to think at last something has exposed this scandal

[Crumbledwalnuts]

massive amounts paid to charity executives

it's almost a scam

Sunshine. Do they? Then how do they get beter rates on the high street?
[not a troll btw, do an advance search on me].

Lolly. I would indeed think twice or three times I am afraid now. As I now realise that there is no way most paid employees would do it. No siree.

Volunteers may as well get paid.
Particularly as HopALong said for example that even if paid salaries were dropped by 10%, that would be a drop in the ocean.

I can't answer for charity shops and uniform business rates, Caster. But they are not taxes.

The scandal is that charities now provide some services which were previously provided by central government.

There are clearly a mix of charities. Some could be acting fraudulently, some seem to be a licence to print money. Obviously those who are working for charities will see the positive side of what they are doing, but there have been some (unrelated to salary of CEO) real scandals (as highlighted on a BBC Radio 4 report within the last month).

Clearly a number of people here have worked or do work (or as accountants, audit accounts) for charities, but none can surely dismiss all criticisms, as there are bound to be some bad apples in among the 100,000 (someone else's figure) charities.

Hope they've been doing it for years. It's a way for government to save money (by paying peanuts for services / getting the money topped up by charities which isn't meant to happen) and keeping the services at arms length.

Network you're right about the mix of charities and the fact there are good and bad. I've worked for four charities in my career. I'll only ever support one of them again, financially or otherwise.

Oh FFS. Volunteers do fantastic work, I never said anything against them. But they do it in their free time, if they don't finish a bit of work or they can't go in for whatever reason or they get bored, then they can just walk away. Quite a lot of them to their paid jobs.

When you consider the outcomes(in terms of prevention ans associated costs) some charities are saving the UK millions and millions of b pounds. Helping millions of people. Most of us are doing it because we care, and we enjoy seeing the positive outcomes and feeling likey we've made a difference. There is a huge amount of responsibility in being in charge not least because you are holding the future of a charitable organisation in your hands but also because of all the people below you relying on you keeping the place afloat so we can pay our rents. Why shouldn't that get recognition?

The third sector already pays fuck all. If you took away 10% of my salary, it would not help the organisation at all, financially its nothing. It would dincentive me to do good work, in fact I would probably not be able to affordto conticontinue working there.
I honestly think you don't have a clue what kind of environment charities are trying to survive in at the minute.

My figure, the 100,000 plus. Of course there are good and bad. Many, many charity commission staff are reluctant todo ate any more, mainly those who worked in the Investigation Division.

There are too many charities. Many are vanity projects, where instead of setting up a new charity, they should've supported an existing one. The Charity Commission actively encourage & assist with mergers.

Many are hobby horses (think animal sanctuaries where the founder(s) conveniently live on site, the animals can't be left alone see? Nice big house, maintenance required. Fight the CC every step of the way to excuse or allow unnecessary work on the property.

Many are rife with nepotism & jobs for the boys. There are not enough staff at the CC to deal with all these problems. Nor have successive Charities Acts given the CC the teeth to deal with the effectively.

Religious charities often suffer hugely from infighting & cultural misu errata dings over what is acceptable u dee heartily law.

The list goes on & on.

What I would say is that such scandals very, very rarely rock large nationally recognised charities or the smaller ones with a well structured, committed, paid full time team on board.

Caster8 you sound just lovely. I maintain that you are wrong. (I choose to ignore your derogatory comment about my last post). You seem to be saying that paid staff should effectively 'donate' 10% of their salary to the charity. I fail to understand why. Have you considered that being a paid member of staff & being a volunteer are not mutually exclusive?

Looked up a charity somewhat at random.
Barnardos. Last years salaries paid were 128 million. 10% is £12.8 million. I wouldnt call that a drop in the ocean. HopALong might.
Nobody has to agree with me btw.
Seems like though that no one actually working in the charity sector agrees that charity workers should get less than the going rate.

10% of an 18k a year job could mean the difference between being able to balance life and having a rewarding job, and not being able to afford to work.

Should all charities be staffed entirely by volunteers? Can you not see that people are actually doing a job?

Barbados is a massive charity, most aret not that big. The services they provide are often vital, often life saving. If we do not pay people a decent wage to do these jobs, we are goit to end up in the shit.

You said earlier on that it should only be the top people who get a pay cut. Say you've got 10 people on £100 000, 10% of that is noy £12 million. That few million is going to all the mid and low cost level staff. So where do you want the cuts to be made?

Caster, charity workers are, in the main, getting much less than the going rate for their job equivalents in the private sector. I could have got twice as much elsewhere, but stayed because I believed in what I was doing.

I'm a Charity CEO and I get just above the national average. We'll not all highly paid - I had to fight for a one per cent pay rise for me and my three p/t staff/.

See my previous posts including the 16.03pm one.

Mini fingers. I am sure that making a stand against those wanting £100k is all very noble, but it simply means they don't get the best that is available.

It's all about the value for money that the person gives

I do think that there are some jealous people out there. Because they can't command £100k plus no one should.

But they do it in their free time, if they don't finish a bit of work or they can't go in for whatever reason or they get bored, then they can just walk away. Quite a lot of them to their paid jobs. In which case the charity for whom they are volunteering are quite frankly not very good. Volunteers nowadays are not fluffy people who 'pop in' when they feel like it - volunteer using orgs are trained in retaining and recruiting volunteers (or they should be) and the whole volunteering process is a lot more professional and efficient.

Sorry Caster8 could you link to your information. I've looked at the 2012 accounts & can't find this figure.

Thanks.

If I earnt any less money (or wasn't fortunate enough to have a DH who earns well) my income would have to be topped up with tax credits and other benefits. Can you not see that for a lot of charities, promoting fair working practices and paying a living wage is part of their ethos and sometimes governing rules? Would be bit ironic to havet a charity trying to promote the welfare of children and families that then didn't pay enough for people to live on.

eetracyluv some are so e aren't. Recruitment, training g & retention require organisation & funding. Volunteer coordinators are paid as it is a tricky & time consuming role.

Also, ultimately they can walk away as it is not what puts food on the table.

Right, but you have to pay someone to recruit, train and support good volunteers. And that costs money. It's a challenging job and that ia reflected in the pay!
Honestly we have had issues with retaining volunteers (not my area) and it is entirely due to not having the right person doing the job. If you want someone in the role you have to pay decent money. Still less than in the the private sector, but enough to make it a desirable and workable role. They then end up saving the organisation money by improvement in the quality and consistency of the volunteers.

Hopalong of course you're right.

This whole argument is based on an outdated notion of the amateur status of charities. The majority of people don't grasp the vital & vibrant role played by the third sector as a whole.

All true, I accept that - you should come on our courses v cheap and we've had great results Of course, on a serious note, I am in a position to know very well the problems org have with volunteers but the profile of them does need to change.

The issue is actually that "headhunters" and "remuneration committees" and "recruitment consultancies" all get paid a cut of the salaries they recommend
or are on each others committees
so they have a vested interest in telling each other that they are "global talent"
its all crap

the bods in the city are no better than any of the till wrekers - just better connected

NOBODY needs more than £100k to live on
and if more charities had principles about salary multiples the "executive pay" gravy train (across the board) could be stopped.

I work for a charity (SEN school), and yes, we are paid public funds to educate children for whom there is no other suitable provision. I'm paid reasonably well, although I could earn more in the private sector. I don't really see why I should give up 10% of my salary Caster8 - if we did this across the board, including teaching roles, we would not be able to attract the high calibre staff that enable us to do what we do so very well. Our staff are subject to the same employment taxes as elsewhere, and yes, we do benefit from no corporation tax, but we cannot reclaim our VAT.

Oh, and I also volunteer for another charity in my spare time (cub leader), and I don't feel undervalued in that role as I am not paid.

Sadly its not a lack of knowledge about how fantastic modern volunteers and volunteering programmes are, it's more a HR issue. Sigh. Is not my role though. I'm running a 10k and potentially a half marathon in my own time for my work, if that's not earning the 10% I don't know what else to do!

Charities are audited 'just like' companies, because they ARE companies, limited by guarantee.

They have to comply with SORP accountancy regs, and publish an annual report, including their accounts.

Enthusiastic amateurs are great, but not as CEOs IME.