There’s always a bit of a kerfuffle when the question ‘should volunteers replace paid staff’ is considered.

An interesting perspective that helps to get ‘outside’ of the issue arrived in my inbox this morning:

“The issue is about an internal question, and it’s an internal question for unionised organisations. And what happens when we cant afford to deliver services with paid staff…. they shut…. then what happens…. someone else opens up another service that is more economic…Dementia Friends is probably a great example of that…”

 ”So for me this “replacement” issue is so focusing on the wrong question…. It’s such a question of “who” when we need to focus on the what, when, where, and  how… on earth….do we sustain things at a point of challenging finances…one could probably change how to if….”

So, this perspective advocates focusing first on what we need to do, and when, where and how we can deliver this. The ‘who delivers it’ question would then have more clarity and be supported by a coherent rationale.

This perspective suggests that the Volunteering England and TUC Charter for Strengthening Relations Between paid Staff and Volunteers has things the wrong way around, with the cart leading the horse. The third principle of this  charter states:

“The involvement of volunteers should complement and supplement the work of paid staff, and should not be used to displace paid staff or undercut their pay and conditions of service.”

The perspective would arguably re-write this principle as:

“The extent of involving volunteers and paid staff in delivering a service will be considered, once a service model has been established. The respective roles of volunteers and paid staff will be monitored to ensure the service maintains its relevance and impact, and these roles will be developed accordingly”.

One thing that strikes me in all of this is the ‘volunteers or paid staff’ situation is far from clear cut, and we would be well advised in the current climate to maintain a perspective that enables us to recognise that a load of trees, do in fact make up a wood.