Seems sensible but there is no way that the union would allow any 'surplus' railway office staff to undertake another role.
You'll be disappointed to know that has happened elsewhere. Nearly 100 paid internal volunteers in one TOC alone. I'd be surprised if SWR haven't got enough keen managers and office staff willing to do it. They manage to find/spare enough willing to play trains when they need contingency Guards. What's the difference?
The RMT’s gripe, taken directly from their press release, seems to be that using unpaid people is “unsafe and dangerous”, and would put “the volunteers, our members, and the travelling public at risk”
Following that logic, If a member of the travelling public took a SWR train from Waterloo to Alton in early July the RMT deems it ‘unsafe and dangerous’ for a willing volunteer to show them the way through a one way system outside the station, or point them towards the ticket office, but has no view on the volunteer at Alton who will sell them a ticket on the Watercress line, or another volunteer that checks their ticket on the train to Alresford, or signal the train at Four Marks, etc etc?
How is it different?
Are there any heritage railways, unassociated with a charity, where there are paid employees represented by the RMT, with recognition for the grades they cover? If the RMT represented CSAs in Tesco, I'm sure they'd have something to say about Tesco using volunteers to man the queues outside. But they don't, they cover activities in TOCs.
What is it you're asking the RMT to object to on the Watercress line? That volunteers within what are normally nowadays very structured (for training/competency/manning purposes) charity organisations are carrying out their roles for free, or whether any risks for these volunteers have been assessed and properly planned for in the 'new normal' world? Maybe you'd value to RMTs opinion here, but it isn't within their jurisdiction.
I'd certainly feel far safer as a volunteer on a heritage railway than perhaps being the only person representing a TOC, manning a one way system on a suburban station. Do you think a 'Mr Angry' is going to readily appreciate that you're a volunteer and nothing to do with the TOC when their new one way system causes 'Mr Angry' to miss his train by seconds? "*Cough cough* 'I've gave you Covid blud"... What a nice day out.
As an example the reduction of staff at Wabtec gets the following response:-
"RMT'S executive will be considering a detailed response to the plans which are another sign of the kind of carnage that is being lined up for the engineering and transport sectors off the back of this pandemic."
Are they in a cocoon. The situation is dire in many areas not just the railways. They are not in the real world if they think that the Transport Sectors should not be affected and be exempt from any changes.
Don't worry, most other unions are completely ineffective. Take solace in that. A union wishing to defend it's members, whatever next?
But you can ask that question for any volunteer, anywhere. As I have asked before, and not had an answer, What makes the rail industry any different to all the other companies, government bodies, and charities that use volunteers? Those are all jobs worth doing.
I will however answer your question:
Because it’s a short term, temporary, new (and different) role, where people will be willing to fill the role without pay. So if you can find people willing and happy to do it without pay - why pay? Believe it or not, some people would rather *not* be paid for volunteering. I wouldn’t dream of wanting to be paid for the volunteering I do (and I do the work that could be done by someone who is paid).
That question relies on us accepting that:
*It's short term/temporary.
*A sufficiently different role, that isn't/couldn't be done by a paid employee.