Peter McVerry Trust staff and wages

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

We keep people safe, we provide counselling, support them through addiction, mental health issues, domestic violence. We have food for the kids, homework clubs, we give people who need it time, we listen to them, we teach them how to budget, manage a home, life skills. We can't get them out of homelessness with the click of a finger but that's not the job. The job is to provide them with emergency accommodation and support to live independently. I do a great job, my colleagues do a great job.

Raconteuse wrote: »

And who'd be able to do all that work for free? You?

stoneill wrote: »

I think that a lot of people on this thread should spend some time working with the charities for a week or two to see the devastation of peoples lives and then comment whether it is money well spent or not.

gman2k wrote: »

I work for an organisation that has "Charity" in its name and provides services to vulnerable people.
The job I do (and get paid for) cannot be done by volunteers, and there are many people in my organisation who would not even work with some of the people I support due to the challenges they present.
There have been many people I know who have been seriously injured in the course of their work.
To suggest that services can and should be provided by unpaid volunteers or even lowly paid employees is laughable, but understandable when it comes from people who have zero knowledge of what is entailed.

Nobody is saying that any volunteers and frontline staff aren't doing a good job. In fact, the vast majority of us wouldn't do it for twice what you're all being paid. The grievance people have is over the wastefulness that comes with repetition of roles across a number of charities. You don't need (or you wouldn't need) 15 CEOs and 15 boards and 15 sets of counselors etc if there was a centralised unit responsible for all the work currently carried out by the charities.

I posted the following on this exact topic in January:

Ignoring, for a second, that we use a different metric to ascertain as to what exactly counts as being “homeless”………..

Homelessness has become a business for certain groups. It is in their interest to bang this particular drum in the media as often and as loud as possible because this is their bread and butter. These guys would be out of a job if we eradicated homelessness.

https://pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

Total employment costs for 2017 – €14.9million (page 24)
Total state funding – €14.4million (page 11)

Think about that for a second. Every penny the Government gives these guys, plus the first half a million raised via collection, plus the €200k used to fund that collection (on page 13) is spent on staff salaries and pensions. Before a cup of tea or a sleeping bag or a pair of dry socks is handed out, they take the first €15million+.

If they didn’t exist, and that €15 mill was handed out to an organisation that already receives funding (like ICHH or example or even if their funding was given to PMcV), it would all go towards where it’s needed (barring a small % increase in the number of staff they’d have to employ).

Scandalous, really.

I am in no way disparaging the great work that people do for PMCVT. But when homeless people would be better off to the tune of €15,000,000 by the dissolution of the most prominent charity, then questions have to be asked.

If the charities really wanted to end homelessness they'd band together to cut costs, saving money in the process and have more to spread out where it is required. Instead, they're competing with each other.

Subcomandante Marcos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody is saying that any volunteers and frontline staff aren't doing a good job. In fact, the vast majority of us wouldn't do it for twice what you're all being paid. The grievance people have is over the wastefulness that comes with repetition of roles across a number of charities. You don't need (or you wouldn't need) 15 CEOs and 15 boards and 15 sets of counselors etc if there was a centralised unit responsible for all the work currently carried out by the charities.

I posted the following on this exact topic in January:


If the charities really wanted to end homelessness they'd band together to cut costs, saving money in the process and have more to spread out where it is required. Instead, they're competing with each other.

And in January it was pointed out by several people than you and your fellow rabid hoard members hadn't a notion what you were talking about.

Go back and read that thread.

Subcomandante Marcos

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

rabbis hoard

corner of hells

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On 37k and you’ve to account for all the work you do and meet KPIs? Sounds like you’re on the gravy train, mate.

Seriously though, it sounds like you have a normal enough sounding job with targets and reasonable expectations in remuneration. I don’t get the hostility towards people working in charities.

I'm posting from my yaught in Bermuda as we speak.

Subcomandante Marcos

corner of hells wrote: »

I'm posting from my yaught in Bermuda as we speak.

It's so easy to get all that work done while you're doing the easy task of head counts, SAMS, observations, key work, dealing with a benzo fit, talking someone through hap applications, braking out the noloxone kit to save someone's life mid OD, talking down a suicidal resident, and keeping the place clean and safe.

Quit slacking.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don’t know how many homeless charities there are. But I really don’t think the terrible maths is helping the case. I accept that duplication is bad and economy of scale is good. But the example above is poor for lots of reasons.

It’s fairly simple.

There is a finite amount of money donated. The more “charities” there are, the less of that donated money actually gets to the people it was donated for.

Professor Genius

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Surprised it took so long for an attack on McVerry tbh. He lambasts the government for the behaviour of Murphy for claiming 51k yet not doing the job he was elected to do whilst Peter accompanied a teenager to court who was caught stealing a bar costing a euro.

It’s stealing a €1euro bar of choc today and possibly being involved in gangland executions tomorrow. These things are best nipped in the bud

corner of hells

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

It's so easy to get all that work done while you're doing the easy task of head counts, SAMS, observations, key work, dealing with a benzo fit, talking someone through hap applications, braking out the noloxone kit to save someone's life mid OD, talking down a suicidal resident, and keeping the place clean and safe.

Quit slacking.

Shhhh, will ya.

corner of hells

Professor Genius wrote: »

It’s stealing a €1euro bar of choc today and possibly being involved in gangland executions tomorrow. These things are best nipped in the bud

Apt name for that post.

El_Duderino 09

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Probably cane from the exposure of widespread fraud in Ireland in charities a few years ago?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.ie/news/3639258/ ex-charity-chief-paul-keppy-quizzed-dawn-swoop/amp/

The former CEO — suspected of swindling €600,000 from suicide helpline Console between 2012 and 2014 — was driven from his luxury pad in Clane, Co Kildare, early yesterday morning

One example of many.

Not saying they are all the same just showing why people might be suspicious.

Could have. And if it is a result of changes after that, it’s a good thing, right? Good controls on how the money is spend dvd good auditing of the work being done.

Sounds like a good system to me. Doesn’t it sound good to you?

zerosugarbuzz

Who actually own all the houses provided by the Peter Mc very trust? Is it the Catholic Church?

corner of hells

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Who actually own all the houses provided by the Peter Mc very trust? Is it the Catholic Church?

No , PMVT is a trust , they own the properties, they function as a housing association.

Subcomandante Marcos

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Who actually own all the houses provided by the Peter Mc very trust? Is it the Catholic Church?

The trust own most of the buildings. After that some are rented.
Tulsa/HSE own some, and DCC, Kildare CC, and Wicklow CC own a small minority.

The church owns none of them. In fact the Jesuit order recently gifted several properties in North city centre to the trust for housing.

downtheroad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody is saying that any volunteers and frontline staff aren't doing a good job. In fact, the vast majority of us wouldn't do it for twice what you're all being paid. The grievance people have is over the wastefulness that comes with repetition of roles across a number of charities. You don't need (or you wouldn't need) 15 CEOs and 15 boards and 15 sets of counselors etc if there was a centralised unit responsible for all the work currently carried out by the charities.

I posted the following on this exact topic in January:


If the charities really wanted to end homelessness they'd band together to cut costs, saving money in the process and have more to spread out where it is required. Instead, they're competing with each other.

Spot on. 1 charity for homelessness with 1 CEO and 1 advertising budget rather than possibly 10 charities with 10 CEOs and 10 competing advertising campaigns.

Pay the 1 CEO a salary of €200,000 to run this super charity efficiently, and allow more of the donations and government subsidies to go those in need.

corner of hells

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

The trust own most of the buildings. After that some are rented.
Tulsa/HSE own some, and DCC, Kildare CC, and Wicklow CC own a small minority.

The church owns none of them. In fact the Jesuit order recently gifted several properties in North city centre to the trust for housing.

Are you really a subcomandante ?

Subcomandante Marcos

corner of hells wrote: »

Are you really a subcomandante ?

I will be, when the revolution comes.

corner of hells

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

I will be, when the revolution comes.

I'd like to be a deputy admiral Subcomandante.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

Lets say the disposable income of the people of Ireland is €1,000,000 as an example.

If there is one homeless charity and overheads and wages is €250k, then €750k will go to the people that need it.

If there are 2 homeless charities competing, then €250k will go to those that need it.

4 charities and its down to €0k.

How many homeless "charities" are there currently, even just Dublin based??

You’ve hit the nail on the head. How many “Charities” duplicating the same services? How many of the 10,000 homeless do PMV’s 500 staff support?
As for the starting salary, it may be Dublin rate, but sure as Hell isnt the rate outside the Pale.
All this money and still 10,000 homeless. Heads should be rolling.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

It’s fairly simple.

There is a finite amount of money donated. The more “charities” there are, the less of that donated money actually gets to the people it was donated for.

Yeah I think anyone would agree that things like duplication are bad. But if there is 1 charity with x admit costs. and it’s split into 2 charities, the admin costs won’t stay at x level in both charities. There will be some duplication but the admin costs won’t double like they did in your example. That’s why it’s not a good example.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You’ve hit the nail on the head. How many “Charities” duplicating the same services? How many of the 10,000 homeless do PMV’s 500 staff support?
As for the starting salary, it may be Dublin rate, but sure as Hell isnt the rate outside the Pale.
All this money and still 10,000 homeless. Heads should be rolling.

Who’s head should roll?

corner of hells

downtheroad wrote: »

Spot on. 1 charity for homelessness with 1 CEO and 1 advertising budget rather than possibly 10 charities with 10 CEOs and 10 competing advertising campaigns.

Pay the 1 CEO a salary of €200,000 to run this super charity efficiently, and allow more of the donations and government subsidies to go those in need.

I'm not sure that would be feasible, I've moved between charities because I felt their policies weren't viable , that they weren't client centred, weren't value for money and weren't as proactive as they could be.

El_Duderino 09

downtheroad wrote: »

Spot on. 1 charity for homelessness with 1 CEO and 1 advertising budget rather than possibly 10 charities with 10 CEOs and 10 competing advertising campaigns.

Pay the 1 CEO a salary of €200,000 to run this super charity efficiently, and allow more of the donations and government subsidies to go those in need.

Go for it. Sounds really efficient. Now all it needs his you to make it happen just like how people like PMV made their organisations happen.

Idbatterim

I think there is more to robbing the E1 drink to be honest. Where do you draw the line? theft is ok, because it something cheap?

Jimmy Bottlehead

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who’s head should roll?

I'm also curious about this.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think anyone would agree that things like duplication are bad. But if there is 1 charity with x admit costs. and it’s split into 2 charities, the admin costs won’t stay at x level in both charities. There will be some duplication but the admin costs won’t double like they did in your example. That’s why it’s not a good example.

I'm not talking about splitting it, i'm talking about another "charity" competing with it. Which is whats happening now. You have "charities" paying for radio ads, tv ads etc in order to get the edge over other charities.

El_Duderino 09

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'm not talking about splitting it, i'm talking about another "charity" competing with it. Which is whats happening now. You have "charities" paying for radio ads, tv ads etc in order to get the edge over other charities.

Yeah. That’s what’s happening. They all help different groups of people with different needs (some overlapping) and they all pay their own overheads too. Sounds normal, even if sub optimal.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who’s head should roll?

The CEO for a start. Homelessness is an industry. It thrives on people being classed as homeless. Plenty have been calling for Leo Varadker and his Ministers to be sacked. Yet, the multiple charities are employing almost as many as are homeless. Homelessness is increasing on these CEO’s watch.

weldoninhio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. That’s what’s happening. They all help different groups of people with different needs (some overlapping) and they all pay their own overheads too. Sounds normal, even if sub optimal.

How do say, Focus and PMVT, two of the largest in Dublin, differentiate? What different groups do they cater for???

Jimmy Bottlehead

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The CEO for a start. Homelessness is an industry. It thrives on people being classed as homeless. Plenty have been calling for Leo Varadker and his Ministers to be sacked. Yet, the multiple charities are employing almost as many as are homeless. Homelessness is increasing on these CEO’s watch.

You mentioned heads, plural. Who's after the CEO?

ThunbergsAreGo

Idbatterim wrote: »

I think there is more to robbing the E1 drink to be honest. Where do you draw the line? theft is ok, because it something cheap?

Of course there is, it's actually astounding it has just been taken at face value