Trocaire Boxes

Ghost Buster

Maddison Angry Bacteria wrote: »

I think this has moved into talk about charitys in general but in any case no I'm referring to people who don't work for charitys but at the same time a well run charity is run like a business and to get the best people to run it you need to pay at similar levels to similar roles in industry.

Jesus Christ its like nailing jelly to a wall!!!
Do you not think that a good Christian working for a Christian Charity which is doing the Lords work and saving the poor starving Africans would take a more modest Christ like wage.
Yes or no?

thehouses

Maddison Angry Bacteria wrote: »

I think this has moved into talk about charitys in general but in any case no I'm referring to people who don't work for charitys but at the same time a well run charity is run like a business and to get the best people to run it you need to pay at similar levels to similar roles in industry.

I don't think work is performed any better with a high salary. Look at what the bankers did to the country and look at the legacy Angela Kearns has left behind.

We all have our own opinions at the end of the day on what is best practice. And I agree that charities need to be well run, but high wages are not needed. When you consider that there are volunteers working unpaid it is clear that they are different than regular businesses.

CJ Haughey

arayess wrote: »

what should a CEO earn? Humour me and tell me .
cos it sounds like you are just ranting for the sake of it with no info for back up.

The average industrial wage would be too good for them, very basic job.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

What are the drawbacks?

Eternal Damnation presumably?

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Jesus Christ its like nailing jelly to a wall!!!
Do you not think that a good Christian working for a Christian Charity which is doing the Lords work and saving the poor starving Africans would take a more modest Christ like wage.
Yes or no?

No I think a person should be well paid if their position merits it regardless if its a charity or a business.

You really are not getting the fact that people working in the upper levels of a charity are there as a job, its the same as working for any other business expect instead of profit their aim is to get as much money as possible to give to people who need it.

Also 90% of donations to trociare go to the people who need it, 10% is a pretty acceptable level of costs incured in running it dont see how anyone could argue with that.

CJ Haughey wrote: »

The average industrial wage would be too good for them, very basic job.

I've seen it all now, the average industiral wage for the top business men and women in the country. You do relaise how difficult it is to get to the level of CEO right?

thehouses

CJ Haughey wrote: »

The average industrial wage would be too good for them, very basic job.

I wouldn't agree with that to be honest.

arayess

CJ Haughey wrote: »

The average industrial wage would be too good for them, very basic job.

average industrial wage? I see !!!
joe higgins masquerading as CJ Haughey , you've been rumbled.

very basic job . ffs cop on.

lazybones32

CJ Haughey wrote: »

The average industrial wage would be too good for them, very basic job.

Yes, Comrade. All work, workers and pay should be equal!

osarusan

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Do you not think that a good Christian working for a Christian Charity which is doing the Lords work and saving the poor starving Africans would take a more modest Christ like wage.
Yes or no?

Stupid question is stupid.

Would you rather that Trocaire hire a well-meaning good Christian amateur who would manage ineffectively and piss away their dwindling income, or a hire a capable professional (who, gasp, may not even be a Christian, never mind a good one) who will increase income and deliver services more effectively?*

*This is not to say that there are not charities with CEOs who are greedy bastards.

conorhal

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Jesus Christ its like nailing jelly to a wall!!!
Do you not think that a good Christian working for a Christian Charity which is doing the Lords work and saving the poor starving Africans would take a more modest Christ like wage.
Yes or no?

Obviously, yes.
But these are all Christian charities in name only really, most of them function like any other quango, the priests and brothers that ran them are long gone.

I know a charity I won't name, but a former employee I know was quite bitter about how it became quite the money spinner after their board decided they needed to 'profesionalize' more, out went the brothers, the volunteers and the comunity workers that were paid buttons and in came highly paid CEO's who wanted marketing departments, PR people and a layer of professional middle management that gobbled up the bulk of funding. It suited their ends to keep the 'christian charity' name badge as it allowed them to bilk cash out of old grannies at the church gate, but the truth is they were nothing of the sort.

That's why I donate to the Capuchin Day Center, 100% volunteer run, no employees, no expensive advertising campaigns, no 'effin chuggers, just helping people and never refusing sombody at their door.

http://www.capuchindaycentre.ie/Capu...ss_People.html

muppetkiller

Maddison Angry Bacteria wrote: »

Also 90% of donations to trociare go to the people who need it, 10% is a pretty acceptable level of costs incured in running it dont see how anyone could argue with that.

I don't believe this is true. I think it's states that 90% of the money is spent on charitable expenditure..that could mean anything. CEO flying to different companies trying to drum up more money, Marketing , hotels and expenses , rent etc..the people on the ground would probably see a very small % of it.

I do believe you need to pay well though if you want a CEO to run it correctly.

Ghost Buster

osarusan wrote: »

Stupid question is stupid.

Would you rather that Trocaire hire a well-meaning good Christian amateur who would manage ineffectively and piss away their dwindling income, or a hire a capable professional (who, gasp, may not even be a Christian, never mind a good one) who will increase income and deliver services more effectively?*

*This is not to say that there are not charities with CEOs who are greedy bastards.

I agree its a stupid question, . It was asked because in the first few pages there were outraged and indignant posters expressing their shock that any one could question the motives of these good Catholic charities but then can do a full 360 and declare Trocaire a business when the high wages question arises.

Nodin

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Jesus Christ its like nailing jelly to a wall!!!
Do you not think that a good Christian working for a Christian Charity which is doing the Lords work and saving the poor starving Africans would take a more modest Christ like wage.
Yes or no?

2 shekels an hour and an amphora of wine bonus on bank holidays?

worded

I see that Nestles Kit Kat makers pay a premium for thier coco over the odds which can be spend on football clubs or whatever the community needs. Fair trade.

I've eaten two bars today.

+1 on the small charaties than are run on a shoe string by 100% volunteers

Would it be a more truthful design for the Trocaire box money slot to be the pocket of a fat CEO than a black baby with flies all around ?

vicwatson

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

http://www.trocaire.org/whatwedo/who-we-are

First Line in there about Us section...

They are part of the C\tholic Church, an organisation that has a history of abuses, and the major abuse they are carrying out in the Africa is not giving out condoms to every man, woman and child

And a Trustees board chaired by "cardinal" Sean Brady :mad:

CJ Haughey

Out of a group of people i know who have trocaire boxes in their homes they will be choosing option one and returning it to the parish church. There are 4 options. One of the local priests ran up a €2k phone bill 2 years ago phoning late night pretty women, can he be trusted to count up the money honestly, i don't think so.

jaja321

thehouses wrote: »

The IMNDA CEO is on less than €75,000 and seems to be doing a good job. There is no begrudging at all, it is about making sure as much people are helped as possible and CEOs siphon off money that could be used in much better ways. They are charities after all and have many volunteers working for them. If money is their motivation to work, then the charity would be better off without them.

What size budget and organization is that CEO responsible for? Is it comparable?

Valetta

jaja321 wrote: »

What size budget and organization is that CEO responsible for? Is it comparable?

http://imnda.ie/about-imnda/where-does-the-money-go/

Total funds raised in 2013 €1,591,253 9 Employees


http://www.trocaire.org/whatwedo/annual-report

Total funds raised 2013 €60,273,000 423 Employees (page 51 of AR)

Not really comparable.

thehouses

It doesn't matter. What matters is that they are charities with many volunteers and money is being syphoned off unnecessarily by high salaries. Charities are different to normal businesses. If the CEO had a lower salary the same quality of work would be done. Think of the salaries bankers had and they were terrible at their jobs.

MRnotlob606

Filling them up with lots of money so Africans can have iphones also

osarusan

thehouses wrote: »

If the CEO had a lower salary the same quality of work would be done. Think of the salaries bankers had and they were terrible at their jobs.

Not if the lower salary won't attract the same quality of CEO.

Again, you could pay a CEO 60,000 a year and they'll fundraise a million quid, or you can pay a CEO 100,000 a year and they'll fundraise double that. Or the CEO on a hundred grand might find ways to cut costs that saves the charity 100,000 a year.

Hiring a CEO at sixty grand rather than a hundred grand means you've saved forty grand on that position, but there are very many other ways that a CEO on a hundred grand can earn their higher salary.

thehouses

osarusan wrote: »

Not if the lower salary won't attract the same quality of CEO.

Again, you could pay a CEO 60,000 a year and they'll fundraise a million quid, or you can pay a CEO 100,000 a year and they'll fundraise double that. Or the CEO on a hundred grand might find ways to cut costs that saves the charity 100,000 a year.

Hiring a CEO at sixty grand rather than a hundred grand means you've saved forty grand on that position, but there are very many other ways that a CEO on a hundred grand can earn their higher salary.

I don't think we are going to agree with each other!

You can pay them 60,000 a year and they'll fundraise one million, you can pay them 100,000 and they'll fundraise half that. Maybe the CEO on 60,000 will cut costs that saves the charity 100,000 per year.

The 40 grand saved by hiring a CEO for less could mean that the 100,000 grand they saved in the year by reducing costs would translate to a saving of 140,000 rather than 100,000.

I don't mean to be repeating myself but bankers got high wages and those high wages had nothing to do with the calibre of person employed.

lazybones32

worded wrote: »

I see that Nestles Kit Kat makers pay a premium for thier coco over the odds which can be spend on football clubs or whatever the community needs. Fair trade.

I've eaten two bars today.

Before you go singing Nestle's praises, you might research their practice of giving free milk formula to expectant Mother's in South Africa...seems lovely on the surface but wait 'til you get to the crux of it.

Mint Aero

Good idea. OP. It's condoms they need not my euros.