Charity bosses salaries

[MsChalloner]

AIBU to think charity bosses shouldn't earn more than the Prime Minister? She appears to earn about £150k. Am I being naive to think this?

Just charity bosses or anyone?

Yes. That is all charity bosses/ university chairs/ senior civil servants... (add anyone else this charge is directed at) will ever make. It is well known that for prime ministers and other cabinet members the pay they get while serving is nothing compared to what they’ll earn when they step down. Just have a look at how much David Cameron, George Osbourne, Tony Blair etc make now for speeches, board memberships, writing, consultancy....

If they don't offer the going rate they wont attract the best staff.

The thing is, they are running big enterprises and need the appropriate skill levels to be able to manage that. They cost money. The PM earns that whilst she's in office, but when she leaves will earn big bucks writing books/public speaking/NED positions etc. Many people earn more than the PM, it's more a vocation.

Charities need the best staff so have to offer competitive salaries. I don’t think 150k is that much, some earn a lot lot more

Working for a charity is a job like any other. People who work for them aren't volunteers and should be paid for their work at market rate. I wonder how much time the op gives to charities for free.

She who?

Footballers also earn more than the Prime Minister, some of them quite a bit more.

I am, essentially, a "charity boss". I lead a department of a non-profit organisation which turns over several times my salary and which performs several times more profitably than it did before I came into post. I've improved the efficiency of my department and facilitate the charity in providing better value for money in its client services. Social return on investment was £6.73 at last estimate.

I'm not sure why what I do should be measured against what the PM does. We do entirely different jobs. I do mine well, I'm sure she does hers well. If she'd like to earn what I do, she's welcome to interview for my job. If others think I shouldn't earn what I do, I'd invite them to spend a month doing it, look at the results, and get back to me.

I don't buy the "market rate" thing at all. No one at the Salvation Army earns over £100k and they are an enormous charity.

Big charities have become like businesses and so are paying business rate type salaries but about half of their funding comes from the government and then a massive whack of it goes straight into the board of directors pockets.

And those people are (on the whole) rich, white, privileged men. We've been brainwashed to think they somehow deserve it... and the tactics some of them use to extract another tenner a month from Doris at the end of the road have been described as "boiler house" in some investigative reporting.

There are plenty of people who work for under their market rate at charities because they believe in the virtue of the their cause. There would be plenty of people willing to take up ceo roles at the bigger charities for less than market rate if they were given the opportunity.

I don't know for sure but I'm pretty convinced they don't advertise those type of jobs on the open market anyway. Jobs for the boys.

"Charities need the best staff so have to offer competitive salaries."

But it's hard not to think that if the "talent pool" was forceably chiselled wider to encompass all the people only too willing and able to rise to the challenge the "competitive rates" would be lowered. How is it somehow ok for it to happen for workers lower down the wage chain but not for "professionals" who could just as easily be replaced?

I don’t think 150k is that much I swear I live on another planet to MN sometimes!

and then a massive whack of it goes straight into the board of directors pockets.

This just isn't true. It really isn't.

There are plenty of people who work for under their market rate at charities because they believe in the virtue of the their cause. There would be plenty of people willing to take up ceo roles at the bigger charities for less than market rate if they were given the opportunity.

Nor this. I already work for 'under my market rate' - I know exactly what I could earn and have earned in the private sector and exactly what paycut I'm taking to be doing a similar role in the third sector. The opportunities are advertised and, whilst there is a problem with director level roles being overwhelmingly white, male and middle class, this is a reflection on the wider situation in director-level roles across the board, and notch particular to the third sector.

I worked for a local, SE based (outside London) supported housing charity. The boss was on about 80k (nearly 10yrs ago) plus a damned good pension (comparatively high % employer contribution).

I'm not saying that's as big a salary as he could perhaps have made in the private sector, although I'm not sure he had the charisma, personality or drive to succeed in a more competitive business environment. But it was a very secure job, he's been doing it for nearly 2 decades. I think around 80k is pretty damned good!

I meant I don’t think 150k is that much for being CEO of a business with a multi-million pound turnover. Some charity bosses earn millions. Of course 150k is a very decent amount to earn in the scheme of things.

This comes up often and always pisses me off. How much do you think someone running a circa £20million pound business for instance with hundreds of staff and often high levels of risk should be paid? There’s not many charity bosses being paid more than £150,000 but yes there are a few and the salaries are related to the size and revenue of the organisation. We live in a society where salaries are generally based on how rarefied your skills are and how hard you’d be to replace, very few people have the skills and experience to run big organisations, they should be paid accordingly. Unless you’d prefer communism where everyone gets the same regardless of job? (And I say this as a Corbyn voter)

Also charity board directors aren’t allowed to be paid. It’s illegal.

All charity executive and non-executive jobs are advertised on the open market. I know because I’ve been on the side recruiting them. People really don’t know what they’re talking about.

Plus why shouldn’t people be paid what the market decides their skills are worth just because they do good in the world? Only selfish private sector jobs should pay well? Charities are running statutory services for local authorities, they’re providing education and care services. Organisations with this much potential fall out if they go wrong can’t be run by just anyone who wants to ‘give back’ no matter how much they care.

If they don't offer the going rate they wont attract the best staff.
Why doesn't this logic apply at the other end of the scale, for instance care home workers.

Well it depends on the charity doesn’t it? If it’s fundraising totals are in the tens of millions, they employ thousands of staff, they deal with international partners and lobby parliament etc then I’m afraid 40k isn’t going to really cut it, is it?

very few people have the skills and experience to run big organisations, they should be paid accordingly.

Given what's been happening at Oxfam I'm not sure the ones running the organisations have the skills and experience either.

I'm aware that's a low blow but most of the people doing these jobs aren't some sort of uber-professional... they are mostly pretty normal people who had the benefit of a good education, opportunities that aren't available to most people and worked their way up in a system skewed towards them.

And despite their salaries, serious atrocities happen under their watch. What's in the news now about Oxfam won't turn out to be an isolated case.

Borderline they are paid the going rate for that work, the going rate just isn’t very much. There’s also an element of sexism in salaries for caring roles - anything a woman would have done for free in the past, or in many cases still do for free in three home like childcare and elderly care, are seen as less valuable and no paid as much.

Also as I said before people in caring roles can be more easily repliced than those in senior executive roles.

I don't support charities that pay high salaries to their staff. I believe that if they are doing amazing work that they could find a talented altruistic retired manager to work with them for a while or to mentor someone less experienced. I don't care if they turn over " several!?" times their own salary or not.
A friend of mine couldn't find a part time job with suitable hours. On a separate note she started a charity that I supported generously. She became so busy with the charity she hired herself to work ( part time during school hours). So I was a bit , you just invented s job for yourself because you couldn't find one. Sort of impressed but I'm not paying for it anymore either.

@RNBrie you can't compare the Salvation Army to most other charities. The officers are ministers and don't actually recurve a wage at all- just a very modest personal allowance.

SlaneTaylor you clearly have no idea what’s involved in running huge charities with multi-million pound turnovers or what services many charities are actually providing. Very few pay their chief execs more than £120,000 ish... salaries are in line with size of business.