to have reservations about donating to a large charity's

[dhdjdbrjrkbr]

Nc for this.

I give to a few small charities that I've worked with. But I just always question when i give to very large charities as they mostly seem to be run like big businesses, who spend alot on top management, advertising and swanky offices.

Aibu and a total dick? I'm currently donating to friends sky dive and can't decide between 10 or 20. I'm looking at the charity's public information and a lot seems to be wasted and the money that is spent with this health charity mainly goes on treatment rather than prevention.

Their only concern is not money because they're taking jobs that pay well below the market rate! You can't seem to see beyond the figure of £100k.

From the FT

'The average basic salary for bosses of the largest UK companies was £583,291 in 2014, but the total package, including all variable components, was almost five times that, according to Grant Thornton’s annual corporate governance review.'

"Why should people who want to give to charity be supporting the expensive teenage children of a top level CEO?"

Because if they don't, the top talent will go to work for somebody else? Salaries aren't negatively determined by how meaningful the function of a company is (although sadly in a lot of sectors - nursing, for example - they seem to be).

And I'm glad you think my comment about salaries in London is hilarious, but seriously, if you have the talent and experience to "buy" yourself a nice standard of living in an expensive city by having a well-paying job, why should you take a LESS well-paying job? Charities can't operate on a parallel economy.

I suppose once upon a time, when religious orders took responsibility for a lot of national and overseas charity work, you could say that some charity DID work on a parallel economy because there were no salaries to consider if the workers and senior management were all nuns and priests, only basic living expenses, but it's not practical to expect people to take up that sort of work long term now.

I'm not hearing anything from you, heartisaspade, about your sense of responsibility to the people helped by charities, or about your understanding of the realities of how organisations operate. All I'm hearing form you is that you don't want to support organisations that work to make the world a better place because you don't want a percentage of your hard-earned money to be spent on the CEO's salary... because s/he ought to be willing to work for a lower salary. I think this demonstrates my earlier point about finding excuses not to give.

For those complaining about salaries, instead of donating to a charity why don't you offer to work for them either on a low wage or for free?

If the charity appeals enough to you to donate in the first then surely you would be happy to contribute more by reducing their salary costs.

Re: the nurse comparison - more realistic to apply it to vets as nurses are already on low wages. Anyone ever met a poor vet?

Feel like you do. I shop in charity shops and donate to them, give time and money to local pre school which is a charity and scrutinise any large charity. It does bagged cold callers that I need more info before I donate.

I don't think running like a business is necessarily bad but I like to see where my money is going and feel comfortable

I didn't say anything re the shaw trust I just thought anchor was a stupid example

A handful of people at a charity will be on that level of pay. Do you not wonder why? These are people who could walk out the door straight into another job and easily add 30% to their income, so it isn't in their interest to stay. Why do you think the charities keep them? They deliver value to the charities of many times their salaries. They bring in millions and help the charities ensure future income.

*baffle

I'm pretty sure that there are many people who could do more for charity. I, for example, could downsize, my children could share a bedroom, and I could give the extra money that would have gone on paying a bigger mortgage to charity. But I don't.

I have no objection to execs earning big money. I don't think anyone needs a six figure sum but then again, how low should they be willing to go to be charitable?

And I totally disagree with the statement about charity CEOs not saving lives like nurses and doctors. Do you think cancer treatment would have progressed as far as it has without someone overseeing fundraising to go into research and treatment?

OP YANBU to donate or choose not to donate to any charity of your choice. But your logic is fine for one removed from the situation. You don't seem to like that a lot of money is spent on treatment rather than prevention, but possibly someone who is suffering would like treatment, prevention is of no use to them. Maybe there is another charity somewhere or a private company or individual who is raising money for the search into prevention that you think would be more worthy.

If you want to donate, do. If you don't, don't.

Workfare is a total disgrace and I agree that charities have given it a veneer of worthiness that it does not deserve.

What point? I don't see a problem with senior charity staff earning £173k, as is clear from my posts.

What is the other point you want addressing? I'm not reading the blog, it's not a trustworthy source and I don't care what some random blogger thinks

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/problems-charity-sector-executive-pay-bosses

"Bearing in mind what we know about boardroom pay, what would you expect to be the annual salary for the chief executive officer of an organisation with a famous brand name, about 4,000 paid employees and an annual turnover of about half a billion pounds?

Let's assume, for good measure, that this chief executive has a first-class degree in chemical engineering from Cambridge and an MBA from Harvard. What is she or he worth? Are you thinking half a million? A million? More?

In fact the details above describe Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, who earns less than £220,000 per year. I will be the first to agree that this is a far from a miserly sum. It is what is commonly known as shitloads of dosh. On the other hand, it is less than the take-home pay of at least 40 local authority chief executives, and about a 20th of the pay of the equivalent boss in the private sector."

So at least 40 CEO's in local authorities earn more than this man. I find that even more outrageous!

He could earn 20 times his salary in the private sector - that does not strike me as being a particularly greedy man.

• FIVE times as much in the private sector, not 20 < slaps self >

Oh if you're referring to workfare (thanks suki) this thread isn't about that, but I find it adhorrent.

I often wonder whether people who complain about charities spending money on admin are people who want to find excuse for not giving, perhaps because they don't much care that we're living in a terribly unjust world, and that political solutions take time.

^
This. They're just trying to justify it to themselves. If you don't want to give to charity, then don't, but don't try and make out you have a moral stance against the work they do.

What it comes down to is this: By paying the salary they do, the charity brings in more revenue. End result is that the charity can do more than it could without these individuals.

Out of interest, what should a CEO of a charity earn? National average salary? £40k? £60k? £90k?

But heartisaspade what so you want me to say? You know I and others don't have a problem with large salaries to charity directors. We're not suggesting it doesn't happen