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’d hope that scientists researching a cure for cancer would be motivated by something other than money.

You may think you’re worth £150k but I think the volunteer who gives up their weekend to run activities for children with disabilities is worth so much more.

So there's an earthquake in some far off country. Hundreds are dead, thousands are without food or shelter, and disease is spreading. Millions of pounds have to be found. Vehicles, doctors, mobile hospitals, food, clothing and tents despatched to a far off country, and got to the place where they're needed, despite broken infrastructure and attempts by corrupt governemnt to hijack the stuff. Someone has to be overall responible for that happening and happening safely and efficiently NOW.

That person giving up their weekend to play with kids suddenly doesn't seem worth as much money as the CEO who has to ensure that the above occurs, right? Because if you don't agree I'm in danger of cracking my skull on the desk.

There are plenty of hard-working qualified people in the private sector, who don't even get close to making the amounts that the CEO's of some charities make. There are also a lot of hard-working, qualified volunteers in charity organisations.

If you pay people big money, you won't get more qualified people, you'll just get big names, with big heads and an even bigger sense of entitlement.

Don't believe me? Check out the monopoly experiment. People believe they deserve what they get, even if the people right next to them will never have a chance of earning the same no matter how hard they try.

Oh, and for the record. A lot of people working in and coordinating disaster relief are either military or volunteers themselves. Many high-paid CEO's hardly ever lset foot on the work-floor.

I think people are very naive if they think someone would take on the role of a large charity CEO for £50k. Why would they want the hassle? Charities have to be run properly. Many are running services, funding research, pushing for policy change etc. Some CEOs will be ultimately responsible for 1000s of staff and in the case of some charities budgets of millions. People seem to think staff should work for nothing in public services or charities. The world doesn’t work like that.

Tbh I’m surprised that , at such a professional level and pay, someone would be so thin skinned by their “girlfriends” group chat.

Surely you must have come up against far worse conflict at work?

I’d hope that scientists researching a cure for cancer would be motivated by something other than money.

They still have homes to pay for, families. They don’t even earn huge amounts, just slightly over going rate. Would you rather a lesser qualified person attempted to cure cancer because they couldn’t afford to take a pay cut for the job at a charity?

@Ginger1982
My sentiments exactly! I would love to have 150k plus hubbies freelance earnings to 'struggle' on

Oh, and for the record. A lot of people working in and coordinating disaster relief are either military or volunteers themselves. Many high-paid CEO's hardly ever lset foot on the work-floor.

The military get paid.
A CEO's job isn't to be out there. It's to be making sure that the people who can be some use on the ground get out there, with the back up, the equipment, the medication and everything else they need. And that fundraising keeps the charity equipped and able to be doing this stuff.
And that's all organised from the home country

I don't know why I'm bothering. People are determined to be stupid and cynical.

I think there is massive inequality in this country and worldwide between those at the top and those in the middle and bottom. This applies to CEOs, University VCs, Heads of Councils and other public sector organisations as well as large charities. I sincerely doubt that they add the value to their organisations they claim to and they need the people at the bottom too who earn a fraction of what they do.

Oh my god, some of the short sighted views and ignorance on this thread are staggering.

OP- YANBU.

I'm willing to bet that those clutching their pearls at someone earning a fair market rate for the enormous task of successfully managing a huge highly regulated organisation would be the exact same people who would be up in arms if a charity ended up in a mess as a result of recruiting lesser skilled management staff purely to 'save money'.

I agree with those who have said that the PM and other MPs should be better paid too.

Sorry, NOT non-partisan. I meant to say partisan!

I've been on a lot of small charity committees in last 15 years. All run well by the volunteers. Or at least honestly & earnestly.

The opportunities to run our groups badly, dishonestly, are many, though. Imagine how much more corrupt a large organisation could be. imho, to get good management, you need to pay good salaries.

"I went to uni for 5yrs so why shouldn't I get paid a good wage just because I want to help people. "

Because the money's coming from a charity. Same argument for public sector workers whose money comes from the taxpayer.

The PM and MPs are underpaid - I’ve heard it all now.

i'd quite happily pay a charity staff member £150k if they could bring in a million pounds in donations. That’s what they’re paid for.

Exactly this. Charities are still businesses, many of them global.

Why do people assume that the CEO should earn a pittance and wear sack cloths??

They're a CEO for a reason. They bring skills, connections, knowledge to run a big business, regardless of the fact that charities are a more "noble" business...

I agree with your friends. You are over paid. It is a charity not a huge for profit company.

youre not helping anyone. Youre creaming off the poor while running a successful business and conning people

Why do any volunteers want the hassel? It's still work and you are giving your time, skill and energy to a cause. I volunteer as well and I expect no pay.
I do have to prioritise my paid position, but that's a given. IF they need me fulltime, than I would need to be paid, but not exhorbeditant fees such a 150+k. That's ridiculous. I would just need enough to live off so I can do the work fulltime.

Who in the world needs 150+k to live off? That's just grabby.

Ignoring the comments that misrepresent what I’ve said entirely I think perhaps there needs to be greater transparency to the public about what the CEO does, his/her job roles and responsibilities and perhaps a ‘typical day in the life of’ stories.

I love my job, have not said once I’m struggling, not that I am dissatisfied with my current salary. I made a choice to take the lower paid job over the other so I can’t very well complain.

For those in sectors that pay far less for many of you (I appreciate not all) that is your choice and presumably you would have known the average salary for that profession.

I have the greatest of sympathy for those in poverty in the UK, the current situation is horrific and I’m working hard to try and narrow that gap even just marginally.

I’m disappointed with some of the personal attacks, there really was no need, I was simply asking a question, wouldn’t it be nice if women just supported other women? Gosh, wouldn’t that be wonderful?

@Pissedoffandbored
Women do support women, but not blindly! I would've said your salary was too high supposing you were a man - it's nothing to do with your gender.

If you pay charity staff a lower than private-sector wage either you get poorer candidates applying and working there or you get high staff turnover. Neither of these things helps charities make money (which, incidentally, most charities do more from grants and funds than individuals giving).

If you run on volunteers alone you do much much much less good. Because volunteers mostly have other, paid jobs.

The Dan Pallotta TED talk that @DonkeyHohtay referenced earlier explains it perfectly.

It's such a virtue signalling pile of crap to say that a charity CEO should accept a small salary by nature of what they do sector-wise. Yeah, your £2 donation in the bucket gives you the right to be a sanctimonious pearl clutching twat about how others work and live. Course it does

Oh, here we go - wouldn’t it be wonderful if women supported women. I do support women when I think they’re right but it’s not unconditional.

I would have to question what the charity actual draws in ?
How much of that this then passed on ?

If you are only paying the staff the bare minimum, that's disgusting
It should not be where the people are "sitting pretty at the top" while the hands on workers are not earning a decent wage?

@pissedoffandbored you say some charities pay a living wage,
what is the living wage for your staff at the lower end?

"Market rates" for charity CEO's? Seriously?

Even in the private sector this is inexcusable. That money always comes from somewhere.

Futhermore, large salaries have never prevented anyone from being corrupt. In fact, it's more likely to make you corrupt as you don't seem to have any problem being so grabby over the backs of others? What makes you so special that you should get to hoard all that money and wants appluase on top of that too?

Disgusting!