Volunteering Work

Just did a brief bit of Googling. It seems AGE UK pay *multiple* people salaries of £100,000 or more.

It is run like a franchise - here is one such franchise operating in Birmingham.

http://charitywatchuk.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/age-concern-birmingham/

I don't it's a surprise they have to use free labour if they are paying their CEO 1/20th of their total income!

Assuming they are actually worth that - you can't run a charity effectively without highly skilled management and that does not come cheap, they have no choice but to pay industry wages for those kind of position to get the kind of people who can make that work and trust me it does not pay to cheap out on those positions as a charity.

Rroff only one of the paid staffers was young. think she was 24 but the others all 40+ they just didnt seem interested at all. the manager was only interested if any white leather sofa's turned up as she was looking for one.

Seems to be creeping into all ages over the last few years, I guess for some recent economy issues, etc. and many companies treating their employees in a more disposable manner due to the number of skilled workers currently out of work has had a demoralising effect but increasingly it seems people are becoming more and more bone idle.

Quite impressed by one lass though - 17 straight out of school, walked into a fulltime position with 10-15 hours of overtime a week and rarely gives less than her best.
 
Is this actually common practice these days to land a job? Work for free?

'fraid so. I've been on the dole twice, and it was by doing voluntary work that landed me back in a job on both occasions.

There's no way I'd work for free charity or not, work to live and all that ;)

Yeah I wouldn't either unless I was retired and wanted to help the community or I was getting back into a job. During working age, one needs to earn a living!
 
Assuming they are actually worth that - you can't run a charity effectively without highly skilled management and that does not come cheap, they have no choice but to pay industry wages for those kind of position to get the kind of people who can make that work and trust me it does not pay to cheap out on those positions as a charity.

We're not talking about the CEO of a national charity.

In this case we're talking about the CEO of a charity operating in one city (Birmingham). Their total income was 2.1 million and the CEO was talking 110,000.

Now think that their are multiple franchises all over the country, operating in a single city. Each paying the CEO of that franchise 100k.

Is that good value? Would people who donate to AGE UK be happy to know that?
 
We're not talking about the CEO of a national charity.

In this case we're talking about the CEO of a charity operating in one city (Birmingham). Their total income was 2.1 million and the CEO was talking 110,000.

Now think that their are multiple franchises all over the country, operating in a single city. Each paying the CEO of that franchise 100k.

Is that good value? Would people who donate to AGE UK be happy to know that?

I always thought every company had only 1 CEO. :confused: Why are you garnishing AGE UK with a multitude of CEO's ?

From my googling, Tom Wright is the CEO of AGE UK, and the only one.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/professional-resources-home/our-experts/senior-spokespeople/
 
You should have Googled a bit harder :P Age UK is the umbrella corp.

Each local Age UK franchise is a separate charity. Eg AGE UK Birmingham. They have their own CEOs.

No "garnishing" being done ;)

Sorry but that's just not true.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/professional-resources-home/our-experts/senior-spokespeople/

The link above shows the CEO of AGE UK, Tom Wright. Each individual branch around the country will have it's own Managing Directors, but not it's own CEO. One CEO per company, that's how business works.
 
Sorry but that's just not true.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/professional-resources-home/our-experts/senior-spokespeople/

The link above shows the CEO of AGE UK, Tom Wright. Each individual branch around the country will have it's own Managing Directors, but not it's own CEO. One CEO per company, that's how business works.

So I guess this page is wrong then:

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/birmingham/about-us/our-trustees-and-directors1/

The CEO of AGE UK Birmingham is Ms. C. Hayward

Want me to find the CEO of some other AGE UK franchises? Or will this suffice to prove you wrong?
 
Fair enough. Looks like I was wrong about that. I'd always thought the top person in any company was the CEO. So AGE UK having multiple CEO's really confuses me know. Who the hells in charge ? :confused:

As I already said, AGE UK is the umbrella corp.

Each franchise is its own separate charity. Each has a highly paid CEO. And the umbrella corp CEO earns about the same.

Its another example of how much charities are being run like big business these days.
 
I thought that:

MD = UK English
CEO = US English

Every firm only have one MD/CEO.

What Silver is referring to for the various cities would be known as area managers.

MD/CEO > area managers > branch managers > ordinary mortals

:p
 
As I already said, AGE UK is the umbrella corp.

Each franchise is its own separate charity. Each has a highly paid CEO. And the umbrella corp CEO earns about the same.

Its another example of how much charities are being run like big business these days.

So Tom Wright, in the link I posted, is the Head CEO of the other CEO's for the different branches ?
 
Slightly different - more common to have trustees and a managing director at each branch but I guess they've gone with a different franchise setup.

Same potentially applies though - a good director/ceo will be saving potentially millions and well worth their salary - if they are good - and those kind of people don't come cheap.
 
Slightly different - more common to have trustees and a managing director at each branch but I guess they've gone with a different franchise setup.

Same potentially applies though - a good director/ceo will be saving potentially millions and well worth their salary - if they are good - and those kind of people don't come cheap.

Well given that their total income was 2.1 million, how can this MD/CEO be "saving millions"? :p They don't have that much money to spend, but they are paying the MD/CEO 110,000 of that 2.1 million.

It's not like they have 10s of millions of income. 2.1 million is pretty modest. In the council where I work we have intermediate managers with budgets bigger than that, and not paid anywhere near 110,000.
 
I thought that:

MD = UK English
CEO = US English

Every firm only have one MD/CEO.

What Silver is referring to for the various cities would be known as area managers.

MD/CEO > area managers > branch managers > ordinary mortals

:p

Foxeye says they are CEO's, you're saying they are Area Mangers. Who's right ? I always thought one CEO per company, after all there can only be one person at the top.

I'm going to leave this thread soon. It's flogging ma noggin. :(
 
Well given that their total income was 2.1 million, how can this MD/CEO be "saving millions"? :p They don't have that much money to spend, but they are paying the MD/CEO 110,000 of that 2.1 million.

It's not like they have 10s of millions of income. 2.1 million is pretty modest. In the council where I work we have intermediate managers with budgets bigger than that, and not paid anywhere near 110,000.

Without them their total income could have been -2.1 million :S I've seen a fair few charities run into the ground due to people not qualified to be running them. (Infact used to work for a publisher run as a charity where precisely that happened due to the outcry about the cost of someone qualified to run it :S).
 
I find no offence in OP's question by itself, but if you left it at that then yeah I could see someone with a stick stuck up the backside having a problem.

For other parts of the thread. I did MWA last year, I had a month sentence and after that I stayed on as a volunteer for 3 months, and the place I was working agreed to at least pay my travel expenses after I asked them, stating that I don't want to leave but I can't afford to travel. I stayed because I made good friends there, I was learning new skills whether I can utilize them by myself or not(plumbing and pipework), and a nice bonus or so I thought is that it would make the Jobcentre happy. Well my Advisor liked I was doing it, but 4 months later she still followed protocol and attempted to refer me to another program, meaning I would have to leave a place I had developed myself to for 4 months, as it happens I got an Xmas job and signed off in the same interview she told me this. After Xmas I went back to my Volunteer job.

Do I think it helped me? not really, no interviewer for a job seemed to care or give positive feedback, all the interviewer wants to know is if I can do their job, and 4 months of Maintenance work at a Football ground isn't going to help me write an Excel spreadsheet, nor will ringing up tills in a charity shop as a side opinion. The only people who thinks it's positive is the Jobcentre and those who give courses through the Jobcentre. Infact I recall back to an agency I had phoned for the first time, about 1 minute into the interview the guy got annoyed at me, like I was wasting his time, then he power tripped and for 15 minutes told me what I should and shouldn't be doing to find work, and he mentioned volunteer work, I told for the last 4 months I have been volunteering and where, and he told me it doesn't matter. As much as an ass orifice the guy was, he was still right, and I knew he was right before and after I phoned him, but being on JSA I don't have a say where I get volunteered to work, and still they want us to use the fact we volunteered as the crux of why someone should employ us. The whole process of MWA stinks, it doesn't work, I'm not saying volunteering doesn't work, but when it comes out of the Jobcentre it doesn't work because it's not your interests they have in mind, it's IDS and the Government statistics, and anything you are doing yourself while signed on, like volunteer work will be overruled by any hoop the JC want you to jump through. Remember Poundland girl.

Other things that happened while I was on MWA and extended volunteer work. The volume of "volunteers" the place goes through caused paid workers to lose hours even days for a short time, it stopped when the volunteer numbers were to low and they were needed back. And lastly, the place I was buying plumbing supplies from had a job opening for sales and the guy I was working with persuaded me to apply, so I did. The next time we went in I talked to the manager again and he asked me the situation, so I said it's not really my thing, I was sort of put forward unwillingly and that I don't belong on that side of the counter, the guy was cool and understood where I was coming from and respected my decision, because he also doesn't want an employee that's not into it.

In the right circumstances volunteering is effective but only as long as the volunteer is in control of it. I made good friends, built lots of bridges and met people who did have job openings, just a shame it wasn't my cup of tea, I wasn't so desperate that a job is a job, I also shopped for job satisfaction. Which is something else the JC doesn't care if you have, they just want you signed off.
 
If you're not being paid, how can they possibly expect you to be invested and actually care about the menial office work you're doing? :( It's social injustice, but sadly short of a revolution I can't see that you have any other choice but to reign it in, unless you're sure that it's acceptable on a personal level. Cachfa.
 
Back
Top Bottom