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?

Ylvamoon

I might know a lot more than you think, but just have a different outlook after leading significant organisations for many years. It's not hard btw.

Some people like to give, others like to take. Those working for charities as CEOs and fundraisers just like to take. I'd prefer a business with charity status not spend funds raising more funds - it's not about raising more money, but using the money raised effectively.

Or maybe Joan has been a supervisor for 40 years and can handle basic admin and management absolutely fine. I'm sure she can discuss the issue with the volunteer, investigate and call the police as easily as anyone else.

Nope Joan is a machinist I have already said that.
What if the volunteer turns nasty?
What if there is no actual evidence police cant do anything without evidence?
Can Joan stop a their volunteering even though she has no evidence but knows he did it?
What if the volunteer threatens to go to the local rag and expose the other volunteers and accusing them of bullying him?

How Joan handling this now?

It is about money raised though. The cost of the services charities like Marie curie, Macmillan, women's aid, mind etc provide is huge - into the millions and hundred millions because SO many need their services. Without skilled fundraisers, you don't get that amount in donations yearly - no volunteer based charity will make that kind of money.

I might know a lot more than you think, but just have a different outlook

Nah mate you know bugger a about how charities work that is very clear.

You dont even have a clue about GDPR ffs.

It's not hard btw.

I don't believe that anyone with real experience of "leading significant organisations" would actually say that. And if they did, I would assume that they had led them very poorly indeed.

GleefulGlitch

Arte you saying people should not be able to know how much of their donation is wasted in wages? If people only want 2% to go on admin, then the charity should operate accordingly.

I don't think any essential service should be provided by charities - like volunteers, they are flakey.

As I've said, it's not the service being paid that bothers me, but the admin. I get that you think it's essential, but I believe the people running (I,e, administering) the charity should do so voluntarily.

Essential services HAVE to be provided by charities because they no longer exist in government - you don't seem to be getting that.

As a skilled and very good fundraiser I should offer my service for free because 11p on a donation goes to my and my colleagues wage? Charities create jobs as well as give services to people they wouldn't be able to get other wise. It's a win win - except for you. I hope you never need to use a charities service for an essential service but if you do, maybe you'll see why charities need people like me.

Arte you saying people should not be able to know how much of their donation is wasted in wages? If people only want 2% to go on admin, then the charity should operate accordingly.

Nope. All big charities financial info is posted on line every year which includes staff wages.

However if the majority decide that only 2% should go on admin then despite an increase in need the charity will never be able to fulfil it leaving the most vulnerable without the support of a charity set up to help them.

People who can successfully manage £160 million in donations will not give that service for free. You can pretend they will in your la la land but in reality its not happening.

Why do you think Joan is having such a problem compared to Mary who has 1 week experience of paid charity work managing volunteers?

All your questions remain the same whether or not Joan or Mary is paid or not.

If Joan really can't handle a simple investigation, maybe choose someone else instead and let Joan do another role.

Oh and my wage is not a waste. The 2000 people I have supported in their most desperate times will I am sure agree with me.

HariboBrenshnio

Its not a win-win if I donated on the premise my donation went to the cause rather than fundraising.

Its not a win-win if the charity gets a subsidy from the state so that everyone is donating, but some people are skimming off this money.

It is inappropriate to not let donors choose how much should be paid to admin. The people funding the charity are equivalent to shareholders, and should directly select the model. If people want volunteers only, that's fine, if they want 2% that's also fine. It's not right to spend 11% if people don't think that's right at the time of donation.

Mary who has 1 week experience of paid charity work managing volunteers?

Mary would not be given that job.

The volunteer managers that are staff have years of experience and training. They also have the backing of clear company policies which detail how to handle such a situation. They also have support from the PR team to deal with publicity.
They because of company backing can pick and choose volunteers so theif bloke would be gone but not before an internal investigation is completed.

See poor Joan has none of that pesky stealing admin support but experienced skilled Mary does.

GleefulGlitch

It sounds like you are providing the charity cause rather than admin.

As repeatedly said, it's the admin side I have an issue with.

If Joan really can't handle a simple investigation, maybe choose someone else instead and let Joan do another role.

But Joans just a volunteer and with nobody organising this ( you said villages could organise themselves) who is vetting Joan's skill base?

Besides there is no one in charge to tell lovely Joan she cant do the role she wants is there?

And all i have listed are costed as admin.

See this is why you have got this so wrong because you dont have a clue.

What do you think admin costs are?

Can Joan not reads the policies now? I see we are wasting more money ion PR as well.

Maybe experienced Mary could work outside the charity and show her commitment 1 day a week by donating her time. But I realise, as a volunteer, suddenly all those skills at the city bank are lost as a volunteer as she walks through the door.

I just don't believe in big business charity - the people there are simply using people's donations to fund their own lifestyles, and in vernal without making people aware when they donate.

Do you not think that volunteers cannot orgnisise themselves and have skill. It's not just paid people who have organisational skill you know!

Believe it or not, many people who do this for a living outside charities are perfectly capable of donating their time to charities. The volunteers can always elect a chairman with the necessary skills.

Can Joan not reads the policies now? I see we are wasting more money ion PR as well.

Well you want no admin costs so who is writing those policies? Who is checking they are legal?
Yes PR is needed for many reasons which includes false and negative publications which can close a charity down.

Maybe experienced Mary could work outside the charity and show her commitment 1 day a week by donating her time. But I realise, as a volunteer, suddenly all those skills at the city bank are lost as a volunteer as she walks through the door.

Mary volunteers at the local food bank every Wednesday afternoon which is not the charity she works for. But then again you don't believe Mary should be paid at all as her role in the charity is admin.

I just don't believe in big business charity - the people there are simply using people's donations to fund their own lifestyles, and in vernal without making people aware when they donate.

You dont believe it because you dont understand the inner workings of a big charity. You have absolutely no clue and that is clear with every post.

Admin is anything that isn't directly providing the charity purpose, so in a research charity anything other than the researchers, in a care charity anything other than the care providers, in a food band anything other than the building and food.

Any management, accounting, fund raising, marketing, PR, legal, regulatory, policy, lobbying are all admin that should be provided by volunteers. Nothing here needs a specialist - but if specialists are available it helps.

No - I don't believe in it. You can tell yourself its because I don't understand, but that's not true. I don't believe in people's donations in state subsidised charity organisations being used outside directly the cause of the charity. I believe the creation and management of the charity should be done by volunteers who wish to make the charity a success, but that as part of that admin, they should not start dipping fingers into the till.

Do you not think that volunteers cannot orgnisise themselves and have skill. It's not just paid people who have organisational skill you know!

I know they cant once a charity reaches a certain size because the charity comission steps in snd rightly demands more policies more legal cover more account and more people who are accountable.

Believe it or not, many people who do this for a living outside charities are perfectly capable of donating their time to charities. The volunteers can always elect a chairman with the necessary skills.

And they do. My own charity has chairmen that are volunteers however all are retired so have a lot of free time and none are able to manage £50 million pounds, 100s of volunteers and all that comes with it.

Mary volunteers in the food bank, and another volunteer steals. Suddenly she can't cope, but a few hours earlier she could as she was being paid - not sure what happened to her.

they should not start dipping fingers into the till.

They dont.
You talk like they are thieves its pretty ignorant of you.
CEOs are paid a wage to do a job. Manage the charity and all that cones with it.
They were employed by the board of trustees who are all elected volunteers who also decided on the salaries.

The CEO has not decided to pay himself x amount ffs.

I dont have to tell myself you dont understand its clear you dont!!

What do you see as the admin costs you hate so much?

Mary volunteers in the food bank, and another volunteer steals. Suddenly she can't cope, but a few hours earlier she could as she was being paid - not sure what happened to her.

Why cant Mary cope? She has years of experience as its her daily job. Unlike Joan who is a machinist and as we established with no policies written no vetting process Joan can volunteer for whatever role she likes even if she cant do it.

Imagine the situation where as I described earlier we have delivered £40k of benefits each year as volunteers from fund-raising. It could be £4bn, it makes no difference. The 40k is spent providing food to people.

Next year, everyone involved decides to take a personal fee of £1000 for their efforts in organisation, marketing, managing the helpers, producing posters, managing the accounts, ensuring h&s is followed etc. This results in £20k now, as we've taken a wage of £20k between us.

The uproar would be huge - we'd be accused of stealing the charity money. It's really no different.