affirmation with a plentiful pinch of salt!

 

Volunteering elsewhere, and in a leadership role, I’d observe as follows:
1. Difficult to find, but an essential part of the picture - as you are as a trustee.
2. Not about zero hours or gig economy, but employing people to enable, not just for a task. The least I’d expect is some level of weekend working
3. Again, with experiences as recounted at SVR and elsewhere, I’d regard the lack of such experience as a major organisational risk.
4. I’d suggest that managers who aren’t focused on getting the best from everyone are a risk to their organisation. There are many ways of achieving this, but the role is different from being a “doer”, and this needs to be acknowledged.
5. All should welcome the chance to develop their skills.

It’s up to @21B to decide whether to identify himself. I have dealt with him and know his credentials (and clues are in many of his postings); suffice it to say that I think you’ve called it wrong in this case.

 

Many people know who I am, but I prefer not to identify myself publicly solely because I would not want my posts to be seen as any kind of comment on behalf of the organisations I am involved with. Very happy to pm to those that ask.

I am not playing any form of fantasy game, but inevitably there is an element of idealism in this discussion. What I was trying to set out were some principles which from experience might assist any heritage railway. My thanks to those recognised that.

 

When you read the posts of regulars on here, over time you get to know them and the quality of what they write and the knowledge and experience they have. I’d put 21B in the top five of posters on here. I certainly don’t think he’s ever posted anything that I would disagree with and the post that you do much criticised is bang on. I’ve never knowingly met him but he quite happily gave me his name and credentials in a PM.