to think at last something has exposed this scandal

[Crumbledwalnuts]

massive amounts paid to charity executives

it's almost a scam

IShallWearMidnight. By that reckoning, the volunteers work is worth zero.

Charities are a massive scam IMO. The amount of massive salaries, lavish junkets and profligacy there is obscene. Very little of the donated money actually gets to the people in need.

I really want to go work for one of these charities with massive salaries, lavish junkets and great expenses. We had our heating on for restricted hours this winter because the bills eat into the money we have to go to service users.

the charity I work with is run entirely by volunteers - the next board meeting will be filled with writing, proof reading and designing the next magazine, and getting quotes from printers to see where more costs can be cut. I'll suggest they should be planning lavish junkets instead shall I?

TabithaStephens which charities specifically? Name one?
That massive sweeping statement makes me think you don't really know what you are talking about.

I also want to work for one one of these junket-driven charities. As it is, I work for a national charity that helps 4 million people a year, which will raise to five million soon. We have no government funding, and are reliant on the funds raised from the public to pay our salaries, as the funds we get from our corporate and public sector donors only pay for specific projects.

I could triple my salary working in the private sector, so I've already taken my pay-cut, thanks.

The public are donating less and less money to charities, big and small, every year, and are expected - as part of the coalitions "Big Society" initiative - to do more and more of the State's work with every month that passes.

And yet, people resent charities having to pay salaries. Charity workers donate to charities too, AND we're also tax payers. What people are suggesting here will end up with only the people who can afford to work for free filling up what can be vital roles in society. That's not a society I want to be a part of.

Yes, some charity execs get a high salary, our CEO works a minimum of 70 hours a week, over seven days, and is always, always promoting our cause. She's a marvel. Do I resent the fact that she's "highly paid" in the charity sector? Not for a moment, because her salary doesn't even come close to representing the amount of effort she puts in.

We couldn't run without volunteers, however, and we treat them extremely well. If the entire organisation was run by volunteers, however, we wouldn't run at all. And then what would happen to those four million people who rely on our services? I dread to think.

Caster8 - work done by volunteers doesn't have a monetary value (although it should be accounted for somewhere in the annual report), so isn't comparable to work done by paid employees.

Also what a lot of people seem to be forgetting (or don't know) is that the vast majority of charity Trustees (who are ultimately responsible for the charity) aren't paid, they're volunteers, just like the tin rattlers and envelope stuffers. It's the layer in the middle who are doing the day to day running of the charity who are getting paid.

I agree IShallWearMidnight as chairperson of a medium sized charity I can confirm none of the trustees including me receive any money for the work we do. We are volunteers only, restricted by our articles of association.
However, there are a small minority of charities out there not doing good work, I do come across them occasionally. IMHO their mistakes are to do with naivety and lack of experience rather than anything else more sinister. To tar all of us as scams as TabithsStephens has is insulting and ridiculous.

If volunteers work for just expenses, and charity Trustees dont get paid either, I really think that lots of the people in the middle should get paid 10% less that the going rate.

If I still was a volunteer for 2 major national children's charities, I would be looking up the pay of those who are paid employees. Why shouldnt I?
Volunteers "work" too. It should be comparable.

"By that reckoning, the volunteers work is worth zero."

Nope. I don't see the connection.

Accounting for charities and the not-for-profit sector is a specialist area. But, the base principals are very much the same, as for auditing any other company.

I am the CEO of a charity. I earn less than £100,000 but still a reasonable salary albeit roughly half of what the same job would get in the private sector.

My predecessor earned less than me and would probably meet all the requirements of those of you who do not want to see high salaries paid to charity execs. In my first year I have saved my charity substantially more than the difference in our salaries by cutting waste, improving income and just generally introducing proper business practices. My predecessor was unable to do this and there were many poor practices in place when I arrived. Running a charity, like any business, takes skill and experience. If you're to willing to pay for those it can end up costing far far more in other ways.

I disagree with Caster.
People who work for charities, have a job. It is still a job. They need to live and pay their mortgage, like anyone else.
10% is quite a lot. People who work for charities earning say 30k, would lose £250 per month. That's is a lot.

HopALong has been saying things like "If my employer pays me less they are saying that the work I do is not as valuable"

Hence me saying "By that reckoning, the volunteers work is worth zero".

Am beginning to think that people who are paid employees of a charity, think that their volunteers who do it for expenses only, are mugs. Because the same mentality does not go upwards much, does it?

Dont think I have got much more to say on the matter.

'If you're not willing' not 'If you're to willing '

eh?

Am beginning to think that people who are paid employees of a charity, think that their volunteers who do it for expenses only, are mugs

Where on earth do you get that from, you do seem to have a very strange mentality.

If you can afford to give your time to charity do it, that doesnt make you a mug, however some of us do have to work for a living. There is no way i could have donated 20 hours a week to the charity i worked for. I need the money to survive and also needed the time to spend bringing up my children. I was given the job because i had the experience they required in the accounts department. I can tell you that i was often working at 4am to get deadlines finished.
Now if you have the relative experience and and happy to donate 20 hours or 35 hours a week to work for a charity then its up to you, you are not a mug if you can afford to do that, but very few people are in the fortunate position to commit all their spare time to something like that.

Wow, just wow. Charities are like any other business. They require co ordination, strategic planning, good PR & marketing etc etc . The cost & time spent on these will be proportionate to the size of the business, just like in the profit sector.

Do you all think that the staff looking after your children at preschool should be paid less if that preschool is a charity, rather than a private one?

Should Oxfam endeavour to find a CEO who will work for say, £25k? They would be incredibly unlikely to have the right skills to run such a large business successfully. If they made poor choices they'd be lambasted for this & would ultimately lose charitable funds.

There is no scandal in paying a good member of staff, who applied openly for the job, a fair salary. People often have the wrong view of the role of charities IMO.

Incidentally charities are fully audited. Most larger ones (income over £50-£100k) are also companies and responsible to companies House & Charity Commission. Double accountability. There are over 100,000 registered charities, not to mention the many thousands of unregistered. The Charity Commission directs their resources to where they can make the biggest impact, be it financial or in terms of protecting the integrity of charity as a whole.

In my experience, those who feel disgruntled with charities &/or the charity commission have failed to have usually unrealistic expectations met.

(Not that I used to work in a senior role in the charity Commissionfor many years or anything. It has now been decimated by cuts, so awhile knows what they do now.

If charities are like ordinary businesses then they need to pay the same taxes and dont have any need for volunteers.

?

Except that they perform charitable objectives unlike entirely self serving businesses. What an odd comment.

babies, have you read the thread? Instead of the op and last comment?

Wish people wouldn't troll the charity threads.

Charities do pay the same taxes as other businesses Caster. Except, unlike other businesses, they can't claim back VAT.

Businesses pay taxes on profits, charities don't make profits. Charities pay NI, Business rates.
If volunteers don't like the way a Charity is run then don't volunteer for doit.

Look - the last 15 years of ridiculous executive pay rises fuelled by City bonuses in all industries have spread across to the charitable and public sector.

The head of the nearest Academy school earns 250K a year. There are over 1000 head teachers in the UK earning more than 100K a year.

The argument is - that's what talent costs these days, and that charities and the public sector need to compete with private firms for the very best people.

I personally think the public sector and the charitable sector should take a principled stand on this one and stop paying these sorts of salaries.