|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Charity Bosses
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Perhaps I am unduly naive. But the Telegraph has reported the income of the Charity bosses of many agencies and followed it up by a list of bonuses paid to them over and above salary. "Performance related".
My naivety is that I cant see the motivation behind these large sums and bonuses given the nature of their work. I would have thought that charity work, as with the ministry of the Church, is not done because of the renumeration plus perks. By all means pay a living wage and not peanuts. There is a difference between paying 60K and 120K.
But I should know better given experience. When I was in Zimbabwe a fellow minister resigned to work for a charity which shall be nameless. He thereafter travelled the globe business class and and moved to live in a mansion. So perhaps charity work should be classed as a 'business' and not regarded as a 'vocation'.
Its a false distinction IMO. Ministers and Church workers should be no less professional in their insistence on standards and first class services offered as in the world of business. Nor do I believe that 'vocation' should ever be an excuse for effectively exploiting people for their caring concern.
But to pay charity bosses the 'going rate' and to incentivise them with bonuses in order to get best quality outcomes goes against the grain.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I used - as a sweet little misty eyed person - to think that charity bosses should be paid little and work out of love. These days I take a more practical point of view - you pay what you have to pay to get the person you need in order to do the job well, because that person will add enough value to the organisation that they are worth every penny when it comes to objectives. But you keep an eagle eye on them and make sure that they're worth it.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The highest paid executive at Which (the Consumer's Association) got £300,000 in the 2010-2011 year.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
To be at that kind of level, you've probably worked in the non-charity sector for a long time, on a commensurate salary, and you have the big house, family, lifestyle etc. You're much more likely to offer your services and skills to the charity in return for a cut that still lets you keep the house, lifestyle etc than if you're expected to chuck the whole lot in and work for peanuts. You may even be willing to chuck everything in - but the partner? The kids? "Gee, thanks, Dad," they'll be saying.
So you pay them. But as the plesiosaurian one rightly says, you also keep an eye on them.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
...you pay what you have to pay to get the person you need in order to do the job well, because that person will add enough value to the organisation that they are worth every penny when it comes to objectives. But you keep an eagle eye on them and make sure that they're worth it.
I'd agree with this. There is certainly an element of altruism in the charity sector but in many regards a job is a job. As long as you believe in the basic worth of what you do, I'm not sure it makes much difference whether you work in the not-for-profit, private or public sector.
If charities paid far lower wages than for equivalent private / public sector roles, then I suspect most charities would find it difficult to recruit talented people. However, charities in England and Wales are obliged to act in their own best interests, so I suppose if anyone seriously thought paying so-and-so senior manager £150,000 (or whatever) per year was not a good use of that charity's resources then they could complain to the Charity Commission. Or, of course, just boycott the charity and tell them why. That might work if enough people did it!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
For those in the United States who are interested in the salaries and deferred compensation of those at the top of any 501(c)3, I invited you to check out its most recent I-990 form, served up as a pdf.
It can take some page-turning to get to the juicy bits, but this Internal Revenue Service form will yield assets, revenue, expenses, salaries, and often to whom grants were written for granting charities.
The I-990 is available from GuideStar with a relatively painless free registration. (Or you can pick one up at BugMeNot.)
Please put me on record at being appalled at the multimillion dollar annual compensation offered to the chief officers of America's local research hospitals, putative charities. The UK salaries complained of above are just chump change when held next to that paid to American charity hospital executives.
[ 08. August 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I have found the recent news about the pay scales at Goodwill Industries disturbing. So much so that I'm not sure I'm still willing to shop at Goodwill (and I have been a regular customer of theirs).
As I understood it, the original intent of the law that allows them to pay subminimum wages to disabled workers was to allow people with severe disabilities, people who had to be looked after full time, to earn a little bit of pocket money. I remember my dad telling me about a severely disabled man who did some sweeping at a company where he worked. The man took several hours to do what anyone else could have done in 15 minutes. But he was delighted with his job. He had no understanding at all of how his wage or his work compared to anyone else's. And the money wasn't used for his support. He bought himself candy and other little treats with it. The company felt, rightly, I think, that allowing him the job was an act of charity.
What Goodwill is doing seems fundamentally different to me. It's using the same law. But they're hiring people who can live independently. Of course some of their workers can't do as much as typical folks -- that's why they're working at a charity shop. And I'm happy to shop there, knowing that my purchases are, in part, a contribution to their wages.
Or, I was happy, when I thought that my purchases were a contribution to their wages. Knowing that my purchases allow Goodwill to pay them a pittance, and their CEO three quarters of a million dollars -- that doesn't make me so happy.
I don't think the CEO needs to be paid a starvation salary. He needs to make a decent salary. But the CEO of Costco, which is a highly profitable company, makes about half what the CEO of Goodwill makes. So I don't think one can argue that it's necessary to pay such high wages to get and keep a first-rate CEO. I'd rather see the money go to the workers.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I used - as a sweet little misty eyed person - to think that charity bosses should be paid little and work out of love. These days I take a more practical point of view - you pay what you have to pay to get the person you need in order to do the job well, because that person will add enough value to the organisation that they are worth every penny when it comes to objectives. But you keep an eagle eye on them and make sure that they're worth it.
Is there any real evidence that a single individual makes that much of a difference?
(And that's before invoking the Peter Principle...)
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
The core problem, IMHO, is that the pay of executives has grown far to much in the last 20-30 years. So an executive coming from the non-Charity sector might well have been used to pay which is far beyond what they should have been paid. Thus they get tied into a life-style beyond what they should have anyway. Also, people develop a sense of entitlement to that high pay and the lifestyle which it brings.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Clearly, from the replies above, the crucial issue is the values, motivation etc of the CEO.
I would expect that persons applying for charity positions are motivated more by 'gospel values' ( the values Jesus described as Kingdom of God values) than by the mercenary and pecuniary values of the commercial sector.
I also suspect that if a high quality person applied for a top job in the charity sector and said that he/she would do it for less than the going commercial rate his application would be sidelined on the grounds of "too good to be true" or there would be huge suspicion as to his/her effectiveness.
Was it Christian Aid or Oxfam that coined the phrase "live more simply that others may simply live"? I would hope that high flyers in the charity sector might abide by that. Rather than insist on the 'lifestyle' to which they have become accustomed in the competitive business environment.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
One issue I've heard mentioned in the recent reporting is the idea that high-earning charity CEOs should waive some of their salary in order to help out their organisation. All very laudable, but it screws up the budgeting no end - what you really need, I think, is for everyone to receive their salary in full but then to donate some of it back to the charity. That way, the costs of employing all the staff are clear to see and the fundraising people know what's needed in order to balance things out.
(You can also get Gift Aid on most donations, which works out really well for donations from people in the higher tax band IIRC.)
I think this point came up here the other week in the context of paying priests etc., didn't it? Exactly the same issue ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
It seems to me that if you put the assumptions of business philosophy* with a charity. You get really, really ugly answers.
At the point of parody Cancer charities would fear (and be right to covertly oppose) a cure for cancer. (well, practically there's other hills and the reputation from success, so I don't think it's likely yet).
At the almost certainly happening level, the appearance becomes reality (fraud charities have been prosecuted).
So that suggests something's wrong, with an assumption. (Personally I suspect part of the problem is the business philosophy is anti christian**)
*I'm not quite sure what the right word is, ethics isn't quite right.
**
also anti-(jewish, ..., sec-humanist...) which is relevant and irrelevant at the same time.
but
(a) other Christian's disagree,
(b) and anyway why should X be held to Christian values.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I'm with Josephine - the real issue is what other employees are being paid. And if you didn't follow her link, please do. It's appalling.
The claim that you have to pay so much to get talent is over-used, I think, and it's been used to push CEO salaries higher and higher in the business world. Has anyone done any studies or analysis to show just how much value is added to a corporation, charity or not, with each additional 10 grand or 100 grand you pay the CEO? (I'm genuinely asking.) If so, does that value wind up translating into better pay for the rest of the workers? Somehow I doubt that would happen. And yet, however much we despise "unskilled labor," or the kinds of work people without much education get stuck with, their work is essential to the business, even if they're individually more easily replaced.
This is why I'm not in the business world and why I'll never have any money. I just can't buy into the "logic" of the way the market values people.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
churchgeek - I reckon you're spot on - in fact, that may be my favourite hobby horse that you're riding. The whole CEO thing is ridiculously overdone and the gap between top salaries and what the rest of us earn is unhealthy and even divisive. Has anyone else read The Spirit Level?
Charities used to have a very bad reputation for the way they treated their staff and my impression is that that's still true for most ordinary workers.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
you pay what you have to pay to get the person you need in order to do the job well, because that person will add enough value to the organisation that they are worth every penny when it comes to objectives.
I think this is rubbish. An excuse used to justify massive pay. The only CEOs in any type of business who can justify massive salary are those who have significantly increased revenue. For many companies/organisations, there is no direct link to know.
However, in the overall costs of doing business, the CEO salaries are a miniscule part.
I still think it appalling for a charity to pay such money to its CEO, mind.
American Charity ratings.
UK Charities
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Those who give money to charities think it's going to the cause. That's what is put before them as an appeal. If it's going to a greedy already wealthy individual rather than the injured animal or starving infant, the money is being taken from them under false pretences.
I don't think that anyone working for a charity should be doing so for the money, and should be happy with either no pay (if they can afford it) or a basic living wage, whatever their role.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't think that anyone working for a charity should be doing so for the money, and should be happy with either no pay (if they can afford it) or a basic living wage, whatever their role.
But then (my logic tells me, at least!) charities will find it much harder to recruit the most effective managers, fundraisers, development workers, IT support officers, HR advisers etc. etc. Big organisations need all these people, and they'll be more effective if they recruit and retain highly skilled people.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Those who give money to charities think it's going to the cause. That's what is put before them as an appeal. If it's going to a greedy already wealthy individual rather than the injured animal or starving infant, the money is being taken from them under false pretences.
I don't see a problem with high pay for the CEO if he can run the charity efficiently. The important number is the percentage of the budget that goes for administrative expenses. If a highly-paid CEO can keep all the other administrative expenses down, this is better than a low-paid CEO in a charity that has high administrative expenses.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But then (my logic tells me, at least!) charities will find it much harder to recruit the most effective managers, fundraisers, development workers, IT support officers, HR advisers etc. etc. Big organisations need all these people, and they'll be more effective if they recruit and retain highly skilled people.
I disagree. Passion for the cause is far more important for effective working imv than tick-boxes on cv's which imply skills and experience that the individual may or may not possess. I have known too many managers to believe their publicity, and the best administrator I've ever known was not on high pay, but she was happy in her work. If employees are well treated and a good working atmosphere is fostered, that and a belief that what they're doing is worthwhile is more important than money for retaining them.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If employees are well treated and a good working atmosphere is fostered, that and a belief that what they're doing is worthwhile is more important than money for retaining them.
For retaining staff, yes perhaps. But how do you attract people in the first place if you offer salaries / benefits significantly lower than for similar roles in other organisations and sectors? My gut feeling is that an organisation would have to have a very strong reputation and profile in order to make a success of this approach. For organisations without such a status, don't they have to compete on salary?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
For retaining staff, yes perhaps. But how do you attract people in the first place if you offer salaries / benefits significantly lower than for similar roles in other organisations and sectors? My gut feeling is that an organisation would have to have a very strong reputation and profile in order to make a success of this approach. For organisations without such a status, don't they have to compete on salary?
I don't think so, as it would give the impression that this was a money-making business like any other. It's not, it's a cause, and the initial motivation to work there should be that it's what the individual really wants to do with his or her working life.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Those who give money to charities think it's going to the cause. That's what is put before them as an appeal. If it's going to a greedy already wealthy individual rather than the injured animal or starving infant, the money is being taken from them under false pretences.
I don't see a problem with high pay for the CEO if he can run the charity efficiently. The important number is the percentage of the budget that goes for administrative expenses. If a highly-paid CEO can keep all the other administrative expenses down, this is better than a low-paid CEO in a charity that has high administrative expenses.
Moo
But surely that attitude leads to paying the staff as low wage as can be got away with, creating the sorts of situation Josephine linked to with Goodwill?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I don't see a problem with high pay for the CEO if he can run the charity efficiently. The important number is the percentage of the budget that goes for administrative expenses. If a highly-paid CEO can keep all the other administrative expenses down, this is better than a low-paid CEO in a charity that has high administrative expenses.
Moo
But surely that attitude leads to paying the staff as low wage as can be got away with, creating the sorts of situation Josephine linked to with Goodwill?
No, a good CEO will figure out exactly what abilities are required, hire people with those skills, and pay them well. If he hires the right people, he can get by with a small staff, which keeps the administrative costs down.
Goodwill was paying very low wages to handicapped people. If, as I suspect, the value of their labor greatly exceeded what they were paid, this is very wrong.
The problem with a charity paying low salaries to people with valuable skills is that they may have such heavy financial responsibilities in their private lives that they can't afford to accept a small salary.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squirrel
Shipmate
# 3040
|
Posted
Charities have a huge disparity between what their CEOs make and what their staff earn. This is especially the case with Goodwill, where persons with various disabilities are paid wages so low that they typically need supplemental public welfare benefits in order to survive. Then Goodwill has the cajones to say that they're helping such people become "independent."
--------------------
"The moral is to the physical as three is to one."
- Napoleon
"Five to one."
- George S. Patton
Posts: 1014 | From: Gotham City - Brain of the Great Satan | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
