Longcol Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Yeah i know they are a necessary evil but it still grates knowing donations are going to pay top whack wages for the few. The wages are hardly "top whack" compared to comparable jobs in other sectors. You ever been near the top of managing a charitable organisation with a turnover of something like £30 million pa and known what it entails and the responsibility? I reckon the sector has far better governance and is scrutinised to a far greater degree that the private sector. ---------- Post added 25-05-2013 at 01:41 ---------- I meant chief executives or vice presidents who run these type of organisations, they are owners! No they aren't. Trustees "own" charities. Try looking at the Charity Commission website and learning something before posting please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 The wages are hardly "top whack" compared to comparable jobs in other sectors. You ever been near the top of managing a charitable organisation with a turnover of something like £30 million pa and known what it entails and the responsibility? I reckon the sector has far better governance and is scrutinised to a far greater degree that the private sector. Well 80k aint peanuts either. I'd like to see the top jobs filled by people vocationally say on £25-30k. Idealistic i know but i for one would give that bit more, as i know it'd be going to those whom i really donated it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Well it seems like these fat cat owners employ the lowest common denominators to do their biddings hence why these charities often suffer at foot level because the volunteers get taken advantage of and the paid members who oversee the volunteers are often overworked. Fat cats, hmm. Possibly if you want to term it that way. If you are going to make a substantial donation to something, then the least you can do is look it up online and decide whether you think the outgoing money is to your personal ethical standards. If you have average moral principles, take a look at the books of some of those charities advertised on daytime crap TV channels. Alternatively, when you have a charity which raises say £189m for example, then paying someone at the top £75,000 to run it well, doesn't seem so ridiculous. Would you want someone who doesn't know what they are doing being in charge of so much money? As for volunteers being taken advantage of, then I think you're talking nonsense, generally. Would you volunteer for something you hadn't looked into first to see if you think they were worth your time? I meant chief executives or vice presidents who run these type of organisations, they are owners! ---------- Post added 25-05-2013 at 01:49 ---------- (p.s I used Oxfam's figures from the above link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Well 80k aint peanuts either. I'd like to see the top jobs filled by people vocationally say on £25-30k. Idealistic i know but i for one would give that bit more, as i know it'd be going to those whom i really donated it to. And where on earth are you going to recruit people on £25-30k to run a business with a turnover of say £30 million. You'd be hard pushed to get a half decent middle manager for that money these days, never mind a Chief Exec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 And where on earth are you going to recruit people on £25-30k to run a business with a turnover of say £30 million. You'd be hard pushed to get a half decent middle manager for that money these days, never mind a Chief Exec. There are still people who work for the love of the job, not the money, and 30k per year aint to be sniffed at. As i said, idealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 There are still people who work for the love of the job, not the money, and 30k per year aint to be sniffed at. As i said, idealistic. You are right. They are often the volunteers needed to run successful charities. £30k is a good wage up here, granted, but what if it's down London? Unless someone was rich enough to live there and not to need a wage AND [equally as important] has the skills to run a hundreds of millions of pounds organisation AND [equally as important] wants to give their time to running all this for nothing (or very little), then you would be starting to seriously clutch at straws. - I also think (sadly I quoted the Guardian) that these figures are potentially very misleading. They quote the highest earner/amount of income/ and conclude with a cost per £1000 of income. Some look extremely bad this way. Most importantly it doesn't show comparisons of ALL the staff paid outgoings against the money coming in. - For example: The Methodist relief fund shows the highest paid top earner (that I can see just by hovering over) at £19 per/£1000 of charity income. See how I misled there? I quoted the site, but the top earner is on £31,000. Now look at Cancer Research at 46p per/£1000 of charity income. That sounds reasonable doesn't it compared to £19 per/£1000? Initial reaction could be that The methodist relief fund is shocking! The methodists are paying over 38 times more than Cancer Research. However, the Cancer Research CE is on £140,000/year. They run on hugely different incomes - £1,600,000 [meth] against £305,000,000 [cancer research]. - What if 50% of Cancer research goes on staff, yet only 10% of Meth goes on staff, which is more morally right? - Appalling way of measuring things reported by the Guardian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Fat cat directors are the reason I will never give to charity. Far better to give directly to the people they are supposed to be helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Fat cat directors are the reason I will never give to charity. Far better to give directly to the people they are supposed to be helping. I think this is ridiculously unreasonable, illogical, and moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike208 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 There are still people who work for the love of the job, not the money, and 30k per year aint to be sniffed at. As i said, idealistic. And for 30k you wouldn't get anyone with anywhere near the level of skills or experience required. I'd rather give to charity knowing they've got someone at the top that isn't going to fritter my money away through lack of ability - even if that means some of my money is going on their 80k salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 And for 30k you wouldn't necessarily get anyone with anywhere near the level of skills or experience required for a large charity. I'd rather give to charity knowing they've got someone at the top that isn't going to fritter my money away through lack of ability - even if that means some of my money is going on their 80k salary. Thank goodness. A sensible post. (though I broke the rules and altered your post slightly with the bold to make my agreement acceptable ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.