Pay
I have often wondered why people who want enough money for fifty lifetimes, are considered to be more competent than people who will work for the amount of pay that will afford themselves and their families a reasonably comfortable standard of living and a measure of security into the future.
Or, in other words, why is it assumed that people who like money are better at achieving results?
When it comes to pay, I believe that there’s a balance to be struck.
It’s not necessarily true that those who demand most money are the best for the job. But it’s also true that there exists the reality of the market, and if voluntary organisations don’t match pay and conditions in the statutory or private sectors people who have a lot to offer mightn’t find the jobs attractive enough.
On this subject, (with some notable exceptions at the higher end) pay in the community/voluntary/charitable sector is mostly less than in the statutory sector and our jobs are, obviously, far more precarious, as I will expand on in the next post.
No matter how caring or enthusiastic we are, eventually we may get married/have a partner, perhaps want a house and car, have children, (with all the expenses that children bring), schools, holidays, etc.
I believe that organisations that set out to do this kind of work, while being realistic about pay levels, should commit to pay a decent wage with proper contracts and not be tempted to skimp on pay or conditions, zero hour contracts etc.
Hours
In this post I mentioned how corporate values filter into the Pillars. One of the results of corporate influence in the community sector is that (with some notable exceptions) we are contracted to work the same number of hours as we would in a factory, bank, the trades, civil service etc.
This is despite the fact that many of us frequently find ourselves in highly stressful situations that are often a matter of life and death, and/or where people are making constant demands on us.
The long hours worked is one of the many reasons for the high turnover that is often a feature of those of us who work with families in distress, children at risk, families affected by imprisonment, troubled youth, homeless people, people who are in or have been to prison, who have acute mental health issues, and similar populations.
I believe that the 39 hour week is totally inappropriate for anyone who works in a setting where they wish to build meaningful long-term relationships with people who have suffered trauma!
In a previous post I mentioned that I feared that the current attention to trauma informed practice would result in lip-service being paid to it as we search for another quick-fix.
Like charity, trauma informed practice begins at home, and if we are serious about embedding it in our work the first thing we need to do is acknowledge how continuous exposure to trauma impacts individuals and teams.
A shorter working week is not the only solution, but it would be a good start!
One of the most harmful effects of long hours is that we experience burnout, and therefore we cease to be part of the process – see the paragraph entitled Secondly in this post.
And, of course, as I mentioned in the previous post people in distress need consistency in relationship.
Burnt out staff means a far poorer quality service for those who are seeking help, a gradual drift away from the person centred modality that I identified as being the one most suitable for our work, and, as I said already, a high turnover – the direct opposite to what people need.
Furthermore, the root foundations will not flourish in such an atmosphere.
Staff Retention – Implications of Insecurity
Other conditions that I could include could be pension plans, parental leave/pay, incremental increases, sick leave, hours of work etc.
Improving conditions is easier said than done – but, a bit like the education of the bureaucrats – it is our responsibility to be assertive about it.
Very often, jobs in the community/voluntary or charitable sectors, particularly those that are very creative and innovative, are short term, insecure, and are given year-by-year rather than permanent budgets by the various Government Departments that fund them.
Imagine building a school on this basis? Everyone would say that it would make children’s lives very insecure if they didn’t know whether or not they had a school to go to next year.
The children who do not go to school, and/or struggle in school and who need extra support feel insecure without permanency also!
Obviously if we wish to settle down and have families we will want more permanent jobs, if they are available, and we will often sacrifice innovation and creativity (and sometimes happiness) for job security.
There is somewhat of a paradox here of course.
Because if we like innovation and creativity we may be motivated by the challenge of having to stay relevant to successfully get ongoing funding.
However I believe that a balance is attainable and funders thinking long-term would go a long way in encouraging us to remain in community work.
The Chapter entitled Getting The Pillars To Believe might be helpful in our aim to convince funders and policy makers that our work will yield huge dividends – not only financial but in terms of social cohesion and societal well-being.