Over 40% of charities pay chiefs more than €100,000

Death and Taxes

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1219/breaking4.html

Worth bearing in mind before you part with your hard earned cash, just who are you supporting, the needy or some overpaid CEO.
Whats worse many of these organizatios are also recieving state funds.

Mena

But how much funding do each of them secure relative to their salary?

yermandan

Charities need CEO's with vast business experience in order to stay afloat these days. They earn every cent in my experience

g'em

WileyCoyote wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1219/breaking4.html

Worth bearing in mind before you part with your hard earned cash, just who are you supporting, the needy or some overpaid CEO.
Whats worse many of these organizatios are also recieving state funds.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in a lage-scale charity but they are businesses, and the people who run them need to have incredible skill and business acumen to keep them running efficiently and ensure funds appropriated are allocated as effectively as possible. I've worked with two of the charities on the list and I've seen first hand how they change people's lives. With the government slashing carer's allowance systematically almost every year the last thing we need is someone skimming an IT article and suggesting that people discontinue donating.

siscri

keithob wrote: »

A family was heavily involved in the management of same .... the salaries ''they'' approved to pay themselves was feckn crazy ... absolutely crazy.

Define crazy? What was the ballpark figure?

s_carnage

Show me a big business comparable in size to any of them charities that pay there CEO's anything under 100k.

osarusan

It's all relative.

How much money did they bring in compred to the compensation they receive? How much could they earn at a comparable non-charitable organisation if they moved to one?

"Big salary = greedy CEO ripping people off" is waaaaay too simplistic.

Death and Taxes

g'em wrote: »

I don't know if you've ever been involved in a lage-scale charity but they are businesses, and the people who run them need to have incredible skill and business acumen to keep them running efficiently and ensure funds appropriated are allocated as effectively as possible. I've worked with two of the charities on the list and I've seen first hand how they change people's lives. With the government slashing carer's allowance systematically almost every year the last thing we need is someone skimming an IT article and suggesting that people discontinue donating.

In fairness I did not suggest that anyone discontinue donating, I did suggest that people might bear in mind who they are supporting.
I too have worked with chartities in the past and have helped raise very significant amounts of money for one in particular.
However I am also aware that many of them are highly secrective about how much those at the top are paid.
I do not believe that there is anything wrong in asking questions about the salaries of CEO's of organizations that publicly seek voluntary donations from the public.

s_carnage

WileyCoyote wrote: »

In fairness I did not suggest that anyone discontinue donating, I did suggest that people might bear in mind who they are supporting.
I too have worked with chartities in the past and have helped raise very significant amounts of money for one in particular.
However I am also aware that many of them are highly secrective about how much those at the top are paid.
I do not believe that there is anything wrong in asking questions about the salaries of CEO's of organizations that publicly seek voluntary donations from the public.

But in your opening post all you seemed to care about was CEO's of these charities on over 100k. Nothing wrong with a CEO been on that sort of money especially if they are doing a good job and bringing in as much money as possible.

I do agree with what you said above and that accounts of these charities should be a lot more open.

UCDVet

People are forgetting that businesses *produce* things.
Charities are given things.

Direct comparisons are meaningless.

If you run a charity and want money from me - you'd better earn less than I do. If I can live my life on X euro per year, the person running the company could also live on X euro per year and donate all the rest to the actual cause they claim to be fighting for (or against, as the case may be).

UCDVet

s_carnage wrote: »

But in your opening post all you seemed to care about was CEO's of these charities on over 100k. Nothing wrong with a CEO been on that sort of money especially if they are doing a good job and bringing in as much money as possible.

I do agree with what you said above and that accounts of these charities should be a lot more open.

No matter how good they are - they could bring in an extra 50k by taking a 50k wage.

And that would be better for whatever cause they claim to support.

If a CEO of a charity earns Xk per year, that's Xk per year they'd rather have money in their own bank account than given to the charity. Now, naturally, people need some money to live. But 100k? To earn 100k from a job and ask people earning significantly less to donate in a way that directly contributes to your wealth? Criminal, IMHO.

Now, the CEO has more knowledge of their charity and cause than anyone else would. They probably have lots of degrees and stuff too. If they feel they need Xk to live comfortably, then so do I. Surely, the best thing for me to do is follow their lead. I'll donate just as soon as I also have my Xk allotment for the year.

s_carnage

UCDVet wrote: »

No matter how good they are - they could bring in an extra 50k by taking a 50k wage.

And that would be better for whatever cause they claim to support.

If a CEO of a charity earns Xk per year, that's Xk per year they'd rather have money in their own bank account than given to the charity. Now, naturally, people need some money to live. But 100k? To earn 100k from a job and ask people earning significantly less to donate in a way that directly contributes to your wealth? Criminal, IMHO.

Now, the CEO has more knowledge of their charity and cause than anyone else would. They probably have lots of degrees and stuff too. If they feel they need Xk to live comfortably, then so do I. Surely, the best thing for me to do is follow their lead. I'll donate just as soon as I also have my Xk allotment for the year.

It's all well and good saying if they cared enough about the charity they'd take a huge pay cut but honestly how many people out there that have the qualifications and experience to run a charity would do the job for 50k?? My guess would be not many.

The charity offers a decent salary because it needs to get someone competent in to do the job. Would be great to see how well the charity would be run for a year if they offered a CEO position with a salary of 50k.

gurramok

The CEO's on those salaries are only in the job for the money. If they were really charitable in their nature, they could half their salary and still be fighting for charitable causes, their principles are worthless.

Annasopra

WileyCoyote wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1219/breaking4.html

Worth bearing in mind before you part with your hard earned cash, just who are you supporting, the needy or some overpaid CEO.
Whats worse many of these organizatios are also recieving state funds.

No

40% of charities do not pay their CEOs over 100k

40% of organisations chosen by the Irish times to ask, pay this

It's lazy journalism

Odysseus

gurramok wrote: »

The CEO's on those salaries are only in the job for the money. If they were really charitable in their nature, they could half their salary and still be fighting for charitable causes, their principles are worthless.

Once they do the job, does that matter? If they deliver why would they have to be "charitable in nature"?

eviltwin

I work for a charity, our CEO doesn't get that kind of money but its still a very generous salary. I always tell people DO NOT donate money to a charity, by all means support it but give your time ie volunteer or donate items such as dog food to an animal shelter, toys to Barnardos etc. Money is often just wasted.

UCDVet

s_carnage wrote: »

It's all well and good saying if they cared enough about the charity they'd take a huge pay cut but honestly how many people out there that have the qualifications and experience to run a charity would do the job for 50k?? My guess would be not many.

The charity offers a decent salary because it needs to get someone competent in to do the job. Would be great to see how well the charity would be run for a year if they offered a CEO position with a salary of 50k.

You're right, of course.

The successful, qualified, business folk won't take a position unless it makes sense for them from a financial/rational perspective.

Then, they immediately turn around and ask everyone to do the exact opposite. To take actions that don't make sense for the individuals from a financial/rational perspective and instead appeal to the emotions of those significantly less successful than they are.

Maybe the nature of charity is that we shouldn't have huge multibillion dollar *COMPANIES* run by successful business folk? Because, they naturally become businesses with no product that make a lot of people rich as a side-effect of whatever cause they're fighting for.

I'll keep my money. I wish more people would.

Donate your time, your kindness, help someone in your community, donate items; if you insist on donating money, donate directly to organizations that do whatever you want....not a charity. Don't drop hard-earned money into the plastic bucket of some chugger who is basically being exploited by a huge company headed up by a rich CEO whose sole job is drive up revenue.

Poster Boy

Last year Barnardos closed down for a week over lack of funds, and they have indicated that they are going to do the same next year.

At the same time, they pay their CEO Fergus Finlay over €100,000 per annum - and this is apart from any generous pensions etc he has from his long-term high level in government during the 90's. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfgbidgbqlgb/rss2/

From where I see it, Barnardos are effectively guilt-tripping citizens of a bankrupt nation where unemployment is at an all time high into subsidising excessive pay for one individual, while cutting their core services off.

It's like a bit of a microcosm of the rotten government we have, and I wonder if they were a company rather than a charity, would such behaviour constitute "Reckless Trading"?

When Barnardos reassess their priorities, I will re-evaluate my outlook to them, but until then they will never get a farthing from me while they behave in this way.

Instead I'll give the little bit of spare money I can afford to charities who do not pay massive salaries, like Fr. Peter McVerry's Trust and who do not guilt-trip the public in such a repugnant manner

eviltwin

Poster Boy wrote: »

Last year Barnardos closed down for a week over lack of funds, and they have indicated that they are going to do the same next year.

At the same time, they pay their CEO Fergus Finlay over €100,000 per annum - and this is apart from any generous pensions etc he has from his long-term high level in government during the 90's. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfgbidgbqlgb/rss2/

From where I see it, Barnardos are effectively guilt-tripping citizens of a bankrupt nation where unemployment is at an all time high into subsidising excessive pay for one individual, while cutting their core services off.

It's like a bit of a microcosm of the rotten government we have, and I wonder if they were a company rather than a charity, would such behaviour constitute "Reckless Trading"?

When Barnardos reassess their priorities, I will re-evaluate my outlook to them, but until then they will never get a farthing from me while they behave in this way.

Instead I'll give the little bit of spare money I can afford to charities who do not pay massive salaries, like Fr. Peter McVerry's Trust and who do not guilt-trip the public in such a repugnant manner

They also had to stop using the services of a team of volunteers who worked with helping kids learn to read because they couldn't pay the wages of the two staff who are needed to supervise and support them. And yet Finlay gets 100,000 + a year. Priorities!

gurramok

Odysseus wrote: »

Once they do the job, does that matter? If they deliver why would they have to be "charitable in nature"?

Yes it does matter. So you say charity is a business rather than a charity, fine, i certainly am justified in not donating to their business. As the other poster says, give your time and kindness to a charity, you bet the CEO will charge top dollar for their kindness and time.

Blisterman

Bill Gates has actually stated that running the Bill Gates Foundation is far more difficult than running Microsoft.

And that's just in figuring out how to spend the money. They don't actually do much fundraising. It's not just a case of handing out food and money to poor people. Charities need to work out ways to spend the money efficiently to achieve the maximum long term benefits.

Personally I'd rather donate to a charity which is run well and efficiently, even if the CEO is on a high salary, than one run by a bunch of incompetent volunteers.

I'm not saying all charity CEOs deserve high salaries, but that you've got to look at the bigger picture.

Odysseus

gurramok wrote: »

Yes it does matter. So you say charity is a business rather than a charity, fine, i certainly am justified in not donating to their business. As the other poster says, give your time and kindness to a charity, you bet the CEO will charge top dollar for their kindness and time.

Yeah but that CEO works full time for that charity. I like to travel to a camp in the Sahara and spent time there helping out, I can do this because my business allows me to do so. I can't compare my full time occupation to my charity work, I can compare my employment to those employeed by the charity though.

I expect those employed by a charity to work hard, in order to get staff that work well you need to pay them and pay them well. Staff are staff, volunteers are volunteers both are different.

rainbowdash

yermandan wrote: »

Charities need CEO's with vast business experience in order to stay afloat these days. They earn every cent in my experience

What absolute nonsense. There is a charity near me where nobody takes anything by way of pay - fact. I donated an actual physical piece of equipment to them, I see it in use frequently. Lets say the piece is worth €100, thats far more effective in my mind than throwing it at something like Concern and hoping the poor misfortune in Africa actual gets a slice of it.

The government donate to Africa on our behalf, thats enough from me.

Small local genuine charities are the way to go, not these national crowds that ring me and post out bundles of Christmas cards and raffle tickets whether I want them or not. The charity gets very little from this IMO.

gurramok

Odysseus wrote: »

Yeah but that CEO works full time for that charity. I like to travel to a camp in the Sahara and spent time there helping out, I can do this because my business allows me to do so. I can't compare my full time occupation to my charity work, I can compare my employment to those employeed by the charity though.

I expect those employed by a charity to work hard, in order to get staff that work well you need to pay them and pay them well. Staff are staff, volunteers are volunteers both are different.

Fine, don't expect people alot poorer than the CEO to be expected to donate based on guilty adverts of starving children.
Paid in excess of €100k is just plain greed. €50k is a fine wage for such "charitable business people" to live on. Fergus Finlay sums up the mé féin attitude of such businesses.

Dravokivich

UCDVet wrote: »

No matter how good they are - they could bring in an extra 50k by taking a 50k wage.

And that would be better for whatever cause they claim to support.

If a CEO of a charity earns Xk per year, that's Xk per year they'd rather have money in their own bank account than given to the charity. Now, naturally, people need some money to live. But 100k? To earn 100k from a job and ask people earning significantly less to donate in a way that directly contributes to your wealth? Criminal, IMHO.

Now, the CEO has more knowledge of their charity and cause than anyone else would. They probably have lots of degrees and stuff too. If they feel they need Xk to live comfortably, then so do I. Surely, the best thing for me to do is follow their lead. I'll donate just as soon as I also have my Xk allotment for the year.

It's not a fúcking vocation.

Odysseus

gurramok wrote: »

Fine, don't expect people alot poorer than the CEO to be expected to donate based on guilty adverts of starving children.
Paid in excess of €100k is just plain greed. €50k is a fine wage for such "charitable business people" to live on. Fergus Finlay sums up the mé féin attitude of such businesses.

I don't know if I could do the job of a CEO, but I know I would not consider it for 50k. Large charity look for the type of person who work earn that type of money, if you want someone to do a specific piece of work; should you expect them to a job that pays them half their wage? I don't think so

gurramok

Odysseus wrote: »

I don't know if I could do the job of a CEO, but I know I would not consider it for 50k. Large charity look for the type of person who work earn that type of money, if you want someone to do a specific piece of work; should you expect them to a job that pays them half their wage? I don't think so

Its a charity with humanist principles at its core, not supposed to be a capitalist business. I would consider the job for 50k, after all I am donating my kindness and skills for charity and yet still living comfortably.

UCDVet

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not a fúcking vocation.

Do you mean vocation or vacation?

rainbowdash

gurramok wrote: »

Fine, don't expect people alot poorer than the CEO to be expected to donate based on guilty adverts of starving children.
Paid in excess of €100k is just plain greed. €50k is a fine wage for such "charitable business people" to live on. Fergus Finlay sums up the mé féin attitude of such businesses.

Agreed, these people turn up at budget time too criticising everything that is cut but never propose to work themselves for a low wage, they could finance themselves off the many other feathers they have stuck in their privelaged and well feathered nest which they built up for themselves over the years.

Dravokivich

UCDVet wrote: »

Do you mean vocation or vacation?

Nope:

vo·ca·tion (v-kshn)
n.
1. A regular occupation, especially one for which a person is particularly suited or qualified.
2. An inclination, as if in response to a summons, to undertake a certain kind of work, especially a religious career; a calling.

In reference to the second use of the word. You know the way priests would generally mention a "calling" as such. Becoming one, would then be considered undertaking a vocation.

handlemaster

s_carnage wrote: »

Show me a big business comparable in size to any of them charities that pay there CEO's anything under 100k.

I think your missing the point. The charity is a non profit making organisation it doesn't mean you can take what you want because you know how to count beans. The general perception would be that people who work with charity organisation have a different view point to life/work than the profit making sector. E.g. if a man/woman was running a charity that was saving kids from dying from starvation one would expect they would not be taking home 100k plus expenses. I would expect there would be some guilt in that because they would know exactly what a reduction in their salary would actually do. Perhaps save a few lives.

LivelineDipso

gurramok wrote: »

The CEO's on those salaries are only in the job for the money. If they were really charitable in their nature, they could half their salary and still be fighting for charitable causes, their principles are worthless.

and if they are such top business hot shots then why are they not in the business world?

UCDVet

Dravokivich wrote: »

Nope:


In reference to the second use of the word. You know the way priests would generally mention a "calling" as such. Becoming one, would then be considered undertaking a vocation.

Absolutely. Thank you for clarifying.

Mena

When did over 100k become a large salary anyway.

Too many idealist students on AH to be honest.

LivelineDipso

Mena wrote: »

When did over 100k become a large salary anyway.

Too many idealist students on AH to be honest.

It's a huge salary to most Irish people not in the public sector.

Massive in fact.

summerskin

LivelineDipso wrote: »

It's a huge salary to most Irish people not in the public sector.

Massive in fact.

Nonsense. It's a reasonable salary for a senior management role. I'm in the private sector and don't consider €100k to be a huge salary at all, it's the minimum expectation for many jobs.

Most people are not suitable for the kinds of position that command that salary, hence they don't get it. Supply and demand. Most people are capable of doing jobs that are worth up to €35k, some are capable of jobs up to €100k, few have the ability to do the senior roles that come with the higher salary.

Nonoperational

So sick of this bollox. Sometimes people deserve to be paid over €100k. People should be striving to be in demand enough to command that salary not continuously bitching about what other people earn.

handlemaster

summerskin wrote: »

Nonsense. It's a reasonable salary for a senior management role. I'm in the private sector and don't consider €100k to be a huge salary at all, it's the minimum expectation for many jobs.

Most people are not suitable for the kinds of position that command that salary, hence they don't get it. Supply and demand. Most people are capable of doing jobs that are worth up to €35k, some are capable of jobs up to €100k, few have the ability to do the senior roles that come with the higher salary.

Do you think ? I've worked with a few on those salaries and competence and ability would not be the first words to describe their proformance.

Blisterman

handlemaster wrote: »

I think your missing the point. The charity is a non profit making organisation it doesn't mean you can take what you want because you know how to count beans. The general perception would be that people who work with charity organisation have a different view point to life/work than the profit making sector. E.g. if a man/woman was running a charity that was saving kids from dying from starvation one would expect they would not be taking home 100k plus expenses. I would expect there would be some guilt in that because they would know exactly what a reduction in their salary would actually do. Perhaps save a few lives.

The problem is, there's not many talented CEOs who would choose to take an enormous pay cut work to for a charity.

And just because somebody works for a charity, doesn't mean they have to be some kind of philanthropist.

summerskin

handlemaster wrote: »

Do you think ? I've worked with a few on those salaries and competence and ability would not be the first words to describe their proformance.

Unfortunately that is often the perception from junior members of staff, as they usually expect the senior manager to be able to do the same job they do. A prime example is when sales staff expect the manager to be able to do their job to the level they do. Chances are he/she did that job years ago, and their core competencies are now focussed on management, bringing the best out of others, analysing trends, performance, budgets etc.

The manager's job is hugely different, and of course there are exceptions, but a company will not continue to employ someone on that salary, in a senior position, if they are not up to the task.

summerskin

Blisterman wrote: »

The problem is, there's not many talented CEOs who would choose to take an enormous pay cut work to for a charity.

And just because somebody works for a charity, doesn't mean they have to be some kind of philanthropist.

I worked for various charities over the years, earning good money, doing my job to a high standard, while never actually giving a fúck about the cause.

I worked for the WWF, for example, and my ambition in life is to eat Giant Panda before they go extinct. Didn't stop me being professional at my job though, and I was highly rewarded for it.

franktheplank

The biggest problem I have with charities is not the salaries in themselves but the lack of regulation in the sector.

We don't have any reliable way of knowing what happens the hundreds of millions, perhaps a figure into the billions (who knows) that goes to Irish charities.

As such I think it's crazy to be paying such high salaries, especially when we get to 300-400k plus, and not having any reliable accountability for this money.

We can't even tell how much extra some of these charity heads are paying themselves in bonuses, expenses, pension benefits, questionable business deals etc. etc.

I for one no longer give to charity, and I won't until the recent Charities Act which allows for inspection and regulation is implemented.

suicide_circus

Kind of irking to hand my cash over to an organization whose CEO earns a few multiples of what i do

summerskin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Kind of irking to hand my cash over to an organization whose CEO earns a few multiples of what i do

Why? You wouldn't be able to do their job, only a person with adequate skills and experience would. Would you rather they employed someone more junior, who was less able to manage the funds raised effectively, as happens with numerous smaller charities?

franktheplank

summerskin wrote: »

Why? You wouldn't be able to do their job, only a person with adequate skills and experience would. Would you rather they employed someone more junior, who was less able to manage the funds raised effectively, as happens with numerous smaller charities?

It's often put forward that these charity CEO's have wonderful business skills, but how many would get a CEO job with an actual business?

I think the fear people often have is that the CEO's get their jobs through cronyism or political influence. I think that was certainly the case in the large charity I worked for, where the CEO certainly wasn't worth the money they were paid and only a tiny fraction of the millions (and millions) raised actually went where it was supposed to.

Again though, implement the Charities Act and we should see a lot less of this.

s_carnage

franktheplank wrote: »

The biggest problem I have with charities is not the salaries in themselves but the lack of regulation in the sector.

We don't have any reliable way of knowing what happens the hundreds of millions, perhaps a figure into the billions (who knows) that goes to Irish charities.

As such I think it's crazy to be paying such high salaries, especially when we get to 300-400k plus, and not having any reliable accountability for this money.

We can't even tell how much extra some of these charity heads are paying themselves in bonuses, expenses, pension benefits, questionable business deals etc. etc.

I for one no longer give to charity, and I won't until the recent Charities Act which allows for inspection and regulation is implemented.

And here lies the true problem

handlemaster

summerskin wrote: »

Unfortunately that is often the perception from junior members of staff, as they usually expect the senior manager to be able to do the same job they do. A prime example is when sales staff expect the manager to be able to do their job to the level they do. Chances are he/she did that job years ago, and their core competencies are now focussed on management, bringing the best out of others, analysing trends, performance, budgets etc.

The manager's job is hugely different, and of course there are exceptions, but a company will not continue to employ someone on that salary, in a senior position, if they are not up to the task.

My learned friend. I understand your point of view and on the whole aggree with staff having that opinion. I was refering to the job that the manager actually does. It is ignorance to assume one working at a junior level doesn't know the task required by someone on a more senior level. It is not true to say a company will not employ someone on a high salary / senior position if they are not up to the task. It is often to case someone down the chain of command gets the blame (if you see the bullet coming its best to deflect or avoid).

summerskin

franktheplank wrote: »

It's often put forward that these charity CEO's have wonderful business skills, but how many would get a CEO job with an actual business?

In every charity i worked with or for, the senior management all moved to the charity directly from private businesses, having displayed high levels of business acumen in their previous roles.

franktheplank

summerskin wrote: »

In every charity i worked with or for, the senior management all moved to the charity directly from private businesses, having displayed high levels of business acumen in their previous roles.

Great, that certainly wasn't the case in the Charity I worked for, which is one of the biggest in the country.

It still doesn't deal with the issue of regulation, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing Irish charities.

To my knowledge most other Western countries have brought in Charity regulation. It's clearly needed here. Until that happens I just can't give money to a system that I know to be so wasteful and open to abuse.

summerskin

franktheplank wrote: »

Great, that certainly wasn't the case in the Charity I worked for, which is one of the biggest in the country.

It still doesn't deal with the issue of regulation, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing Irish charities.

To my knowledge most other Western countries have brought in Charity regulation. It's clearly needed here. Until that happens I just can't give money to a system that I know to be so wasteful and open to abuse.

That may be the case, I worked with charities in the UK and Switzerland, which are highly regulated.

Its a difficult one I work for a charity, it more important to look at how much of the charities income is used for administration that to look at the CEO salaries which is often fully funded by the HSE for example, ( and despite what people think about the HSE it does not give out money without the organisation having a detailed services plan and strict controls on how the money is accounted for) it is also important to look at the qualification of the CEO at a minim I would expect them to have significant management qualifications such as an MBA especially if they get a lot of government funding.


I give money to charity but I am very carefully about which ones I support.