Talk:Compensation

Rob Brooks Input

I understand the motivation for this. I have never seen anything like this and suspect it is not needed. Our labour pool is our membership. Some of our labour pool will work for us. At this time, all our labour is voluntary. Volunteers work not for compensation - whether real or fictional. They work because they a) have the time available, and b) believe in the cause / objective. As the party grows, if may increase its ability to raise funds and it would then be in a position to pay for labour. This would both allow us to compete for labour from outside our membership and also to compete for time from within our membership. I strongly recommend that this be avoided except for very surgical / high profile exceptions - for as long as possible. As soon as people begin getting paid - three things begin to happen a) resentment (some people get paid, some don't) and b) demoralization of volunteers (unpaid), and c) turf protection by paid staff. The turf protection is the worst of these. What happens is staff controls access to getting stuff done and effectively block volunteers from helping - in order to keep the work for themselves - and make it appear that they are needed and indispensable. Having the Leader receive compensation would not cause any problems. Having an Executive Director paid would not cause any problems. Paying these two key roles does widen the candidate pool. Paying for certain things very selectively on an ad hoc basis would not cause any problems. While it may seem hard to operate a 100% volunteer organization, I suggest that it is even harder to run a mixed paid / volunteer organization - and introducing pay for work will likely reduce the total labour output from our membership. As soon as you attach a monetary value to labour - you introduce a whole bunch of new consequences, such as measuring performance, organizing the labour into some structure, forced unemployment, etc.

What is typically done - is some form of "volunteer appreciation". This can be a nice mention in the newsletter, a pin, etc. Usually something of very nominal value so the resentment factor doesn't creep in. You can have two levels if you like. Volunteer, and volunteer with special mention. It is "nice" to be recognized in this way.

From my own perspective - I work for the party - not for any external recognition - either financial or emotional. I do what I do because I have the time and I believe in what we are doing together. I often think about why I choose to do this specific work - and the only answer I can come up with is to stroke my own ego - for my own selfish benefit. I don't do it so my wife thinks more highly of me, or my kids think more highly of me, or my friends think more highly of me. I do it so I can think more highly of myself - by seeing accomplishments achieved that I have contributed to that I can claim some part of. I like the challenge and I like to prove to myself that I can do something that others either won't or can't. It is somewhat related to competitiveness. Perhaps this is innate human nature - and I am just acting out on basic survival instincts. Beats me.

At present - nobody has to compete to get the work - everyone can get all the work they want. If real compensation is introduced, although it may appear that it will widen the labour pool available, it will also create a barrier to people being able to work for the party. I believe that any compensation scheme with an actual tangible reward would actually lower my personal ability to contribute and as such I would not be in favour of it - for the selfish reasons that I described.

Jeff McLarty's Reply

This is all fantastic insight.

I've given headings to each issue, so that further discussion on each can be easier to follow.

Why Volunteers Provide Labour

Rob cited a) availability and b) beliefs.

This is only a subset of the reasons. The academic reason why anybody provides labour:

intrinsic motivation + extrinsic motivation > value of costs to provide labour.

We define "volunteer", in our society and tax system, by those who work completely without any form of extrinsic motivation, and we define general labour as those who work 100% for extrinsic motivation. Employees of most organizations operate for the sum of both. In corporations, the intrinsic motivations might be training, networking, social pressure, schedule, sense of accomplishment, personal growth, etc.

Predictions

Rob cited three predictions a) Resentment b) Demoralization c) Turfing

These are POSSIBLE problems, but they all happen in growing organizations, and it seems to work out. The points ignore the positive predictions.

1. We'll be able demand time sheets from employees - enabling transparency to members of what we're working on, and who does what.
2. Motivation would improve significantly improve.
3. We would meet deadlines
4. Quality would improve.

You a generalization:

"introducing pay for work will likely reduce the total labour output from our membership."

This is a hypothysis, which is likely compltely false. Given the academic reason for why people provide labour. Incease the price (read: benefit) (intrinsic + extrinsic), you increase the supply. This is economics 101.

Also,

Demoralization

We already have to work on this issue for other reasons. Eg. when half the exec doesn't show for up for a meeting, without notice.

Turfing

This already happens. I don't want to provide examples, because I'd have to cite names. I would do so, over the phone, and I have a great example.

Volunteer Appreciation

This is what I started, by making a regional coordinator of the month. The idea still needs fleshing out, on how we administrate it, and what we do, but that's what I was going for by doing so. FYI, "recognition" is one more intrinsic motivation.

Why I provide labour

Rob cited why he provides labour. I found that insightful. Here's why I do it.

1. Opportunity to improve my communication skills (written, public speaking, etc.)
2. Opportunity to improve my leadership skills (tact, reading people, motivating people, etc.)
3. Networking
4. Improve Canada
5. Accomplishing tangible growth (eg, increase in members,
6. Make friends
7. Opportunity to teach people economics

But, on the 19th of March, I lost 4 hours sleep worried about our party. That's the third time, I tossed and turned about problems our party has, and lost sleep over it. The costs are increasing for me, without the benefits increasing. So, when that happens, that's when I dissappear. --Jeffrey McLarty 08:22, 22 March 2013 (EDT)

Other Ideas

1. Commissions on Donations - a-la Greg P
2. Volunteer/Project Direct - a-la Kickstarter

Personal Incentives

I am not in support of bribing volunteers to volunteer. In fact, I am no longer in favor of compensating any individual to coerced them to behave or perform according to my plan and desires. I do understand that the concept of financial incentives to coerce individuals to perform activities is very effective. I had to meet my payroll many times. I paid people to clean toilets. Would they have volunteered to clean toilets without the bribes? I don't think so. Who volunteers to clean toilets? Some toilet owners do cause they take responsibility of their own actions.

Financial coercion works more effective than threatening force, but both are means of coercion. We libertarians promote voluntary free market exchanges over coerced controlled market participants. Why would our party engage in financial coercion when our party principles stand against coercion. If an individual wishes to participate in any private activity of their choice, including supporting and serving our party needs; Let it be their own free choice. Let them decide their own commitment and personal responsibility that they want for themselves. Let them decide their own personal incentive.

Let's not convert our libertarian party into a dirigist party who controls peoples actions by financial coercion. If our party engaged in financial coercion, we would be no better than the other political parties who offer financial kickback bribes or tax credit incentives. We seek the voluntary good will and consent of the people. We ask for willing contributions and effort from those who create their own personal incentives for themselves to engage themselves on behalf of our libertarian party.

Myself, I am investing my own time, energy, opportunities and very limited resources for my own benefit. I honestly believe that it is MY personal responsibility to serve my kids and their future. I want my kids to live under liberty and to engage in free market enterprises as they choose for themselves. Yes, I offer my kids candy or dollars or others gifts of encouragement and recognition for acting or behaving in their own best interest in my opinion. I don't offer my kids a financial incentive or coercive bribe to behave according to my personal desires. I don't own their lives and I try not to bribe them. They direct their own actions as the see worth while for themselves.

If you want our party to promote free market principles please engage in free market principles. Create and establish voluntary contribution opportunities. If I wish to donate funds to the party, or to an executive officer or even to another simple member like myself in our party, make it easy for us members to facilitate our actions. I have freely chosen to send cheques by mail and have perform paypal transaction to the benefit of the party. If I want to reward Allen or Jeff or Rob or any other volunteer of my choosing, I will donate gifts directly according to my own decisions. But if gifts of encouragement were facilitated by some means of party exchange process, I would encourage such a free market enterprise.

We do what we want to do and we offer what we want to offer and we must learn to accept what others are willing to offer under their own free will. We individually may choose to offer a financial gift or tip but we shouldn't be engaging in financial bribery or coercion and neither should our Libertarian Party. --Neal 14:51, 23 March 2013 (EDT)

Rebuttal (Jim McIntosh)

I object to Neal's description of pay for service as "coercive bribes." It is a free exchange. No one would be forced (coerced) to perform any activity. If the Party had sufficient funds there would be no reason why it shouldn't offer to pay someone to act as Treasurer, or to hire a full time office manager, or public relations person, regardless of their actual interest in the objectives of the Party. What Jeff has proposed is that we offer financial incentives to our members (and supporters) in exchange for their efforts on behalf of the Party, as a way to move the Party ahead faster.

As an example, I expect someone will need to travel to several ridings in northern Ontario to collect signatures for "parachute candidates" and submit them to the local Returning Officers. I doubt anyone WANTS to do this, however one or two of our members may be WILLING to do such a job because they believe it will help the Party. The Party would obviously be willing to pay travel and living expenses. If the Party also provided some financial benefit, this might increase the willingness of someone to do the job. The alternative could be that we need to pay real money to one or more people who live in these ridings to do the work.