Charity CEO's

Shane-KornSpace

Hi, everyone!
I have done a little bit of research online. What I have found is absolutely shocking (in my opinion)!
According to Examiner.ie, "Director of Trócaire Justin Kilcullen receives around €150,000. The chief executive of the Brothers of Charity, which provides respite care, is paid €113,000. The top man in St Michael’s House in Dublin, Paul Ledwidge is on €176,000"

Here is the source: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/giving-to-charity-or-to-bloated-salaries-151611.html

Is it just me, or does this completely defeat the purpose of a charity? I feel this is absolutely outrageous! These CEO's are earning a massive amount of money and have the cheek to guilt us (the public) in to donating our hard earned cash even though alot of us earn only a fraction of these people's salaries.

Am I wrong to feel this way about these CHARITY owners?

hondasam

Do you expect them to work for free?

Guill

is paid €113,000

He must be really good!

starbelgrade

Charity is big business. It makes many people rich and helps keep the poor, poor.

It works on the assumption that people feel less guilty when they throw a crumbs at the needy. And as an assumption, that works extraodinarily well.

It is both immoral & hypocritical.

admiralofthefleet

this is a true story

a mate of mine is a builder, he recieves 5 pairs of safety shoes a year but only needs one. he brought the other 4 pairs to the charity shop to donate them but when he handed them in the girl behind the counter looked at one of the pairs and said 'they will do my fella' and put them under the counter

he left the shop fuming and swore he wouldnt donate to charity again; he hasnt

my point is, the people who need the help see only a tiny portion of a donation

Shane-KornSpace

hondasam wrote: »

Do you expect them to work for free?

Not at all, but remember, these men are working for a charity! They may be doing some good work, but these guy's earnings are ridiculous. As far as I'm conerned, their earnings completely defeat the purpose of a charity! If "only €2 could feed a starving child", imagine how many more children could be fed if Justin took a pay cut!

I he were to take a pay cut of (for arguements' sake) 50k, that would be able to feed 25,000 starving children (provided their €2 ad campaign is a reality).

Now, don't get me wrong, the CEO of St. Michael's House is looking over some good work, however, again, the improvements that could be made had he taken a pay cut would certainly have been noticeable and beneficial!

jam_mac_jam

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

this is a true story

a mate of mine is a builder, he recieves 5 pairs of safety shoes a year but only needs one. he brought the other 4 pairs to the charity shop to donate them but when he handed them in the girl behind the counter looked at one of the pairs and said 'they will do my fella' and put them under the counter

he left the shop fuming and swore he wouldnt donate to charity again; he hasnt

my point is, the people who need the help see only a tiny portion of a donation

Why doesnt he just tell whoever gives him the shoes that he doesnt need them? How do you know that she didnt donate money for the shoes?

johndaman66

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

a mate of mine is a builder, he recieves 5 pairs of safety shoes a year but only needs one. he brought the other 4 pairs to the charity shop to donate them but when he handed them in the girl behind the counter looked at one of the pairs and said 'they will do my fella' and put them under the counter

I'm sure that sort of thing happens more often than most might imagine. She could have waited till your mate had left the shop. Not by any means condoning it but if she was going to do it anyway....

Oranage2

CEO in getting paid shocker!!!!

gigino

The charity business is a great business to be in. There is one I know of here in Dublin where its published annual accouts shows its workers each earn an average of one and a half times the average industrial wage. No poverty there.

Solnskaya

starbelgrade wrote: »

Charity is big business. It makes many people rich and helps keep the poor, poor.

It works on the assumption that people feel less guilty when they throw a crumbs at the needy. And as an assumption, that works extraodinarily well.

It is both immoral & hypocritical.

When my sister was 16 she worked for a major charity selling "Lines". She earned more in a week than my Dad did for his 9-5. I then gave up all faith in "Charidees".

gigino

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

Hi, everyone!
I have done a little bit of research online. What I have found is absolutely shocking (in my opinion)!
According to Examiner.ie, "Director of Trócaire Justin Kilcullen receives around €150,000. The chief executive of the Brothers of Charity, which provides respite care, is paid €113,000. The top man in St Michael’s House in Dublin, Paul Ledwidge is on €176,000"

Those sort of salaries are more than most Prime Ministers in Europe earn. And them charity boyos think they deserve more money than Prime Ministers earn ?

Solnskaya

Oranage2 wrote: »

CEO in getting paid shocker!!!!

Err, yeah, "Charity CEO is massivly overpaid by money raised to give to the poor being syphoned off due to ridiculous overheads Shocker".

Oranage2

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

Hi, everyone!
I have done a little bit of research online. What I have found is absolutely shocking (in my opinion)!
According to Examiner.ie, "Director of Trócaire Justin Kilcullen receives around €150,000. The chief executive of the Brothers of Charity, which provides respite care, is paid €113,000. The top man in St Michael’s House in Dublin, Paul Ledwidge is on €176,000"

Here is the source: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/giving-to-charity-or-to-bloated-salaries-151611.html

Is it just me, or does this completely defeat the purpose of a charity? I feel this is absolutely outrageous! These CEO's are earning a massive amount of money and have the cheek to guilt us (the public) in to donating our hard earned cash even though alot of us earn only a fraction of these people's salaries.

Am I wrong to feel this way about these CHARITY owners?

Can you justify what you earn?

Oranage2

gigino wrote: »

Those sort of salaries are more than most Prime Ministers in Europe earn. And them charity boyos think they deserve more money than Prime Ministers earn ?

We're forced to pay government ministers - we don't have to give to charity -

Shane-KornSpace

Oranage2 wrote: »

Can you justify what you earn?

If you must know, I work my arse off in Sales to provide a home for me and my heavily pregnant girlfriend. I am scraping by if you must know. But yes. I can. Me working my arse off 40 hours a week is going to keep a roof over our heads and provide food for my family.

Also, take in to consideration, the amount of money pai to advertise their ad campaigns on TV. Those ads cost well in to the thousands to air.

Celly Smunt

A charity CEO works no less than a CEO of private business,the wage is deserved imo.

Except for Mary Davis,she's just a bag.

Oranage2

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

If you must know, I work my arse off in Sales to provide a home for me and my heavily pregnant girlfriend. I am scraping by if you must know. But yes. I can. Me working my arse off 40 hours a week is going to keep a roof over our heads and provide food for my family.

40 hours a week annoying people more like!

gigino

Oranage2 wrote: »

We're forced to pay government ministers - we don't have to give to charity -

no, but they use emotional blackmail to entice money out of vulnerable people - eg think of the poor little children .

The charity workers children are looked after a lot better than the children of most people who give to charity anyway.

Solnskaya

pmcmahon wrote: »

A charity CEO works no less than a CEO of private business,the wage is deserved imo.

Except for Mary Davis,she's just a bag.

Feck off. Charity is supposed to be about selflessness and giving. Just, just, feck off.

gigino

pmcmahon wrote: »

A charity CEO works no less than a CEO of private business,the wage is deserved imo.

most people in private business do not earn 170,000 a year, or even half or quarter of that.

Celly Smunt

Solnskaya wrote: »

Feck off. Charity is supposed to be about selflessness and giving. Just, just, feck off.

then the charity would turn into a charity case.

Celly Smunt

gigino wrote: »

most people in private business do not earn 170,000 a year, or even half or quarter of that.

i was talking CEO's of business of like size to the charities.

Solnskaya

pmcmahon wrote: »

then the charity would turn into a charity case.

B0llox. Then the Charity would turn into an actual charity.

tigger123

A charity is a company like any other, if you want the right people for the job you have to pay them the wages that will attract the right people to that position. If you don't, they'll simply go into other organisations where they can make that kind of money. Put simply, if you offer the job at 50k a year, that's the kind of candidate you'll get and, I'd wager, the charity isnt necessarily going to be run very well.

It's a free employment market. The fact that it's a charity, pragmatically, doesn't make a lick of difference.

BTW, I'm not saying it's morally right, I'm just saying that's the way I see it.

Shane-KornSpace

Oranage2 wrote: »

40 hours a week annoying people more like!

Way to look be an ignorant tool :rolleyes:

Out of 5 months of working in my current job, I have only had 1 complaint. I don't think I would call that "annoying people".
Don't get me wrong, working in sales was not my goal in life, but **** happens. So being mature, I got the first full time job I could find.

Now, back to the topic at hand. Charities.

D!armu!d

Oranage2 wrote: »

We're forced to pay government ministers - we don't have to give to charity -

We are forced - a lot of the funds charities get are paid directly by the government, and a lot of it never makes it to those in need.

Darkglasses

If its of any interest, I worked in an Oxfam shop for about a year and a half, never got paid a cent and nor did any of my co-workers, with the exception of the manager who took a quite small wage (nowhere near minimum wage for example). We did pay for any clothes or other items we bought, at roughly 75 percent of the price we'd put it out on the shelves with. Disgusted to hear its any other way in other shops. None of the people I worked with would even dream of taking money from the cause!

Celly Smunt

Solnskaya wrote: »

B0llox. Then the Charity would turn into an actual charity.

?
so you'd put in 50 hours or so a week and survive on nothing?

Shane-KornSpace

pmcmahon wrote: »

?
so you'd put in 50 hours or so a week and survive on nothing?

I'm not suggesting (at all) that these people work for free. But alot of people in this country are surviving on a fraction of what these people are making.

Sheeps

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

Also, take in to consideration, the amount of money pai to advertise their ad campaigns on TV. Those ads cost well in to the thousands to air.

Yes, but think of the revenue they bring in.

coonecb1

Harvard Business School now do specialist MBA's focussed on the charity sector. Not many people attend HBS with the intention of making the world a better place. I think if you asked the students there, deep down if they are being honest, they're going there with the expectation of making big bucks in the future.

Secondly, for anyone saying "do you think they should work for free?". Their expenses would all be covered by the charity. To take anything more than €50K is excessive in my opinion. You can live quite comfortably on €50K.

Oranage2

These charities raise 100million euro a year. It's big business - now do you want some shumk earning 50k to look after that?

Lets put some perspective here, college lectures and school principles earn roughly 60-120k and they babysit a few kids.


Also the ad campaigns and chuggers are the simple logic of spending money to make money.

Sheeps

It doesn't matter. You should be rewarded for the amount of work you put in to the company and the value you add to it. It's not like these CEO's were made CEO's just one day by complete chance.

Charities are run as business for a reason and they pay well for a reason too. That reason is that the revenue they bring in this way is far greater than if they were to go around relying on volunteers to bring in the revenue and as a result the way they give back is greatly increased. If a CEO wishes to be paid big money for setting up a successful charity and for the level of work he puts/has put in to getting to that position and the value he/she has added to that charity then so be it.

tigger123

coonecb1 wrote: »

Harvard Business School now do specialist MBA's focussed on the charity sector. Not many people attend HBS with the intention of making the world a better place. I think if you asked the students there, deep down if they are being honest, they're going there with the expectation of making big bucks in the future.

Secondly, for anyone saying "do you think they should work for free?". Their expenses would all be covered by the charity. To take anything more than €50K is excessive in my opinion. You can live quite comfortably on €50K.

I agree that you can live quite comfortably on 50k, but how if you're employing a CEO could you attract someone to that level of responsibility in their day to day duties, and then only pay them 50k? Would you do it? ... bearing in mind how much responsibility is involved?

Shane-KornSpace

tigger123 wrote: »

I agree that you can live quite comfortably on 50k, but how if you're employing a CEO could you attract someone to that level of responsibility in their day to day duties, and then only pay them 50k? Would you do it? ... bearing in mind how much responsibility is involved?

Hence, these CEO's are very immoral. Money hungry is all they are. If somebody was doing it for the cause. Then I would like to imagine they would do it for 50k. Because that, at the end of he day, is what a charity is about. Giving to other people in need.

phasers

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

this is a true story

a mate of mine is a builder, he recieves 5 pairs of safety shoes a year but only needs one. he brought the other 4 pairs to the charity shop to donate them but when he handed them in the girl behind the counter looked at one of the pairs and said 'they will do my fella' and put them under the counter

he left the shop fuming and swore he wouldnt donate to charity again; he hasnt

my point is, the people who need the help see only a tiny portion of a donation

Maybe I'm missing the point of this story... What exactly is the problem? maybe she was keeping them back to buy herself. I know people who've volunteered in charity shops and kept back the good stuff for themselves, but they've always paid whatever price was put on them.

Someone's going to buy them, why not the staff?

gigino

tigger123 wrote: »

I agree that you can live quite comfortably on 50k, but how if you're employing a CEO could you attract someone to that level of responsibility in their day to day duties, and then only pay them 50k?

50k is a good wage internationally. In our neighbouring country, the UK, average public sector salary is only 21.5k

Why does a charity worker in Ireland pay himself more than the Prime Ministers of some great European countries are paid ?

Which job is more difficult / more 24/7, more responsible ?

galwayrush

I did a lot of charity work for the building trade over the past few years.. i.e. a lot of bastards didn't pay me.
So with my experience i reckon i qualify for such a job, 100K a year will do me, i'm not greedy....

starbelgrade

People find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this.

Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils they see.

But their remedies do not cure the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty.

The proper aim is to try to reconstruct society on such basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim.

The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it.

Charity degrades and demoralizes. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.


– Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

tigger123

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

Hence, these CEO's are very immoral. Money hungry is all they are. If somebody was doing it for the cause. Then I would like to imagine they would do it for 50k. Because that, at the end of he day, is what a charity is about. Giving to other people in need.

You're right, that is what the charity is about, but nobody is motivated solely by what they feel is right and just. Most people at some stage will want to get married, have kids, get saddled with a mortgage ... all of which are financial commitments. (and by the way, if people don't that's cool too, it just seems that most end up this way).

I'd love to spend my day wailing on the guitar, playing Modern Warfare 3, and then doing charitable deeds, but I've rent and bills to pay like everyone else, and what your level of responsibility is in your day job should be reflected by your annual remuneration.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread, I don't agree or disagree with the salaries per say, but my point is that if you're going to get the right person for the job you must pay a competitive salary.

tigger123

gigino wrote: »

50k is a good wage internationally. In our neighbouring country, the UK, average public sector salary is only 21.5k

Why does a charity worker in Ireland pay himself more than the Prime Ministers of some great European countries are paid ?

Which job is more difficult / more 24/7, more responsible ?

He's not a charity worker, he's is the CEO of an International organisation with major financial and social commitments.

mackg

phasers wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing the point of this story... What exactly is the problem? maybe she was keeping them back to buy herself. I know people who've volunteered in charity shops and kept back the good stuff for themselves, but they've always paid whatever price was put on them.

Someone's going to buy them, why not the staff?

Yeah my mother volunteered in a charity shop for a while and did the same thing, always paid for everything she got.

Solnskaya

pmcmahon wrote: »

?
so you'd put in 50 hours or so a week and survive on nothing?

^This is abject sh1te. We're not talking mother teresa here, we are talking mega-bucks. €38K is not nothing, a lot of quality people get up and go in the morning for a lot less. Seems to be a lot of vested interests here.:mad:

gigino

Its the charity workers who "earn" € 150,000 a year, plus pension and expenses, who give the charity sector a bad name. I know some people who do charity work for nothing, in local charity shops etc.
Trouble is with many charities nearly all of the money you give does not get to where its needed.

mickydoomsux

Charity is big business.

You basically sell people relief from their first world guilt and there's plenty of that to go around.

Freddie59

hondasam wrote: »

Do you expect them to work for free?

No. But that's €3,000 A WEEK in fundraising to pay ONE person's wages.........in a charity organisation. It truly defies belief.:mad:

Freddie59

pmcmahon wrote: »

A charity CEO works no less than a CEO of private business,the wage is deserved imo.

Except for Mary Davis,she's just a bag.

How so?

Sonnenblumen

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

Hi, everyone!
I have done a little bit of research online. What I have found is absolutely shocking (in my opinion)!
According to Examiner.ie, "Director of Trócaire Justin Kilcullen receives around €150,000. The chief executive of the Brothers of Charity, which provides respite care, is paid €113,000. The top man in St Michael’s House in Dublin, Paul Ledwidge is on €176,000"

Here is the source: http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/giving-to-charity-or-to-bloated-salaries-151611.html

Is it just me, or does this completely defeat the purpose of a charity? I feel this is absolutely outrageous! These CEO's are earning a massive amount of money and have the cheek to guilt us (the public) in to donating our hard earned cash even though alot of us earn only a fraction of these people's salaries.

Am I wrong to feel this way about these CHARITY owners?

Welcome to the Big Show.

Freddie59

pmcmahon wrote: »

i was talking CEO's of business of like size to the charities.

Business does not equal charity.

LighterGuy

hondasam wrote: »

Do you expect them to work for free?

I'd love to start a business and rip the likes of you off. I mean totally over-charging that its just ridiculous.
And if you ever said anything bad, i'd simply say "you want it for nothing? what, you want us to work for free?"

In fact, I dont know why I dont start a charity. Give a tenner for every 100 I get to charity. Give myself a wage. And give the ol' "you expect me to work for free?" as i fleece people