Excuse of the week

[Lynne]

I've just had a run in with a well known institution in Dulwich. I tried to get my problem sorted out in the morning, but with no luck. I got angrier and angrier over lunch and went back in the afternoon,. This time, the "we're all volunteers" schtick didn't work and I demanded the person in charge,. She arrived and said she'd heard about my complaint in the morning, but "There's only me and I was on a bad mood".

So now you all know. If you're in a bad mood, what do the customers matter.

[Chick]

What institution?????

[Lynne]

Not a charity shop, for once

[Sue]

But somewhere with volunteers??

[Seabag]

If you're not going to say 'who it is' then what does it matter.

[red devil]

Absolutely, a pointless post unless the 'institution' is named...

[ianr]

> So now you all know. If you're in a bad mood, what do the customers matter.

I don't know. I don't have enough information to judge, or particularly to make your inference. Or have I missed an invisible smiley?

My default interpretation of her "There's only me and I was on a bad mood", without knowing any more of the interaction, would be that she'd decided to delay contacting you until she felt better able to deal with it properly. Not ideal, and expressed rather risibly, but perhaps not the worst course. Was it something requiring immediate action? Had you been left in a state of not knowing whether your complaint was going to be dealt with? Do you think it would have been dealt with if you hadn't gone in again? Did she express any regret for not acting earlier?

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Is this about Foxy?

[Lynne]

It required immediate action when I first went in and could have been dealt with then.

I wasn't the only person it inconvenienced as I'd taken someone with me.

It wouldn't have been dealt with if I hadn't returned.

She did express regret.

The transaction still wasn't completely dealt with for my companion

As for being pointless, have you read other posts here?

As an entirely different, totally unconnected remark, of course, anyone seen any good pictures lately?

[Jules-and-Boo]

this is the most pointless thread I've come across.

Let's comment on something vague, we don't know anything about and see if we can draw the same conculsion as the OP.

In light of the little information, the OP expected a level of service from a volunteer, didn't get it - got completely riled and was not happy when same volunteer later said they were having a bad morning.

1) issues with expectation too high

2) lack of tolerance or empathy with a volunteer

3) Anger management issues

4) looking for validation from community

sorry - I'm with the volunteer on this. And kudos for admitting fault.

Volunteeer - gives up time to do things for others - not often appreciated.

[Jah Lush]

5) Irrational sense of entitlement.

[Lynne]

1)I never said my complaint was with the volunteers, if you read my original post.

2) Any institution or service that is charging the public money should provide a professional service. What's wrong with expecting something for one's money?

3) I don't think paying for something that isn't delivered is "expectation too high" Do Jules and Boo go round handing money to shops etc and expect nothing in return?

[Loz]

I think the point you are missing Lynne is that no one knows which institution you are talking about. That is what is making this thread pointless.

[Mystic Mog]

Could we have some more clues, please?

[titch juicy]

Was the original posters aim to leverage some of her frustration by frustrating the EDF with the most annoying thread possible?

[Jules-and-Boo]

Probably.

Less sympathy with OP than before.

[Burbage]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Volunteeer - gives up time to do things for others

As do unpaid interns. But organisations that rely on those haven't come in for undue praise recently, either.

Besides, volunteering can be murky. Take, for example, Groundwork, a charity reliant on volunteers to help do its work of 'creating better and greener places'. Its roots, however, are in the Countryside Commission, now the government agency known as Natural England. And so some of the 'volunteers' aren't so much volunteers as labour units supplied on referral from the JobCentre via Serco, Avanta et al. for the 'work programme'. Whether the real volunteers are aware of the role of the outsourcers, or of Groundwork's involvement in sending out sanctions letters to unwilling 'volunteers', or of the European Social Fund money that's being used to cover up the JobCentre's inability to find actual jobs, is unclear.

Even if they do, there's an incentive to keep quiet, in the implicit promise of work beyond volunteering. And, looked at in in another way, Groundwork's effectively a limb of government that can tout for donations and rely on volunteers, like any other charity, in the course of doing government work. Though, by being a sub-contractor to Serco, Avanta et. al., rather than the DWP, it's not publicly accountable, and that doesn't feel quite right.

In other Big Society news, it's worth looking at conclusion 7 of a recent report into the government's National Citizen Service, set up with a deliberately deceptive structure. Serco, in that case, got out in time, but not all have exited so gracefully, and I suspect questions might be asked about this one. Again, here's a not-bad-idea that, because of its public-private-charity structure, doesn't look quite right, either.

Both, in different ways and to different extents, are using charitable organisations almost as smokescreens. But that shouldn't, whether they rely on volunteers or not, absolve them from the same levels of accountability as any other organisation. Yet so often it does, because it's so difficult for most of us to get angry with a volunteer, or lay into a company that doesn't pay tax.

So I would take Lynne's side here - especially if the 'person in charge' wasn't a volunteer (they often aren't, if only for insurance reasons). But what I don't understand is why Lynne decided to bother the community with her foot-stamping prose rather than unbottling the green ink and doing the thing in style. Write to the management, why don't you?

[teddyboy23]

Was it a shop run by Louisa?

[Lynne]

What has the name of the institution got to do with the point that if you pay for a service, that service should deliver?.

Anyway, I left one clue.

[Loz]

I think you can safely assume everyone has missed your clue.

No one can really comment until we either know who is the 'offending' place or we hear their side of the story. The second one of those isn't going to happen, so it's all up to you. Lynne.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Dulwich Picture Gallery?

[snowy]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Volunteeer - gives up time to do things for

> others

>

> As do unpaid interns. But organisations that rely

> on those haven't come in for undue praise

> recently, either.

>

> Besides, volunteering can be murky. Take, for

> example, Groundwork, a charity reliant on

> volunteers to help do its work of 'creating better

> and greener places'. Its roots, however, are in

> the Countryside Commission, now the government

> agency known as Natural England. And so some of

> the 'volunteers' aren't so much volunteers as

> labour units supplied on referral from the

> JobCentre via Serco, Avanta et al. for the 'work

> programme'. Whether the real volunteers are aware

> of the role of the outsourcers, or of Groundwork's

> involvement in sending out sanctions letters to

> unwilling 'volunteers', or of the European Social

> Fund money that's being used to cover up the

> JobCentre's inability to find actual jobs, is

> unclear.

>

> Even if they do, there's an incentive to keep

> quiet, in the implicit promise of work beyond

> volunteering. And, looked at in in another way,

> Groundwork's effectively a limb of government that

> can tout for donations and rely on volunteers,

> like any other charity, in the course of doing

> government work. Though, by being a sub-contractor

> to Serco, Avanta et. al., rather than the DWP,

> it's not publicly accountable, and that doesn't

> feel quite right.

>

> In other Big Society news, it's worth looking at

> conclusion 7 of a recent report into the

> government's National Citizen Service, set up with

> a deliberately deceptive structure. Serco, in that

> case, got out in time, but not all have exited so

> gracefully, and I suspect questions might be asked

> about this one. Again, here's a not-bad-idea that,

> because of its public-private-charity structure,

> doesn't look quite right, either.

>

> Both, in different ways and to different extents,

> are using charitable organisations almost as

> smokescreens. But that shouldn't, whether they

> rely on volunteers or not, absolve them from the

> same levels of accountability as any other

> organisation. Yet so often it does, because it's

> so difficult for most of us to get angry with a

> volunteer, or lay into a company that doesn't pay

> tax.

>

> So I would take Lynne's side here - especially if

> the 'person in charge' wasn't a volunteer (they

> often aren't, if only for insurance reasons). But

> what I don't understand is why Lynne decided to

> bother the community with her foot-stamping prose

> rather than unbottling the green ink and doing the

> thing in style. Write to the management, why don't

> you?

Their (groundworks) structure and financial history is a long topic. However if they were truly a govt arm of social action delivery - as you suggest - they wouldn't have almost gone bankrupt in 2015 due to govt funding cuts. Are they actually a work programme sub prime?

The blurring of the lines between govt intervention programmes and charity is a longer discussion and one worth having but not after a night in the pub.

I'm not sure how NCS can survive after that NAO report, but they instantly got punted a huge chunk of tax cash.

[Seabag]

Buckingham Palace, the Queen didn't flush the loo or open the Cristal window after

Am I getting warmer ?

[Seabag]

A cat charity?

[Alan Medic]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dulwich Picture Gallery?

Must be I think.