To feel outraged at my friends re charity salaries?

[Pissedoffandbored]

Have a group chat going with a load of my girlfriends. There have been some additions to the group chat this week, some I know well and others are just acquaintances. One girl I don’t know sent a link to published salaries for charities. Girl didn’t know I work for a National Charity in a senior position and slated the amount I earn saying people don’t deserve to earn more than PM. At this point I interjected making her aware of my position and she proceeded to have a go at me. I defended my position but most of my friends agreed I earned too much since I worked for a charity.

So AIBU to be pissed off? Also, is this the general consensus or are my mates just dick heads?

YANBU in the slightest.

It’s all about supply & demand.

Anthony wonder if we have the same MP? If so, hear, hear!

Pissedoffandbored “wouldn’t it be nice if women just supported other women? Gosh, wouldn’t that be wonderful?”
So you think women should support you receiving an obscenely high salary just because you are female!! Sexism of the highest order. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this alone!

Please tell us what charity you work for, so I can make sure I don’t donate to it?

I don’t have a lot but support 12 animal charities monthly. I would be most unhappy if a mega salary was paid.

Why? If a CEO getting £500K a year could use their skill on previous contacts to get big firms in the city to donate millions, thus more animals getting more help, why wouldn't you want that? Would having a CEO on £25K without those contacts to big firms make you happier, even though more animals would be suffering.

I really don't understand your mind set. Do you want to help animals, or don't you?

Why is OP reluctant to name the charity, when they get paid from the public purse? You should be ashamed of your lack of transparency.

YANBU. Ask your "friends" whether they would be prepared to donate two-thirds of their salary to charity, instead of pointing the finger at you.

Why would the OP give such personal identifying info such as her place of work to strangers on line?

Charities put their financial info on line every year...at least the big ones do not sure about small local ones.

Oops sorry that was to Takeme

TakemedowntoPotatoCity

“Why is OP reluctant to name the charity, when they get paid from the public purse? You should be ashamed of your lack of transparency.”

Surely it’s completely obvious why she won’t name the charity?

FWIW I agree with many others- pay peanuts get monkeys. You have to buy in skills

I once heard the phrase on here, "Mumsnet Economics." Basically describing the complete nonsense talked on this site re money (anyone on £30K+ is rich, if you spend £9K on a car you're a billionaire, another current thread, only millionaires can have a family holiday abroad.).

This thread is full of it. It's so depressing that so many have no idea about the realities of life and how the real world works.

If you want the best people to run large charities efficiently and ensure the most money gets to those who need it, you have to pay them well. If not, they won't work for you, they'll work somewhere else. No one is going to run a business with thousands of staff and a turnover on hundreds of millions for £25K a year. Or if they do, they'll fuck it up.

Why did she start the thread then? It would inevitably be outing when postered dived into it. That is why I talked about self glorification. It’s all about the OP and how wonderful she is. Perhaps it is the useless head of Oxfam? The one that did nothing about rogue workers demanding sex and removing unsuitable workers. Already a Dame: so honoured for being useless!

Is it outing?
Do you know which charity OP works for?

I read the thread differently probably because I work for a charity.
It gets wearing having to justify you wage to people simply because you work for a charity.
I do a damn good job, I work hard and I proud of what I do as I am sure the OP is. Why is that wrong to say so?

No one is going to run a business with thousands of staff and a turnover on hundreds of millions for £25K a year. Or if they do, they'll fuck it up

I see it as a calling in a way.
I don't believe for a minute that a role as the head of a global charity is not seen as an honour and a path to a knighthood, there would be plenty of takers, it's like during the banking crash in 2008, all the justification of appallingly high bonuses or the horribly high pay packets of eg CEO of PErsimmon Homes. If all you care about is money go and work for a planet despoiling oil company. But if you want respect and achievement take a cut for a charityl

25 K is not sensible btw.

Agree with Lifecraft

I think The general public have very little
Understanding of charities. They see charity and think oxfam or RSPCA.
Lots of profit making organisations have charitable arms, and all charities need to make a surplus to fund their capital investments. Lots of organisations people may not expect are registered charities- it simply means they have a charitable purpose ie house builders may have a charitable arm that builds shared ownership- the charitable purpose being helping someone to buy a home that couldn’t otherwise afford one.

You think the architects, builders, chartered surveyors etc will work for less for a charity? What about when charities need qualified accountants, legal advisors, treasury advisors? You think somehow they can hire these on the cheap? That an accountant who can earn £60k anywhere else (private or public sector) will somehow decide to work for a charity for £20k?

I mean, seriously?

There is only 1 CEO. There can be hundreds of senior support staff, and many of those will expect to earn high salaries. No point concentrating on the CEO.

I’m with your friends here - YABU. Charities should not be compared to private companies for very very obvious reasons.

@Passthecherrycoke many charities get free legal and financial advice and/or lower rates. Law and accounting firms are willing to do that for CSR and publicity purposes. The CEO of oxfam, a massive global charity, is paid less than the PM. there is no need for any other charities to be paying huge salaries particularly if they are funded by public donations. Many charities have been sunk by huge executive pay and final salary pensions. They are they to do good work, not to enrich private individuals.

Zsazsa again you’re just thinking of a small part of the charities sector. No decent size organisation could get a free finance service from an accountancy practise - I’m an accountant myself who has audited charities in the past and I have never seen this. Certainly we wouldn’t offer that level of support for free.

I think you’re thinking of a small charity that might need quick abbreviated accounts once a year and has an admin person to process paper invoices and write cheques. That’s a very very small charity and a small part of the charity sector.

My feelings on this are mixed. I do think if you do a good job you should be paid for it, but at the same time the inequality between wages is absolutely insane, and when additionally that amount is being earned by someone working for a charity it doesn't sit well with me at all.

No one is going to run a business with thousands of staff and a turnover on hundreds of millions for £25K a year. Or if they do, they'll fuck it up

I see it as a calling in a way.
I don't believe for a minute that a role as the head of a global charity is not seen as an honour and a path to a knighthood, there would be plenty of takers,

Complete tripe. Mumsnet economics at work again. There are not plenty of takers. No huge business would pay someone £200K a year when they could get someone with the same skill set for £25K a year. They can't get someone to do it for £25K a year. Or not someone who will do it well.

YADNBU Op.

To everyone who thinks CEOs of charities should be paid less... this happens because everything in the UK and other liberal economies operates within a marketplace. CEOs -whether they are running charities or businesses - are selling their skills in the same marketplace. It’s the market that decides footballers earn more than nurses. It’s the market that decides carers are only worth NMW while NHS chiefs are paid so much.

As long as we live within a market based economy, this will continue. The alternative would be for government to decide to set maximum salaries for specific roles, and to use some other yardstick (social value? rather than individual marketable skills?) ) to grade the worth of various jobs. At which point carers and nurses would probably earn more than footballers and Tv presenters.

Makes me piss myself laughing when I hear people say it is 'obscene' to pay charity workers decent salaries!!!!!

What the fuck are they supposed to live on - air? Or are we going on the logic of 'oh, you do a great thing and give back to your community, so we'll pay you really badly, because you should get all the remuneration you need from doing a great thing'?

FFS, how are you going to get skilled workers and retain them if you don't pay a decent salary? Why would you begrudge that when you give to a charity, why would you think that the money you donate will magically go to finding a cure for cancer, but fuck it, we won't pay the poor bastards actually trying to find the cure, or train the guidedogs, or rehabilitate wounded servicemen or risk life and limb to treat people in warzones - no fuck them, let them be paid peanuts because they work for a charity!!!

I work for a charity and earn 40% less than my DP who holds a similar job in the private sector, so I don't think charity workers are overpaid.

When I worked for a large, well known charity there were lots hierarchical layers in the organisation for it to run effectively. If the CEO didn't earn over £150k then the most junior members of staff would have been on less than NMW.