Dr Barnardos - a bit misleading?

[Anna B]

Wow, talk about inverse snobbery. Once again, ignore the details of the post , ignore the bigger picture and just beat that old drum.

 

Prey tell, how much exactly do you think should be paid to a chief executive of a national organisation which has over 8000 employees and a £301million budget???

 

How does the charity sector CEOs - which by recent survey stats show the majority of receiving less than £100k a year - compare with CEOs in other simiar sized organisations eh?? How do those CEOs renumerations and responsibilities compare to those all those thousands of executive level civil servants or NHS clinical leaders or Health Trust Managers, those Chief Consultants or even them down to earth working class salt of the earth unionised dahling tube drivers??

 

Equal pay levels for equal types of jobs the masses scream *cough*, except if you are some suited type deemed to earn a higher than average wage then it doesn't count. In that case you are tarred as just some greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.

 

Oh one final though for you. 43% of that £190k is whipped away in tax and national insurance payments to the public purse compared to just 17% of the lower earner.

 

Better not all be dragged down had we.

 

Definitely less than the Prime Minister of the country.

 

Got it in one. 'A greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.'

These Neo-liberal types will bring down the country in the end, just as they brought down the banks.

[ECCOnoob]

Definitely less than the Prime Minister of the country.

 

Got it in one. 'A greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.'

These Neo-liberal types will bring down the country in the end, just as they brought down the banks.

 

There is a room full of wind bags earning 3x the average salary who could bring down the entire country.

 

There is one huge useless lump of lard earning a salary just behind said prime minister whose inaction and weakness could do more damage to this country than anything the bankers did.

 

There are currently three trade union chiefs all earning more than the PM and dozens more earning + £100k despite them supposedly representing those downtrodden workers.

 

There are thousands of civil servants, quango chiefs and layers of government organisation management and even GPs who earn more than the PM or are on six figure salaries.

 

Wonder if you have the same level of bile against them. On and on and on and on you keep beating that drum....

Edited July 22, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[newcomer01]

I am not quite sure how my comments will be perceived but I felt compelled to say something.Since the recent revelations about another child charity I found myself questioning CHARITIES in general.From the time the time that I was at school hearing about charity is a daily occurance and the one thing that I question ( not necessarily Barnados) how the ethos of most of them have changed.This charity has been on the go for over 170 years ,so from its inception of looking after children and their welfare housing and schooling to what it now stands for has changed somewhat.The fact that it has raised in excess of £200 million on a normal year and spent it on the Barnardos cause.

Knowing that this charity has over 5000 employees with 17000 volunteers and is reliant like other charities on fundraising and donations( as well as call centres),I just find it morally wrong that so many people are holding down a paid job based upon the helping of children which is subscribed to by millions of people just to help children and the company is exempt from tax like a normal company.Then to top it all regarding this charity the allegations made about child abuse over the past few years.

In essence I am questioning is there a real need for a CEO an that amount of cash for a company that is a CHARITY.

If this offends that is not my intent.The quote that I happened to just drop on seems to cover at least some of my feelings about a charitable cause.

When, confronted with the starving child, we are told: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can save her life!", the true message is: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can continue in your ignorant and pleasurable life, not only not feeling any guilt, but even feeling good for having participated in the struggle against suffering!"

— Slavoj Žižek (2010). Living in the End Times. Verso. p. 117.

[El Cid]

I am not quite sure how my comments will be perceived but I felt compelled to say something. Since the recent revelations about another child charity I found myself questioning CHARITIES in general.

 

A former Conservative councillor has admitted possessing hundreds of indecent images of children.

Michael Jamieson was serving as a councillor for Perth City South when his home was raided by police.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-44698327

 

Do you 'question yourself' about all Tories or all councillors; of course you don't.

[Anna B]

I am not quite sure how my comments will be perceived but I felt compelled to say something.Since the recent revelations about another child charity I found myself questioning CHARITIES in general.From the time the time that I was at school hearing about charity is a daily occurance and the one thing that I question ( not necessarily Barnados) how the ethos of most of them have changed.This charity has been on the go for over 170 years ,so from its inception of looking after children and their welfare housing and schooling to what it now stands for has changed somewhat.The fact that it has raised in excess of £200 million on a normal year and spent it on the Barnardos cause.

Knowing that this charity has over 5000 employees with 17000 volunteers and is reliant like other charities on fundraising and donations( as well as call centres),I just find it morally wrong that so many people are holding down a paid job based upon the helping of children which is subscribed to by millions of people just to help children and the company is exempt from tax like a normal company.Then to top it all regarding this charity the allegations made about child abuse over the past few years.

In essence I am questioning is there a real need for a CEO an that amount of cash for a company that is a CHARITY.

If this offends that is not my intent.The quote that I happened to just drop on seems to cover at least some of my feelings about a charitable cause.

When, confronted with the starving child, we are told: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can save her life!", the true message is: "For the price of a couple of cappuccinos, you can continue in your ignorant and pleasurable life, not only not feeling any guilt, but even feeling good for having participated in the struggle against suffering!"

— Slavoj Žižek (2010). Living in the End Times. Verso. p. 117.

 

I tend to agree with this, up to a point. Charity now equals business with special tax exemptions, and some people making a lot of money out of it. It is certainly no longer what it was 40 or 50 years.

 

First, I ask myself what governments are doing to curtail the need for charity, if they were doing their job right, should there be a need for charity?

Water for instance, is a human right, and should be dealt with at government level.

 

Secondly, are things like private schools really charities? Many of them have charitable status, but is it really justified? There are lots more dubious claims to be charities, probably as a tax dodge. This needs sorting as it gives genuine charities a bad name.

 

Third, why don't similar charities, eg cancer charities etc, amalgamate, to cut down on administrative costs, so they only need one CEO, fewer accountants etc.

 

I have no problem with charity staff, (eg shop workers) being unpaid volunteers, but CEOs with 6 figure salaries must be a smack in the face, to these unpaid volunteers. They need to think about it.

[lottiecass]

A disingenuous reply to a very disingenuous statement from you.

 

What makes you think that a former chief executive or director or manager who has lost their job and ends up with debts round their neck has any more choice to be picky about their salary than some so called "poor" person on a low income.

 

Personal circumstances dont come into your statement.

 

The point was very simple. We ALL accept what renumeration we are prepared to receive for our work the day we sign on the dotted line with an employer.

 

Those of us who have little responsibility and/or enough rainy day income tide us by and/or skills/qualifications/assets in demand can CHOOSE to be a little more selective of a job we pick and if we are so bold, set out a figure to a prospective employer of we would expect to receive for a role.

 

That freedom can apply to ANY sort of job not, as you mistakenly assume, just high level ones.

 

For those of us chiefs OR shop floor who need the money, have debts, have responsibilities we can quite obviously be far less picky or even sometimes be forced into accepting a figure what we deem beneath us. That circumstance also can apply to BOTH higher or lower earners.

 

Why are you always so blinded by one side? You never look at a bigger picture and desprately try any attempt to continually bash the perceived rich.

Its all relative,the ceo may have debts but will have made enough to tide them over but a minimum wage worker will have next to nothing and not had any of the benefits the chiefs enjoy.So your applies to both isn't quite correct.

[Anna B]

There is a room full of wind bags earning 3x the average salary who could bring down the entire country.

 

There is one huge useless lump of lard earning a salary just behind said prime minister whose inaction and weakness could do more damage to this country than anything the bankers did.

 

There are currently three trade union chiefs all earning more than the PM and dozens more earning + £100k despite them supposedly representing those downtrodden workers.

 

There are thousands of civil servants, quango chiefs and layers of government organisation management and even GPs who earn more than the PM or are on six figure salaries.

 

Wonder if you have the same level of bile against them. On and on and on and on you keep beating that drum....

 

Couldn't agree more. All a bunch of overpaid, useless, tw*ts. They have just the same overblown sense of entitlement and importance that they have inherited from the private sector.

 

Top earnings keep rising exponentially, but the lower orders aren't keeping up, so the gap keeps getting bigger, and believe me it's all going to end in tears.

 

They need the workers, more than the workers need them.

Someone needs to remind them that they aren't as clever, or important or exclusive as they think. They are where they are usually through advantage, opportunities and connections, not skill.

[ECCOnoob]

You had better remember this post next time you are bigging up Compo Corbyn or those all so important union reps or those all so important civil servants you claim are looking after the people.

 

Lets just have one more reminder

 

Couldn't agree more. All a bunch of overpaid, useless, tw*ts. They have just the same overblown sense of entitlement and importance that they have inherited from the private sector.

 

Top earnings keep rising exponentially, but the lower orders aren't keeping up, so the gap keeps getting bigger, and believe me it's all going to end in tears.

 

They need the workers, more than the workers need them.

Someone needs to remind them that they aren't as clever, or important or exclusive as they think. They are where they are usually through advantage, opportunities and connections, not skill.

 

My work here is done. You have well and truely shown your clear contempt towards anyone who dares to be ambitious and earn an above average wage. You keep on with that race to the bottom you are pushing for. See where that gets you.

 

---------- Post added 23-07-2018 at 00:13 ----------

 

Its all relative,the ceo may have debts but will have made enough to tide them over but a minimum wage worker will have next to nothing and not had any of the benefits the chiefs enjoy.So your applies to both isn't quite correct.

 

Its not beyond the realms of possibility for a minimum wage worker to have little or no outgoings compared to someone on a high salary but high expenses.

 

There can be people still living at home who little or no outgoings and can take their times picking and choosing a job with a salary that suits. There can be recent graduates still living on their loans who can be selective of roles that come up. There can be mid-career changers who despite a modest income still manage to keep themselves ticking over and have a sum gradually stacking up in the bank. On the other hand there can be a high level manager or director who is suddenly losing their job and has a big house, cars, children and other big outgoings to pay for.

 

Rich OR Poor, how you spend your earnings is entirely up to an individual.

 

There is no deafult setting that says high earner = money in the bank low earner = nothing for a rainy day.

 

Life is clearly not like that. You can have a executive who blows the lot as soon as he gets his paycheck or you could have a minimum wage earner living frugally and keeping a nest egg in an ISA. It could just be as much the other way round.

 

The primary point I have been making still remains.

Edited July 22, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

You had better remember this post next time you are bigging up Compo Corbyn or those all so important union reps or those all so important civil servants you claim are looking after the people.

 

Lets just have one more reminder

 

 

 

My work here is done. You have well and truely shown your clear contempt towards anyone who dares to be ambitious and earn an above average wage. You keep on with that race to the bottom you are pushing for. See where that gets you.

 

Not at all. But I believe the little man deserves respect, success shouldn't just be measured in money, and everyone's job, no matter how humble, is worthwhile. It would be nice if that were recognised and valued.

 

Your contempt for those values really shines through, if you think anyone's work is worth £millions, while others who do equally valuable work are left on minimum wage.

[El Cid]

Top earnings keep rising exponentially, but the lower orders aren't keeping up, so the gap keeps getting bigger, and believe me it's all going to end in tears.

They need the workers, more than the workers need them.

Someone needs to remind them that they aren't as clever, or important or exclusive as they think. They are where they are usually through advantage, opportunities and connections, not skill.

 

I share your sentiment, but the lower paid workers are getting a hike in the minimum wage. But will this make a difference, I am unsure.

 

With views like yours, it hard to believe that these top bosses will earn their pay, with reduced support from the general public.

 

I do not believe a system whereby the Government sets pay rates would work better, the system we have now works, its just that we get people griping.