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?

A lot of people have already said what I wanted to say re salaries. You're competing with the private sector and even then offering a paycut based on their 'passion' for the job.

Something that's very obvious is that a lot of people think £40/50k is the holy grail of salaries and nobody should be earning more than that, no matter their responsibility. I earn about that and i left uni 6 years ago, I also manage projects with a budget of ~£1m and I would have no idea whatsoever how to manage a company/charity with a budget of above £5m. How many people decrying these supposedly high salaries would be able to provide the same ROI?

Just to add to BubblesBuddy post, as of September 2018 there were 168,186 charities registered in England and Wales

And the vast majority are micro charities - PTAs and the like where people definitely do not pay themselves anything. The number of charities who pay big salaries are tiny, and then they will have tons of volunteers to run things as well.

My local hospice is a charity who gets no public funding and has to raise £8m a year. They have hundreds of volunteers but if some of that goes to paying skilled palliative care nurses and doctors, and good HR people and admin then good on them. They are amazing.

azulmariposa so which charities have you specifically stopped donating too because you think the staff wages are too high? Who have you decided to give to instead?

I wont donate to any of the charities on that list, but the only two that ive donated to in the past regularly have been oxfam and amnesty. Admittedly I stopped because of corruption in other areas for those charities, but the fact I now know these salaries just makes me sick.

It's complete lunacy to compare the chief executive of M&S to that of a charity

Why. If they are both of a similar size, have a similar turnover, similar number of staff, similar number of premises, why don't they require people with similar skill sets to head them up.

The CEO of M&S will be under pressure to increase sales and profit margins. The CEO of a charity will be under pressure to increase donations, and the % of those hitting those for whom the charity exists.

They will both be answerable to the board.

If you want them both to be successful, I'm not seeing a big difference in the skills of the person you need to attract and the money you need to pay them.

Most people on MN hate rich people, they believe everyone should be equally poor.

And now we're getting to the heart of the matter. This is the underlying issue that clouds all MN debates about money.

Why does it make you sick?
Do you think those people that need the charity deserve only to be supported by unskilled staff with little experience?

Don't those receiving charity need the best support?

Those that work in this sector at the upper management levels should have years of experience and be very skilled so their pay should reflect that....it does in other jobs.

People see charity and think the staff should work for free or a pittance.

Without the management and skilled staff at my charity we would not be able to manage the following requirements.

Staff & volunteer training in GDPR, safeguarding, health and safety, manual handing, mental health, first aid, fire marshalls to name but a few.
The above are of great benefit to our clients as is IT structure, logistics, accessible spaces where clients can receive face to face support. 7 day a week manned telephone lines and on line chat. Marketing, fundraising, finance to pay grants/buy goods, HR, cooperate fundraisers, policy managers again to name but a few.

Each of the above means that the charity we provide to those that need it is of good quality , efficient, prompt and can continue for as long as required.

My charity raises over 100 million every year and managing that legally and fairly requires skilled experienced people.

Giving to charity is a choice.

Branleuse what is it about the work that the staff at Macmillan Cancer, the RSPCA, the Red Cross etc do that you wouldn't want to contribute to?

I completely understand that you may not want to cough up for Eton College or the City of Guilds London Institute, and in fairness they probably wouldn't ask you to anyway, but what is it about the other charities that you think is so bad that it would make you sick to contribute to them?

Some of these are massive charities with UK wide networks to organise and be responsible for. Do you not think that the CEO's of them deserve to be remunerated? How do you think the RSPCA can rescue animals without a massive network of people to do that? Who answers the phone when you call them with a concern about an animal? Who prosecutes those who have done awful things to animals? Who lobbies government to ensure hunting remains banned? etc etc etc.

Most of the charities in the top 100 are massive organisations doing good work up and down the country - why does the remuneration of their most senior members of staff make you sick?

It's complete lunacy to compare the chief executive of M&S to that of a charity

It is complete lunacy to assume that a £multi-million organisation with offices all over the world, very different arms of business (eg Oxfam would run development programmes, contribute to disaster management situations, publishes books, runs charity shops, has a Fairtrade business etc) and hundreds of staff could be run by someone on a low or non- existent salary. People with the experience, drive and commitment to manage that level of responsibility are normal people like the rest of us with children and mortgages. Never a truer word said than ‘pay peanuts, get monkeys’. People who work in the third sector accept massive pay cuts and a no-bonus situation compared with what they could earn in the private sector. I am not sure what else you expect?

I’m not convinced these people could command much higher salaries in the private sector. I’ve worked for a lot of chief executives in the public sector and there’s no way that the vast majority of them would ever get an equivalent job in a commercial organisation. Camila
Batmanghelidjh would never have got close to being chief exec in the private sector and she can’t be the only one.

I’ve confessed to being surprised that Oxfam pays its chief exec as little as £150k and I wonder why, using your argument @CanIleavenowplease, how they get away with paying a relatively low salary. It seems charities are fishing in a pretty limited pool.

Most people on MN hate rich people, they believe everyone should be equally poor.
I don't think so at all.
I don't think there is a 'most people on MN' view on money.

You've got people who think anything less than 3 months salary saved up is poor and financially vulnerable, who consider ability to pay private fees an essential preparation for having a baby, and people who openly talk about how they're struggling to get by because of crappy employment options.

The idea that people on MN hate people with money is ludicrous.

I don't have a problem with reasonable salaries IF a good job is being done AND the CEO looks after their staff.
I have an issue with top dogs in charities, academy chains etc paying themselves a lot when their front line workers are going without, when services are relying on good will and volunteers (beyond reasonable shifts e.g. telling unsuccessful applicants there is a 0.5 voluntary position but they couldn't possibly have 0.5 pay), when staff are dipping into their pocket to resource services, when those at the bottom are on zero hours contracts and no sick pay etc.
I don't have an issue with it due to hating people with money. I dislike it because I find it morally questionable to have such discrepancy in an organisation that could make things better for all workers but the those at the top choose to put themselves first and congratulae themselves on how they're amazing strategic thinkers who've brought in so much money, done x y z etc because it's all about them justifying to themselves why they are so much more deserving of their large pay packet whilst conveniently ignoring those who keep them there.

Nice friends!

Most of my working life I’ve worked in charities and not-for-profits. The pay has always been at least 25% lower than the private sector - for instance at a small-medium charity in the SE I worked at they advertised the CEO position at £55,000!

I think you get what you pay for - to attract the best candidates to run the charity as a self-funding enterprise you need high-calibre staff. As long as it’s not higher than the private sector and they have a proven track record of increasing revenue, I have no problem with senior staff receiving appropriate renumeration.

There are candidates that see lower salary = lower effort however and that’s a real problem for charities.

Everyone deserves to be paid what they are worth and bring to a job, but getting people to work for free and earning as a manager is very unfair especially in a charity seeing as people have been donating for years and things seem to be getting worse not better

I was a volunteer for the RSPCA 20 years ago. I raised several thousand pounds through various events and used a lot of time and my own petrol collecting clothes for the shop. The head office then spent £500,000 on new OAK office equipment. I stopped volunteering. Charities annoy me because people give their money hoping to help the cause not to pay fat cat wages

charities and the public sector have hugely complex environments to navigate, private sector business can be more straightforward.

on the CEO salary question, whilst people can choose not to give to a particular charity based on any criteria, only your peers can really say if you're worth the money or not Op and how hard it would be to recruit someone competent for less. I tend to think it would be impossible to find someone competent for what outsiders think charity sector CEOs ought to work for.

This is why I won't donate to large charities whilst people do work hard the larger a charity the more is spent on admin etc. It may only be a small percentage of the total donations but that still amounts to a lot of money that could be spent on need rather than running costs.

I feel the same about expensive ad campaigns etc too. It just does not sit right with me.

This is why I don't give money to charities anymore

www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-2019-top-earners-76-100/management/article/1579117

The private sector CEO's are over paid as well

I worked in Swindon for a while and the local rag was packed with irate letters about Oxfam spending however much Ona new office block when people were starving in Africa.

But before they moved into their new building they were operating out of about 6 suites of offices above shops and their staff spent most of their time walking between sites. It was hugely inefficient and wasteful. Moving to new offices built for purpose and with great things like a staff crèche was the right thing to do, but still attracted massive criticism from the crowd who think charities shouldn't spend money on themselves, ever.

And given the last few replies... fuck me some people are clueless. Clueless about how business runs,clueless about big charities and clueless about basic supply and demand economics.

I volunteer for a charity. My role requires 24 hours a day 7 days a week for more than a year at a time. The volunteering is done within my family environment and it also involves me to attend meetings, bring in money for the charity and also have my heart broken. I do it for the good of the people who benefit and whose lives would be unbearable without the assistance given.
I do so willingly and don’t ask for money.
What I would like in return is recognition, understanding and some basic rewards such as paid mileage, the odd service award and invite to attend some of the charity. Sadly this charity doesn’t do so but what’s I have noticed I recent months is how the paid staff in office support functions get this in addition to their salaries.
Since discovering this I have attempted to talk to the CEO (PA won’t allow me through) and HR (I had a one on one meeting with her, lovely lady but missed the point and then proceeded to ask me to attend another of their events to raise them money. Again no mileage considered.)
I am just in the process of having made the decision I will be winding down volunteering for the organisation.

If you take the salary please don’t forget the volunteers. In fact sing their praises that little bit higher.
You can only do things for so long as a volunteer but when you go under appreciated you start feeling like a mug and move on.
Please OP make sure you keep an eye out for all those who support your charity in a voluntary way

Jesus Christ what "skills" could you possibly have that are worth that much. You are taking the piss
I will never donate to charity again.

@pinkstripeycat that’s exactly what posters above are saying. Break it down- what does the RSPCA need in order to fulfill its charitable purpose?

-vets- should they work for far less than they would earn otherwise?

• shelter- should the landlords of their shelters give them reduced rents?
• rates- often councils do offer reduced business rates for charities, but should there be none?
• medicines- should the pharmaceutical companies give these out for free or reduced rates?

The fact is very few of the services the RSPCA need to buy in to deliver their mission are free or significantly cheaper than they otherwise would be. So why do you expect senior staff to work for less?

YANBU and I’m shocked at the naivety on here! Assuming we are talking about a significant organisation, unless you invest in people truly capable of running a global organisation and delivering sustainable growth in donation revenues you will be risking a lot more than the £100k difference between the low and a high salary. It’s a really tough gig and you need a specific individual to make it work. If they could find someone who could deliver for £50k they definitely would. However, they won’t be able to! Wake up people!!!

YABU. £150k is very rarely justified in any role. I have a senior position in healthcare with a lot of responsibility and earn less than a 3rd of that. I liaise a lot with the "business development unit" whos job seems to be mainly schmoozing commissioners and attending "events" whilst doing market intelligence. Stuff that can be learnt by anyone with moderate or above intelligence and interpersonal skills. A huge amount of business type jobs are overpaid IMO.