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?

Pies

You really should stop.

Its clear you have no clue what you are talking about.
Granted it maybe because in your little village nobody needs a support from a big charity and everyone is well paid and healthy. However you have zero knowledge on how national/worldwide charities need to run so maybe stop making such ridiculous claims.

GleefulGlitch

So it wasn't the volunteers then - make your mind up. Highly inefficient. Just 1,250 local villages could raise the same without anyone being paid and taking a cut.

piesfortea No, those really are charities. Schools, Universities, Hospitals- many are charities too.

How does a couple of hours a day, same time each day work when its an independent hospital doctor or nurse in a 6 hour surgery? Or a research scientist working in tandem with a team in Holland to develop a possible new drug?

These organisations need structure, skilled staff and management just to provide the services they do, never mind to work on the funding proposals and grants and donor management they rely on to pay for it.

CherryPavlova

Zero.

They should be a volunteers who have those skills needed. If not available reorganise.

Plenty of ex CEO's available with time on their hands.Quite normal to get involved in good causes.

Just 1,250 local villages could raise the same without anyone being paid and taking a cut

Probably fewer if one of them is Crumbs's village. She's even got her own donkey (no sanctuary needed).

So it wasn't the volunteers then - make your mind up. Highly inefficient. Just 1,250 local villages could raise the same without anyone being paid and taking a cut.

Of course it was because without them giving their time to raise the funds/take donations we would not have raised the £50 mil.

Ha ha ha christ you are goady or stupid.
Tell you what you organise 1250 villages free of charge to raise £50 million in a year and I will quit my job.

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

Are you suggesting that say Cancer Research UK should not have any employees?

We will have to differ. I suspect many people like me do not like people working directly for a charity taking a wage. They may need to pay for arms length services to implement the service directly, whether care or research, but management of the charity should Imo be volunteering.

I am absolutely fine for organisations to do all this good work if they pay, but not if they want a subsidy from. us all ax tax payers, and unless all people who donate are that donations may be paid to staff.

Big charities have been proven again and again to be unethical, and its because people are paid to be part of the organisation. When people give up their time for free, the people working for them show much greater commitment, and are not just taking from those who voluntarily give.

pies for tea You’re not serious surely? How many volunteers want to work a seventy hour week for free, every single week of the year? How many volunteers want to risk prosecution for breach’s of various pieces of legislation? How many volunteers want to or are able to manage a service with Seven UK offices and 18 foreign offices?

The lady that collects used newspapers for the cats refuge probably doesn’t have a huge understanding of corporate risk frameworks, legislation, financial assurance and governance, does she?

I think you’re being deliberately dense, no?

GleefulGlitch

Not at all - I'm suggesting that 1,250 villages can do this without someone 'organising' them. The organisation is the issue - it's just a job needed for scale, yet the scale isn't necessary.

IF we can do this charity work for free, then why can't you?

I suspect many people like me do not like people working directly for a charity taking a wage.

I can honestly say I don't believe there are many people like you.

I work for a large charity in their fundraising team. You just can't fundraise the amount of money we do, that supports people who desperately needs it, without spending SOME donations on paying skilled people to keep being able to fundraise. My charities puts 11p of every pound back into its fundraising, which includes wages.

I speak to the general public daily and I get asked at least daily if I'm paid. Well I have two kids to feed and house so yes, I get paid. It actually means my charity got a worker who turns up every day, puts in 100% and raises huge amounts. As wonderful as volunteers are, it's a flakey business at times.

I don't think £150k is much for an experience and skilled CEO if they are raising 10x their salary. With everything, you get out what you put in.

CherryPavlova

Why does someone need to work for 70 hours? Are you saying that part-time working does not work? Why not have 20 people donate 7 hours each, and accept that although there will be less efficiency in that role, it doesn't cost anything?

If its really a business, then just become a business - but equally, don't expect charity status advantages.

&Not at all - I'm suggesting that 1,250 villages can do this without someone 'organising' them. The organisation is the issue - it's just a job needed for scale, yet the scale isn't necessary*

So how will these villages know to raise funds?
How will the money reach the needy?
Who will organise bank accounts?
Who will ensure the charity commissions requirements are met?

Are you seriously saying 1250 will just randomly start fundraising 50million pounds with no organisation for the same charity?

It feels like were heading back to the Victorian age (or before) in more ways than one.

Everything done by volunteers. Or everything done by people who can afford to volunteer and therefore are rich enough to decide policy.

If we can do this charity work for free, then why can't you?

Because you're not doing charity work. You're fundraising. You literally have zero accountability and zero responsibility to anyone.

When people give up their time for free, the people working for them show much greater commitment, Based on what evidence?

When people give up their time for free, the people working for them show much greater commitment

They don't actually. And are often a hindrance.

piesfortea my friend is actually a direct employee of that charity. She is not offering a service, she is a trained nurse (If that's relevant). More importantly she needs employment to pay her way. No she can't afford to work for free. Because she needs to work full time, so no free time to give to a charity the kind of work she does. Especially if you factor DC & other family commitments in...
Think again. What about the person who does my friends pay role? Should that be done by an untrained volunteer?

Why not have 20 people donate 7 hours each, and accept that although there will be less efficiency in that role, it doesn't cost anything?

Do you think it is a good charity that gives support to John who has a substance abuse issue poor mh and is at risk of eviction 20 different people to work with?

Volunteers just don't have the same commitment. I'm sorry, but they don't. They aren't accountable because their time is free so If they don't fancy it one day or something else comes up they'd rather do, they are totally within their right not to turn up. Charities with commitments and services just can't work that way. The fundraising side may be able to happen with more volunteers but the rest just can't.

Pies, you are literally talking out of your pie hole.

As someone who works with hundreds of charities, from tiny to multi-million/multi national, take it from me me, you are chatting grade A shite.

By the way, are you happy to give up 100%of your time, 5-6 days a week, up to 12 hours a day, in the full glare of the global media, managing a multi million pound budget and thousands of people, for free? If the answer is no, then that is why we need to pay for good people, so vulnerable people don’t suffer at the hands of inept people who have no clue what they are dong (on a part time basis), This isn’t you local round table we are discussing.

Can a lay person volunteer organise curing cancer then? All the qualified oncologists would be off having real jobs with real wages? You cannot expect highly qualified people to work for free, all day long, with no provision to pay for their home. This is not the same as Maud who knits hats for abandoned kittens, the specialism is different and that comes with a cost for paying for decent people.

When I give money to charity, I want it to go to help people in need and not to pay the salary of someone who's several times better off than I am.

20 people project managing a clinical trial with just 2 hours a week. Get real, cancer will have killed us all before you get past transitional phase.

Maud who knits hats for abandoned kittens

😂🤣😂

Sorry for the emjois poster who hates me using them but that comment did make me laugh.