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?

Non-profit, is non-wealth generating, is one of the basic conditions for charitable status

I am not even sure of the point you are making.

Which is why their top brass’ ‘because I’m worth it’ attitude gets up my nose, and not only mine by the look of it

Charities get money to do their work. To save money elsewhere. To do good. If someone is capable of bringing in much more money than it costs to employ them, then that's a good thing. If that charity was unable to generate income effectively, but then got someone who could do the networking, had the contacts and the skills to generate income for the charity, that's a good thing.

All charities need income. Some charities are much better at generating income than others - for a whole range of reasons.

Non wealth generating means no profit/ shareholders funds. You’re misapplying the word

I volunteer for a charity that empowers children and young people to understand who to trust, what abuse is and what to do if something doesn’t feel right for them.

I am wealthy. I am middle class. I am well educated.
I was abused as a child.

I have no idea how much the people are paid who recruited me, who trained me and who support me.
I don’t really care because I believe so whole heartedly in the message that is being imparted.
I wish an organisation like this had volunteers and paid members of staff when I was a child because it would have changed my life.

I haven’t read the full thread but I think it is easy for some posters to forget the kind of front line, life changing work that some of these charities do.
By all means, put a price on a child’s safety and future happiness.

I haven’t read the full thread but I think it is easy for some posters to forget the kind of front line, life changing work that some of these charities do

This.

I wish some of the posters on here could spend a day with us, listen to some of the stories and understand what we do and the difference we make.

Private schools are charities - should the teaching staff not get paid? I’m sure they get paid more than state school teachers! 😯

Some make a difference. Others pretend, or get so convinced of their righteousness that nothing is too good for them. Kids’ Company is just the most obvious example. My work brings me into contact with a wide range of NGOs and there are relatively few that don’t come across as self-serving businesses in all but name and funding model.

I run a charity. We have no paid staff; we have raised quite a lot of money in coming up to 3 years; we are funding a scientist who will make a real difference.

We currently give 100p in every £ we raise to our cause, and that appeals to an awful lot of people.

I am under no illusions though that should we get much bigger (and I very much hope that we don't need to, that our scientist will find the magic key), we will have to start diverting some of the funds raised into expert advice. I think I said on about page 2, 5 or 10p in the £ I could live with; above that I start to question.

e are funding a scientist who will make a real difference

Are you funding the admin that that scientist needs? They need paying, their lab equipment needs ordering, their IT equipment needs maintaining? Do you worry about how much they spend on 'admin'?

chomalungma we are paying their salary for a year (very very highly qualified person); the support is being proved by an NHS charitable trust. And their ongoing salary will be provided by us and the same charitable trust on a sliding scale. We work with 7 of the world's leading neuro oncologists and neurosurgeons. We are in an incredibly fortunate position as a small, new charity. OTH if my best friend's daughter hadn't died because of the disease whose research we are funding (very little else available) then we'd be even more fortunate.

That's a lovely thing to do and it's great that charities exist that raise money simply to fund people to do such valuable work.

I work in 'the admin' side of a charity - but I hope that people don't get put off donating to us because of our admin costs. The money we raise is not spent on funding people like scientists to do such valuable work but is spent on us doing valuable work. I don't know if I count as an 'admin' cost or if I count as a part of the service delivery cost. I do know that my role is an essential part of the charity but according to some people on here, it may be an admin cost.

I think the point I am trying to make is that admin costs aren't as simple as they appear.

We currently give 100p in every £ we raise to our cause, and that appeals to an awful lot of people.

I presume this is a typo?

There is a reason why high wages have started to become highlighted in the third sector, and essentially it's a good thing some people hide behind some kind of shield of 'doing good' when it realistically becomes a murky pushing political view points.

It's a reason why 'charities' are starting to be looked at in more detail worldwide, hence the oxfam revelations, investagative media have cottoned on to some sectors

Yolofish: but the scientist is presumably paid?

People here seem to think that all charitable activity, including delivery (in your case the research child ducted by the scientist) should be done for free.

Anyway, good luck, I hope it is a success.

Every single penny in every single £ we raise goes to our cause (100p=£1). We have no salaries, no advertising, no overheads. If we need to pay for something we pay for it ourselves - and as none of us are loaded, we pay for as little as we possibly can.

Our supporters really approve of this ethos - and I am aware that it is a luxury in some ways, just because of how we are and the social media assets we have.

Yes, the scientist is paid; that's what we are currently funding, their salary. No one else is doing this research or at least to the level we have been able to do.

Short term: it will dramatically improve patient diagnosis and treatment (therefore better quality of life for longer); long term, of course we are hoping for a cure, but that's a huge thing. The disease is glioblastoma.

Charities don’t generate wealth. They wheedle it out of people ... so that the directors can have fancy perks.

Doesn't the Prince's Trust help young people set up their own businesses, amongst other things?

Lifecraft - most don’t do much wheedling. Eton, Kings Canterbury, Winchester all simply charge for pupils to attend.
The Bupa Foundation hands out money.
The Sainsbury’s Foundation Hans our money.
Multi academy trusts are centrally funded.

Most charities don’t have raffles or sponsored walks.

I work for a charity in an admin role. I took the position, because at the time I was unemployed (due to redundancy) & getting benefits to tie me over.
The pay was below market value for my skills and I was going to stay 18-24 mounts, before moving on. I could not sustain this low pay long term, but at the time it was what was available.
I was lucky, because 6 months into my employment, they re structured some departments and I was prompted into a role that matches my skills. The pay is a lot closer to other employers in my field, so for the time being I will stay put.
My role isn't something, someone would volunteer for as it takes a lot of time to do. Obviously, I could have volunteered for the charity while unemployed, but than once I found a job, I would have left. The same as I would have left if they hadn't recognized my skills and the fact that I am very good at my job.
I think anyone who wants to attract and keep people who are good at their jobs, needs to pay going market rate. Because people will move on if offered a better position.
I like everyone else, need an income. I need to pay my bills. I don't think I am greedy as some think. Not is it bad to have paid staff, because an employee is more reliable than a volunteer. And some things need to run smoothly, so the charity can fulfil its pledged role.

YOLO...that sounds very exciting. Sadly likely to be too late for my big brother who was diagnosed 18 months ago, has had 2 debulkings but Feb scan showed it had returned with a vengeance and he was given 3-6 months. Sorry to hijack thread but do you know if any further research is going into use of cannabis as a few people are trying to persuade him at the mo!

Belenus - why would anyone complain about your 24k job. People are complaining about the 150k jobs.

Gwenhwyfar, some people on this thread are of the opinion that no-one working for a charity should be paid.

Belenus - why would anyone complain about your 24k job. People are complaining about the 150k jobs

Because some people think anyone who gets paid doing a charity job is stealing from those people who donate, that we should all just volunteer and that people who do admin work for the charity - without which it couldn't function and who actually help people develop front line services - shouldn't actually have a job at all.

" some people on this thread are of the opinion that no-one working for a charity should be paid."

Well, that is silly. Even a charity that uses volunteers need a certain number of paid staff to be there at set hours.
However, I am sceptical about the huge salaries.

Yes, the scientist is paid; that's what we are currently funding, their salary. No one else is doing this research or at least to the level we have been able to do.

Plenty on this thread would argue the scientist should be contributing their time for free too, and that they're a disgusting immoral human being for taking a charity's money for themselves....

I manage a charity and think my salary is fair - although with similar responsibilities I would earn at least double in local authority/NHS and definitely more in private business
Many posters have no idea how charities run and the costs to ensure good governance, safeguarding, and financial accountability
Volunteers need training, support and supervision which all costs. I pay my volunteers expenses, give them a PAYG phone, pay insurance to protect them and our clients. There is a cost per user including volunteers for cloud based server system, casework management system etc
I could go on and on..........
We provide direct support services free of charge to vulnerable people - they are very happy with the support received and don’t question how we fund it
We are accountable to our funders and the charity commission
Sometimes I spend money to raise more money
Admin is not free, nor payroll, book keeping, reception, taking referrals over the phone etc. Whilst we have wonderful volunteers - they are volunteers and volunteer when it suits them eg not school holidays or not before 10am or after 4
I am also an unpaid director of a CIC, a trustee of another charity and volunteer in my very limited spare time (when I’m not being a carer for elderly parents)
If I wasn’t paid for my skills - the charity would have gone under years ago and then no one would get support
Strangely I also need to eat, pay my mortgage etc

This thread is an eye opener.
The argument that charities should be staffed entirely by volunteers or by people who will work for a fraction of their commercial rate are the same people who think websites should be advertising free. They ignore the overheads of running an organisation, even a not-for-profit one.

@JaceLancs agree entirely with you and similar other posters.