Six Figure Salaries For Charity Executives...

Spit

Spit

Spit

Permabanned
Joined
8 Nov 2003
Posts
6,743
Location
Yorkshire
http://news.sky.com/story/1125125/warning-over-100000-charity-executive-wages

What do you make of this? Personally I don't think it is quite right.

I get the argument that you need to pay good money to get the right people but I am sure there is another way.

What about a group of retired Executives who can overlook the charity on an expenses only basis. I am sure there are enough people who would be happy to donate their time for worthy causes.

What do you think? Are you happy for your charitable donations to pay such large salaries?
 
Charities need capable people to run them, the salary reflects their responsibilities.

Just because it is a charity doesn't mean it can be run by anyone, some charities are massive.

The issue with charities is, as Glaucus says below, waste. Not using the money they do use for causes correctly.
 
Last edited:
Spit said:
What about a group of retired Executives who can overlook the charity on an expenses only basis. I am sure there are enough people who would be happy to donate their time for worthy causes.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with your concept, retired executives didn't get to be retired executives by acting on an "expenses only" basis. They would probably want a little something their way, even in retirement.
 
If the charity is big enough and if they are good at their job ii don't mind.
However far to many large charities are behemoths of waste, with little money actually going to the cause and instead being sucked into advertising etc.
I generally avoid large charities, I know smaller charities is no guarantee but I think there's less chance of waste.
 
Fenris said:
Charities need capable people to run them, the salary reflects their responsibilities.
Click to expand...

This.

Retired executives who are able to get such positions, would most likely be doing high paid consulting work anyway - which they would lose if they spent all their time here.

There may be some people willing to give up their time - but I doubt it is the majority and certainly not enough.
 
It's no surprise that charities leak and misuse money. They also employ clueless and inefficient people, just like anywhere else. Also, charity employees are more often than just employees - not in their jobs because of altruism. I'm sure that also applies to the top dogs.
 
£150,000 is not a huge wage for a exec, especially the size of some of these charities.

As above , I'm against the waste but they hemorrhage it else where.

KaHn

/edit: - I think this is just another "lets jump on the band wagon and blame those who earn a lot for the recession" type of headlines.
 
Arguably though you have to wonder what somebody doing two days work a week for £50,000 is actually really contributing.

Its when you watch shows like Undercover Boss that it always amazes me how much CEOs/Directors/Executives etc tend to know so little about how their business is even run.

If I was giving money to British Red Cross or Save The Children, its pretty disheartening to think that the money may just be going to fund a salary rather than the cause at hand.

I understand that you need capable people managing how a charity spends its money and is run, but ultimately there is also the charity part. Anyone who can command £100,000 for a couple of days work a week is likely in a very stable financial situation and perhaps they need to look at bringing some charity to the business themselves.

My Mum is retired but works for a charity and organises an annual event for them each year which takes about 6 months of hard work and planning. She puts an enormous amount of effort into it and gets paid nothing, because her time is giving to the charity. Why can't some of these big execs do the same? Or at least take a significantly reduced fee?
 
What would people rather have?

A reasonably-paid, motivated CEO responsible for 1000s of staff and hundreds of millions of pounds in donations leading an efficient organization resulting in an admin overhead of only 10% (90p in every pound given going directly to advancing the charitable cause)?

Or a clueless incompetent idiot on minimum wage (or worse, doing it for nothing) running the same organisation and inadvertently wasting the majority of donations?

The fact that so many people can miss the bigger picture here defies belief.
 
A charity is a business, it needs people that know how to run it. But they need to compete with other charities and private sector jobs so they have to offer this kind of money.

£40k for area/regional managers is common. A lad I know was a telemarketer for a charity, for every £4 he brought in, he was paid £3.
 
jakehall109 said:
The guys in the streets with clipboards also get paid a good wage. Spend a lot of money on salary's and bare minimum to those who they say they are doing it for.
Click to expand...

And if a charity pays a guy £200 for a day, and he brings in £1000-worth of donations, is it worth it?
 
growse said:
What would people rather have?

A reasonably-paid, motivated CEO responsible for 1000s of staff and hundreds of millions of pounds in donations leading an efficient organization resulting in an admin overhead of only 10% (90p in every pound given going directly to advancing the charitable cause)?

Or a clueless incompetent idiot on minimum wage (or worse, doing it for nothing) running the same organisation and inadvertently wasting the majority of donations?

The fact that so many people can miss the bigger picture here defies belief.
Click to expand...

The picture you are presenting though is that anyone other than the highest paid executives is rubbish.... We all know full well that isn't the case, there are plenty of people who aren't in the highest positions who are dedicated workers and fully competent.

Also remember that these high level Execs are hardly immune of being terrible themselves, look at those which have run businesses into the ground, yet jump ship and then get snapped up still by somebody else.

As I said in my previous post, why can't some of them have some charity and work for much less or for charity. This is especially so if they have a second job which is likely paying far more.
 
Doesnt bother me aslong as they are still giving (which they are).

Now the churches especially in America that spend thousands on Advertising and Network Infrastructure is another thing.
 
if you don't like the way a charity is run, then don't contribute to it.
I don't have a problem with execs getting paid x amount if the charity is performing well
 
I live near Oxfam's HQ in Oxford....

5iPxxvw.jpg


Until recently (when British Gas built a new building last year) it was by far the most impressive (and expensive) building on business park. The cars in the car park are mostly 'above average' and the staff always seem to be wearing expensive suits.

It's a bit of a con really, I regard charities like Oxfam as businesses, there to fund there staff's lifestyles first and the business second.
 
Nexus said:
The picture you are presenting though is that anyone other than the highest paid executives is rubbish.... We all know full well that isn't the case, there are plenty of people who aren't in the highest positions who are dedicated works and fully competent.

Also remember that these high level Execs are hardly immune of being terrible themselves, look at those which have run businesses into the ground, yet jump ship and then get snapped up still by somebody else.

As I said in my previous post, why can't some of them have some charity and work for much less or for charity. This is especially so if they have a second job which is likely paying far more.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, charity CEO pay is much less than in the private sector, so senior management are already taking a 'charitable' pay cut relative to what they could be earning elsewhere. And the 'dedicated people who aren't in the highest positions' - if they were capable of competently running a large charity, why are they not doing so? Just because someone is an awesome worker lower down the hierarchy doesn't mean they'll be an awesome CEO.

I don't disagree that some well-paid people are incompetent. But when you choose a charity to donate to, using the salary of the CEO as a factor is ridiculous. Why not look at the total charity efficiency? I'd rather donate to a charity that spent 10% of it's income on admin with a CEO paid 150k, than to a charity that spent 50%, but only paid its CEO 50k.

estebanrey said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

How much money did Oxfam take in last year? How much did it spend on admin and staff? Do you know? Do you care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom