PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Do you give to Charity?

And, finally, someone has attempted to answer the question.
I've been avoiding the debate as I see both sides and im not one for fence sitting. I dont like that the salaries paid are what they are but I absolutely understand the requirement for them to be.
 
I've been avoiding the debate as I see both sides and im not one for fence sitting. I dont like that the salaries paid are what they are but I absolutely understand the requirement for them to be.
That's pretty much where I am with it - trying to find the balance between what is obscene and what is fair. Especially for people living in London or Oxford, where house prices and rents are ridiculous.

I'm not sure that the answer is, to be honest - people need to be paid, but when a charity relies on people working for nothing, what is a fair salary for a CEO?

Just as an example, my friend used to manage a busy charity shop - she was paid much less than someone managing a retail shop with similar responsibilities. For me, a CEO working for a charity has to accept that they are going to be paid less than people in comparative private sector companies.
 
The salarys of some of these CEO's does seem high but as always if that's the 'going rate' then not a lot can be done and looks like another corner of the market that the wealthy have cornered.

One thing though, does there really need to be so many different charities ? Most cover Poverty, water, medical etc. under different names. Could they not be regulated with only one per subject meaning less on the gravy train ?
 
The salarys of some of these CEO's does seem high but as always if that's the 'going rate' then not a lot can be done and looks like another corner of the market that the wealthy have cornered.

One thing though, does there really need to be so many different charities ? Most cover Poverty, water, medical etc. under different names. Could they not be regulated with only one per subject meaning less on the gravy train ?
The charities are needed due to global cutbacks.
 
Not one for giving money, usually start chatting to the fundraisers and homeless, by the end they are giving me money to fuck off.

Seriously though, money is helpful but there are loads of local charities and peoples time is the best commodity. What better way to help people than give a couple of hours a week to show that you care. Also don't underestimate the positive effects that helping others can have on your own health and wellbeing.
 
There is certainly an argument for that if we look at market rates of identical positions in similar sized enterprises.

I guess the main argument to the contrary is about morals - 'charity' and '130K salary' doesn't sound too good together.

But what would be moral about CEOs putting in 70 hour weeks, playing a huge role in the success of these charities... and not being paid for it?
 
I guess the main argument to the contrary is about morals - 'charity' and '130K salary' doesn't sound too good together.

But what would be moral about CEOs putting in 70 hour weeks, playing a huge role in the success of these charities... and not being paid for it?
I don't disagree. I said earlier on the thread the issue I have is the size that charities have been forced to grow to.
 
I guess the main argument to the contrary is about morals - 'charity' and '130K salary' doesn't sound too good together.

But what would be moral about CEOs putting in 70 hour weeks, playing a huge role in the success of these charities... and not being paid for it?

it’s a weird conundrum as the more a charity can raise the bigger it becomes and the more “professional” and commercial it needs to become and everything associated with that regarding regulations and rules of charities and companies. Yet if they stay small they obviously will pay less/nothing but also raise less.

things like the RNLI exist because there isn’t a government run organisation doing that role. The fact they need to be so big isn’t the RNLIs fault not how much they need to raise to cover the cost of their systems and boats. They pretty much run like a normal company down here and are reasonably competitive wage wise with other private sector companies to be able to attract staff
 
Top