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.

Geoff Back2Bikes Port Melbourne Australia

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:

1. Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
2. Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
3. 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