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?

It feels wrong. Its suposed to be a not for profit business but you are making a lot of money out of it. Makes me wonder how many people create charities with that in mind I sincerely thought there was a limit and people in executive positions would be earning a lot less than on the private sector

YANBU.
Without you that charity would not have been turned around. They clearly valued your skills and expertise which was proven and made a difference. The charity is now making money for the cause it represents - what's so bad about that?

I'm also wondering if many of the posters on this thread are aware that charity trustees are unpaid and that the OP is an employee!

No, you should be paid what you are worth regardless of where you work, otherwise charities would struggle to get/keep hold of the best people.

I am far from "naive" about the charade of these massive "charities". They are businesses making money off of government subsidies, donatations and the backs of volunteers.
They are (too) large and "complex", because their "highly skilled" and overpaid CEOs have made it this way. The same way banks get away with sub-prime products and making trillions before they crash the economy yet again.

It allows you to be a grabby CF, while people who struggle for every penny or those who volunteer pat you on the back. Zero respect here and I decided years ago that I will only give to small, transparent and local charities who are mostly run by volunteers.

Btw, I mean every word of this.

We'll put CaptSkippy. People in these positions at as if they some super power that justifies them earning these massive salaries at expenses of everyone else. How can you justify earning more than the PM for running a charity?

@LolaSmiles It's crazy what passes as acceptable wage and terms and conditions now days.

Our role and responsibilities keep getting added to all the time so we have extra jobs to do but for no extra pay.
And it's angers me when I hear people
Say "oh but our charity pay the living wage"
Or "we pay above the living wage"
In Scotland the living wage is £9 per hour - my team are paid £9.02 per hour.
People struggle to survive on this wage and then take all the crap passed down to them. They are not paid for the first three days of being sick. And if you have been in your job under a year you get no sick pay at all!
I've seen staff get into massive debt as they broke their hand, couldn't do all their duties so were forced on to sick for 3 months. Survived on credit cards and loans. In a huge charity that deals with people and operate in different countries and not just the Uk they were told tough basically your not fit for work. At no point would they consider alternative duties for them.

I love my job and I do care about all the people we support but I feel totally undervalued and at times do wonder why I am still there.

Pay your CEO whatever you like but don't forget about the people who are at the bottom of the stack who contribute massively. Some staff I work With have to work in excess of 60 hours plus a week just to make enough money to get by. So talking about the fact you earn this much and get criticised was always going to open up sore wounds for people, it's usually the people earning peanuts and struggling to get by. I get it's a tough job but so is mine, a day off isn't a day off for me. I still have staff on the phone in a crisis or just needing advice.

I dont think yabu at all. There is a market value for your skill set, just as there is a market value for the skill set of those on the front line job. This also reflects the supply of people who are capable of providing those skills - though I would love to see those who don't perform ethically and efficiently identified and rooted out more often.

PPs are right, these are big businesses. They don't need my hard earned pennies, no doubt those with big salaries can more than make up for any lost donations.

So if it’s only companies that work off donations that shouldn’t pay their staff closer to market salaries then what we’re really saying is that the general public are pissed off by being asked to voluntarily contribute to a companies purpose and the general public somehow believe they have a right to dictate where their money goes, because they know better than the charity.

However as @Justanotherlurker says very eloquently, the real issue for scrutiny is that charities do not pay tax, and get many other forms of subsidy (council tax, partial exemption tax) and it’s for that reason that they should justify their charitable purpose.

And to be fair, they do, to the charities commission who know more than the general public and posters here about what constitutes a successful charity. You may not think they’re fit for purpose but that would require some understanding of their role

By the way the PM is totally irrelevant-
No one lives off that wage, supports their family etc... it’s simply a notional salary. No one has ever done that job because it’s the highest paid civil servant. And, the real money comes after of course

YANBU OP. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think employees of an organisation with a charitable purpose should earn less money than those of an organisation whose purpose is to make a profit.

Well if you want to use the broad brush approach, then if the ponzi scheme of dontations dry up a little during hard times, it isn't the CEO's and middle management that take a hit to wages, its the the people/area that they are set up to help gets hurt, in the private sector even thought the little people get shat on first at some point there it falls on the ceo/middle management.

Charities are so often overlooked when it comes to wage inequality etc because people within the field cry 'but we help people' and some fall for it.

Some could survive without the tax breaks they get and prove their charitable 'saintliness', whilst others should realise they under the wing of the goverments "soft power" area, especially because those who I meet who are high up in these areas are more politically militant

The OP is being pretty naive here. £150k is high even by charity standards. There won’t be many female CEOs paid that much, and she’s come on a site notorious for media coverage to complain about her pay. I pity a few media officers if the Mail decides to have fun with this.

But that’s the kind of judgement that earns the big bucks I guess.

For what it’s worth, charities should pay what’s necessary to get results. But I don’t agree that all charity ceos could go and earn more in the private sector. A lot really couldn’t and would massively miss the ego trip.

I don't necessarily have a problem with paying the market rate for staff. However, I do believe charities should be able to prove that person's worth (if they're in top management).

A charity's books should be scrutinised, their salaries should be questioned and top people should be brought to account if the charity seems to be a money pit. It's a charity after all and it's primary aim should be getting funds to the workers/victims/needy on the ground.

So YANBU to say a good person should be paid well but YABU if you think it's wrong for people to question or criticise. That's the general public's role - making sure you and your co-workers are doing the job properly and not just earning a very nice salary on the backs of donations.

50 k more than enough.

What the hell do people spend 150k on in a year?

I live fairly comfortably on 20k (that's brought in between 2 people, plus child)

I couldn't live with myself, taking that much out of the pot. I know you work hard OP but honestly - it rankles. I considered working for charity (volunteered a lot when younger for all sorts from shop floor to teaching abroad) but in the end the lower paid positions were not sustainable as a living wage, whilst the top people were paid (to me) unimaginable amounts. People have got used to living in a wealthy country. Monks and nuns often have a code of ethics including a vow of poverty.
As an 'extreme' example, nuns won't eat in cafes/restaurants as it is wasting money which could be used to help the poor. I have respect for that. A lot of what we consider 'necessary' is luxury.

I think charities should adopt this. If 'good' well qualified people are not willing to be paid less than this to work for a charity, they should look elsewhere.

Sorry OP, its not the answer you may have been hoping for.

Enough for everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.

I don’t donate to charities personally and this is part (but not all) of the reason. Many professional people work long hours, stressful jobs, and do not receive anywhere near that kind of money.

@ivartheboneless
You've hit the nail on the head.

Pay the CEOs an appropriate salary, but have checks and balances to ensure they're not screwing over the people at the bottom.

I feel the same about academy chains (MATs). There's a lot of new found CEO types who seem to command high salaries and lots of perks at a time when they're slashing support for vulnerable children, making support staff redundant and not awarding pay rises to front line staff. No doubt they sit at home patting themselves on the back for how great they are at running schools but they couldn't give a damn about the individuals schools, or the staff, or the students.
I'd read somewhere that larger MATs seem to have more management levels than the old LEAs, there's an increase in executive head posts (in addition to the normal head) and all seem to be on large salaries. I'm sure some would claim that 10 layers of management above head level are needed to run schools, but I'm not convinced. The money for their perks is coming from somewhere.

After Kids Company as well, I think people are right to question those at the top of apparently non-profit organisations and they should be open to much more scrutiny of pay and perks. If the pay is appropriate and those at all levels have appropriate sick pay, pensions, pay, security and the front line work is adequately resourced then there would be no issues.

For what it’s worth, charities should pay what’s necessary to get results. But I don’t agree that all charity ceos could go and earn more in the private sector.

That's the narrative though, if the job is deemed 'good', so charity, some teachers, some nurses etc etc could automatically walk out and earn more.

It's obviously true in some case, but not near as many as what MN suggest.

In the case of high earners in the charity sector it's usually a distraction technique that ignores them chasing a job in said sector because of the pay etc. It's hiding behind an emotional argument of we do good, look at the evil private sector and it so often comes through

^^ that doesn't apply to teachers and nurses etc, I used them as the MN mantra

I work in the charity sector and think it’s appalling you make that kind of money. What is the average salary at your organisation? I’m sure there are plenty of employees who are highly skilled and work just as hard and make peanuts, so that top management can have their fat cat salaries. Not to even mention the cost to the cause/ beneficiaries. You sound very entitled tbh.

Fuck me @vasillisa that’s the most bonkers thing I’ve ever heard. People who are employed by charities should take a vow of poverty?

I’ve employed 3 accountants from the charity sector- the Red Cross, British legion and action for children. Those charities paid them their going rate which was about £50/60k. That’s on the lower side, but charities do offer decent benefits and a better work life balance for these roles. They wouldn’t have worked for less, however their entire job is based around efficiencies and measuring financial performance. Without them in place the charity may find their financial performance considerably worse. Can people really not see how this works? You reckon volunteers or cheap accountants can set robust budgets, performance targets, forecasting, financial planning etc? These are highly skilled and qualified roles

What exactly is this super power you have? Talent don't make me heave. You completely disgust me and many others. Greed is a sin.

I wouldnt do my CEOs job. It is too much responsibility too much knowledge and experience needed. I think they are paid in my opinion a reflective wage.

Rest assured that not everyone working for charities are getting paid a lot. Even thought “a lot” is a very relative term, some of us are working our arses off and still earn less than our young grown up kids. It’s just the way it is. I could earn a lot more elsewhere but I like what I do and feel I’m making a difference

What exactly is this super power you have? Talent don't make me heave. You completely disgust me and many others. Greed is a sin.

Wow the bitter and uneducated are out in force

Dont anyone dare say they have made a positive difference in work. For christsake dont say you are successful either!!

I mean the OP could have taken a better paid job elsewhere but decided to take less pay and work for a charity where her skill and knowledge could prove a positive...and it seems it did. How is that being greedy?

Unlike previous posters, I'm certain there are people who would do just as good a job as the OP for £75,000. Maybe a little less.

I don't think she's worth every penny at all.