Volunteering at a race? Does it matter if it is for a non profit? (Read 300 times)

"The plaintiff claims she and others across the country volunteered because they thought CGI was a hearts-and-rainbows non-profit instead of the Walmart of distance running."

Seriously?! (MTA: Clarification: I can't believe anyone would think RockNRoll is a non-profit).

That said, I volunteer at races because it's fun and races don't happen without volunteers. (The biggest organization I've volunteered at races with is The Running Room.)

The mission of the organization putting on the race matters to me, yes. For profit vs. non-profit is a related but less important question (to me.)

Seriously though how do you accidentally volunteer without knowing that CGI is the Walmart of distance running?

I've been a race director for several years now so I understand the absolute NEED for good volunteers.  I definitely wouldn't volunteer with the huge races as I'm not a fan of them in general but some of the local ones (non-profit or not) I'd be happy to help out.

On another note, don't know how you don't realize that R&R is for profit.  Just look at the website?

Couple of points not exactly responsive to the OP, but relevant to the underlying issue:

1.  I don't know that it really matters whether someone was fooled into volunteering.  The trend in employment law right now seems to be moving towards disallowing "volunteering" for a for-profit corporation as a violation of minimum wage laws.  Unpaid internships is the place a lot of the action is happening.  If I was Competitor I would be particularly concerned about the issue in California, which has strong employment protection and a very active class action plaintiffs' bar.  I guess a question could be whether the volunteers are really employees; I don't have the time or energy to really think that out right now.

2.  Possibly controversial position(?):  If a profit cannot be made at something without an army of unpaid volunteers, then a for-profit company is not the best vehicle for accomplishing that something.  Non-profits exist for the purpose of promoting running and putting on races, e.g., BAA, NYRR.

Caveat volunteer. It's your responsibility to inquire as to what you're supporting.

If I'm going to volunteer for an organization, I check it out if possible. If it's a nonprofit, I'll check the sites like Charity Navigator or Charity Watchdog, especially if I'm donating money as well as time.

If I'm volunteering for an event, I am doing it more for the participants and the beneficiaries (if applicable) than for the organization sponsoring the event.

I certainly wouldn't complain that I had been taken advantage of because I found out that the organization putting on the event was for-profit and I had donated my time.

And with events like road races that require so many people to make them successful I don't think there would be many of these events if everyone got paid. It's not just the wages, though those would be a considerable bill. It's things like payroll taxes (employer pays Social Security and Medicare, for instance) and workers compensation insurance for which premium is based on total payroll and checking everyone's legal right to work and...you get the idea. The cost would be phenomenal. That would raise the cost of the race so high that most potential entrants would decide not to register.

I thank the volunteers who are out there riding the course looking for runners in trouble, handing out water, waving a "this way!" sign, giving up their morning for a T shirt and a slice of pizza. They are greatly appreciated. I figure they are capable of investigating what they're donating their time and effort to and choosing whether or not to be a part of the event.

 

 

On another note, don't know how you don't realize that R&R is for profit.  Just look at the website?

I think their charity involvement is more of the problem.

CGI, a for-profit company, recruits volunteers like Liebesman by obscuring its status in its marketing and communication. It does this by selling "Official Charity" sponsorships, the suit alleges, paid for in the form of a minimum 10 runners at $165 each. The charity names are then further used to help recruit volunteers

I think Competitor can be awfully deceptive about its involvement with charities, and this just falls into that category. They claim to have an "official charitiy" but don't give any of the (large) entry bucks to that charity (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/17/3792241/raleighs-rock-n-roll-marathon.html) and even the American Cancer Society has split with them because their involvement has costs them more money than they have raised.

To me, yes it does matter in that I only have a limited # of times I'm available to volunteer and I'd prefer to use my time helping an local organization put on an quality event for their cause rather than helping a for-profit get labor for free. Realize this isn't a strident position...rather a preference.

 

Your approach of offering race credits makes a lot of sense to me, very common sense and reasonable.

Ditto...

I do it in support of The Runners and The Charity.  If it's a for profit organization running the event, then they should have their paid personnel working the event.

...with that said, I run ALMOST exclusively charity races,,,I've been snookered into into running for profit events, but that was because I didn't investigate them well enough,  A marathon is my main exception...there aren't many that are exclusively or mainly charitable events.