Library Cuts

[History dude]

Do you really believe that the Council could make an archivist or librarian or anyone else redundant, then suggest they come back as a volunteer to do the same work unpaid and not get a rude reply? You're getting to sound like David Cameron and Co!

I've seen that happen in some Council departments. I wouldn't be at all surprised that there are archivists or librarians in may different fields, not just those that work in Councils, that have been chopped for one reason or another. Education employs librarians and has had some MASSIVE cuts in the past and with growing unemployment finding posts will be even harder to come by. Hospitals also have archives for patient records, so do commercial firms.

There's another factor that is often connected with Council's. That is it's not what you know, but who you know that helps get a job there. And in Sheffield Council back in the 80's and 90's it was not uncommon to find related people working in the same department. I know this because I would keep bumping into people with the same surname and I would say to them do you know.... "Yes" she's my sister! One worker in F&CS told me a lot of the staff were related!

Now unless they have had a great deal of sackings, I think that a lot of people who work for the Council still will be related.

[History dude]

It's been announced today that there will be 14 out of 27 libraries closed in deep cuts in Sheffield Council spending.

Also included is a suggestion that Don Valley Stadium will be closed and demolished!

[RichardB]

What are the 27 please ?

Any idea which are meant to close ?

[Bayleaf]

What are the 27 please ?

Any idea which are meant to close ?

They haven't named them, but a look at the Christmas and New Year closures would give a clue. It's a desperate move by a so-called Labour Council to replace paid workers with unpaid volunteers to maintain a service they're required by law to provide. If they really can't afford to fund the service they should have the guts to say so and close the service points. To take the volunteer option is an insult to the paid staff, by saying they can be replaced by unskilled labour.

[History dude]

At the moment nothing is confirmed from what I have read. It's not untypical for councillors of all parties to produce figures and say they are cutting this and that, then when they do set a budget say they have managed to save this or that by other means. It makes them look like they have acheved something in the face of a nasty government cut backs when in fact they have done nothing of the sort.

However I reckon they will still make a MASSIVE cut in the libraries as it's an easy target.

Please don't be respectfull to volounteers Bayleaf by grouping everyone of them as "unskilled". Volunteers come from every corner of life and some could be retired Staff from inside the system. The insult will be just be "unpaid" workers doing a job on the cheap. Rather like myself a carer paid £60 a week for a job that a worker would get £200 to £300 for and have better equipment to do it with. Though I suspect the "paid worker" wouldn't do my job for double their pay!!

Are not councillors unpaid?

However Council services are very expensive to run because they pay over the odds for everything. Especially if they are building or repairing anything. For example they paid over the odds to get Picture Sheffield up and running and the Archives itself was built in the wrong place and was badly designed. By the way that last comment was one of those overheard conversations between Archive paid staff not many years after it was opened.

[Bayleaf]

I've every respect for volunteers, especially those in the caring field. However there are some areas where volunteers aren't the answer. In libraries in particular, the job seems simple to the observer, but staff have received training in many aspects of the work, not least the computer system, and have a commitment to the service that some, though not all, volunteers would have. Like any computer system, the one used by the library is only as good as the worst person using it. One careless person can bring the whole thing into chaos. As to retired library staff volunteering, great. Put your former colleagues out of a job. At the end of the day, when they get bored or the job gets tricky or unpleasant, a volunteer can walk away. So get rid of the staff and bring in volunteers to keep the service running. Then when the volunteers find it's not what they thought and walk away, what happens to the service?

There are many aspects of public service where I wouldn't want to be dealt with by a volunteer, from nursing and doctors to tax officers who have access to my personal details. You may think libraries are different, but they hold personal details that most people wouldn't want made public.

We've had this argument before Dude, so I'm not going to get embroiled again.

[History dude]

Paid work is over valued in our society and unpaid work under valued. Anyone doing unpaid could put a paid worker out of a job and council workers are simply especially library staff just gloryfied volunteers. No one needs to borrow books and if someone messes up the computer system - which was probably another one of those things that cost more than what it should and doesn't work as good as what it should - no-one will be hurt by someone with little training on it. However you are quite right the people who are volounteers would need training, this costs money so it's still not a cheap option.

The solution is simple privatise the library service. On option being for the staff to set it up as a co-op. They can then get the funding to operate the service how it should be - without the Council saying we will cut you to provide an Education for 12 to 18 year olds that they don't need and does this country a great deal of damage.

You will find also that paid members of staff are more likely to fiddle the system than a volunteer would as you say when: "the job gets tricky or unpleasant, a volunteer can walk away." The paid staff can't so will do things they shouldn't. Having an employee who thinks the system sucks is the worst than one who is idle. And with MASSIVE cuts I doubt that employees who work for the Council have been in those jobs for a long time! So as for commitment to service, my past experiance of Council staff shows little of this and if they have any it will leave them frustrated by managment and Councillors who have little reguard for staff as these setts of cutts suggest!

Indeed the idea of using volunteers to run the services is not thought out and is just to keep services going on the cheap. But hey that Councillors for you!

You can run Libraries with volunteers and paid staff working together if you have a clear idea of how to do it. But neither the staff of the Libraries or the Councillors have a plan and so what you have is a shambles of a scheme.

That's why I don't surport it. Even though the Library service does need volunteers to run it - in the management that is!

Mind you I don't surport the Sheffield Libraries anymore as I now use the USA ones - IE: Internet archive!

[History dude]

My main concern in this thread is the idea that volounteers couldn't run a "library service" not particualry in reference to the Sheffield one, or that they any less trustworthy than someone who's payed a wage. It seems to me that this thread is giving a bad impression of volounteers and volountry run projects. As someone with a lot of experiance of the volountrary sector, including leading roles in some projects, I can tell you that a project set up to deal with both unpaid and paid workers can run well and be seen as a great example to others.

Given the right people and a free hand to do what needs to be done, volounteers can turn a badly run project or service into a something fantastic. I've seen that happen before sometimes to services that have been funded by Council's. Often because they can get hold of funds that a political body, as Council's are, can't access.

Sadly I see no hope for the Council run service if it uses volounteers or not. Not even volounteers can turn a project around without a free hand in it and there are to many bodies to interfear to allow any "free hand".

This post was added to correct the inbalance to the thread after a previous post was removed. It contains information sent via PM to Steve HB after the removal of the said post.

[duckweed]

Volunteers can be well qualified and quite capable but there is a danger in replacing paid workers with volunteers that corners are cut and services to fit the volunteers and then people turn round and say that the workers were overpaid and overqualified as look anyone can do the job.

Volunteers no matter what the calibre are going to be inferior to experienced qualified and paid workers as volunteers can't work the same hours and are liable to drop out last minute.

Even the most dedicated volunteer is not as motivated as someone who relies on the work to pay their bills. No volunteer is going to do a 40 hour week so the number of volunteers to get to anywhere near the same levels is colossal.

[History dude]

Volunteers no matter what the calibre are going to be inferior to experienced qualified and paid workers as volunteers can't work the same hours and are liable to drop out last minute.

Even the most dedicated volunteer is not as motivated as someone who relies on the work to pay their bills. No volunteer is going to do a 40 hour week so the number of volunteers to get to anywhere near the same levels is colossal.

I find that comment to be highly offensive!

As someone who has work with both volunteers and paid workers in all sorts of combinations I can tell you that you can get paid workers who are terrible at the job and volunteers who are the same. It's not what you get paid that will make a differance to a service to the public.

Volunteers often work longer hours than 40. (However if they are unemployed they are not allowed to do those hours.) And will work when paid workers have gone home or argued that they can't work longer hours, because they feel they are exploited or in some cases or that the union rules prevent them working longer hours.

I'll offer this example of how a volunteers can be MORE dedicated than someone who I thought was as dedicated as a paid worker.

As a volounteer I was the chairperson of a project that employed people. When a paid employee (who had been a volunteer) decided to nip off to the shops every afternoon, while filling in a timesheet for 40 hours, and was caught - I had to make a decision on if that person should continue to be employed there. Easy you might think, but not so, the laws of this country mean that an employee can take the company/project to an industrial tribunial for unfair dissmissal. I had to make certain that the Manager had done the job proper and not made a mess. So I asked what evidence they had for the bad conduct. And when they had made it clear to me that this person didn't have a leg to stand on. Did I decide action could be taken. Both I and the Manager saw this person as someone we had a great deal of faith in too. With this in mind we agreed to offer the person a get out clause, by asking them to resign, and as it was about a month to Christmas, with the full month wages etc. Otherwise they would be suspened on full pay till a disciplinary hearing could be set, which I knew they would fail, even though it was independent. That employee refused to go and so went through the system and was sacked. After going to a tribunal the employee failed that too! However I and the other (none paid) members of the committee were given a ruff time by the other employees there. Who were not pleased at that person being on full pay while being delt with and when I said in answer if the independent panel found in favour of the employee that they would still be employed, threatend to walk out! I could have quit or walked away. But not one of us did!

There seems to a lot of misconceptions about volunteers and their attitudes.

I found that most volunteers quit doing the thing they do because: 1 they get a paid job! 2: they have to - sick or family issues. 3 Issues with paid staff. 4 issues with other none paid members. 5 political reasons - for example loads of them quit when the New Deal was introduced. 6. And of course the feeling that no-one gives a dam about them. Finally death. I know about 5 people who died whilst being volunteers and they were irreplacable.

The biggest issue that causes volunteers to quit is the funding issue of projects. Made worse by the fact that funders don't want to fund a project by themselves. So you have to get 5 different funders to do one project. And dealing with the crap that these bodies come out with!! Well if you don't believe me just get a lotto application form!

Banging your head againsn't these brick walls is enough to get anyone to quit - even paid workers!

And to show it can work....

People on this site know about Sheffield Indexers and the sterling work they are doing on that site. But you might not be aware that it's a volunteer led project. In fact while discussing this very subject about the cutts on there forum it came out about a funding issue. And I was able to put them in touch with a friend of mine who has worked alongside people like me for years here in Sheffield. He was able to point them in the right direction to get funds for the site.

I think this shows how paid and unpaid workers can acheive a great deal of good in something useful to others.

[Stuart0742]

I have closed this topic.

The topic content is no longer relevant to this forum.

This topic was not intended to be a Soap Box to discuss the Pro and Cons of volunteers over paid staff and vice versa.