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
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>
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/ thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thanks you. Well said. good things to consider. Jane Falls City Community BikeWorks, Louisville KY
-----Original Message----- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 3:34 pm 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>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Hi Andy,
I haven't run across this problem in context of a bike shop, but we had a similar issue when my friends and I were running an infoshop. Even having keys for our core voulenteers became too much of an issue. We were all trust worthy and worked well together, but at one point we had 15 keys floating around with no accountability. No one knew who had one, who had been copying them, or what was expected of the people who held them.
A few things I've realized from revisiting that experience:
Limit the number of keys. A policy that grants a key to anyone who puts in enough time will eventually create so many keys that it will become pointless to have a lock at all. If a person is trustworthy enough to access the shop in the off hours then they ought to be connected enough to get in touch with someone who can open the shop for them or loan them a key for the day.
Find some way to disconnect key holding from status in the organization. This essentialy has to do with the culture of your shop and how being a keyholder is perceived. Sounds like right now having a key equates to a privelaged status and you're looking for ways to open that up. If you can find a way to make key holding more of a responsibility than a privelage, less people will want to do it. The most obvious thing I can think of is a requirement that key holders must staff a set number of shifts every week or month, and a minimum of organizational meetings. Maybe yall can think of others. A requirement that key holders clean the bathrooms comes to mind. This also creates a situation where key holders, regardless of background, become more trustworthy due to their time and energy investment in the shop.
Finally I would add that if enough people are needing to access the shop during off hours then perhaps it's time to consider expanding your open hours to reflect this rather than expanding the elite circle who are allowed to use the shop at any time. The best models I've seen so far have included a distinction between open shops where anyone can work on anything and voulenteer shops where people only work on shop projects. This frees up time for personal projects for the people who would otherwise spend all of their shop time voulenteering, and makes it a little more clear who's putting time and energy back into the shop.
I hope that all came across all right. Obviously it's not all the solutions to your specific situation, but maybe it can be some useful things to consider.
Best wishes for yall trying to work this out, it can be a thorny one.
-UGG Spokes N Folks, Springfield, MO
On Feb 14, 2017 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>
Good insights. Thanks, Jane Halliday Falls City Community BikeWorks, Louisville KY
-----Original Message----- From: Spokes 'N Folks spokesnfolkscoop@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Sent: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 11:21 am Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Hi Andy,
I haven't run across this problem in context of a bike shop, but we had a similar issue when my friends and I were running an infoshop. Even having keys for our core voulenteers became too much of an issue. We were all trust worthy and worked well together, but at one point we had 15 keys floating around with no accountability. No one knew who had one, who had been copying them, or what was expected of the people who held them.
A few things I've realized from revisiting that experience:
Limit the number of keys. A policy that grants a key to anyone who puts in enough time will eventually create so many keys that it will become pointless to have a lock at all. If a person is trustworthy enough to access the shop in the off hours then they ought to be connected enough to get in touch with someone who can open the shop for them or loan them a key for the day.
Find some way to disconnect key holding from status in the organization. This essentialy has to do with the culture of your shop and how being a keyholder is perceived. Sounds like right now having a key equates to a privelaged status and you're looking for ways to open that up. If you can find a way to make key holding more of a responsibility than a privelage, less people will want to do it. The most obvious thing I can think of is a requirement that key holders must staff a set number of shifts every week or month, and a minimum of organizational meetings. Maybe yall can think of others. A requirement that key holders clean the bathrooms comes to mind. This also creates a situation where key holders, regardless of background, become more trustworthy due to their time and energy investment in the shop.
Finally I would add that if enough people are needing to access the shop during off hours then perhaps it's time to consider expanding your open hours to reflect this rather than expanding the elite circle who are allowed to use the shop at any time. The best models I've seen so far have included a distinction between open shops where anyone can work on anything and voulenteer shops where people only work on shop projects. This frees up time for personal projects for the people who would otherwise spend all of their shop time voulenteering, and makes it a little more clear who's putting time and energy back into the shop.
I hope that all came across all right. Obviously it's not all the solutions to your specific situation, but maybe it can be some useful things to consider.
Best wishes for yall trying to work this out, it can be a thorny one.
-UGG Spokes N Folks, Springfield, MO
On Feb 14, 2017 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>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
My preferred approach on the keyholding issue is to install a number pad and issue codes every 6 months. Everyone gets their own unique code, all codes are reset after 6-12months and reissued at a regularly-scheduled meeting to everyone still currently identified as a core keyholder.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Spokes 'N Folks <spokesnfolkscoop@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Andy,
I haven't run across this problem in context of a bike shop, but we had a similar issue when my friends and I were running an infoshop. Even having keys for our core voulenteers became too much of an issue. We were all trust worthy and worked well together, but at one point we had 15 keys floating around with no accountability. No one knew who had one, who had been copying them, or what was expected of the people who held them.
A few things I've realized from revisiting that experience:
Limit the number of keys. A policy that grants a key to anyone who puts in enough time will eventually create so many keys that it will become pointless to have a lock at all. If a person is trustworthy enough to access the shop in the off hours then they ought to be connected enough to get in touch with someone who can open the shop for them or loan them a key for the day.
Find some way to disconnect key holding from status in the organization. This essentialy has to do with the culture of your shop and how being a keyholder is perceived. Sounds like right now having a key equates to a privelaged status and you're looking for ways to open that up. If you can find a way to make key holding more of a responsibility than a privelage, less people will want to do it. The most obvious thing I can think of is a requirement that key holders must staff a set number of shifts every week or month, and a minimum of organizational meetings. Maybe yall can think of others. A requirement that key holders clean the bathrooms comes to mind. This also creates a situation where key holders, regardless of background, become more trustworthy due to their time and energy investment in the shop.
Finally I would add that if enough people are needing to access the shop during off hours then perhaps it's time to consider expanding your open hours to reflect this rather than expanding the elite circle who are allowed to use the shop at any time. The best models I've seen so far have included a distinction between open shops where anyone can work on anything and voulenteer shops where people only work on shop projects. This frees up time for personal projects for the people who would otherwise spend all of their shop time voulenteering, and makes it a little more clear who's putting time and energy back into the shop.
I hope that all came across all right. Obviously it's not all the solutions to your specific situation, but maybe it can be some useful things to consider.
Best wishes for yall trying to work this out, it can be a thorny one.
-UGG Spokes N Folks, Springfield, MO
On Feb 14, 2017 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>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Actually, we had a really awesome RFID-based security system installed, so we can turn off anyone's key at any time, and we could even limit people to specific hours of access if we want to.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Angel York aniola@gmail.com wrote:
My preferred approach on the keyholding issue is to install a number pad and issue codes every 6 months. Everyone gets their own unique code, all codes are reset after 6-12months and reissued at a regularly-scheduled meeting to everyone still currently identified as a core keyholder.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Spokes 'N Folks < spokesnfolkscoop@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Andy,
I haven't run across this problem in context of a bike shop, but we had a similar issue when my friends and I were running an infoshop. Even having keys for our core voulenteers became too much of an issue. We were all trust worthy and worked well together, but at one point we had 15 keys floating around with no accountability. No one knew who had one, who had been copying them, or what was expected of the people who held them.
A few things I've realized from revisiting that experience:
Limit the number of keys. A policy that grants a key to anyone who puts in enough time will eventually create so many keys that it will become pointless to have a lock at all. If a person is trustworthy enough to access the shop in the off hours then they ought to be connected enough to get in touch with someone who can open the shop for them or loan them a key for the day.
Find some way to disconnect key holding from status in the organization. This essentialy has to do with the culture of your shop and how being a keyholder is perceived. Sounds like right now having a key equates to a privelaged status and you're looking for ways to open that up. If you can find a way to make key holding more of a responsibility than a privelage, less people will want to do it. The most obvious thing I can think of is a requirement that key holders must staff a set number of shifts every week or month, and a minimum of organizational meetings. Maybe yall can think of others. A requirement that key holders clean the bathrooms comes to mind. This also creates a situation where key holders, regardless of background, become more trustworthy due to their time and energy investment in the shop.
Finally I would add that if enough people are needing to access the shop during off hours then perhaps it's time to consider expanding your open hours to reflect this rather than expanding the elite circle who are allowed to use the shop at any time. The best models I've seen so far have included a distinction between open shops where anyone can work on anything and voulenteer shops where people only work on shop projects. This frees up time for personal projects for the people who would otherwise spend all of their shop time voulenteering, and makes it a little more clear who's putting time and energy back into the shop.
I hope that all came across all right. Obviously it's not all the solutions to your specific situation, but maybe it can be some useful things to consider.
Best wishes for yall trying to work this out, it can be a thorny one.
-UGG Spokes N Folks, Springfield, MO
On Feb 14, 2017 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>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/ thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
participants (5)
-
Andrew Shooner -
Angel York -
Jane Halliday -
momoko saunders -
Spokes 'N Folks