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?

I think people are looking at it the wrong way. Look at the impact of x charity. Look at what is spent in total to achieve that. Work out cost per beneficiary. Decide if you think the cost is worth it. If yes, donate. If not, don't.

That said, I get charity donations aren't exactly rational. Non- vegetarians who donate to animal welfare charities perplex the fuck out of me, but there you go.

There's a huge gulf between people working for free and people taking home £150K

Why not have a policy where, say, the CEO shouldn't earn more than 4 or 5 times the lowest paid member of staff

You are coming from a defensive point, i feel we may meet in the middle somwhere, i'm attacking your overall point that your overall narrative that the charity sector is above criticism, there is a reason why there hasn't been a mass exodus at higher level during the previous decade of tory government

I have never said they are above criticism not once. I have said that the OPs wage is not unreasonable and she should not be attacked for it.
I have also said that all big charities post their financies on line so are transparent and open to criticism.
I also never mentioned the torys!

My post you quoted does not say anything about volunteers not getting paid which is what you have been accusing me of saying!! I clearly state staff not getting paid.

This is what you have accused me of saying it is a quote from your own post

I see how you have consistently ignored my quoted comments of yours re 'people apparently not wanting to pay volunteers'

Now this is what I actually said.

Those who CHOOSE to volunteer now think much need and required staff should not get paid at all.....I wonder how long a charity would exist and prvide that volunteer role if there were no staff to manage*

Where in my post do i talk about volunteers not getting paid???

Theworldisfullofgs as an aside, i totally get your point about the state but what would worry me there is that research would become policy driven and the we would miss out on vital research because it didnt fit a politicians agenda

So, I work for a private company that funds charities. If you work for a massive global charity, bring in multi millions (we fund up to £10 million and we insist on being only 1/3 largest donor) then yeah, I don’t think paying £150k+ is unreasonable. Don’t forget, the PM also lives rent free in Downing st and Chequers, has an awesome pension and walks out earning £50k+ for a speaking engagement.

There are some incredible people who could earn way more in private sector. Some come up with strategies that bring in millions. They should be rewarded accordingly. It pays in the long run to have good people who bring a far higher margin against their salary.

No Life the all who work for a charity should do so for free post wins it hands down

Let's not hand out the trophy yet Gleeful. New entries are coming in thick and fast.

I'm waiting for "anyone working for a famine relief charity should weight under 6st. It's disgusting that you should eat decent meals whilst working for a famine charity*

Tough one this. I see why it bothers people. But as someone who worked in private sector and am now in the public sector, I find the majority of people who express these opinions to me are basically fucking thieves. The sort of people who escaped jail last time round and for whom it is business as usual again...

Evyerone working at a charity should do so free of charge. If this means the charity sector changes to be small local charities, all the better. After all, we expect parish councillors to work for free, so should charity workers.

Have a think about this for a while. There are very few people who can give up substantial amounts of time for no money. Effectively then you'd be handing over the running of charities to a small and rather well-off section of society. You are also actually taking jobs away from people. I work in heritage. There are many roles currently done by volunteers - generally well-off retired people - that I could be paid to do. But instead, they do them for free and often not that well, whilst I earn next to nothing because I can't get work.

This means the sector I work in suffers because with the best will in the world, and for all they do brilliant work, volunteers generally don't work to the standards of trained and competent paid staff. It has a knock on effect throughout the economy because if fewer people are on decent salaries, they're not spending elsewhere. Charities need skilled staff if they're to do good work and those staff should be paid good wages.

The problem IMO is that the market really isn't resulting in fair wages being set. There's no way a footballer should be paid more in a week than others earn in a year. this isn't so much about CEO's of charities occasionally earning 150k a year. It's about an attitude that allows some people to think this isn't that much really and 50k is inadequate, whilst many intelligent and capable people are paid £25-30k per year for jobs that actually can be just as stressful.

@Belenus excellent post

This mean those that work for free would only do for a small period of time either for a day a week for a few weeks a year - not to be paid out of donation and subsidy by taxpayers.

I work with very vulnerable people. I can have an open case with them for several months. I spend many hours a week working with them and on behalf of them. Speaking with other professionals to help support them. I attend benefit tribunals which can go on for a few hours....what would we do swap shifts half way through?

Do you really think that this vulnerable person will receive good consistent support if he sees/speaks to 5 different people a week and 5 different people are all working on his case?

Not all charity work is manning a little shop a few hours a week you know.

Everyone working at a charity should do so free of charge.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time (beating off stiff competition in some MN threads).

If charities are expected to follow professional standards then they have to rely on... professionals.

ps: charities do pay taxes. They don't escape VAT on many goods, NI on employees' salaries and all sorts of other taxes.

Volunteers are also exactly that - volunteers. If they dint want to come in, they don't. They can leave early if they want to. They can pick and choose what they fancy doing. They can take extended tea breaks. They can treat their voluntary work as a social outing to chat with friends rather than actual work.

I like to think I'm a good, competent volunteer. But I still take all the school holidays off because it suits me.

Why not have a policy where, say, the CEO shouldn't earn more than 4 or 5 times the lowest paid member of staff

Because the lowest member of staff might be a minimum wage cleaner, or an 18 y/o apprentice in the accounts dept, whereas the CEO might be a highly skilled person in their 50s who is running a business that's turning over £500m and employs thousands of people. Some one whose personal contacts in big business means they can get large companies to donate millions to the charity.

That's why.

Life I honestly don't think we will beat that one.

Belenus

As indicated, its only organisations that one one hand work as businesses but then don't meet the general rules of business I think should be prevented from paying people.

No-one has to give up substantial time, but many people can give up some time.

How would you feel if I set up a charity and syphon off 70% of donations as a salary? 40% okay? 10%? 5%? No - if I ask people to donate, then I should donate my time to administer it.

A fair wage is whatever someone is willing to pay. But if you are in a taxpayer subsidised organisation, a fair wage is not market rate, but nothing until no subsidy is needed.

I agree allergictokiwi. I'm finishing up shortly after several terms working voluntarily for a not for profit organisation. I read the financial statements very diligently to try and see where our local fundraising efforts have been spent that HQ promote. The information isn't available. In the meanwhile, the Head is clocking up klms in her car instead of opting for cheaper domestic air travel, because she ''makes'' more if she claims the klms allowance instead.

I also will not donate to street/shopping centre collectors. There is an international charity who collect for various causes throughout the year, representing the poor. I have known more than one of them to skim off the small change as beer money for themselves.

So getting back to OP's question. I think you hit a raw nerve OP because folk cannot see transparency within charitable organisations.

Personally, if it were me and I had done what I was employed to do (get the organisation back on its feet) I would look for my next challenge that doesn't interfere with my private life as your occupation seems to on you, and request your current Governing Board to keep you on as a Board member instead. You have fulfilled your role.

ragged

Do charities pay all the same taxes as other 'businesses'. If not, then its a taxpayer subsidy - no-one should be taking from the charity other than at arms length services. They are taking valuable labour from other productive tasks in society - so should be 100% voluntary.

There's no way a footballer should be paid more in a week than others earn in a year.

If a top footballer brings in millions of pounds of extra revenue to his club, thru shirt sales, ticket sales, prize money because his skills mean they win trophies and do well in European competition, than I see no reason why they shouldn't earn a decent cut of that.

Is Tom Cruise worth £20m for a month's work on a film. If his name on the poster increases ticket sales by £30m, then yes.

Pies

Would you mibd address my points?

The post code lottery aspect of your local none staffed charities?

The points I raised about consistency of support and the fact that my clients are vulnerable so could they cope in your view with 5 different people involved with them every week or months?

The consistency of each clients case managements and grants provided? Would that work if 5 people manage the case?

The fact that I can work on 1 case for 3 hours 5 days a week so how would only volunteering a few hours a week work?

‘Everyone working at a charity should do so free of charge.’

On you go then, fill your boots! If you fancy managing a multi million pound budget, volunteers and workers scattered globally, often in highly risky war torn areas and refugee camps, and you are willing to put your neck on the line if any of those 1000’s of volunteers or workers turn out to be ‘bad’,

If you have former forensic police officers and journalists putting theirs lives on the line to stop illegal money coming out of Nigeria into drugs and ammunition’s, then sure, they can support their families on no money whilst being in danger of assassination.

If you are working for years in the world’s largest refugee camp in Rwanda, seeing sights no human should see, then sure, you don’t deserve pay.

Whoever said that charity workers don’t deserve pay is a fucking bellend.

Um... in UK, a good professor can pull down £60-£90k.
That's the level of research scientist working to "cure cancer" who ends up directing the research & getting the grants.

That proff will also be expected to pull in minimum grants of £200k/yr.
The £60-£90k Proff won't have half as much responsibility as a CEO of a charity employing hundreds of people will.

Senior USA professors are paid MORE than USA ones.

Oh, but silly me, I forgot all these profs are supposed to work "for free" since it's charity-funded research. Just like their junior scientist colleagues, the project managers, the contract staff, the payroll staff, the admin bods & even the cleaners who tidy their offices. What about someone called in to fix the air conditioning or the photocopier? Them too, should all donate their labour.

Maybe a barter system would satisfy some?

Do charities pay all the same taxes as other 'businesses'

Essentially yes. You could argue that charities don't pay corporation tax. However, since corporation tax is essentially a tax on the owners of the business, not on the business itself, it doesn't apply because charities are typically companies limited by guarantee and therefore dont have owners. Any "surpluses" can only be reinvested for the achievement of the mission and not distributed outside the charity.

Your friends are dickheads for being so judgemental. Plenty of people earn more that the PM, but do they know how much former PMs make in books, as guest speakers and interviews afterwards? I'm diverging, that's not the point!

Just because you work for a charity doesn't mean you should be living on the bread and water. I appreciate charity workers on the ground level often get little pay, and it shouldn't be like that. Everyone should be getting a living wage whether they are a cleaner or an engineer.

I am assuming you get a larger salary because you have a senior role that is specialised for e.g. head of marketing or executive director. These are usually very demanding roles and justify the pay. With out you the charity would not be where it is, and you enable the organisation to have a larger impact and help more people. Also without competitive salaries, how can charities recruit the best people? I think your friends are just jealous of your salary. If you were working in another company say for e.g. Tesco head of marketing I'm sure this role would also have a very good income so why would a charity not pay well to get the people they need. Tell your mates to f* off, nicely. Maybe time to re evaluate your friendships. If they could earn what you earn they would jump at the chance, they wouldn't say no pay me less because it's a charity.

How would you feel if I set up a charity and syphon off 70% of donations as a salary? 40% okay? 10%? 5%? No - if I ask people to donate, then I should donate my time to administer it.

If a charity is bringing in £500m a year, and is paying their CEO £150K, that's 0.03%. So you've kind of shot yourself in the foot with your daft figures.

If this thread was titled "Is it fair to pay a charity CEO just 0.03% of income", most people would have said "that's unfair, they should get much more than that."

Lifecraft but people would still go and watch the likes of Ronald and Tom Cruise films if all footballers and actors earned a normal wage. Yes the company would reap the profits but then they could distribute it more equally to the cinema kiosk guy and those current minimum wage people who also made the film happen because without them what have you actually got?