Very few of us have paid staff.

In those rare situation when a opening has been available, what is your experience on hiring existing volunteers? In many employment arenas, internships are utilized as a testing ground for future employment.

Conversely if the employment turns sour, what is your experience of the individual returning as a volunteer? Sadly, a good volunteer does not necessarily translate to a good employee.

Please respond with "generic" responses and respect individual privacy.

Thanks,
Ken

Beware of challenges as a relationship as peers, deciding among themselves what needs to be done, evolves into an employer- employee relationship.

This requires great maturity on the part of the new employee as he/she now has to follow directions rather than decide on those directions.

All the other volunteers need to respect that employer- employee relationship as well, and ensure that the direct supervisor is left to define the new employee's duties. One of the worst things that can happen is for a member (who thinks he knows best) to undermine the supervisor's authority and cause friction between the various parties.

In making these hiring decisions, be extremely careful not to place anybody in a position where they have conflict of interest.

Steve Hunter

And the other way around. Are you ready to take that next step with complete undersatnding of how it will affect your management structure and culture?

I'd advise against hiring a volunteer without running that person through as rigorous a hiring process as any other applicant. I'd also want to make sure AI had a pool of qualified applicants from which to choose......you might be getting no more than what you have now for free at the expense of missing out on somebody with critical skills that you don't now have on tap. If the volunteer is the best...fine. Otherwise you'll never know.

dave

/awkward

Think about how the other volunteers feel. "Why'd they hire him and not me", "if this isn't all-volunteer why should I volunteer".

Think about how he'll be working with the same people, but different. Their midafternoon speeder trip, "No, I gotta WORK." wait, like I'm not working? Are you gonna report me to your boss????

Sure it could work but it needs a healthy situation. That depends on everyone agreeing it's the right thing to do. E.G.

#1 it's a scut job; other museums often pay employees here; e.g. ticket seller or bookstore cashier. And it is far from the volunteer's normal job so there isn't that friction, other than the oddity of your shop colleague selling you your coffee. Also, there's the risk of the trainmaster bursting in and saying "I need your bookstore clerk or the train don't run today!" If that becomes habit, see above.

#2 the museum just can't solve it any other way. This volunteer does this for a living, he's booked solid and needs the money, so you have to pay him to compete with his paying work.

#3 a hardship case where a volunteer is really down on his luck. Essentially, open charity, but the job should be far from his normal role for above reasons; and by law must be real; not paying him to shlub around the shop.

The key is: everyone knows and agrees. Otherwise you get very divisive gossip.

A happy volunteer corps is worth a lot more than an employee. Some don't appreciate that fact. Typically executive director types who say "well I'm getting the job done, that's all that matters" as they bend nose of volunteers. I'm not saying the ED is deliberately driving off volunteers to justify his argument and build his little empire; hardly; not at all. I'm saying the ED has no cause to even notice this effect, since it doesn't get in his way.

This is a tricky one. In theory, a volunteer should have an advantage over an outsider because of their knowledge of the organisation.
We've had some good ones and some bad ones. Conversely, there have also been some of each from outsiders as well.
I guess the bottom line is if you're looking at hiring a volunteer, both parties need to understand the relationship.
The volunteer needs to understand that they can't go outside their area of authority without risking upsetting other volunteers. The worst thing you can hear is other volunteers complaining that they're working hard to raise money to pay the wages of someone, especially if that means this wage is draining much needed funds from maintenance or restoration.
If anyone's employment results in increased income past the point of that person's wages, it's more likely to be seen as a plus.
I'd suggest if you're considering hiring a volunteer, they need to be passionate about the aims of the entire organisation and not just their particular area of interest.
I also think they need to have a fair level of maturity, to understand the potential pitfalls.
Of course, much of this depends on the position they're taking up. Much of what I've said is probably more relevant to someone with a public face in a small organisation than it would be to a big organisation with lots of staff, but in the end, I think the basic principles still apply across the board.
Cheers, Bob

Yup, that too. There are a lot of reasons volunteers can have hard feelings about a volunteer becoming an employee. As a result EVERYBODY needs to understand the relationship.

You can't just tell volunteers to "suck it up".

Vet and hire the on just as you would an outside person. Do they met the requirements of the job description. Do the employee and the supervisor have copies of the job description. Have you run whatever kind of necessary back ground check -- employment or otherwise -- that may be necessary. Make sure you do proper reviews on a regular basis.

For that matter, are we vetting volunteers for management positions (and certain other ones) with the same care that we do for paid staff?

Be VERY, VERY WARY when you hire a volunteer as a paid employee. My experience is don't do it, because you have now entered the legal realm of wage and hour laws that apply if/when the paid employee also volunteers on his/her "off hours."

This very thing happened to a local Museum here in Minnesota. Paid employee was also doing a fair amount of volunteer work. To add insult to injury, some "voluntary" unpaid overtime was also in the mix. Things were going along OK until economic problems surfaced and the employee had to be laid off. The employee didn't like that decision and went to the state and federal EEOC people and filed a complaint. Some months later, the museum had to pay a substantial amount in back wages for this person's "volunteer time" that wasn't volunteer time but considered as part of their job. Oh, and then there were legal fees the Museum had to pay.

Can you trust your volunteer to be a good person? Can you predict what will happen in the future? How much legal fun do you really want to have?

You have two choices:
1) Hire the person but don't let them volunteer.
2) Hire the person, let them also volunteer and cross your fingers and hope nothing bad happens to the person or the economy or the person gets treated badly and decides to retaliate.

Hoo, boy! Nice choices, eh? I'd avoid the situation if I had a choice.

Thanks!

I've been told that it is also a very good idea to check with the museum's insurance carrier regarding whether "workman's compensation" insurance coverage is proper for the duties which each employee actually performs. This applies to all employees, not just volunteers hired as employees.

The problem is that often administrative employees (such as executive directors, etc.) are only insured with normal state workman's compensation insurance. However, if they end up performing any duties which can be considered "train service" they must also be insured under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA). If FELA coverage is not in place and an injury in train service occurs, they will not be covered under state workman's compensation and the museum would be liable for the injured employee's care. "Train service" includes such things as being a car host on a train, etc..

I'm not an insurance professional or lawyer. Comments are most welcome.

Let me tell you the perspective of a volunteer who was hired by his local railroad museum.

For the individual, it will definitely change their perspective of the organization, for better or worse. They will have an intimate knowledge of the workings of the organization. What happens day in and day out. What the other paid workers perceive as happening. How to get things done and knowing all the resources that are available at the group to execute minor projects quickly cheaply and effectively.

The individual can inform the other workers of the value of the museum collection. They can be very effective for their job, given that they are careful and creative.

The foamy things that brought the individual to volunteer at the museum may begin to fade. It does not mean the worker/volunteer cares less about the organization, but that person might not want to spend personal time fixing up stuff when they are already on site for so many hours doing paid work. It is simply a matter of changing scenery.

If they don't burn out on the job and the volunteering, then the end result is a person who can really effectively understand the organization at many levels. If they are totally through with it completely, then you lost a great volunteer, while they go on to other aspects of living on this planet.

I don't know if any of this makes sense. From my perspective I value my experience as a volunteer who was an employee, but I also know I am a bit too critical/pessimistic to be that effective of a volunteer at many organizations anymore. Yet, I still care that some good outcomes will happen, at the groups I had worked with over the years.
O. Anderson

Had that happen and when we found about about her "volunteer time" we put the foot down.

The downstream problem can be a claim of wage payment for this unpaid work. Especially if you do not part amicably.

Exactly what happened at the museum in question. A lot of money was paid to the aggrieved ex-employee, plus legal fees to defend the museum.

Thanks!

I volunteered before I was hired full time, then was the one who hired others and did hire other volunteers. The thing was is all were treated as employees and were all covered by workman's comp. This was also a city owned museum and the policy came from the city's legal department. Volunteers were considered "unpaid" employees and signed an agreement to that before they could do any "work" on museum/city property. The hiring process to go to a paid employee was the same as it was for any other city employee. We had a great work "crew" and there were no problems as to who was paid and who was not. The decisions as to those who were hired as paid personnel were based on what things were budgeted for and what the requirements of the job and qualifications of the applicant.

Since then I have been in the position to do the hiring and firing at other companies and have come to the conclusion that if a museum is going to have paid staff the hiring process and rules should be the same as any place else. Simply put use good business hiring practices.

I believe you missed the point of your own missive.

The lesson here is documentation. The purpose of documentation is to eliminate disagreements in the future. You think you can ward off disagrements by only having "trustworthy, good people"? As if good people don't ever disagree???? Come on. The best people write things down, so there AREN'T disagreements. In this sort of thing I would want to see a letter signed by both parties at the onset of employment, acknowledging the past volunteer relationship, and the volunteer's intention to continue volunteering while being paid for some of his hours. And then an explicit, hour by hour time sheet like
0700-0800 VOLUNTEER restoring track speeder
0800-1630 EMPLOYEE ticket sales, mail membership renewals, run to bank, -0:30 my lunch
1630-1800 VOLUNTEER ticket sales
written and signed by employee at end of day or week, and signed by manager.

Documentation is perceived to be the employer's job, since they can force it, and usually do; are better equipped to keep the records; and are more likely to need it in a suit. Further, employers often extort unpaid overtime out of employees, so if an employer claims that an employee is willingly doing so, then a basic rule of reason is Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I'm guessing the museum didn't have it, but instead had claims of a verbal agreement. It's impossible to determine the facts of a verbal agreement. Now, another subtle point of contract law is that unclarity in a contract tends to be interpreted in disfavor of the party who wrote the contract. Employment contracts are presumed to be "written" by the employer.

So - again - you have to document ruthlessly. If it's unusual, write it down and sign it.

Okay. I was just trying to recount what happened as best I could. The point I was trying to make was: Don't do it, or be very careful if you do.

Of course, the museum didn't do what what you suggest. Things were going along swimmingly and everyone was happy, including the employee. Who could have predicted that the economics would result in the employee being terminated? Who could have predicted that this fine employee would retaliate and go to the authorities and file a complaint?

Your counsel to fully document paid and volunteer time is good and I hope that those museums that have paid employees use the documentation system suggested by you.

Thanks!