The Aid Agencies........

Fulton Crown

Now I know....I know they are doing a great job in Haiti or some of the other world disaster spots...but

I suppose I got to thinkin when over the past few weeks I heard the Radio Airwaves positively, swamped with appeals from these agencies...must have counted about 15 of them...at least.

Some I'd heard of - some were new to me.

Bearing in mind the well known generosity of the Irish people I figured the sums of money going to these agencies is not insignificant.

Now I am very cynical about everything financial since I believed a little man with a moustache when he assured me that the irish banking system was solid and well regulated.

So,,,whwt accountability do these agencies have ?

Who regulates them ?

What salaries are their head honchos on ?

What accounting / reporting do they have to do. ?

What proportion of their cash goes on actual aid on the ground. ?

What are their admin costs / percentages.

Does anybody know ? - If not should we be asking questions.......

Kalimah

The only one I know well is Concern. You could check their website for all the info you need.

walshb

How do you know they are doing a great job in Haiti?

Because they tell you?

The money going to these charities is enormous, big big business.
What I find distasteful is that Concern, for example, aren't simply asking
for a donation of some sort, they are now specifically looking for
a certain amount, 40 Euro. The arrogance of these people.

This is business, no different than any other business. The business of misery
and poverty exploited to make money. I am not saying these agencies don't do some
good work, but I don't believe they are there simply to save lives.

On the radio a few days ago, one of them, Concern or Trocaire were
saying that they now have closed the Tsunami fund and are concentrating
on the Hait fund. The tsunami fund?? That was almost 5 years ago.
As cool as a cucumber he came out with this.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

The money going to theses charities is enormous, big big business.

According to their annual report, Oxfam Ireland’s fundraising activities (for example) generated an income of €2.9 million in 2009 – that’s about 65 cents for every individual in the country. Their total net income for 2009? €119,983. Big, big business alright.

walshb wrote: »

This is business, no different than any other business. The business of misery and poverty exploited to make money.

If they’re in the business of making money, Oxfam don’t seem to be doing a terribly good job, do they?

walshb wrote: »

On the radio a few days ago, one of them, Concern or Trocaire were saying that they now have closed the Tsunami fund and are concentrating
on the Hait fund. The tsunami fund?? That was almost 5 years ago.

Five years? Wow. That is a long time. Out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it will take to rebuild Haiti?

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

According to their annual report,
Five years? Wow. That is a long time. Out of curiosity, how long do you suppose it will take to rebuild Haiti?

It will take years and years if western NGOS and charities have a say in it. It means constant money and begging and money. Big money spinner for these lads, why would any of them want it over in a few years? Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others. Must be going on 50 years now with some of them. Fine work they're doing, yeah:rolleyes:

BTW, I never referenced Oxfam, not once! Not all the charities are swimming in money.

djpbarry

walshb wrote: »

It will take years and years if western NGOS and charities have a say in it.

So NGO’s and charities should pull out of Haiti to speed up the recovery process?

walshb wrote: »

It means constant money and begging and money. Big money spinner for these lads, why would any of them want it over in a few years?

Rebuilding Haiti will probably cost money, yes. Big money spinner for which lads exactly?

walshb wrote: »

Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others. Must be going on 50 years now with some of them.

Not exactly. Financial aid to Ethiopia dried up after the Soviet-backed revolution in the mid 70’s and did not recommence until the 90’s. Besides, while poverty is still a major issue, Ethiopia currently has one of the fastest growing economies in Africa.

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I never referenced Oxfam, not once!

No, you didn’t. However, you did appear to tar all ‘NGO’s and charities’ with the one brush.

So which charities are “swimming in money”?

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

It will take years and years
.

...as oppossed to years, or years and years and years.....

walshb wrote: »

Sure aren't they still begging for Ethiopia and others.
.

Are Ethiopia and others "fixed" ?

FlutterinBantam

I concur with Mr Crown's concern re the fiscal rectitude of these organisations.

Goal for instance, what are the O'Sheas getting out of it.

Likewise Fergus over in Barnardos.

There are millions involved here and the Irish are great for putting their hand in the póca, but how much reaches the bottom line.

Also we have African states such as Ethiopia with questionable Govt.

The idealist and dreamers see nothing to worry about here, but I would certainly not be too happy to contribute.

There is certainly a rancid whiff of corruption there.

Fulton Crown

Thread has gone slightly off centre...I was asking in my initial post how these agencies were regulated.

Iam not saying it is big business ..but if an agency had an income of 2.5 million and admin expenses of say 1.3 million for a staff of say 5...thats a nice little earner !

What effect has this "snowing" of the radio airwaves by these agencies (how much does this cost ?) have on the income of... say Irish based charities like Alone or St V de P ?

Agree with OP that asking for a specific sum ..like €40 smacks of arrogance and opportunism - who are these advts aimed at ?

Never heard any of these agencies scrutinised by the media in any great detail...sounds to me like SOME people are making a nice career / few bob out of it.

But maybe i'm just cynical...blame the little dapper man with the moustache

donkey balls

a big cost involved in aid relief is the chartering of acft(mainly cargo) to fly foodstuff&medical supplies to these areas.costs would be anything from 150k-300k depending on fuel uploaded.

FlutterinBantam

:eek: For how many flights.

Aer lingus did one for nowt recently, covered the fuel and operating costs.

Uplifted circa 79 tonnes .

donkey balls

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

:eek: For how many flights.

Aer lingus did one for nowt recently, covered the fuel and operating costs.

Uplifted circa 79 tonnes .

im going from past operational experience here my costs per day for a wide body jet operating from europe to the USA was $100k a day.

that was over 5 years ago so if you factor in fuel&crew exxpenses it would bring the costs up, also my old company sent 7 widebodies(freighters) to sdq and a 727-200f to pap. FOC

Sand

The major charities, the ones you hear of on the radio are probably relatively above board.

But Irish law on what a charity is, and how it can be constructed: well, its an eye opener.

I mean, okay, they are lawyers. But do they have to be that conniving? Is it a job requirement?

Essentially, if hedge fund speculators can operate as an Irish charity then there is pretty much no regulation worth speaking of.

Fulton Crown

Sand wrote: »

The major charities, the ones you hear of on the radio are probably relatively above board.

But Irish law on what a charity is, and how it can be constructed: well, its an eye opener.

I mean, okay, they are lawyers. But do they have to be that conniving? Is it a job requirement?

Essentially, if hedge fund speculators can operate as an Irish charity then there is pretty much no regulation worth speaking of.

Thanks Sand...pretty much as cynical Crown Boy expected.

Now I am not suggesting that any of the Agencies are anything but above board.

To give a Dumbo example - an agency with say 2 million income who has a head honcho drawing 900,000 in salary and expenses is above board - but clearly in need of regulation !.

The example is not as far fetched as it might appear...think the Mayo man or Audi man or even Greystones man ?

Can we say what are the admin expenses in say Goal or Concern ?

walshb

Nodin wrote: »

...as oppossed to years, or years and years and years.....



Are Ethiopia and others "fixed" ?

Well, it depends on who you listen to. Concern and Goal and others aren't gonna' come out and say they are fixed. If poverty and destitute disappeared, these NGOs wouldn't exist. They thrive on poverty, their very egos and livelihoods depend on poverty, and continued poverty. And, as long as they exist and as long as they are interferring in thses countries, problems will always exist. Part of the problem with the third world, and a big part I would say is the first world.

Fulton Crown

walshb wrote: »

Well, it depends on who you listen to. Concern and Goal and others aren't gonna' come out and say they are fixed. If poverty and destitute disappeared, these NGOs wouldn't exist. They thrive on poverty, their very egos and livelihoods depend on poverty, and continued poverty. And, as long as they exist and as long as they are interferring in thses countries, problems will always exist. Part of the problem with the third world, and a big part I would say is the first world.

Eh ?

walshb

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Eh ?

Eh what?

Fulton Crown

walshb wrote: »

Eh what?

Just could not make sense of your post pal.

Never mind - I'm sure it's my fault

walshb

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Never mind - I'm sure it's my fault

I'm sure it is.

Fulton Crown

I would have to say that nobody has come up with any thing concrete on how these agencies are regulated....one for our media watchdogs methinks....

P. Breathnach

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I concur with Mr Crown's concern re the fiscal rectitude of these organisations.

Goal for instance, what are the O'Sheas getting out of it.

Likewise Fergus over in Barnardos.

There are millions involved here and the Irish are great for putting their hand in the póca, but how much reaches the bottom line.

Also we have African states such as Ethiopia with questionable Govt.

The idealist and dreamers see nothing to worry about here, but I would certainly not be too happy to contribute.

There is certainly a rancid whiff of corruption there.

Have you any basis for naming particular people in a post where you are suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt?

Laminations

I dont think they are suggesting corruption. I think the question is why isn't there regulated pay scales. If a charity is raising money to give to a cause, is there a limit on what they can off take for salaries. You'd like to think that people who work for charities are charitable but it can be seen right from the bottom with chuggers that you cant get people to help collect money without paying a good hourly rate.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

I dont think they are suggesting corruption. I think the question is why isn't there regulated pay scales. If a charity is raising money to give to a cause, is there a limit on what they can off take for salaries. You'd like to think that people who work for charities are charitable but it can be seen right from the bottom with chuggers that you cant get people to help collect money without paying a good hourly rate.

I have no problem with the idea of proper regulation of charities: I'm for that.

What I do have a problem with is naming people who work for charities in a context like this: it implies that they might be corrupt.

FlutterinBantam

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have you any basis for naming particular people in a post where you are suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt?

If you read the post Sir you will surely understand that regarding Goal, fiscal rectitude is the issue.

All I want to know is what the CEO earns and how much admin costs.

Nobody is even remotely suggesting that Irish charities are corrupt.


Now African countries might be, that's what I am referring to.


If people are looking for money from me, I feel that i need to know where that money is going,and the kind of bang I get for my buck.


Is that OK?

edanto

The OP is right, we urgently need proper, active regulation in this sector. Last year, there was a major step made, in that the Charities Act 2009 was signed into Law (details here http://www.wheel.ie/user/content/view/full/3092). The problem since has been that only one of the 99 sections of the law have been brought into operation.

Why? The reason is that the Department concerned have not yet made decisions about staffing, location, funding for the Charities Regulator and the other 98 sections of the law refer to the Charities Regulator. So, until the Charities Regulator exists in Ireland, the law cannot come into force.

The one section that is in force relates to mass cards.

If anyone would like to suggest to the Department that they speed up this process, you can contact them through www.pobail.ie, or write a good letter to the editor.

Recently, I heard from someone working in the Department that there was a problem securing agreement about how the regulator would be funded, that "now was the worst time in the world to start a new quango".

I feel that now is probably the best time in the world to start this particular quango, and that it should not cost very much at all to run. Until it is in operation, the only oversight when it comes to CHY numbers is by the Revenue (they decide if an organisation pays corporation taxes).

An important point that has to be made is that there is ongoing regulation by people that fund charities. No matter if the funds come from government, private foundations, or public donations, there are detailed budgets and proof of expenditure provided as appropriate.

All charities that have income above a certain level have to file accounts with the CRO and like other companies, those will have to be audited above a certain level of turnover.

Let me just say at the end that I fundamentally disagree with walshb's understanding of charity (in the sector, we call it 'development') work, I think it's oversimplistic and tabloid. If he's prepared to put some time into understanding the issues at play, say two hours a week for the next six weeks, then he'll have a better understanding and we'll have a basis for discussion. Go here if interested http://suas.ie/global-issues-courses.html

edanto

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

how much admin costs.

This is a more complicated question than it looks. Let's say that we are comparing two charities and they both provide food and shelter for the homeless. Let's say that they raise and spend the exact same amount of money, on the same things.

Depending on how they do their accounts, they may have different levels of admin expenses. If they have a person that makes the beds in the shelter is that an admin cost? Or is it a charitable cost? What of the cost of bed sheets? Electricity for the kitchen? Rent for the shelter? Rent for the office space?

Obviously, there is some level of agreement about how to report these things (e.g SORP in the UK) and there is also clear guidance from Dochas in Ireland on how to report charity accounts so that they are clear.

But as Sand's example above shows, the problem may be in the 'charities' that you have never heard of, the ones that are just taking the mick.

... and that's why we urgently need the Charity Regulator to be set up as set out in the legislation. If anyone knows Minister O Cuiv, you might ask him how long it's going to take ( I recently heard that it might be another 2 years, which I think is a disgrace)

FlutterinBantam

Thank you for your understanding of the issue.

Let me reiterate that at NO TIME would I ever even suggest that there was corruption in mainstream Irish Charities.

What I am interested in is the wedge which goes to the person on top and the office and backup teams.

Not remotely suggesting that these people shouldn't be paid, but it would be nice to be able to access this info, and make your donation based on that.

That is the issue which interests me, and indeed would appear to concern the OP, Mr Crown.

Fairly straightforward really.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Thank you for your understanding of the issue.

Let me reiterate that at NO TIME would I ever even suggest that there was corruption in mainstream Irish Charities.

What I am interested in is the wedge which goes to the person on top and the office and backup teams.

Not remotely suggesting that these people shouldn't be paid, but it would be nice to be able to access this info, and make your donation based on that.

That is the issue which interests me, and indeed would appear to concern the OP, Mr Crown.

Fairly straightforward really.

Straightforward in some senses, but tricky in others. As edanto points out, the results won't be entirely comparative between similar charities - and comparison between different charity sectors/types will be nearly meaningless, like comparing the cost base for a restaurant and a factory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

edanto

@ FB But what of the right to privacy of those people?

With all due respect, why should a punter on the street who is donating €20, (which may only be 0.00006% of the charities income if we take Concern as an example) be privy to the salaries of the entire office team?

It's a different story when it comes to institutional donors (e.g Irish Aid) - they would of course know the exact salaries of everyone involved and would sign off on them.

Currently, you can get the accounts of any charity you like from the CRO and work out the average salary. But you need more information than that to know if they are fairly paid or not. For example, if you have someone in an office in Galway overseeing a project with a budget of €2m which will improve the healthcare of 100,000 people in rural Africa.... what should their salary be?

Your other option is just to contact the charity you are interested in directly and ask them. But imagine if someone contacted a widget-making company and asked how much the manager got paid... what would HR say?!

EDIT: The other thing to consider is the type of charity that is concerned. A charity which focuses on disaster relief work would be expected to spend a large proportion on tents/food/water etc. But a charity which is more focused on developing communities and creating stable societies in poor countries might spend almost all of it's money on staff costs. Is one wrong? (I would say that both are right in concept, but you need to see detailed numbers to judge)

FlutterinBantam

I think people are misunderstanding me here.

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

If I could explain:Suppose I donate €100 and it turns out that €20 worth of aid eventually reaches the area where it is needed and €80 goes on admin costs.

Wouldn't I be much better donating my €100 to a charity where €80 goes to the area needed and €20 on admin costs.??

How do I differentiate ,if I don't know the cost base of the charity involved.?

I have no wish to be prurient in these issues

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I think people are misunderstanding me here.

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

If I could explain:Suppose I donate €100 and it turns out that €20 worth of aid eventually reaches the area where it is needed and €80 goes on admin costs.

Wouldn't I be much better donating my €100 to a charity where €80 goes to the area needed and €20 on admin costs.??

How do I differentiate ,if I don't know the cost base of the charity involved.?

I have no wish to be prurient in these issues

How does one tell what "goes to the area needed" consists of? Does lobbying and media spend "go to the area needed" for a charity involved in providing medical service in Africa?

If you try to use a metric like this, you'll run into the same problem all metrics have - they result in maximisation of the metric rather than anything else. If we use money "going to the area needed" versus "admin" as our metric, then the charity can maximise that metric by buying a load of food aid, and simply handing it over to "local powers" to distribute, because that's simpler and cheaper to administrate than working out how to get the food to the people that really need it. The result will look good on paper - on the ground it will result in the charity fostering corruption and the power of local elites. Is that a good use of your charity money? No, but it will look like one, on paper.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sleepy

One of the issues I'd have with Irish charities is simply the number of them that operate in the same areas.

Applying straight-forward enough thinking, less larger charities should, in principle, be more effective than a glut of smaller ones. There are arguments for keeping some activities small to be light of foot but with correct management this is possible in even behemoths like the Virgin Group. I can't see why the same can't be done in charities.

Fulton Crown

I am happy that there is some light being shed on this rather difficult and murky area.

While I accept that direct comparisons may be difficult - it does not excuse having minimal regulation and foot dragging which appears to be the case at the minute.

Take the Chuggers that you increasingly encounter on our streets - I have a fundamental disagreement with this form of collection - and will never donate because of the level of money going to the Chuggers and those who organise them.

However difficult comparisons may be I do not think it beyond the powers of a good financial journalist to do an analysis of the major charities - particularly those who, quite literally, swamp the airwaves with their appeals and indeed as pointed out by a previous poster seem to overlap in a lot of areas.

I certainly think it is an area on which the public requires more transparency.

While most are probably reputable and manage their affairs well - the proliferation of these agencies and the level of their spending on radio advts would raise suspicions in this cynical poster.

Uummmmm?

edanto

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What I want to know if I donate my €100 to Charity X, is how much of that 100 Eurons reaches the bottom line.

I know where you're coming from. I guess all I'm trying to say is that it's a complicated sector, because charity work has evolved a long way from simply throwing money at the problem. Not all charities have evolved equally.

If you are trying to make a donation decision, sign up the charities newsletter, research what it is they spend their money on. Check out the charities website and see if they give you enough information.

If not, contact them directly and ask for the information.

If they aren't forthcoming with the information and as a result you don't trust them - then find a different charity.

On sleepy's point of the multitude of charities, it's very very true. There are 7,500 active orgs with CHY numbers (which means that they have charitable status with the Revenue).... but recent research from TCD indicates that there are upwards of 20,000 organisations in the community and voluntary sector. In time, perhaps some of them will merge, but many people want to support a charity where they know the people personally, so perhaps not.

I'd be interested to know what the first poster thinks of all this.

In a nutshell, the aid agencies are currently regulated by funding, and oversight is provided by having public accounts, boards of management and detailed reports to donors. If you can prove the work you are doing is effective and efficient, you'll get funding. If not, you'll run out of money and close.

FlutterinBantam

Scofflaw wrote: »

How does one tell what "goes to the area needed" consists of? Does lobbying and media spend "go to the area needed" for a charity involved in providing medical service in Africa?

If you try to use a metric like this, you'll run into the same problem all metrics have - they result in maximisation of the metric rather than anything else. If we use money "going to the area needed" versus "admin" as our metric, then the charity can maximise that metric by buying a load of food aid, and simply handing it over to "local powers" to distribute, because that's simpler and cheaper to administrate than working out how to get the food to the people that really need it. The result will look good on paper - on the ground it will result in the charity fostering corruption and the power of local elites. Is that a good use of your charity money? No, but it will look like one, on paper.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Intelligent post Scofflers,and indeed you have a very valid point.

However,what I am talking about is basically how many people it takes to RUN the Charity.

One may have a Charity which disperses say 10million Euro per year with 10 people in their ADMIN office

One may have a Charity which disperses 5 million Euro per year with 25 people in their ADMIN office.

I fully realise that different scenarios and needs require different modes of operation, but surely those accounts and expenses should be open to public scrutiny, so that the contributing public can make a judgment??

Kind of freedom of information act stuff?

edanto

They are open to the public!! Above a certain threshold, all companies (and charities are legally registered as companies) must register accounts with the CRO and you can download them for a small fee.

Some charities will have them on their websites....

For example - here are the Camara audited accounts.
http://camara.ie/web/about-2/what-we-do/audited-accounts/

But other, very reputable charities will choose not to have them on their website, perhaps because of the complicating factors that scofflaw and I have been outlining. For example, Habitat for Humanity are a very well respected, and efficiently run (I'm led to believe) charity, yet I can't see their accounts on their website http://www.habitatireland.ie/

But I'm sure if you called up Habitat, and said that you were interested in seeing their accounts, because you were considering a donations, that they'd send them out to you.

FlutterinBantam

I have just checked out the websites of Concern and Goal and despite a fairly extensive trawl, nowhere could I find any reference to the remuneration package of either CEO.

Maybe some might not consider this to be relevant to the operation of the Charity, but most certainly I do.

P. Breathnach

Fulton Crown wrote: »

... Take the Chuggers that you increasingly encounter on our streets - I have a fundamental disagreement with this form of collection - and will never donate because of the level of money going to the Chuggers and those who organise them...

Likewise, I avoid donating through such channels (and I would mention here that "charity" greetings cards sold in general outlets are even less effective as a means of supporting a good cause). Anything I give, I like to contribute through a no-cost or low-cost channel.

But here's the rub: if a chugger raises €1000 and gets €350 of it, the charity ends up with €650 that it might not, probably would not, otherwise have had. That €650 might save a few lives. And the chugger has not done anything dishonest or illegal -- perhaps distasteful in the eyes of some. Should we stop such activities?

Eliot Rosewater

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But here's the rub: if a chugger raises €1000 and gets €350 of it, the charity ends up with €650 that it might not

When I was working on behalf of Barnardos, they paid my employers €100 per direct debit. The average life of a direct debit is 5 years, thats 12 months times 5. €21 per month; €252 a year; €1260 altogether. And thats not considering tax-back that charities get if the donation is from a PAYE taxpayer.

When I was working I got that same argument "your will get the money". Its a silly argument because of above, but also because if we are to be thorough in applying that standard then charities shouldn't spend any money on getting more revenue. By the same standard ads in the papers and on the radio would be immoral.

Fulton Crown

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

When I was working on behalf of Barnardos, they paid my employers €100 per direct debit. The average life of a direct debit is 5 years, thats 12 months times 5. €21 per month; €252 a year; €1260 altogether. And thats not considering tax-back that charities get if the donation is from a PAYE taxpayer.

When I was working I got that same argument "your will get the money". Its a silly argument because of above, but also because if we are to be thorough in applying that standard then charities shouldn't spend any money on getting more revenue. By the same standard ads in the papers and on the radio would be immoral.

Thanks El..that really clears things up .....

Is it just me ................................

Eliot Rosewater

Its generally conductive to tell me what was so confusing, rather than just throwing some sarcasm, a few dot dot dots and three smileys together. Im happy to answer all your questions regarding "chuggers" given that I was one for all of 11 days.

tertials

I agree there needs to be some regulation in the charity sector. Some of the methods they employ to extract money is disturbing.

Yesterday I visited my elderly mother (87). She said a man representing a well-known charity organisation came to the door of her house and, as she always wants to help, she went to get some money to give him. Meanwhile, my father (86 and not very well) let the man in after he asked. My mother said the man said he couldn’t accept money. She said he was very persuasive and she ended up signing a direct debit of €21 per month for the Haiti appeal. As there is quite a bit to fill out on this form, the man must have been there for some time.

My mother said she worried all that night about what she had done and had to go to the bank the next day to see if everything was okay. Obviously I told her to not be letting anyone in to the house. At the bottom of the direct debit form it says that the charity employs a company to help raise funds and the charity then pays a fee to that company. It is disturbing to think that the fundraising operative would ask to get in the door and get elderly people to sign direct debits.

I rang the charity to outline my alarm at such methods. She apologised and agreed to cancel the direct debit. The lady said it was difficult for the fundraisers to know when not to pursue the matter when the people want to help. I outlined that they should use common sense when it is obvious that elderly people can be easily persuaded and do not always know what they are doing.

How many other elderly people have been persuaded to sign up I wonder.

walshb

My mother said the man said he couldn’t accept money. She said he was very persuasive and she ended up signing a direct debit of €21 per month for the Haiti appeal. As there is quite a bit to fill out on this form, the man must have been there for some time.


****ing disgusting human beings...Plain and simple, the best thing you can do is to
stop this, do whatever you have to to stop it. Ig it angers you, act, if not, then so be it.

You open your mouth about it and complain, and you are seen a s a racist to the poor people.

Edit, I see you did already, fair play. You are so right about opening the door to
people, forget the charity aspect, it's the safety aspect to your parents that would worry me.

Kalimah

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I have just checked out the websites of Concern and Goal and despite a fairly extensive trawl, nowhere could I find any reference to the remuneration package of either CEO.

Maybe some might not consider this to be relevant to the operation of the Charity, but most certainly I do.

From a bit of insider information I got I believe that the CEO of Concern was on 170k a year but took a 10% percent pay cut last year. Most of the admin staff in Conern are on less than 30k. The "chuggers" are on a fixed salary.

FlutterinBantam

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html


Why can't these people pony up and tell us what they get out of the charity?

This kind of stuff just breeds distrust..

Put all salaries out in the open for God's sake

Fulton Crown

Kalimah wrote: »

From a bit of insider information I got I believe that the CEO of Concern was on 170k a year but took a 10% percent pay cut last year. Most of the admin staff in Conern are on less than 30k. The "chuggers" are on a fixed salary.

This is no surprise,,,it's the classic drawbridge technique employed by companies...establish a very small coterie of fat cats....pull up the drawbridge and keep overall admin expenses within reasonable limits by paying buttons to the ordinary worker.

I'm pretty sure by the way that the 170k was supplemented by a company car and expenses.

Sounds to me like a package well over 200k...which is not to be sniffed at.

That is why in my initial post I referred ONLY to the senior execs.....

Where is our media on this one .....it's a while now since 2007.

Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html


Why can't these people pony up and tell us what they get out of the charity?

This kind of stuff just breeds distrust..

Put all salaries out in the open for God's sake

While I'd favour that, I'd have to point out that the Concern CEO's package of €140k in 2007, even if it rose to €170k, is very far behind the curve for similar posts. The CEO of an SME - one far smaller than even Concern's operation in Ireland - would expect to make that:

According to a Sunday Independent survey average Irish CEO pay was €814,000 in 2003 representing an annual increase of 8.5 per cent. In addition, many CEO's would have significant wealth from shares allocated in their companies.

I don't see the Concern CEO's level of remuneration as at all unreasonable. Higher remuneration would attract the kind of people who were only in it for the money, but lower than that and you're really not going to be able to keep someone with adequate experience and ability, even if they're keen to do the job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

walshb wrote: »

****ing disgusting human beings

Lovely. Dont bother thinking that there was clearly a breach of etiquette here. Much easier to just go haywire and brand all those who have worked as "chuggers" "****ing disgusting human beings".

walshb wrote: »

stop this, do whatever you have to to stop it.

As I said, there clearly was a breach of etiquette and the person who posted here was right in phoning the charity. In fact, these kind of complaints do get through. When I was on the job the team leader would regularly come around to us and tell us to stay away from certain shops.

Though I don't know if you really want to hear this. Theres nothing worse than realizing that "****ing disgusting human beings" are actually human beings.

FlutterinBantam

=Scofflaw;64335459While I'd favour that, I'd have to point out that the Concern CEO's package of €140k in 2007, even if it rose to €170k, is very far behind the curve for similar posts. The CEO of an SME - one far smaller than even Concern's operation in Ireland - would expect to make that:

jaysus! small med ent CEO on €140k. doubt it to be honest.

=Scofflaw;64335459
I don't see the Concern CEO's level of remuneration as at all unreasonable. Higher remuneration would attract the kind of people who were only in it for the money, but lower than that and you're really not going to be able to keep someone with adequate experience and ability, even if they're keen to do the job.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agree with you there, although there is always the nagging feeling that some small band of people are doing very well out of charity fundraising.

Goal should publish salaries and dispel the cynics like me:cool:

Easiest in the long run.

Fulton Crown

The range of salaries for CEO'S is far to wide to be relevant - the issue is comparison wit SIMILIAR orgs ..seemsto me that there is a definate case to answer.

Come clean boys ..ifn you got nothing to hide ?

Scofflaw

Fulton Crown wrote: »

The range of salaries for CEO'S is far to wide to be relevant - the issue is comparison wit SIMILIAR orgs ..seemsto me that there is a definate case to answer.

Come clean boys ..ifn you got nothing to hide ?

Well, here's a US salary survey of SMEs. That's 500 employees or less - Concern Ireland has 300 employees on payroll in Ireland, but it's actually a small multinational with what's claimed to be 4000 employees. Certainly it will have more than the 300 in Ireland, but we can use that to put in the SME class - and the salary for Concern's CEO in 2007 is a good chunk below the median salary in that survey.

Here's another Finfacts article, from 2007:

CEOs in Information Technology & Telecommunications earn an average of €324,000 while their equivalent in Semi-state and Not-for-Profit earn an average of €151,900, this year’s survey found.

And from irishjobs.ie, 2006:

Size|Dublin|Regional
Managing Director (T/O > 10m)|150,000-240,000|120,000-180,000
Managing Director (T/O < 10m)|100,000-130,000|85,000-110,000

Concern is Dublin-based, and has a turnover well in excess of €10m, so the expected salary range in 2006 for the MD would have been €150k - €240k. In fact, it was €140k a year later in 2007.

Calling this a "fat cat" salary is a piece of populist journalistic rubbish that the author should have been ashamed of.

cordially,
Scofflaw