|
We seem to be going back over the ground covered previously, but let's not forget that Dave Brand started this thread up because the MSA have now shown that they are considering the problem of meetings that are "grossly overmanned".
To my mind, this means that the MSA are now considering the legal implications of a marshal injury / fatality that might risk being attributed in part to an inability to move / escape or failure to fit everyone behind the designated safety fence on a post. The MSA , Clubs, Clerks, Stewards as well as the gaffers on each post would all risk being made to justify their manning decisions? It does raise the interesting situation where a PC is so concerned with excess numbers that he / she feels the need to refuse to accept that many, and passes the problem back to the Chief Marshal to drop some – “you accepted too many so you tell them to go home, not me!”
In the light of the MSA "going public", we must surely expect that some sort of restriction / cap will need to be applied - whether we like it or not. Our arguments (aka reasonable discussions) simply show how much whinging is likely to arise when (not if) the cuts are made. I also perceive the need for a tighter liaison between circuit and club at times – there’s no point one side turning away excess volunteers if the other side suddenly get an influx of “rejects” thinking on their feet and finding another (unrestricted) way in.
One problem with any capping scheme would be the need to address the number of folk who come as a pair (or even bigger group). If it was to be done simply by pulling names out of a hat, then it would be very unpopular to split couples, or parent / child combinations (real problem with under 18’s). There are also a significant number of folk who share the travel / accommodation costs who would need to be treated as “both or neither”.
So far, we seem to have gone over the old ground of how it will affect me, me, me, me ...... Let's try to look at it from the position of the clubs or circuits involved - but still keeping in mind that it's only going to be for a small percentage of all the meetings each year. This could apply whether it was a national club (e.g. BARC) or a circuit club (e.g. Silverstone).
If a marshal pays to join a club, then being dropped from any of their meetings could well mean that you will keep your money in your pocket next year. Presumably, saving your membership cash would also tend to equate to turning out for less of their other meetings due to how you feel.
If a club is struggling to get sufficient marshals for some of their less popular events, then perhaps they would be able to turn the over-manned meetings to their advantage by creating some sort of loyalty / incentive scheme. Whether paid-up membership would suffice, or whether some sort of points system would work better may need some sort of experimenting. I’ve tended to fall short of enough BARC attendances to gain enough credits to pay for membership, but I know many do so each year “for free”.
Another aspect of loyalty to a club could be the approach to non-attendance. Dropping out of the odd meeting is probably inevitable for all of us, but those who simply fail to turn up without the basic manners to apologise in advance (even if it’s a text / call on the day) don’t seem to deserve much consideration in return. Similarly, those who book for all sorts of conflicting meetings so that they can choose their best option closer to the day wouldn’t make me very happy if I was an organiser.
Perhaps we should also look outside of our narrow field to compare our plight with other activities?
Looking just a little further afield to bike marshalling, major events require the marshals to be “signed off” – qualified by 12 attendances and 2 training days. They also require commitment to more than one day of the meeting. I’m aware that one high profile meeting this year had a cut imposed at short notice by the governing body – the odd one-dayer was cut & the three-dayers were all kept, which left a proportion of the two-dayers being turned down. To sweeten this, they did offer free passes to the race day. Some were upset, but I have no doubt that they will still be oversubscribed in 2011.
Consider the local cricket club – just because you want to play every weekend doesn’t mean that you’ll always get picked does it? Those who really want to make it will keep offering themselves and try to help out with the less popular matches, and behind the scenes, until they become more and more invaluable to the club organisers. Of course, it also helps if you have proved yourself to be capable and can cope with rainy days!
What about your local Scout troop? However much some youngsters want to get in, there may be insufficient places. It’s not safe to have an unlimited number of them running around, particularly if there’s a shortage of leaders or facilities. When it comes to trips to a Jamboree, then the places tend to be allocated based on loyalty / attendance.
At the end of the day, life isn’t always fair (just ask your nearest teenager!) but with a bit of patience, what doesn’t happen for you one year may well come good next time – so live with it! I also wonder whether folk who show excessive anger / aggression / selfishness on a forum are indicating that they may not be a good (aka safe) team player when they put on the orange romper suit?
|