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?

ragged

Just will adjust your text - there is no contradiction.

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

Amazing how I manage to work in our local village that donates over 40,000 pounds to charity and don't pay a single person to organise anything. Maybe if everyone did their bit (but didn't consider it their job) then we could get rid of the waste.

Anyone working at a charity and taking a wage is simply taking away from the cause. If you can't donate your time for free, then get a job and donate to those who are willing to do so.

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

Harsh.....but fair.

To me 150k is shameful but also £50k is also low, somewhere in the middle is more reasonable. Like maybe 80k?

I mean, it's all buzzwords, strategic this and that but wtf do any high managers do? I am happy to be informed as I have no idea.

After reading this thread I am afraid I am also not going to donate to large charities.
I would be ashamed of myself earning that much, charity or any job unless I was an astronaut, top surgeon or something incredibly niche.

I went to work in the charity sector. I care about making a difference in that field, I can either work full time in it or do a few hours for free.

As it turns out, I hated it. So disillusioned. The charity I worked for had a significant amount in the bank and the interest alone had been paying for their charitable activity for years. We were fundraising essentially to pay an office full of staff, the accountant running me through the figures told me exactly that, and I could see the figures for myself.

The % of donations that go to the charitable activity is very important to me in deciding which charities to support. I support charities paying staff the going rate, but at the end of the day people generally don't donate expecting 70p in their £ to go to admin.

I am flabberghasted that somebody earning £150k+ has to ask on mumsnet if her salary is controversial to some

Ah, Pies, that would be you.

I have met anti FGM campaigner who have saved thousands of girls from being cut. Are you saying she deserves no pay? She was one of Time magazines 100 most powerful women, she has changed generations of ‘tradition’ and become a village elder. She devotes her life to the cause. Are you saying she shouldn’t have a wage to live on when she changes world?

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.

What makes you think salaries are "siphoning off"? If I donate money to the National Trust I expect them to pay a trained conservator to maintain the property and heritage. I don't want Joan from up the road, who used to be an accountant, being responsible for conservation work on a £1 million painting. I don't Barry, a retired car mechanic, suddenly becoming an expert on maintaining a building with rare bats in it. Stop thinking of staff costs as add ons and start realising that they are part and parcel of running a charity.

unless I was an astronaut

Genuinely interested- why do you think an astronaut deserves to be paid more than the CEO of say, Save the Children?

Anyone working at a charity and taking a wage is simply taking away from the cause. If you can't donate your time for free, then get a job and donate to those who are willing to do so.

I also volunteer for the charity I work for. There are not enough skilled people willing to work the hours required for free. My charity employs around 500 people to meet the demands of the service users. You are clearly very ignorant when it comes to charities.

Its great your village raises £40,000 a year.
My charity raises £160 million a year and £50 million of that is raised at local level by volunteers. It takes a lot of people a lot of time to raise that much money.
Your village donation is in no way comparable.

GleefulGlitch

As I said, I'm happy for charities to be national, but if having no wages for a CEO means local charities only then there is no reason not to think that each locality will setup its own charity - but charity should never be relied upon in any case.

If you decide to volunteer the same time each day, not sure I see the issue. You can leave a job at any time, so continuity is not guaranteed. Do you never go on holiday?

Maybe you need to consider different models. Closed minds are often a problem.

Overheads for my local foodbank are pretty impressive.

Rent for premises
Storage equipment
Vehicle hire
Fuel
Advertising, photocopying, printing, printer cartridges, IT equipment
Other stationery & equipment (such as collection buckets) that can wear out
Electricity, heating, Internet access, phone calls
Accounts that need auditing annually by a professional
Buying right food in right size packages to benefit their clientale

F-Banks can sometimes negotiate reduced rates, but mostly there are just lots of costs they have to fund using cold hard cash.

But hey, it's reasonable to pay for that stuff but HOW DARE they pay any staff. Especially staff with qualifications to keep accounts, risk assessments, competently use the IT equipment. People don't matter, I guess.

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?

The could distribute the huge excess profits, but they wouldn't. They never did before. Football has always generated large amounts of money, which went into the pockets of the owners whilst the players earned a normal wage. Now much of the money generated goes to the stars who draw in the crowds. That's a good thing. Just because the star is a 19 y/o black kid off the council estate, people get all sniffy about it. Well good for him I say. He's getting justly rewarded because he has a talent that generates a large income for his employers.

I think some people on this thread think that the the role of charities is to wander about (unpaid of course) throwing fistfuls of donor money at random needy people . 100% to beneficiary. yay me.

piesfortea you are really naive! 🏆
Business / charity needs stability. You achieve this by having the same people working for years not weeks!
Charities are bound to employment law, like any other business in this country.
There is, however an extra layer of scrutiny in the charity sector, it's called trustees.
Also, volunteers come and go more frequently than employees.
And lastly, my friend works as a nurse for a well known cancer charity, should she do the work for free?

@piesfortea Closed minds are often a problem.

I think your mind is so far open, your brains appear to have fallen out.

AtSea1979 the problem with that is if the movie stars and footballers didnt have the lure of high wages and the dream of the amazing lifestyle the top tier get, many would likely go into other more stable professions and thus the pool of top level talent would be siphoned off as the industry struggled to attract the same volume of people with the skills to draw in the big money crowds

GleefulGlitch

The money raised is infinitely more efficient. 20 people donating a few hours a year - and no leeches taking money away.

50m raised by volunteers is brilliant - just shows no payment is actually needed at all - lets get rid of the leeches!

Pies At least answer the points I raised properly.

What about the consistency for the vulnerable client? Serious mh issues and he is been dealt with by 5 different people?

The postcode lottery?
Aee you really so naive you think each city and town will raise the same amount and be able to offer the same support with no form of management?

You can leave a job at any time, so continuity is not guaranteed. Do you never go on holiday?

Yes I can leave but as a staff member my cases would be closed or prepped for passing to 1 other person not 4 other people same with annual leave.

My mind is very open yours however seems to have taken a vacation.

It depends on how successful the charity is. If OP was Camilla Brucewayneghelda then no, she’s worth nowt because Kid’s Company was a total fiasco. If it’s raking in money for a good cause and has a huge operation that’s another matter.

Closed minds are often a problem.

Pies, I say this in the nicest way but I think when we say charity you are thinking donkey sanctuary/ charity shop/ bake sale/ hospital transport / hospice piano player etc and the rest of us aren't. Can you try to jump the tracks and then we can have an actual debate?

Regarding the astronaut comment, I think they have to have academic excellence, military or other flying experience, they are one person expanding humanity's knowledge, and of course dying is a real possibility. Real heroes. So yeah, top salary to them!

Sinuhe

You don't need to consider employment laws if you don't have employees.

Yes - if working for a charity she should do it for free as an activity beyond her usual employment. If she isn't working for the charity, but is at arms length, then I can understand it is paying for the service. Running a charity on the other hand should be the voluntary.

dawglover exactly.

50m raised by volunteers is brilliant - just shows no payment is actually needed at all - lets get rid of the leeches!

They were able to raise it because we provided the merchandise. We organised the events. We provided the equipment. We advertised it. We promoted it. We negotiated cheaper event cosrs/transport freebies.
They very kindly gave their time.
However just their time would not raise £50 mil now would it?

soulrunner

I think you may be talking about the most disgusting 'organisations that believe they are businesses rather than charities - those who exploit people.

How much would someone managing a budge of £450,000,000 be expected to earn? What if they also managed 47,000 staff? What if that income did not come from donations? What if the Charity covered about 26 countries on 4 continents?

Should everyone from the reception staff to the CEO get paid the same? How would that work? How would you differentiate between grades of staff and encourage advancement?

Does it matter how many hours they work?

The level of naivety about what charities are is astounding. It’s not all local cat refuges and PTAs.