Ultimately, it's the same as a paid shop - it's how you manage it that counts.
Not necessarily. The pay, or lack thereof, is a huge differentiator. In many cases some volunteers start out eager and dedicated to follow the rules. Eventually the eagerness morphs into a self-serving role because; '
they've worked hard and deserve to be allowed more latitude'. To an extent they may be right, but if it means compromising the rules, or in this sort of example, programming of a station, it becomes a problem. If that extra latitude is allowed by management, it sends the wrong message to peer volunteers.
When paid, the obvious understanding is much more clear: You do tasks and play a role within the rules, and you're paid accordingly. Don't want to play by the rules? In both volunteer and paid one can release someone, but it's usually harder to replace that volunteer, putting more burden on other's (no O.T. as incentive), but also freaks the other volunteers out by essentially firing someone who may had volunteered a lot of their time. This is especially true with a handful of volunteer staff as with an LPFM station verses say; a local food bank. Ego of 'being on the radio' plays a role too.
And just like a paid position; you personally, plus the non-profit organization, could be sued by that volunteer as well. That means defending an already poorly funded organization against someone who wants to bankrupt you seeking revenge.
Create a positive atmosphere with well-defined rules and effective enforcement mechanisms, and the people who get out of line (and in any group, there will be people who get out of line) can be handled procedurally without much detriment to the organization.
Easy to say and looks good in writing, but no one single manager is able to manage that one individual who essentially becomes a cancer to the volunteer staff.
