charities and their executives salaries

[graveyard johnny]

unless i am getting things wrong (am sure there will be plenty to tell me if i am) it seems apart from charities pulling on our heartstrings the bosses of many organisations seem to be pulling our pants down - chief execs on salaries far more than any  normal living wage (wages rises and benefits way above the average) of the ordinary people who put their hands in their pockets to help, with the exception of the salvation army most of them seem to be lining their own pockets with our donations first - why do these ceo need such big pay packets? 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

Perhaps I can set the ball rolling, GJ, from my particular perspective, which includes being - yes, you've guessed it - a charity chief executive (or otherwise described chief salaried officer) three times in my career.  For the record, I think my best salary in those three was about £40k per annum.

Those who work for charities do so to make a living.  Those who oversee the charity - in this country, by law, the trustees - need to appoint someone of adequate experience and skill to manage it and make appropriate executive decisions on a day-to-day basis.  Such people may have developed their careers in the private, public or not-for-profit sectors, or some permutation of the three.  What a charity needs to consider, therefore, is with whom it is competing for the relevant skills set and experience that it seeks in its CEO, and hence what competitors would pay.  If the answer is about, say, £70k, then that is what must be paid to attract an adequate number of suitable candidates when the post is vacant.

Sometimes, a charity CEO may have specific legal responsibilites; one of the charities I led managed a care home for adults with learning difficulties in the New Forest, and I was, in law, the 'responsible person'.  That meant that, in ceretain unsatisfactory circumstances, I could have been personally charged with breaking the relevant law.  (Good news for me - I never was!) 

Other charities are just very big.  For instance, the Garfield Weston Foundation is what is called a grant-making trust.  It exists to give grants to other charities and bodies for their projects.  The total value of its annual grant-making is about £85 million pounds a year.  It is, de facto, a big business.  Think of all the teams of staff who must receive and appraise all the grant requests received and, in due course, administer grant payments to the applications that succeed.  What do you think their CEO should be paid for managing such a mass of human and financial resources?

You say that "most of them seem to be lining their own pockets with our donations first - why do these ceo need such big pay packets?"  I have tried to very briefly give clues to your question's answer above.  I will not insult you by suggesting you have made a sweeping insinuation about the likes of me and my erstwhile colleagues, without any factual basis.  I presume you have copiously researched the remuneration practices of a significant sample of England & Wales registered charities, which you will recall number about 168,000.  Well done!  I look forward to reading the full findings of your research in due course.

[graveyard johnny]

3 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

 

Those who work for charities do so to make a living.

there is making a living and there is making a killing- do any of the big chief execs send a bit of their gains to the old girl in the charity shop who works tirelessly for nowt to help others and can hardly afford to feed her self- dont make me laugh

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

You can insult volunteers by slipping them cash, you know!  You can also get into trouble in terms of employment law.  It's related to that old chestnut, the 'honorarium' which a recipient expects to get! 

Charity CEOs are like you and me.  yes, they do give to charity, as they see fit, but do it properly.  As you request, I am happy not to make you laugh.  My request?  Please don't insult me and my professional ilk, with your sweeping, unfounded insinuations!

[graveyard johnny]

i would have thought the job of a charity ceo would be more suited to someone who is already very solvent in life and doesnt need- NEED! used loosely  to be taking such obscene amounts of money out of the pot of money raised by the goodwill of the public- i wonder how much children in need would actually raise if it flashed across the bottom of the screen how much martina milburn was getting "paid " before they sent their tenner by text from their minimum wage sweat shop job 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

48 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

i would have thought the job of a charity ceo would be more suited to someone who is already very solvent in life and doesnt need- NEED! used loosely  to be taking such obscene amounts of money out of the pot of money raised by the goodwill of the public- i wonder how much children in need would actually raise if it flashed across the bottom of the screen how much martina milburn was getting "paid " before they sent their tenner by text from their minimum wage sweat shop job 

Unlike you, GJ, I believe in a meritocracy, not a system where only the well-to-do can afford the luxury of holding certain very responsible posts, such as CEO of a large charity.

I recall that the Revd. Frank Marshall, one time member of the Yorkshire Rugby Union hierarchy in the late 19th century, once observed that those who could not afford to lose wages by taking time off to play rugby were probably better off not doing so.

I think you are the reincarnation of the Revd. Marshall and I claim my five guineas...oh no, sorry, that would be too professional!

[graveyard johnny]

1 minute ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Unlike you, GJ, I believe in a meritocracy, not a system where only the well-to-do can afford the luxury of holding certain very responsible posts, such as CEO of a large charity.

I recall that the Revd. Frank Marshall, one time member of the Yorkshire Rugby Union hierarchy in the late 19th century, once observed that those who could not afford to lose wages by taking time off to play rugby were probably better off not doing so.

I think you are the reincarnation of the Revd. Marshall and I claim my five guineas...oh no, sorry, that would be too professional!

a gut wrenchingly poor reply - but much as i expected- for me doing charity work is not about taking obscene amounts of money out of the funds - i could refer to my deeds with the salvation army in the 90s and early 2000s but i wont- but paid? only in thanks mate -only in thanks

[Futtocks]

The pigeon has already kicked over the chess-pieces.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

29 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

a gut wrenchingly poor reply - but much as i expected- for me doing charity work is not about taking obscene amounts of money out of the funds - i could refer to my deeds with the salvation army in the 90s and early 2000s but i wont- but paid? only in thanks mate -only in thanks

If you say so, GJ, and clearly, unlike me, you have all the relevant facts at your fingertips!

[Shadow]

Just now, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

If you say so, GJ, and clearly, unlike me, you have all the relevant facts at your fingertips!

He’s got all he facts he’s going to use 

[Futtocks]

I worked in a charity shop for a while between jobs and, when I think about my fellow volunteers, they weren't really the types to actually run a charity, with all that entails.

Mostly they were fine folk, but if they had any business acumen or management ability, they'd probably be earning a salary instead.

[graveyard johnny]

1 hour ago, Futtocks said:

I worked in a charity shop for a while between jobs and, when I think about my fellow volunteers, they weren't really the types to actually run a charity, with all that entails.

Mostly they were fine folk, but if they had any business acumen or management ability, they'd probably be earning a salary instead.

nailed it

[Lapsed Leeds Fan]

Interesting topic and one which I've often thought about. I don't have a problem with charity executives earning a market salary per se, but to me it's all tied up with how much a charity chooses to spend on overheads versus charitable work.

Take for example the numerous national charities which are based in London. Are the overheads of a London office and related salaries really the best use of that charity's reserves? Could the office just as easily be outside the M25? Does a national charity really need to be based in the south east? It may be that easy access to the capital's influencers is justification enough for a London office, but I'd be interested to hear from people with more inside knowledge on this.

A slightly different but related example is trade unions. The role of the General Secretary of Unison is currently up for grabs. One of the candidates is pledging to only take the salary he is currently earning (£35,000 p.a.), rather than the full salary of £135,000 p.a.. He is also pledging to sell the two Unison central offices in London and  distribute the £100 million sale money to regional branches instead. He would then relocate the Unison HQ to the midlands.

[Mark S]

4 hours ago, Lapsed Leeds Fan said:

Interesting topic and one which I've often thought about. I don't have a problem with charity executives earning a market salary per se, but to me it's all tied up with how much a charity chooses to spend on overheads versus charitable work.

Take for example the numerous national charities which are based in London. Are the overheads of a London office and related salaries really the best use of that charity's reserves? Could the office just as easily be outside the M25? Does a national charity really need to be based in the south east? It may be that easy access to the capital's influencers is justification enough for a London office, but I'd be interested to hear from people with more inside knowledge on this.

A slightly different but related example is trade unions. The role of the General Secretary of Unison is currently up for grabs. One of the candidates is pledging to only take the salary he is currently earning (£35,000 p.a.), rather than the full salary of £135,000 p.a.. He is also pledging to sell the two Unison central offices in London and  distribute the £100 million sale money to regional branches instead. He would then relocate the Unison HQ to the midlands.

Charities that are based in ‘trendy’ areas of London really need to consider moving. They will use the excuse that they need to be near ‘the media’ but that is nonsense.

[Lapsed Leeds Fan]

35 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Charities that are based in ‘trendy’ areas of London really need to consider moving. They will use the excuse that they need to be near ‘the media’ but that is nonsense.

Although this article is five years old it makes some interesting points:

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2015/sep/28/should-charities-be-based-in-london

[Bob8]

On 05/11/2020 at 21:48, Futtocks said:

The pigeon has already kicked over the chess-pieces.

Good grief, that pigeon really is an idiot.

[JohnM]

The job description:

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/job-description-chief-executive-officer/careers/article/1485198#:~:text=Chief executives in charities and,organisation's administration and financial management.

[graveyard johnny]

7 hours ago, JohnM said:

The job description:

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/job-description-chief-executive-officer/careers/article/1485198#:~:text=Chief executives in charities and,organisation's administration and financial management.

seems to have similar responsibilities and requirements of most jobs - again i just thought the people who take up these positions would be pulling in the same direction as the people below them when it comes to giving their time and efforts to the causes 

[moorside roughyed]

I only back local charities where I'm more or less certain it's run purely by volunteers. I've done voluntary work before and it gives you a feeling of self worth to help a genuine charitable cause. These people who get six figure salaries from so called charities should hang their heads in shame. 

[gingerjon]

The Chief Executive of the MND Association earns between £90,000 and £99,000 per year.

The charity brings in £4 for every £1 spent on fundraising (the return improves if you add legacies and other income) and spends a total of £18.1m per year on support, services and research for people with MND.

Now, would we rather the support etc that Rob Burrow and his family have received be left to a few volunteers responding in a hurry to an entirely new situation for them - or are we quite glad that this charity exists and can acknowledge that it really wouldn't exist in as useful a form without professionals working for it full time.

Their head office is in Northampton if that helps in your consideration of this matter.

[Bleep1673]

Most CEO's of fund raising organisations, are ex-leaders of business's, and sometimes do the job as well as other job's, they are quality business people who know how to run a company, not just your volunteers in the high street, they have contacts who can raise funds, they know how to publicise their charity, they know how to distribute funds, that's why they are paid £75,000+pa.

[graveyard johnny]

3 hours ago, Bleep1673 said:

Most CEO's of fund raising organisations, are ex-leaders of business's, and sometimes do the job as well as other job's, they are quality business people who know how to run a company, not just your volunteers in the high street, they have contacts who can raise funds, they know how to publicise their charity, they know how to distribute funds, that's why they are paid £75,000+pa.

so because they have a different skill set to the rest of charity workers that makes it ok to take huge amounts of money out of the pot even though i imagine these people are pretty wealthy anyway and lead much better lives than the people that "some" of the money actually gets to- i know a few builders that have offered their services for free for various causes { a bit like that nick knowles thing) -with  skill sets that take years to perfect but the attitude that someones worse off than them by a long chalk so the services or at least the labour is free

[Spidey]

DNFTT

[Bob8]

22 hours ago, moorside roughyed said:

I only back local charities where I'm more or less certain it's run purely by volunteers. I've done voluntary work before and it gives you a feeling of self worth to help a genuine charitable cause. These people who get six figure salaries from so called charities should hang their heads in shame. 

I used to do a lot of voluntary charity work. I have not done so for a while. Clearly, there is a balance. It should not be a cash cow and Oxfam seemed guilty of that. Oxfam would only recruit posh kids and was willing to pay their inflated expectations. Most on the other hand can only do very limited work and at some point it is very cost effective to pay for people who are both capable and commited.

[saddleworth]

I seem to remember a press statement to the effect hat when the lockdown started at the beginning of the year, that charities were screaming out about the vast drop in donations, even though the bank account of one popular charity displayed a figure of over £13 million.