to think at last something has exposed this scandal

[Crumbledwalnuts]

massive amounts paid to charity executives

it's almost a scam

www.barnardos.org.uk/annual_review_ra_2012.pdf

page 32

Actually cat mint, not all charities are companies.

No, they aren't all, I agree. But the big ones referred to in the OP almost certainly are. They would be ridiculously foolish not to be!

I also hate the fact I read it but it stops me buying crap closer/ take a break/ hello etc .... its free on my phone/ tablet so I don't mind even though its crap

Most charities are NOT companies
and the audit requirements of teh SORP are not the same as the company ones - so there are double checks

astounding how ill informed many of the snipers are !

Looking at the Barnardos accounts (p32) - they employ 8401 staff, of which 3 earn > £100k? The number of staff and the range of activities indicate that they are a large and complex organisation, requiring sound and strong management - which comes at a cost! Noble idea, to stick someone earning £30K in there, but the chances are they would be ill-equipped for the role, and would jeopardise the whole operation - incidentally putting at risk all the accumulated funds and assets of the charity.

caster8 thank you. My phone doesn't want me to go beyond page 20. Checked on mac.

But your calculation is at best a blunt instrument. You said already that the lower paid shouldn't lose out. As by far the majority of staff are in the lowest, albeit wide, band, your idea would bring £100k-£150k at most. In terms off his cabrity's income, a drop in the ocean.

However, I agree, you could help some people with that. However, I still du dame tally disagree with the idea that simply by holding a paid position within a charity, you should be for ex to accept lower pay.

Martinspike I said that re risking funds a little earlier. Caster8 doesn't want to know.

I work for a large UK charity by the way. 1 in 4 people in the country use our services in their lifetime, and benefit from them. I am passionate about what my organisation does, very proud to do what I do.

The employees get paid a living wage. If we weren't, we would not be able to exchange our knowledge, skills and experience for our salaries at our organisation. We would have to find jobs in the private sector.

I would like to know why some people think that charity staff should martyr themselves to their cause and not expect to be renumerated for what they do?

This year I had a 1% pay rise, after a 3 year freeze. I am sorry if that offends anyone.

By the way, our amazing volunteers contribute approximately one hundred million pounds worth of value to society. But they don't come for free, they need training and managing.

All the charities in my national network of over 300 branches are required to be incorporated ( a company limited by guarantee).

catmint
which is all well and good, but do the people at the top really need the six figure salaries?
could they not live perfectly comfortably on , say, seven times the basic salary of the employees, ie around £80,000 (still a massive amount of money in real terms)

the whole "they could earn more" aregument is just bollocks : because if they could they would, but most of them cant, and those with ethics should be happy on 7 times the salary of their staff

The company requirement is often to maintain uniformity & many probably weren't originally incorporated. Non company charities can Incorporate, effectively set up up a new charitable company with identical or almost identical objects, wind up the old one (or for very boring legal reasons keep it as a subsidiary) & transfer the assets to the new company.

People get their knickers in a twist about this as they see it as the trustees shirking their obligations & that as a result they will play fast & loose with charitable funds.

Charity status really is a hot potato for people to get on their high horse about. Usually people with very little involvement in charitable activity.

The CEO of my charity doesn't earn a six figure salary, as far as I know.

However, I would feel that if she did, she bloody earns it for the value she provides. Giving regular evidence to government select committees, chairing various committees looking at issues related to our charitable objectives, campaigning on the issues that we work on, leading an organisation with 96% public recognition, setting the strategy in hugely complex and changing regulatory environment....

I don't know talkinpeace I generally agree. But they are required to be available for endless media junkets at the drop of a hat, therefore they often need to live or stay in or very near London. This changes things. It can also be very disruptive to their family lives.

They carry the can for a lot & they are usually I short term/fixed contracts of 5 years. They often move on to another similar position, but not always. Their earning potential needs to be evened out.

As I said earlier - jealousy from those that cannot earn anywhere near £100k is what seems to drive the sniping or " you don't need over £100k to live" comments.

How many of those complaining would have a different view if they could earn that sort of money.

Their earning potential needs to be evened out
sorry but that is just utter marketing hype by the agencies and apologists for executive pay

its the same with FTSE100 directors
and top bods at local councils

if they are good they waltz into another job
if they are not then they should get the heave ho
just the same as any other employee

Does anyone really need a six figure salary? Does the CEO of A retail company need one, while the majority of employees earn minimum wage, and have to work the beginning and end of the day without pay? And line the share holders pockets?

No.

Society is the shareholder in good charities, because of the function that they perform.

I cannot understand why charities are under attack, when they are so accountable for every action and every penny.

No idea where you 100k to 150k calculation comes from.
By my reckoning, even just taking the top 34 highest paid employees, and cutting their combined salaries by 10% would bring in over £250,000.

Ilovemyself
DH and I are both on FTE incomes in that band
but we are self employed - no work no pay
those facing no risk should not get that sort of money unless they can prove their individual worth for that

"why some people think that charity staff should martyr themselves to their cause"

Was that not just one person ?(I caught the drift of something about 10% reduction), and if was only to apply to a few at the top, on 80K+ think it might be a reasonable reduction, just as I agree with Talkinpeace on the 7x salary of lowest - it's hardly martyring, but might weed out some of the marketing and other people who may be on a cushy, less stressed, number but getting a private sector salary, and probably {through exposure of salaries many of us dream of} alienating many of the volunteers, and people who donate, when there are revelations about how much get's absorbed in administration and salaries. I suspect Barnardos is far from the 'norm' - the ones to look at are those with turnover below 5M where larger portions might be used in "admin".

Some of the 'campaigns' for funds are going into what I consider unethical territory, with expectations of people writing a will in favour of a charity, and "suggestions" as to monthly donations, not leaving it to the individual. Such things make people view charities (all charities, not just the worst offenders) with a lot of suspicion and could lead to a decline in funding. Sooner some charities wake up to this fact, the better things will be.

"But they are required to be available for endless media junkets at the drop of a hat, therefore they often need to live or stay in or very near London."

Charities could be the first to do some major cost-cutting and move to the Midlands or North West, North East, etc. Lower cost housing, lower rents on business locations. The media can be reached easily these days, and London is highly priced... The MPs should be next !

Catmint - if yours is the charity I think it is, wasn't there some concern that employees have very little or no pension provision ? (Sorry, bit off topic, but I remember something coming up about limited security/ benefits for staff, and it seemed so damned unfair, when I heard that on a radio report...)

I agree ( as a midlands based employee of a national charity) that many roles can be located more cheaply outside London.

Some roles have to be there, though.

Network, like many organisations, our pension provision had to change. But I am not aware of any particular problem specific to us at the moment.

I am intrigued which charity you think I work for!

Although, we are a large national network, made up of lots of independent charities, many of whom are battling to survive and pension liabilities are an issue for some.