Six Figure Salaries For Charity Executives...

[mmj_uk]

Capitalism has got out of hand, the top few have ridiculous amounts of money so they start splashing it around and suddenly everybody else has to do the same just to compete even if it's not financially sensible.

In another few decades the gap will be even wider assuming the whole economy hasn't collapsed under it's under weight.

 

[bitslice]

The RSPCA continues to campaign even when it has more than enough to fund its services,
meaning that less well known charities like Dogs Trust and Cats Protection lose out hugely (despite doing a better job).

There is a limited pot of money out there and it's unfair for these major charities to suck up all the money for themselves.

 

[scorza]

Tbh the charities mentioned in the article are the angels on this, sure it's not quite right that charity CEO pay goes up when performance is down (or even that the head of a charity is called a CEO), but at least these are big charities that do undeniably good work. On the other hand in the last decade we've seen lots of charities starting up with dubious goals and practices. It seems like anyone can start up a charity, get loads of money from the tax payer and pay themselves huge amounts of money while expecting your front line staff to work for free or for a pittance.

 

[Doomedspeed]

You need to pay for good management..

It would be weird if the whole company was run by a retired voleenteer called Phil who wares a knitted cardigan and works 5 hours a day, then goes back to rake his alotment. (The normal kind of people you get in charity shops).

 

[Hatter The Mad]

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?

Why isn't it right?

Why can I only be personally rewarded for doing and achieving things which increases others' personal capital and wealth, i.e. by working in an investment bank? Why can't I be rewarded (in exchange for my skills and as long as I do my job well) for doing things which increase social capital, like charity work?

Really suggest you watch this:

Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend -- not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.

Or on ted.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

 

[Yaayuh!]

So long as they don't get a bonus and their salary reflects their responsibilities, i'm ok with it.

 

[eatcustard]

I only give to the air ambulance, all the rest can go **** themselves

 

[elmarko]

When thinking of "charity" we need to look at it in a wider sense.

The average person is only going to be able to donate a certain amount of money to charity - it isn't an infinite pot.

If one charity does well, it can often be at the expense of another - so multiple charities spending large amounts of money on advertising & marketing - inflated wages to get a bigger slice on a single pie (then cutting off a few slices to the high paid members - as many people don't get paid on the shop floor) leaves a bad taste in my mouth somewhat.

Charity at best is a stop-gap, while social structures are changed to prevent the negative consequence from occurring in the first place.

As Slavoj Zizek said, the only way to end poverty is to make it impossible to occur - charity will never do this (but it is better than nothing).

 

[Nexus]

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.

That only has relevance though if its their full time job.
If they are getting £100,000 for two days work while commanding a position of CEO at a corporation where they are getting paid significantly more, then it makes you seriously question their motives towards charity. If you are in a financially stable position and wish to contribute to a charity, do you really need a high wage for that as well.

 

[growse]

That only has relevance though if its their full time job.
If they are getting £100,000 for two days work while commanding a position of CEO at a corporation where they are getting paid significantly more, then it makes you seriously question their motives towards charity. If you are in a financially stable position and wish to contribute to a charity, do you really need a high wage for that as well.

Which major charity has a part-time CEO?

 

[Freefaller]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest - good on them and good luck to them.

 

[Mucky_Pup]

If I was in charge of a major charity I'd want a decent salary as well, I don't see the problem, I do see the problem with major wastage inside of charities though, that's a far more important issue than someone being paid the market rate for their job title.

 

[scorza]

Why isn't it right?

Why can I only be personally rewarded for doing and achieving things which increases others' personal capital and wealth, i.e. by working in an investment bank? Why can't I be rewarded (in exchange for my skills and as long as I do my job well) for doing things which increase social capital, like charity work?

Really suggest you watch this:

Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong

...



Or on ted.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

Sounds like exactly the sort of nonsense that led to enormous rewards for banking executives and CEOs while actual performance has decreased. "Hey guys, we always want to make sure we have a good CEO so let's make sure we're at the top of the league for executive pay, what could possibly go wrong then?".

I'm guessing this Dan Pallotta is exactly the sort of person who'll end up CEO of a charity one day. Sadly the Third Sector has just become another money making scheme for the 1%. Whatever happened to doing charity work because you cared and want to make a difference? Sure it is about what you achieve rather than how little you spend, but I don't see how a big global charity's execs flying first class increases achievement?

 

[growse]

Sounds like exactly the sort of nonsense that led to enormous rewards for banking executives and CEOs while actual performance has decreased. "Hey guys, we always want to make sure we have a good CEO so let's make sure we're at the top of the league for executive pay, what could possibly go wrong then?".

Has charity performance decreased, while pay has increased?

I'm guessing this Dan Pallotta is exactly the sort of person who'll end up CEO of a charity one day. Sadly the Third Sector has just become another money making scheme for the 1%.

Ugh. Spare us the pointless conspiratorial cynicism.

Whatever happened to doing charity work because you cared and want to make a difference? Sure it is about what you achieve rather than how little you spend, but I don't see how a big global charity's execs flying first class increases achievement?

I'm sure many of the tens of thousands of people who work for charities have some sense of caring and wanting to make a difference, including even (shock horror) the upper management. If you see a charity that you think is wasting donations, I'd suggest either applying to work there so you can change it (caring and wanting to make a difference) or giving to someone else.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Whatever happened to doing charity work because you cared and want to make a difference?

Because people are driven naturally and instinctively by personal gain/for their family.

It is this kind of attitude that makes charities suck, and reduces the amount of good social capital that is generated.

Do you dedicate your life to charity (and lower salary)?

 

[Judgeneo]

I think they said on sky news that the average salary was something like £55k for all registered charities.

As long as only the massive charities are getting the big salaries, then I don't have a problem with it.

Some of these charities are absolutely massive too. The american red cross turns over $3.2 Billion every year.

 

[Django x2]

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?

You think this is bad. I have a charity on the books that are about to shell out 250k on IT........

 

[icehot]

Sounds like exactly the sort of nonsense that led to enormous rewards for banking executives and CEOs while actual performance has decreased. "Hey guys, we always want to make sure we have a good CEO so let's make sure we're at the top of the league for executive pay, what could possibly go wrong then?".

I'm guessing this Dan Pallotta is exactly the sort of person who'll end up CEO of a charity one day. Sadly the Third Sector has just become another money making scheme for the 1%. Whatever happened to doing charity work because you cared and want to make a difference? Sure it is about what you achieve rather than how little you spend, but I don't see how a big global charity's execs flying first class increases achievement?

Like it or not, Charities are businesses and as recently stated by someone else, some of them are huge so will require well paid people who are highly skilled to manage and guide them.

To compare them to the financial industry is a little bit harsh......You really think someone at Oxfam is going to take a £1m bonus while their adverts showcase starving children in Africa? In which case, your contrast to the financial industry would still be off as actually they'd be a lot worse!

 

[scorza]

Like it or not, Charities are businesses and as recently stated by someone else, some of them are huge so will require well paid people who are highly skilled to manage and guide them.

To compare them to the financial industry is a little bit harsh......You really think someone at Oxfam is going to take a £1m bonus while their adverts showcase starving children in Africa? In which case, your contrast to the financial industry would still be off as actually they'd be a lot worse!

No a charity is not a business, it's a quite different entity though there are similarities I'll admit. Certainly I get the impression that charity execs see them as such.

Maybe I'm just bitter, but I don't think it's morally legitimate to be putting the hard sell on low and middle earners in this country to donate what tends to be a large percentage of their income and at the same time the people who run the charity (who are doubtless already rich) taking an ever increasing salary home with them.

Then you have all these third sector companies set up to service charities - chuggers, door-to-door salesmen, collections people who are businesses run for profit. I'm sure I read recently that after a recent donations drive by Cancer Research I think it was, for every £10 donated, only £1 was spent on actual research - the majority of the difference went to private companies. Now OK you might say, that's £1 that they might not have gone to research otherwise, but I wonder if they told the people donating that? I'm guessing not...

 

[estebanrey]

How much money did Oxfam take in last year? How much did it spend on admin and staff? Do you know? Do you care?

Not really because it's besides the point I was making. There is no excuse for any charity, no matter how well it's doing, to have the most expensive and impressive HQ on a business park it shares with multi-million pound companies.

The business park in question has around 20 sites on it, up until British Gas built their new building they were all the same with the exception of Oxfam's which is clearly a custom build. Even if they were giving a billion pound away a month they could still give more by basing themselves in cheaper offices.

When I was at college I was working at Burger King for £3.50 an hour, a friend in my class was working at Oxfam in a data entry role for £6 an hour. Biggest con going.