This is an archive of CharityVillage NewsWeek.
To find a word on the page, use your browser's "find" feature (CTRL-F or CMD-F).
To view other articles in the archive, use our Chronological Index.
Please note: While we ensure that all links and e-mail addresses are
accurate at their publishing date, the quick-changing nature of the
web means that some links to other web sites and e-mail addresses may
no longer be accurate.
Ethics Q & A
March 29, 2004
By Jane Garthson, Garthson Leadership Centre
with the assistance of Reva Cooper, Volunteer Management Consultant
The dilemma:
My health clinic was recently unionized. Is it ethical for the organization to still use volunteers? What if they increase the use of volunteers because of our new salary settlement?
Jane says...
Management and union leaders should meet to review how volunteers are currently
involved in the organization, with all the information on the table. Many
of the roles may still be appropriate, but the union should be consulted
from now on before increasing the number of, or adding any new roles for
volunteers. The union contract may require such consultation. Replacing
staff with volunteers is generally seen as quite unethical, and may also
violate contracts.
Staff and volunteers will work best together if their roles are separate, unique and complementary. Volunteers should enhance and extend services, and supplement not supplant the work of paid staff. Like paid staff, they should have position descriptions and be supervised, evaluated and held accountable. The union members need to respect the unique role of volunteers and not challenge reasonable continued use, while volunteers respect the role of staff and unions. Boards will still consist of volunteers, though staff may attend as technical resources or for better communication. Committees such as fundraising will also likely continue to be made up of volunteers.
In direct service, some volunteers serve clients in ways that are important to the mission but not mission-critical. If the volunteers were let go, staff would not be hired to replace them. Clients and families would lose useful services such as help finding their way around the building. Young people might lose out on early volunteer experience that they can build on throughout life. Remember that volunteers are often also donors and excellent ambassadors in the community for your organization. It is likely that they would be deemed well worth the volunteer management program needed to support them.
In many small organizations, all services are provided by volunteers or volunteers deliver mission-critical services with a very small paid staff base as support. A union agreement will not magically result in enough money to hire employees to replace all the volunteers, nor is that necessarily the goal.
Even in organizations with substantial government funding, the government may direct that only certain types of roles can be paid with that funding. In a community health clinic, for example, the government may fund doctors and nurses but not dentists - even if clients living in poverty have identified dentistry as a high need (this is a real situation). Unless other funding is found, paid dentists could not replace the volunteer dentists. It may be best for the program to find such alternate funding, because it would allow increased services. However, raising funds for a dental program might detract from other fundraising priorities.
Remember that some volunteers have high level skills and certification, and that such qualifications can be demanded when recruiting volunteers. Volunteers are not limited to unskilled work.
A far more problematic situation arises when funding restrictions lead to staff lay-offs or reductions. Replacing employees with volunteers violates the ethical principle of fairness to employees, who are major stakeholders, and also creates a very negative labour and volunteer climate for the future.
However, clients are the primary stakeholders - the reason the clinic
exists. Staff and volunteer interests must be addressed in order to give
good health care and support the mission in the long run, but the needs
of the clients must come first in decision-making. Reducing service to
them during financial crises when programs could have been maintained
through volunteers may be seen as an even more serious ethical lapse.
The clinic has to also consider the high cost of handling grievances, and the legal imperative to abide by union agreements. Resources should not be wasted on efforts that harm labour relations and end up reducing programs anyway. And since staff have an important role to play in supervising, supporting and recognizing volunteer efforts, a hostile labour climate will drive away volunteers.
Moreover, health organizations carry out work which governments are responsible
for funding adequately. Involving volunteers instead of staff to "do more
with less" encourages further funding cuts and poorer health care. A short-term
reduction in clinic services may serve the community better in the long
run.
Hope that your organization is never in the position of making this decision, as decisions that involve weighing two important rights are far more difficult than decisions between right and wrong.
Openness and good communication between union and management may produce creative solutions that save the union jobs, maintain community support AND improve health services, within the spirit of good labour relations.
***********
Because nonprofit organizations are formed to do good does not mean
they always are good in their own practices. Send us your ethical questions
dealing with volunteers, staff, clients, donors, funders, sponsors, and
more. Please identify yourself and your organization so we know the questions
come from within the sector. No identifying information will appear in
this column.
To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one,
please contact help@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.
