Daffodil Day

Poor Uncle Tom

Irish Cancer Society - Daffodil Day is coming up on 11th March. a group of collectors in Wexford have pulled out on principle this year, based on the €7.5m payroll bill for 2014, including €145k for CEO John McCormack and €70k salaries for at least 10 other people in the ICS.

Source: http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2016/02/10/charity-salaries-end-daffodil-day/

I believe the volunteers on the ground selling the Daffodils and out with the collection buckets are every bit as important, if not more-so, than the fat management creaming off the hard earned collection monies to line their own bank accounts.

This year, I for one will not be contributing to the coffers of over paid paper pushers.

Notwithstanding the news in January that Mr. McCormack was to take a €10k reduction in pay given his decision to remove it's hardship fund for families of children with cancer and the subsequent, 360 on this decision when it hit the headlines.

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-ceo-pay-cut-2550092-Jan2016/

If he can take a €10k reduction in pay at the drop of a hat, I dont see why someone else can't actually do his job for €75k a year.

The waste of money here is disgusting.....

Valetta

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Irish Cancer Society - Daffodil Day is coming up on 11th March. a group of collectors in Wexford have pulled out on principle this year, based on the €7.5m payroll bill for 2014, including €145k for CEO John McCormack and €70k salaries for at least 10 other people in the ICS.

Source: http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2016/02/10/charity-salaries-end-daffodil-day/

I believe the volunteers on the ground selling the Daffodils and out with the collection buckets are every bit as important, if not more-so, than the fat management creaming off the hard earned collection monies to line their own bank accounts.

This year, I for one will not be contributing to the coffers of over paid paper pushers.

Notwithstanding the news in January that Mr. McCormack was to take a €10k reduction in pay given his decision to remove it's hardship fund for families of children with cancer and the subsequent, 360 on this decision when it hit the headlines.

Source: http://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-ceo-pay-cut-2550092-Jan2016/

If he can take a €10k reduction in pay at the drop of a hat, I dont see why someone else can't actually do his job for €75k a year.

The waste of money here is disgusting.....

So the charity suffers because you throw a hissy fit.

How did your application for CEO go?

Poor Uncle Tom

Valetta wrote: »

So the charity suffers because you throw a hissy fit.

How did your application for CEO go?

I'm not qualified, but I'm sure there are lots out there who actually are and would be delighted of the opportunity to invest their time for a good pay packet, not an obscene amount of almost €3k per week.

The scenario here is like a cancer itself, the affected area should be cut out, as it is hemorrhaging vital resources from the organisation and will, in the long run, lead to the destruction of the whole organisation if it is not tackled now.

I believe the news today should be enough of a warning that this is already happening....

osarusan

What's his performance as CEO like?

I have no idea, but depending on that, his salary might be a bargain for the charity.

Chucktastic

Valetta wrote: »

So the charity suffers because you throw a hissy fit.

How did your application for CEO go?

And the charity suffers even more if he doesn't.
They do great work but 145k is nuts. The oncologists themselves probably get around that.

KERSPLAT!

If they're earning their money then fair enough. No point getting someone in on the cheap who isn't successful or as successful where by the charity ends up actually losing out.

Who knows, maybe the CEO is already doing this on the cheap and could be earning double elsewhere...

I haven't read into this at all, the above is just my ramblings

Poor Uncle Tom

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

If they're earning their money.....

As the CEO of a charity, how can you earn that kind of money?, €3k a week, if you took your job seriously how could you sleep at night?

Spanish Eyes

This kind of support for cancer should not ever have to rely on charitable donations. EVER.

That is the problem right there. Charities providing essential supports. And the scandals surrounding many charities too.

Should be a given through our high taxes. I just don't understand it TBH.

Why is it that such essential supports need to be funded by donations?

Ah here, I'm baffled.

Have lost my Dad and my youngest sister to cancer. Never was offered anything until we asked.

Sorry, am probably still in grieving mode and angry.

Poor Uncle Tom

I lost my dad and my brother, so I do understand what your posting, it is a disgrace......

biko

I suppose his salary pays for him to do stuff like this

In 1991, he founded the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group which has lobbied successfully for the introduction of tax relief on corporate donations.

Irish Cancer Society CEO takes €10,000 salary cut in wake of funding controversy SRC

Bless his little heart


Is John McCormack as valuable as two or three regular people? My answer is no.

KERSPLAT!

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

As the CEO of a charity, how can you earn that kind of money?, €3k a week, if you took your job seriously how could you sleep at night?

As I said, he could be worth it. What's the alternative? You get what you pay for, IMO. You could try get someone in for €50k or whatever number you want to dish out and they could end up losing a lot more than the €100k you saved in a wage.

Spanish Eyes

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I lost my dad and my brother, so I do understand what your posting, it is a disgrace......

So sorry for your losses. (I know that is easy to say but I do know what it's like). Awful stuff altogether.

Disgrace is right, that end of life care through the cancer support services must be funded by daffodils bought by randomers on the streets.

I am a bit upset now. Sorry about that.

KERSPLAT!

biko wrote: »

I suppose his salary pays for him to do stuff like this




Bless his little heart

He works for a charity, he shouldn't get any wage at all ffs!!!

Can't win with some people.

Spanish Eyes

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

He works for a charity, he shouldn't get any wage at all ffs!!!

Can't win with some people.

Should Charities be involved at all in this critical care need for many? That would be my question anyway.

Poor Uncle Tom

biko wrote: »

I suppose his salary pays for him to do stuff like this




Bless his little heart

Does that justify trying to remove the €1,000 per family grant for families who have a child with cancer, sometimes goes to just cover parking so you get to see your kid?

I know it isn't what you mean it is just mind boggling how this goes on with such high salaries and so many sick kids....

osarusan

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

As the CEO of a charity, how can you earn that kind of money?, €3k a week, if you took your job seriously how could you sleep at night?

As already pointed out, maybe he turned down the chance to earn double that elsewhere.

You can't just look at the salary and say it's too much. If the guy get paid that and has the knowledge and connections that bring in 5 million a year in funding more than anybody else, is it still a waste of money?

Would you rather pay somebody half that salary and have them only be able to bring in 75% of what he might be bringing in?

Again - I have no idea what this guy's performance is like, but you can't just look at the salary and say it's all wrong.

KERSPLAT!

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Does that justify trying to remove the €1,000 per family grant for families who have a child with cancer, sometimes goes to just cover parking so you get to see your kid?

I know it isn't what you mean it is just mind boggling how this goes on with such high salaries and so many sick kids....

I understand there are cuts but again. I would assume this CEO is making many multiples of his salary for the charity. If you want to higher someone cheaper, expect lesser results and more cuts, IMO.

Poor Uncle Tom

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I would assume this CEO is making many multiples of his salary for the charity.

My friend, that is some assumption......

Spanish Eyes

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I understand there are cuts but again. I would assume this CEO is making many multiples of his salary for the charity. If you want to higher someone cheaper, expect lesser results and more cuts, IMO.

Again, why should a charity be required for such necessary supports for cancer sufferers?

I know you cannot answer that really, but honestly, it is a fekin joke when you think it through.

Ice Maiden

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

He works for a charity, he shouldn't get any wage at all ffs!!!

Can't win with some people.

I don't think anyone is saying he should not be paid anything, just that 145k seems perplexingly high for the CEO of a charity, rather than of a business. Where is this revenue stream coming from? A chunk off that 145k would still be a decent salary.
There is a huge gap between 145k and a poor salary.

It's all the more bizarre when there are volunteers doing collecting also, and as someone pointed out, when it's for a life-threatening illness for which there is a healthcare system and private health insurance also.

Stheno

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he should not be paid anything, just that 145k seems perplexingly high for the CEO of a charity, rather than of a business. Where is this revenue stream coming from? A chunk off that 145k would still be a decent salary.
There is a huge gap between 145k and a poor salary.

It's all the more bizarre when there are volunteers doing collecting also, and as someone pointed out, when it's for a life-threatening illness for which there is a healthcare system and private health insurance also.

145k as a salary for a CEO is fairly low compared to private industry.

The man is the head of an organisation who ensured that facilities were in place that meant my father died in an hospice suite in a hospital, rather than in a public ward.

He is the head of an organisation who provide huge additional supports to families affected by cancer across the country that the HSE do not.

He is the head of an organisation who contribute to cancer reseaerch also.

He has a lot on his plate, I cannot see the issue with his salary, and I for one will forever be grateful for the work done by the ICS to the victims of cancer and their families.

KERSPLAT!

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

My friend, that is some assumption......

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

My friend, that is some assumption......

Well he's not there to change the flipping bog roll. He's there to run the charity and to ensure they get in the most amount of money possible and put that money to good use.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Again, why should a charity be required for such necessary supports for cancer sufferers?

I know you cannot answer that really, but honestly, it is a fekin joke when you think it through.

But sure thats nothing to do with the topic and as you said, I can't answer that.

Ice Maiden wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying he should not be paid anything, just that 145k seems perplexingly high for the CEO of a charity, rather than of a business. Where is this revenue stream coming from? A chunk off that 145k would still be a decent salary.
There is a huge gap between 145k and a poor salary.

It's all the more bizarre when there are volunteers doing collecting also, and as someone pointed out, when it's for a life-threatening illness for which there is a healthcare system and private health insurance also.

For all we know this lad could be making multiples of this working elsewhere. If he is doing his job and there is no one else that can do it as good for ;ess money, then he's worth it.

Personnel and services have to be paid, a charity is no different.

KERSPLAT!

The more I think of it the more I believe that €145k is pretty low on the scale for CEOs of such a large organisation.

Spanish Eyes

Stheno wrote: »

145k as a salary for a CEO is fairly low compared to private industry.

The man is the head of an organisation who ensured that facilities were in place that meant my father died in an hospice suite in a hospital, rather than in a public ward.

He is the head of an organisation who provide huge additional supports to families affected by cancer across the country that the HSE do not.

He is the head of an organisation who contribute to cancer reseaerch also.

He has a lot on his plate, I cannot see the issue with his salary, and I for one will forever be grateful for the work done by the ICS to the victims of cancer and their families.

I am sorry for the loss of your Dad. I know what that is like.

However, we did not get anything like you did re my own Dad. Sadly, it was a case of "he is in a private room, there are palliative care staff, and that was that. Nothing came from the Daffodils.

When my sister died she was in a hospice outside of Dublin. There was no alternative, her OH was ill too with another illness and the care needs were critical at the time. But if things had been different, it would have been each to their own I reckon.

Not saying your family did not deserve care for your father at all, please don't get me wrong, but it is, in my experience hit and miss.

Stheno

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am sorry for the loss of your Dad. I know what that is like.

However, we did not get anything like you did re my own Dad. Sadly, it was a case of "he is in a private room, there are palliative care staff, and that was that. Nothing came from the Daffodils.

When my sister died she was in a hospice outside of Dublin. There was no alternative, her OH was ill too with another illness and the care needs were critical at the time. But if things had been different, it would have been each to their own I reckon.

Not saying your family did not deserve care for your father at all, please don't get me wrong, but it is, in my experience hit and miss.

Yes it is hit and miss, but where the supports are there, they are generally not HSE provided, but funded by the ICS.

The week my father died, the HSE were still talking about sending him home to palliative care.

The CEO of the ICS imo deserves the salary he is on, it's a huge organisation that does a massive amount of good. When my OHs mother was diagnosed with cancer also, it was all ICS support that was available supporting the HSE.

How much is the head of the HSE paid?

Spanish Eyes

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

The more I think of it the more I believe that €145k is pretty low on the scale for CEOs of such a large organisation.

I respectfully think you need to justify that statement. Thank you.

Cancer care should not need Charitable donations that fund the ancillary charges for salaries etc. IMV.

HSE where are you?

Charities are toxic now. For lots of reasons.

Spanish Eyes

Stheno wrote: »

Yes it is hit and miss, but where the supports are there, they are generally not HSE provided, but funded by the ICS.

The week my father died, the HSE were still talking about sending him home to palliative care.

The CEO of the ICS imo deserves the salary he is on, it's a huge organisation that does a massive amount of good. When my OHs mother was diagnosed with cancer also, it was all ICS support that was available supporting the HSE.

How much is the head of the HSE paid?

But that is exactly my point. The HSE should be providing these services without question, and ICS should not have a role at all.

I just do not understand why they do, and people (hit and miss) may if they are lucky benefit from the charitable Daffodils.

That is not right. Equal treatment is the best treatment. Charities are toxic.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I respectfully think you need to justify that statement. Thank you.

Cancer care should not need Charitable donations that fund the ancillary charges for salaries etc. IMV.

HSE where are you?

Charities are toxic now. For lots of reasons.

Just open the annual report of any plc and see what the CEO makes. It's not that difficult

Stheno

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But that is exactly my point. The HSE should be providing these services without question, and ICS should not have a role at all.

I just do not understand why they do, and people (hit and miss) may if they are lucky benefit from the charitable Daffodils.

That is not right. Equal treatment is the best treatment. Charities are toxic.

Well that's the opposite of my point, in that my father benefited from the work of the ICS as did my partners mother and his father in terms of support services.

I certainly don't think the ICS is toxic, they are filling a gap that is there, and providing real comfort to people.

The fact the HSE don't do so in this case is the real issue, and the ICS funds can only stretch so far.

Spanish Eyes

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Just open the annual report of any plc and see what the CEO makes. It's not that difficult

Eh, not sure what point you are making there.

I don't have to make charitable donations to a plc do I ?

osarusan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But that is exactly my point. The HSE should be providing these services without question, and ICS should not have a role at all.

I just do not understand why they do, and people (hit and miss) may if they are lucky benefit from the charitable Daffodils.

That is not right. Equal treatment is the best treatment. Charities are toxic.

Your issue is with the HSE more than it is with the Irish Cancer Society.

Regardless of whether the very existence of the ICS is evidence of HSE failure or not, they do exist.

The salary of the CEO should only be judged on the performance of the charity, not on what the HSE does or doesn't do.

Spanish Eyes

Stheno wrote: »

Well that's the opposite of my point, in that my father benefited from the work of the ICS as did my partners mother and his father in terms of support services.

I certainly don't think the ICS is toxic, they are filling a gap that is there, and providing real comfort to people.

The fact the HSE don't do so in this case is the real issue, and the ICS funds can only stretch so far.

Weary now, so yes, the fact that the HSE don't do it is the real issue isn't it?

I rest my case.

Charities are toxic, they mostly are.

Through our taxes we deserve proper services, not those that are hit and miss and rely on people buying a few daffs.

Any other country would laugh out loud at this really.

KERSPLAT!

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I respectfully think you need to justify that statement. Thank you.

Cancer care should not need Charitable donations that fund the ancillary charges for salaries etc. IMV.

HSE where are you?

Charities are toxic now. For lots of reasons.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But that is exactly my point. The HSE should be providing these services without question, and ICS should not have a role at all.

I just do not understand why they do, and people (hit and miss) may if they are lucky benefit from the charitable Daffodils.

That is not right. Equal treatment is the best treatment. Charities are toxic.

I don't think you're grasping the topic at hand at all. What the OP is about is whether the CEO earns too much, not whether the HSE or ICS should fund services (for want of a better word).

I'll leave it at that because we're already going in circles.

Spanish Eyes

osarusan wrote: »

Your issue is with the HSE more than it is with the Irish Cancer Society.

Regardless of whether the very existence of thr ICS is evidence of HSE failure or not, they do exist.

The salary of the CEO should only be judged on the performance of the charity, not on what the HSE does or doesn't do.

I did not make any comment on the salary of the ICS chief at all.

I just feel that the services provided by ICS should be provided through general taxation. Yes.

Because it is a charity, not everyone may benefit. That is the reality, and I know this from personal experience.

Stheno

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I did not make any comment on the salary of the ICS chief at all.

I just feel that the services provided by ICS should be provided through general taxation. Yes.

Because it is a charity, not everyone may benefit. That is the reality, and I know this from personal experience.

Do you think the CEO of the ICS is paid too much?

osarusan

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I did not make any comment on the salary of the ICS chief at all.

It's what the thread is about though!

Spanish Eyes

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't think you're grasping the topic at hand at all. What the OP is about is whether the CEO earns too much, not whether the HSE or ICS should fund services (for want of a better word).

I'll leave it at that because we're already going in circles.

Please do not patronise me.

The fact that a charity is carrying out essential cancer services for Ireland involves paying a CEO.

Now why does that not require comment?

Am trying to be civil here, but that is the reality.

Buckets to the ready on the streets, buy a daffodil and the money we make today will pay for a CEO and ancillary staff. Thank you, your relative may or may not benefit, but there ya go.

Spanish Eyes

osarusan wrote: »

It's what the thread is about though!

Do we need ICS though!! That is a bigger question IMV.

No one seems to see that. But sorry, I am probably a bit more emotionally invested in what I have experienced with cancer services.

Stheno

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Please do not patronise me.

The fact that a charity is carrying out essential cancer services for Ireland involves paying a CEO.

Now why does that not require comment?

Am trying to be civil here, but that is the reality.

Buckets to the ready on the streets, buy a daffodil and the money we make today will pay for a CEO and ancillary staff. Thank you, your relative may or may not benefit, but there ya go.

Seems to me that you are taking the fact your family did not benefit far too much. If those services were not there, far more families would have your experience. Daffodil days raise far more than the cost of the CEOS salary tbh.

And for people like me, they are a chance to donate a little to the people who made my fathers passing that bit more peaceful, and gave my family an environment to allow us to cope with the experience, rather than being gathered around a bed in a public ward within the confines of visiting hours.

Spanish Eyes

Good experiences bring positive views.

Sorry for all your losses. These losses are personal to us all.

Charities should not be needed for essential cancer care.

Over and out. and Goodnight everyone.

John_Rambo

biko wrote: »

I suppose his salary pays for him to do stuff like this

In 1991, he founded the Irish Charities Tax Reform Group which has lobbied successfully for the introduction of tax relief on corporate donations.

biko wrote: »

Bless his little heart

Surprised you focused on the Charities Tax Reform Group, It's made millons for charities! Does this not seem like money well spent? Bringing excellent business minds in to the charity sphere has made big big money for charities that get nothing from government.

Volunteers are the backbone of altruistic endeavors, I've been involved in one, not sure if you have. When they get big, when big money, big projects and big roll-outs arrive you need professionals. Serious professionals, experienced business minds that can handle big budgets and get the funds to the right places, professionals that can cut through the bureaucracy and red tape, people that can sit at board level industry and cut deals with blue chip companies that have serious money to donate.

You're "bless his little heart" comment is directed at a corporate tax relief system that introduces crucial philanthropy practices from large organisations to charities!

It's like hiring the ex-hunter to track the poachers. His wage may sit uncomfortably with people, but if his skills and knowledge quadruple the charitable donations, or more importantly ensure they're spent properly it's an necessity.

The charity I was involved with was the recipient of a large lotto donation along with a compulsory land purchase windfall. There was not a hope of the the three of us that were running the show being able to handle the way forward. We needed architects, builders, designers, media and a million different things. We all had full time jobs!

We hired a pro. Payed them well and got more out of the money.

ProfessorPlum

Breaks my heart when I see people deciding not to donate to a charity because the CEO is receiving what, in this case, is a moderate salary for the size of the business. Like it or lump it, big charities are big buisness, and need to be run as such. An excellent CEO can be the difference between a successful buisness, optimising resources and services provided, and a buisness that is bust. Charities are no different. I would like to think that the hard earned money that I donate is worked to the bone in the most efficient manner possible. Paying a professional the going rate for his skills is the way to achieve that, rather than having my money pissed away by a well intentioned amateur. People need to get over the idea that charities need to be solely staffed by armatures doing it for free. Or well below the market rate.

Ice Maiden

Fair points being given as in insight into why his salary is what it is. I would continue to donate either way though. I suppose statements like there is no alternative are a bit hyperbolic in the other direction though. The alternative is just that he be paid less.

Chucktastic

osarusan wrote: »

As already pointed out, maybe he turned down the chance to earn double that elsewhere.

That's like paying Ronaldo €10,000,000 a month to be a tea lady because "he could have got more elsewhere".

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't know anything about the running of the Irish cancer society, or what the ceo does for his money.
What I do know is that cancer has touched the families of pretty much everyone I know in some shape or form. All my aunties died from cancer. My dad died from cancer. 2 of my dads nieces have had breasts removed, his nephew has blood cancer and at present my cousin is going through radiation for a brain Tumor, she is 24.

When my dad was going through treatment there was a 13 year old girl on the oncology ward with him. Currently a girl in school with me has a 6 year old who's going through chemo.

What I do know is cancer is an absolutely horrible disease that's strips absolutely everything you know of the person, before it takes them. And if me buying a couple of daffodils, or donating a small sum a couple times a year makes life even just .5% less stressful for someone or some family while they're having their entire world ripped asunder, well then I'll support the charity, and not penalise the sufferers just to be bitter about the man at the top.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Eh, not sure what point you are making there.

I don't have to make charitable donations to a plc do I ?

"Eh" as you say, I'm not suggesting that.

Assuming the CEO is bringing good value to the charity for his salary, then he/she could probably get a similar role in the private sector. Ultimately this should equate to increased income for the charities. If the charities want the best talent, these are the salaries they are competing with.

We do quite a lot of volunteer work, through work, with some of the better known charities. All we have come across at the volunteer level are very well meaning, but not very useful, people. These are not the type of people you want as the head of your organisation