Re:Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions.
At Back2Bikes we do not have a specific period before someone gets
keyholder rights but the person must show that they can be relied upon to
turn up regularly over several months. We have had in the past a couple of
keyholders with psychiatric / possible substance abuse issues. In one case
it worked out fine and in the other there were question marks over possible
missing money or more likely parts.
However, at another non profit I was involved in a large amount of money
was embezzled by a person who to all appearances was already well off.
My thoughts are that it is just as likely that dishonesty can come from
people of any class and that keyholder privileges should be given on the
basis of the individuals character, not their social background or the fact
that they may be currently going through a difficult period in their lives,
In fact keyholder rights in some circumstances can help some individuals
increase their sense of self worth and lead to positive outcomes in that
persons life.
We did run a second location for a year in the premises of an organisation
which offered cheap meals and attempted to find disadvantaged people jobs
and housing. In this location the workshop could not be left unlocked at
all due to the clients who were not attending the workshop picking up
anything that was not bolted down. I think that really is a greater problem
than people who are making an effort to be involved.
On 15 February 2017 at 08:12, <
thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org> wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to
thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-
bikecollectives.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
(Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
(momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
(momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com
To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
Cc:
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500
Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and
preconceptions
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our
shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop,
with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable
everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been
a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an
overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse
rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are
probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours
consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can
come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop
hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than
an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from
the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access,
but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to
be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without
speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand,
I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify
them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side
of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can
have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an
individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our
entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole
operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist
conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the
shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust
is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as
well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Andy
Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org
To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
Cc:
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and
preconceptions
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two
months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the
responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you
understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional
person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we
haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's
super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and
sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a
key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would
vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems
with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope
you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At
the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status
and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key.
Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your
assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If
after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with
them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is
that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to
operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more
comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be
afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that
feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work.
-momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our
shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop,
with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable
everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been
a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an
overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse
rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are
probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours
consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can
come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop
hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than
an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from
the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access,
but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to
be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without
speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand,
I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify
them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side
of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can
have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an
individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our
entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole
operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist
conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the
shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust
is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as
well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Andy
Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List
<a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/
thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org
To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
Cc:
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and
preconceptions
Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a
shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been
coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a
2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a
key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for
two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement
that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to
evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org
wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two
months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the
responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you
understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional
person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we
haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now.
He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies,
and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who
gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I
would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no
problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be
appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I
hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express
yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons.
Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny
someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not
your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If
after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with
them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is
that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to
operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more
comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be
afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that
feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work.
-momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for
our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike
shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and
enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community
has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term
residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential
substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop
frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the
shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours
consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can
come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop
hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than
an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from
the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access,
but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism
to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this.
Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on
one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could
disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The
other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse
problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't
necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about
access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our
whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically
classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in
the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the
line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that
trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious
perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Andy
Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List
<a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt
ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list
Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-
bikecollectives.org
Geoffrey Smart