Garry Beattie <gjbeattie@no-spam> wrote:
: I'm with you Chris.
: I don't think people should have to pay for the privilege of giving up their
: own time to help out.
People value what they pay for, and so treat it a little more
seriously.
It also weeds out the unemployed, the druggies, losers, social
retards, and other non-acceptables. Well, at least this is the idea behind
many of the ridiculously high announcer fees being charged at some
community stations.
: I think it should work the opposite way, similar to our local Volunteer
: Marine Rescue organisation.
Hmmmm.
Pay for your own uniform, run chook raffles to raise much needed
funds. Bugger that. The local SES has all that and more provided via State
gov. funding.
: You pay an annual membership fee, say (round figures), $200 per year.
: Your fee's are then reduced by $1 for each day that you help out.
: If you present 1 program per week then your fee's are reduced by $52.
: If you present 2 per week it's reduced by $104.
: I know it is a lot more logistical than that but it's an idea.
Nope - the SES model is far more applicable, and sensible. You
have to complete training, based on a uniform state-wide system. You agree
to turn up, because you are getting training AND the kudos of
being involved in something your local communty sees as being important.
Doesn't apply to the majority of community radio stations I know.
the fees are trying to see if you are actually commited enough to
turn up and plan to spend years getting involved rather than weeks.
Obviously they have worked - you have had to seriously consider if
you really really really want to get involved or are you just yanking
their chain.
Quit yer bitchin', figure out if you are really interested, then
pay up or piss off. You'd happily pay more than that for something like
gym membership or whatever.
Ask yerself - what are YOU going to get out of it.
Huh?
Jack@no-spam
--
"The bracing excitement of an unknown,
create-as-you-go future"