to think at last something has exposed this scandal

[Crumbledwalnuts]

massive amounts paid to charity executives

it's almost a scam

YABU

Good to know where the money goes that you are donating to.

Often small local charities, that help people in need in your local area, which others nationally will not have heard of,and therefore desperate for funds and do not spend much on admin and staff costs, may be a very good place to donate money to.

Quite clear that several people on this thread have no idea what they're talking about.

I've worked in the charity world for the past 15 years. I am paid to do this. I am also expected to generate 8 times my salary per year in donations. Charities need skilled staff and have to pay them accordingly in order to survive. Charities are audited.

If you want to see how much a charity spends on salaries, look at their annual report before donating. Nothing is hidden.

Without skilled fundraisers charities/services such as local hospices would close.

Oh and also, it's a common mistake to think that smaller charities are more efficient with donations than larger ones. The size of the charity has nothing to do with efficiency or value for money

Have a look at them I say.
Find out.

Surely you give money to a charity because you believe in and support the work it does? Well those ground results don't happen unless you've got some kind of admin support, marketing, finance admin etc in the background. You donate money to a charity to support them in their work and to further their cause. If you wanted every single penny you gave to go straight to the person they were helping, then you should give it to that person...

I work in the third sector and am paid pretty much peanuts. Not a stealth boast but I have the qualifications and experience to earn more elsewhere. I stay because I love my organisation, and I believe in the work we do. In terms of audits and transparency; we are audited every year, registered with the charities commission (with all the transparency that requires) and are accountable to our trustees. That seems like a fairly good, accountable system to me.

^^ What Hop and some others have said.

I worked in charity fundraising for over a decade. As a manager I was paid over £30k. However, my small team (3 of us) were responsible for raising over £5m p.a. and helping other fundraising teams.

We couldn't have raised that money (which, incidentally, went to the cause) without support from finance, admin, PR, training, leadership etc etc etc. All of which had to be paid for.

My department was audited by 'standard' financial auditors plus HMRC.

I should add that the charity sector is unlike others I've worked in, in many respects. One is that charities will help each other.

I've got lots of knowledge in a particular type of fundraising and was well-known in the industry. I've given free advice and support to other charities to help them raise more funds in this area, particularly smaller charities that can't afford to have paid-for training etc. This is not untypical - you'll often find paid charity staff volunteer for their own and other charities. Charity bods often help each other because we recognise that charities generally do good.

Not to mention that since there is no profit to go to share holders, money that doesn't go towards running costs/staff/materials and housekeeping, goes towards 'the cause', there is no skimming off of profits.

Saying that people who work for charity should be paid less, is essentially saying that their work has less value. That is very very sad.

Also to what Hopaling says, other than a pension there are no bonus schemes, health insurance share schemes or any other monetary perks working for a charity.
You get a salary and pension is it.

But HopALongOn. Some people, myself included, have and do volunteer for charities for many years.
So do I think that paid workers should get the going rate? Not necesarily, now you have mentioned it.

Had a look at a local charity I was talking about. Its head honcho appeared to get between £60k to £80k. Plenty I would have thought. And since many others appear to get over £100k, I will still support it. I tried looking at another local one, but they have not been going for that long.

Perhaps it is the volunteers that are the mugs?

My workplace has paid staff and also volunteers. Many staff members also volunteer for other third sector orgs. If you think that the service can be provided just as adequately with no paid staff, and just the support of volunteers, then I would urge you to give it a go yourself.

Volunteers are a very very valuable resource, but for many reasons, they just aren't as reliable as staff, they lack the level of dedication that comes with relying on an organisation to pay your bills rather than just doing it our of the goodness of your own heart.

With cuts left right and centre to local authority services and support that the government deems not important, the third sector is picking up a lot of slack and doing a shit load more work for a lot less money. So yes, I do think that people deserve decent pay for doing a potentially stressful, difficult, responsible job.

Of course it needs admin and paid employees. But I had assumed that the paid employees were also always mindful that they were working for a charity, and bore that in mind, salary wise. Appears not.

I am very mindful that I work for a charity. Mindful that if people stop giving money, I'll be out of a job.

How do you know that the highly paid staff members are not putting in dozens of extra hours each month, or not claiming all the expenses they should, or even donating their own money back. Most execs of charities that I know do so much in their own free time; fundraising, networking, profile raising, so much extra work. I think that's quite mindful. The pay reflects the difficulty of the job and the skills and experience needed. If you want an organisation to thrive, then you need the right people doing the right jobs.

I do think charity workers should be paid below the going rate. Say 10%. Because they are a charity.

"The pay reflects the difficulty of the job and the skills and experience needed?. Would you like to expand on that?

But why ?

Charities already do pay less. Running an organisation on an incredibly limited budget while ensuring you are producing good outcomes and meeting targets set by your funders and your board, all the while trying to be innovative, keep up to date with relevent legislation, comply with the charities commission, make sure your public profile is positive, and then all the area specific stuff depending on where you work. Not unlike running a major business but for much much much less money and no chance of a bonus. And you get paid less because? Sorry, but the number of people who are willing to take lower pay out of the goodness of their own heart because it is for charity is not that high. You are excluding a chunk of the population who just can't afford to take a job that pays less out of some moral obligation to work for free. Charities need enthusiastic, committed people to succeed as an organisation. You're asking a lot to then pay them less.

The above comment refers to any high level exec job. If the job is the same as in a big business (and arguably it's probably harder because of less funds and the constraints of working within the charity's set of morals and ethos) then why do people deserve less money? Am I 10% less valuable working for a charity? Should I work for 10% of my hours for free?

I think you are confusing being paid less salary with being worth less as a person?

The two are not connected in the slightest.

And I am pretty sure that if charity salaries were 10% less than the going rate [not say including cleaners and the very lowest paid staff], that there will still be more than enough aplicants for jobs.Good quality ones too.

No, you are saying that my work is of less value because of the organisation I work for. If I did essentially the same work elsewhere, it would be worth more money. That's just a strange thing. The work I do, by the very nature of it being a charity, is morally of more value. I'm not making money for anyone. I'm helping people, trying to make people's lives better and happier. But it's worth less in terms of money because we don't place any value on that. If my employer pays me less they are saying that the work I do is not as valuable. Can you see how that is odd?

There are very few highly paid people in this sector. That 10% is a drop in the ocean.

See, I knew you were not getting it.
No, I am not saying that your work is less value. Of course it is not.

And no, I dont think that a person who works for a charity, that the work is morally of more value. By that reckoning, are volunteers saints , or mugs?

And you think 10% is a drop in the ocean
Try saying that to all the people that pay donations. Oh, you already have to some.

Caster8 - if you pay less for the work, then you're automatically valuing it less. I do bookkeeping and accounts for a small charity. They pay me £x for that. So my work is valued at £x. What you're saying that I should be doing that work for £x-10%. Which makes my work worth £X-10%, which is a lesser value than £x.

As it happens my £x rate for the charity is a lot less than my rates for other businesses, and I give a lot of extra time because I believe in the work of the charity, but that is my choice (as I invoice them rather than them employing me) and the trustees are incredibly grateful that I'm saving them a hell of a lot of money. But that's besides the point.

Caster,
who are you suggesting gets paid 10% less? The top directors? The accounts staff?
Are you serious? Why would anyone who was very good at their job, then work for a charity?

They would work for a charity partly out of the goodness of their heart Oblomov - like the thousand of volunteers up and down the land.

But you are! At a base level, the value of work is defined in monetary terms. Ethically, there's a lot of muddy water over what is of more value, and how you measure it.

10% of one execs pay is not going to make a significant difference to the performance of the charity. It's just not. But it might make a significant difference to that person's performance in their role, and that in turn can make a massive difference to the charity. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys as the old saying goes.

We have very twisted views of what people's jobs are worth. Look at the number of carers on minimum wage, you can earn more in Tesco, who's entire purpose is to make money for shareholders. It's wrong.

charity bookkeeping and accounts is a pretty specialised area, and as with anything specialised, it costs more. That's why a finance director in a big charity will be on a reasonable salary. Because it reflects the value of their work to the charity and the cause. And good ones aren't thick on the ground, so there needs to be some attractions to the job.