Terrible Volunteer Experience

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

So I have a question for you then...

Having an idea of this now (I was not there in person): did you mention to AndyMark, the person giving you the headache, or the supervisor this possible solution?

Just something to think about for the future.

I believe Andy read this thread already

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

I believe Andy read this thread already

You're right I went back and looked again and found Andy's post and your recommendation in response.
Good job.

I'm afraid the point remains. If at the time of the mess someone had gotten Andy's attention and coordinated then perhaps everyone would be happy now.

I don't see the timing being addressed.

The point being that sometimes it's better to facilitate resolution than let someone stone-wall you especially when the impact is wider than just you, your team and possibly FIRST.

I agree it's not right that you were stone-walled. I also agree that you should have had the glasses.

Just a way for everyone not to turn something silly, but important, into a free for all.

The way this plays out now is like showing up to the car accident with all the missing lug nuts from the tires that fell off and caused the accident. They got there eventually, but you missed it by >that much<.

[George C]

Easy and cheap solution - to the glasses problem that is, not the volunteer problem. Glass tethers/hang cords/whatever you want to call them. I don't leave home without them. Just ask my team members.

They start at $0.78 each at McMaster-Carr. http://www.mcmaster.com/#safety-glasses-holders/=hd2eus

[RobotsVsKittens]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

They could have changed her position in a heartbeat to a station where she might cause less trouble, or be a bit more relaxed. But they didn't. She was in the same spot all weekend.

"They should suffer the consequences of their actions" - in regard to your "she shouldn't feel humiliated" stance. It sort of works both ways

What got me is a head volunteer shook my hand and told me "thank you" when I told him I had just had an interaction with the rudest volunteer I had ever met. He obviously knew about the problem. But the fact that the aggression and un-GP of the situation escalated...this shows that the way FIRST handled the problem didn't work.

To reassign someone 'in a heartbeat' based on a few or several complaints is not a good way to run an operation which relies heavily on volunteers. You are coming off as someone who wasn't happy that the volunteer wasn't immediately punished for offending you. Part of gracious professionalism is respecting that there are processes in place to deal with these issues. There are even opportunities to deal with processes you don't think work they way they should.

It looks like you've only replied to those for whom you can write an argument, "but that wasn't my point" or "nothing was done", and anyone else who has made a good point, in general, or specifically about how things work, you have ignored them and not bothered to write anything such as, "Ah good point. This doesn't solve the issue, but you have some points". In my experience, this is indicative of someone who is more concerned about their ego being bruised rather than that they have a genuine concern that someone else might experience the same problem. You haven't shown the slightest interest in how the process works after competition, even though you have been told several times now, by different people, that the complaint was very likely noted and something may be done about it later on.

[treffk]

As an alumni, a mentor, a sibling, a family member and a planning committee member it saddens me to hear that people had bad experiences with a volunteer. Although I wont touch on that subject I have already given my feedback as a volunteer in our survey about some issues that went on at Worlds this year that I would like to see changed.

The one I want to mention and apologize for as a volunteer that was in the position is the crowd control for reserved seating for Einstein. I was put in a position that I was uncomfortable with before the matches on Einstein. I know I did upset some people with the answers I gave and some people were already upset with the situation for other reasons. Volunteers who were doing crowd control were given specific instructions: orange wristbands, yellow wristbands and VIP passes only. I am here to say sorry for anyone I talked to and upset on Saturday. I feel bad about the mess that was the reserved seating. I have put in my $0.02 to hopefully make it better next year and avoid some of the conflict we encountered when we did not have seat for 3 of the finalist teams.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by RobotsVsKittens

To reassign someone 'in a heartbeat' based on a few or several complaints is not a good way to run an operation which relies heavily on volunteers. You are coming off as someone who wasn't happy that the volunteer wasn't immediately punished for offending you. Part of gracious professionalism is respecting that there are processes in place to deal with these issues. There are even opportunities to deal with processes you don't think work they way they should.

It looks like you've only replied to those for whom you can write an argument, "but that wasn't my point" or "nothing was done", and anyone else who has made a good point, in general, or specifically about how things work, you have ignored them and not bothered to write anything such as, "Ah good point. This doesn't solve the issue, but you have some points". In my experience, this is indicative of someone who is more concerned about their ego being bruised rather than that they have a genuine concern that someone else might experience the same problem. You haven't shown the slightest interest in how the process works after competition, even though you have been told several times now, by different people, that the complaint was very likely noted and something may be done about it later on.

How hard is it to give her the same job but in a different area? like FLL gatekeeper(no glasses to fight over - and I doubt she would sit and swear directly to smaller children), or even put her inside the safety glasses area - not distributing. I feel like either of these would've solved the direct person-person atmosphere that created conflict.

While I didn't expect her to be imminently "punished" - I'm a bit distraught when someone who has received multiple complaints and is obviously a bit hostile doesn't get moved and is allowed to keep committing the transgression.

I've replied to people who either grossly misunderstood what I was arguing (i.e. safety glasses vs. volunteer treatment) or kept telling me it had been solved - when correctly I said "nothing had been done. I have responded to people with good ideas about the glasses though. See Andy Bakers response.

I don't care about how the process works after competition. I'm assured she wont be back in that position next year, but with so many visitors encountering issues on Saturday as described by the posters in this thread, she should have been removed much sooner. We shouldn't try to fix a problem after it's reached a peak - we should fix it early on. You dont keep driving on a flat tire...

I don't know why you felt the duty to revive this. We had seemed to reach an end, and it was dying nicely. I've got a call with FIRST tomorrow, and I'm sure FIRST will present a better system for this sort of thing next year.

[catsylve]

I went through the entrance a number of times and would like to give a slightly different perspective to everyone on the situation. Because I have to operate from a wheelchair or scooter, I am frequently blocked by people on foot and forced to sit and wait for someone in the crowd to stop and let me through. I spend a lot of time sitting and listening to how the crowd behaves.

While I agree with the OP that the behavior in the situation was not appropriate, please think a little about what the volunteers at the door have to go through. Taken over a period of time, the volunteers at the door were subjected to a great deal of hostility from the people trying to come in. If you observed the number of people at the door, you would see that the number of volunteers there doubled and then tripled as time went on, simply to try to handle the massive number of people trying to get through the door with sunglasses or nothing.

It appears to me that the volunteer coordinators actually did try to do something that would benefit everyone by increasing the staff and decreasing the overly heavy load on the volunteers present. It may not have been punitive enough for some, but isn't this supposed to be about teaching people?

Large masses of people moving through an area take on a sort of mentality of their own and believe me this can be INCREDIBLY intimidating. I know what great people participate in FIRST, but they all forget their manners sometimes. During championship, I had people in the crowd race in front of my wheelchair, jump OVER my chair and jump in front of me to get into the elevator because they were faster, forcing me to wait for the next one.

Many of the teams would come up at full speed while yelling "ROBOT" and never even pause to let me or anyone else try to move out of the way. I was hit by robots 3 times. When I attempted to walk the small distances that I can with my cane instead, it was kicked out from underneath me twice. No apologies.

In short, I don't think that everyone is taking into account the stress on all of the people involved. Take a step back from the arguing, look at the other person's perspective and realize what they are going through. It was not easy for any of the parties involved because they each have to look at it a different way from a different type of stress. Solutions are generally best reached with patience from all parties, regardless of how difficult it may be.

[RobotsVsKittens]

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

How hard is it to give her the same job but in a different area?

I have explained how. From a pure physical logistics standpoint, as if we were dealing with automatons, it is not difficult to move one person with a non-critical task with no learning curve to another similar position. When you're dealing with people, in most cases, they deserve an explanation. They may have been told one thing earlier which would conflict with something they would subsequently be told upon reassignment. These issues take time. Others managing the event are not you, so they don't have the same absolute certainty of what has transpired enough for what they might consider sufficient evidence to take summary action.

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

While I didn't expect her to be imminently "punished"

Everything you have said indicates that you desired and expected an immediate action with no allowance at all for the time it takes to speak with her to hear her side of what happened. I haven't seen anything you have said about what you think should have been done which would allow for any discussion what so ever by anyone other than you.

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

I'm a bit distraught when someone who has received multiple complaints and is obviously a bit hostile doesn't get moved and is allowed to keep committing the transgression.

This is one of many reasons gracious professionalism exists : so that one transgression does not lead to a chain of inconsiderate actions which ultimately lowers the bar for how people are treated. I do concede that she is being allowed to continue her behavior, and strictly speaking, this lowers the quality of the event. Ideally, that should be stopped as soon as possible. But 'soon as possible' does not mean without any other consideration such as getting her side of the story, or perhaps speaking with her to explain what she is doing wrong.

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

We shouldn't try to fix a problem after it's reached a peak - we should fix it early on. You dont keep driving on a flat tire...

Ideally, we should deal with a problem immediately. However that does not completely eclipse the need to treat people with dignity. The tire analogy is poor. She is more like an odd noise you hear while you're driving, and someone should check it out, but if you were currently doing something time intensive, you would probably continue driving to your destination and deal with it then, or on an especially long trip, you might attempt to check it out when you had time to stop.

Originally Posted by animenerdjohn

I don't know why you felt the duty to revive this.

I don't feel I've revived anything. From my point of view there are several points that have been made here that you haven't given any indication you understand. Foremost, the concept that it may take time beyond a 'heartbeat' to reassign someone with dignity, and possibly a good deal more time if a lead volunteer allows them to explain themselves, as I think they should after only a few complaints (was it 3? 5? 7? was is more than 10?)

There may have been other things going on of which you were not aware. Perhaps there were many complaints about different crowd control and safety volunteers, and so shuffling them around was not as sure a bet or simple as you have imagined. Perhaps the volunteer coordinator wanted to think of the implications of moving someone who is rude to another position. Perhaps the volunteer coordinator was concerned with having a rude person assigned to interact with younger kids who are less likely to have the maturity not to take it personality. I'm sure I cannot think of all the possibilities, but I would not completely assume that nothing was done. Perhaps there was discussion, perhaps someone had good intentions to take time out to take action, perhaps the person was spoken to, and a process had begun.

Lastly I would like to reiterate that I completely agree, according to your account of what transpired, that you were not treated fairly and I truly hope you don't have to experience it again. My attempts to explain other points of view are not meant to say otherwise but rather to offer some other possibilities and explain why these issues are more difficult than they might otherwise seem. I hope your call goes/went well, and that you don't just feel like nobody cares about how you were treated badly.

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by catsylve

Many of the teams would come up at full speed while yelling "ROBOT" and never even pause to let me or anyone else try to move out of the way. I was hit by robots 3 times. When I attempted to walk the small distances that I can with my cane instead, it was kicked out from underneath me twice. No apologies.

I know this is now venturing a bit OT but this sort of thing gets me on my other soapbox regarding safety in the pits. The "Green Shirts" need to be looking at behavior all over the pits, not just inside individual 10'x10' areas... The amount of people running through the pits or robot carts being pushed at top speed is staggering. This is probably way more unsafe than anything teams are doing working on their robots.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by pathew100

I know this is now venturing a bit OT but this sort of thing gets me on my other soapbox regarding safety in the pits. The "Green Shirts" need to be looking at behavior all over the pits, not just inside individual 10'x10' areas... The amount of people running through the pits or robot carts being pushed at top speed is staggering. This is probably way more unsafe than anything teams are doing working on their robots.

I agree with what you are saying. That said, I really think that could be handled by Crowd Control. If you are going to have 100 teams per field, then you need to beef up the crowd control aspect of things in the pits. Crowd Control could work with the Safety Advisors as a team.

Walking through some of the aisles in Curie was a squeeze and that was before it was packed with the teams.

Jane

[wireties]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I'm sorry but there is no excuse for forgetting your safety glasses.

Come on Indy, you've never worked with the absent-minded professor-types? In my experience most engineers fall into this category. Now forgetting ones favorite wrench or the DVM, that is truly unforgivable! ;o)

[wireties]

Originally Posted by dna1990

But it makes me wonder how much glasses are ever used at school or your shop. When I visit the field sites at my work, hat & glasses are just second nature. It really is rare that someone 'forgets'. So in some ways I do like that FIRST says no-borrow for teams and that the 'idea' that mentors should know better (not the rude phrase but the concept).

I helped design the navigation systems on our aircraft carriers (all built by Newport News Shipbuilding). I spent a fair amount of time onboard the ships during new construction and refitting. This is one of the largest shipyards in the US and a most hazardous work environment. And there is a facility to borrow hard-hats, safety glasses and even steel-toed boots. It is simple statistics, some person is gonna forget.

This discussion reminds me of a saying from an old boss of mine - "Put the sidewalk where the grass is worn." Teams - please make a checklist, bring and wear the glasses. But is it really such a big deal to arrange for extras/spares in the pits? And to be kind while providing the service?

[Alexa Stott]

A lot of times, teams ship their safety glasses in their crate or have them in the stuff they bring in the night before competitions. I don't think it should be a big issue for someone from the team to check out a pair so they can go grab some from their pit. They could have a system where a mentor from the team can go sign off that they checked out one pair of safety glasses for that purpose. If they don't return them in a timely manner, then you can send someone after them to get them back.

Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a big issue. Humans make mistakes and forget things or sometimes accidents happen (I've had a pair or two of safety glasses slip out of the pocket in my Hawaiian before).

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a big issue. Humans make mistakes and forget things or sometimes accidents happen (I've had a pair or two of safety glasses slip out of the pocket in my Hawaiian before).

This has been an issue for years and FIRST makes every attempt to remind teams to bring safety glasses. I remember in the past specific emails and warnings to bring atleast enough pairs for people to go into the pit and uncrate and retrieve the other pairs. this year FIRST sentemails including reminders to bring glasses for all team members on atleast the following dates 2/28,3/6,3/13,3/20,3/27,4/2. Bill also posted about it on 3/21.

Originally Posted by wireties

And there is a facility to borrow hard-hats, safety glasses and even steel-toed boots. It is simple statistics, some person is gonna forget.

You are comparing apples and oranges. A shipyard, or any other business stands to lose more money from the time lost by turning away workers (or customers, visitors, VIPs etc) than they will lose by purchasing spares. As has already been posted, FIRST used to loan glasses to every one, too many pairs dissappeared, now they have a stricter policy.

Originally Posted by safetycap'n111

I, like many people who responded, had a similar experience. I left my glasses in the stands, and asked to borrow a pair, when I was refused. I was told that they are for guests only, no exceptions. I tried to explain that FIRST wouldn't want someone barred from the pits because they didn't have safety glasses with them at the moment, and that FIRST isn't about punishing people for being forgetful.

This is exactly why the safety glass table (or bucket at regionals) is such a stressful job. FIRSTs official guideline at Worlds is that spares are for visitors only. That is what the volunteers are told. Many people on CD have done this job (myself included) and I am sure they can all vouch that they don't like saying no. But that is the job, the last thing that is going to help you is lecturing the volunteer about what "FIRST wants". The person handing them out shouldn't be rude, however the people requesting them shouldn't be either.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

This has been an issue for years and FIRST makes every attempt to remind teams to bring safety glasses. I remember in the past specific emails and warnings to bring atleast enough pairs for people to go into the pit and uncrate and retrieve the other pairs. this year FIRST sentemails including reminders to bring glasses for all team members on atleast the following dates 2/28,3/6,3/13,3/20,3/27,4/2. Bill also posted about it on 3/21.

I'm honestly fine with not giving out pairs to team members to use for the whole event, but, as stated in the same post you quoted, I think there should be a way to check them out short-term (give them, say, a 5-10 minute window) to go to their pit, grab a pair of their own, and return them.