I was just notified that a key volunteer for this week's visit from Thomas the Tank Engine was offended and/or physically threatened by another volunteer. The result was that the first volunteer has resigned his membership and so has his wife. I am not suggesting we debate here the facts of the account. I wasn't there so it would be foolish. Something aggredious enough happened to cause a long-time dependable person to leave virtually immediately. Here is my question (albeit without much more data to disclose): The volunteer that resigned did so with the full knowledge that the resignation likely did not bother, hurt or hinder the offending volunteer in any fashion. Instead, the rest of us voluntters now have to scramble to fill the two large holes left by the leaving parties with only two days before the event. I can understand if he fears for his safety, his hesitance to show up for duty, but aren't there other ways to resolve a situation like this without damaging the cause of so many others? Comments?

In my opinion, the 2 members who quit did the right thing..
this is a hobby..if I was threatened by another volunteer I would probably quit too..life is too short to deal with idiots for a volunteer position that is supposed to be a fun hobby.

as for "damaging the cause of others" in the group..the two members who quit arent the ones who damaged the group..the group was damaged by allowing the member who "offended and/or physically threatened" them to remain..that member should be kicked out, if the allegations are true.

sounds to me like you are complaining about the wrong problem! ;)
the people who quit arent the problem..the guy who caused them to quit is the real problem.

Scot

I agree completely with Scott.

Rich

I never meant my post to sound as complaining. I am trying to discern what to do if faced with a similar situation myself.

If I was to be placed in a situation like that I would probably have done the same thing but, with that being said I guess there are a few questions that need to be asked.
1) Has the volunteer coordinator been made aware of what happened? If they have, and have done nothing about it then shame on them. A person like this will only chase more good volunteers away. I feel that this person should be told that they are no longer welcome. If the volunteer coordinator hasn’t been told then they need to be. They can’t fix what they don’t know is broken.
2) If these threats were really made, have the local authorities been notified? If the two people that left really felt threatened then they also should be contacted. A good scolding by the police may deter the bad apple from coming around also.
I guess a letter of apology from the organization should also be drafted and sent to the two individuals explaining that they will take every action to keep this from happening again.

Now with all of that being said, there are two sides to every story and maybe they got what they were asking for. That is where the volunteer coordinator needs to step in and decide what is right from wrong.

Hi,
I agree with Scott about the offending volunteer. If you remove that person the other two may return after being informed about it.
Who is the better Volunteer?
Is the offending Volunteer the biggest doner of time and other types of donations?
Would removing him (her) cause other volunteers to quit too?
What would you lose by asking him to to leave and or what would you gain?
Has the person offended others in the past?
I know this wont help with your Thomas event but it is something to consider for the next one.
Andrew Martin

- My obervation is that the ever present and 'intense' volunteers can become the more damaging persons in the group. In almost 40 years of volunteering, a few of us (at that time pretty much key people) had once to band together and tell the (other) management members that it was 'us or him' (shouting at any other member in front of the public, amongst other sins).
- The alledgedly indispensable member was subsequently asked to take some leave, yet nothing did collapse in our operations. 20 years later, we do see him, quite reformed, from time to time and he gives a hand or advice when his considerable skills are needed.
- Being quite active upon retirement, I noticed that after a period of a lot (say 2 days a week) of on site presence and home inputs, I can get very irritated by the attitude of some rather lackadaisical volunteers in our group, who show no or little concern for things which appear important to me (service to visitors, cleanliness of the stock or even lack of any railway culture in the way the compo of the train is put together).
Yet I suppose our all volunteers team could not survive without them, so I just stay out for a week or two, then get back into the right understanding mood!
Regards
JFA
www.blonaychamby.ch

I really dont understand.. I work for a decent sized regional freight railroad. We move a lot larger trains, more track miles than most tourist railroads.. and still every tourist railroad or museum i have been involved in has 10 times more the politics of people "playing trains". I think everyone needs to chill out and grow up its totally ridiculious..There is no need for verbal or physical assaults... Come on people grow up!!

Hah.

I've seen personality conflicts on the "big" railroads as well, including one maverick who earned the ire of many of his co-workers but in a sense was one of the best employees a railroad could ask for (I hear he was eventually solicited by a short line); and one of my fellow preservationists that got sacked from a Class One for losing his temper and chucking a bucket of soapy water at/over a "supervisor from Hell", and another that was sacked by his short line employer because the executive's wife didn't like him and wanted to promote some family member up the ranks.

Why more "politics" in museums than on the job? A couple reasons: One, we're all here because of an emotional commitment and love, not for a considerably-sized paycheck. It's amazing how much one can overlook or accept if pay's involved--see "Dilbert," "The Office," or most any workplace today. Two, if/when we do this 40 hours a week or more as opposed to 40 hours a year, we get more experience and know-how to handle situations as they arise. Compare an amateur engineer/motorman to a pro. They may both have lives in their hands. Who is better suited?

As the others said, there are actually three sides to the story: His, theirs, and The Truth. In all probability there's more to the story than we're being told here, and the principals know darn well whether the threats in question are "go to heck" or a flying bullet/wrench--big difference.

My NRHS chapter still has some truly archaic "Robert's Rules of Order" procedures and formalities officially on the books, including voting in new members by voice vote at meetings. I've never seen, or even heard of, any situation where a member was asked to leave or was voted out, but situations like the above do remind us why such things persist.

An issue with certain volunteers in any organisation is that you have no real checks and balances over them, as they are unpaid and therefore they have no fear per se about getting "fired".

So an amount of meglamania can creep in, resulting in all kinds of situations. I recall an official notice pasted up somewhere saying "this organisation is not just for the volunteers".

I'm not lambasting volunteers in general. But the course of action is to make the volunteer co-ordinator aware of issues if they aren't already.

Had I been on the receiving end of abuse, I'd probably return if the offender was asked to leave.

I'd have loved to see that soapy water episode. Did the supervisor from hell sue for a million??