Pieta

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How much should the CEO of a large charity make in your opinion?

Zero. The clue is in the type of organisation it is - a charity. Plenty of much larger voluntary organisations than Pieta where the management are volunteers, and the staff are volunteers, all qualified in what they do.

€100k salaries attract figureheads, it says nothing about their ability to manage a charity organisation.

Patrick2010

No one has said what they actually do. I asked the question because we all saw where the Bothar money went.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And a banker is qualified to run a charity how exactly?
What qualifications in the provision of mental health services are gained while re-organising a bailed out bank?

Simplistic nonsense me hole. There is a cadre of 'CEO's' who move from highly paid job to highly paid job - Paul Reid is another example - with feck all actual experience in the field in which we are told they are 'highly qualified'.

The point of Pieta House is meant to be the provision of qualified help to vulnerable people - to do this they require qualified psychotherapists but are reluctant to pay them a decent wage.

If you think you will get someone capable of managing an organisation of 200 people with 13 centres for less than 120k pa, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

shtpEdthePlum

A former colleague confided in me that they were basically turfed out the door when they accessed Pieta two years ago. Having been referred by a counselling service in work as they mentioned that they have suicidal thoughts, they had two sessions and the therapist started to discuss discharge.

This person as far as I'm aware has huge stress at home and I believe they are a very subtle drug user. They mentioned it to me years ago, and later said would be afraid to mention this to a professional in case of any repercussions which would follow them in their career (as they feel they have a handle on it, but how much of a handle can you really have on a damaging addiction). They also engage in low level self-injurious behaviour. I don't know how they were discharged so soon. They would be one of the people still majorly on my radar to watch out for.

I know six men and four women (I was very close with one) in the area I live who have committed suicide since 2018.

On this basis, I feel that the service provided by Pieta House is not for for purpose and only acts as lip service which is ineffective in this worsening mental health crisis we're in.

Bannasidhe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you think you will get someone capable of managing an organisation of 200 people with 13 centres for less than 120k pa, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

If you think the CEO is involved in the day to day organisation of 200 people and the running of 13 centres you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you think you will get someone capable of managing an organisation of 200 people with 13 centres for less than 120k pa, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

The heist is that these charities are needed in the first place. That 500k while maybe "well spent" in the context of a the individuals involved and their abilities is still 500k that should be spent by the state through the already middle management and admin heavy HSE on 15 - 20 councillors.

13m revenue. Christ. 13m would be pocket change to the HSE. Yet how many councillors and team leads would that pay for in the HSE!?

We're complete mugs.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If you think you will get someone capable of managing an organisation of 200 people with 13 centres for less than 120k pa, then you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

There are plenty of people who could manage a small organisation of 200 people with 13 centres and would do so on a voluntary basis. They can easily be got. Pieta doesn’t want to get them, what Pieta wants (and I can’t say I blame them) is to increase their public profile, in order to bring in more funding from the public and the HSE. They opened a branch in New York a couple of years ago, funded in part by the Irish Government.

They are an example of a charity organisation that appears to have forgotten what the word charity means, in favour of operating the organisation like a pyramid scheme.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think the CEO is involved in the day to day organisation of 200 people and the running of 13 centres you don't know what you are talking about. I'll leave you at it.

Christ. You thought this was about her ringing 200 people every week to see how they are getting on. that explains a lot. She's the CEO. She reports to a board. She is taking RESPONSIBILITY for the management of 200 people and 13 centres. It is her fault completely whatever goes wrong. But let's pay her the average wage. Fcuk me, it's like trying to explain it to a child.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are plenty of people who could manage a small organisation of 200 people with 13 centres and would do so on a voluntary basis. They can easily be got. Pieta doesn’t want to get them, what Pieta wants (and I can’t say I blame them) is to increase their public profile, in order to bring in more funding from the public and the HSE. They opened a branch in New York a couple of years ago, funded in part by the Irish Government.

They are an example of a charity organisation that appears to have forgotten what the word charity means, in favour of operating the organisation like a pyramid scheme.

No there's not.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christ. You thought this was about her ringing 200 people every week to see how they are getting on. that explains a lot. She's the CEO. She reports to a board. She is taking RESPONSIBILITY for the management of 200 people and 13 centres. It is her fault completely whatever goes wrong. But let's pay her the average wage. Fcuk me, it's like trying to explain it to a child.

It’s completely up to the organisation whatever they want to pay their CEOs, but this argument that a good CEO can’t be got for less than €100k is something I’d expect a CEO who just fancies the title to say, because their salary says nothing about anyone’s ability as a CEO.

karlitob

Smee_Again wrote: »

How many people in Ireland manage a business with annual income of over €13m.

I don’t have much time for charities but if we’re going to use them to provide much needed services then we need properly qualified people to run them.

What qualifications do they have?

If a ceo of a €13m business earns €120k. How much should the ceo of the HSE which is a €20bn business, the largest organisation in the state, the largest employer in the state be paid?

CEOs of the model 4 hospitals in ireland earn €120k
CEOs of the model 3, model 2 hospitals earns €80k
CEOs of the small section 38s - which is what pieta is more or less like - is €60k.

Are you saying that the ceo of pieta should earn the same as the ceo of St. James’s hospital - the largest hospital in the state with 4400 staff and incredibly complex services - inc inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services.


The charities sectors in Ireland has over 8000 bodies at a cost of some billion most of which was supplied by government. Which is impossible to manage. Because of a lack of transparency the charities regulator had to be set up.

On the other side of that - only 1% of charities staff are paid >€80k.

screamer

I don’t think the amount paid for the CEO is the issue, it’s the value for money. In a lot of cases ( not pieta) we’ve seen utter corruption in charity organisation, and it seems the high paid are there to only line their own pockets on top of the salary they pay themselves.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s completely up to the organisation whatever they want to pay their CEOs, but this argument that a good CEO can’t be got for less than €100k is something I’d expect a CEO who just fancies the title to say, because their salary says nothing about anyone’s ability as a CEO.

Here's the problem. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. You can't just pluck Joe Bloggs off the assembly line and give him the responsibility of running the factory. Suitably qualified and experienced people won't take the responsibility of running a large organisation without commensurate pay. So you pay someone suitably qualified and experienced or you employ someone who isn't suitably qualified and experienced.

Gatling

It's the same as off the homeless charities based in Dublin making a killing off donations and having voulenteers walk around the street for a few hours carrying flasks ,

Cluedo Monopoly

I think using the title CEO isn't ideal. It suggests a business first and charity second.
I think General Manager or Managing Director works better.

Smee_Again

karlitob wrote: »

What qualifications do they have?

If a ceo of a €13m business earns €120k. How much should the ceo of the HSE which is a €20bn business, the largest organisation in the state, the largest employer in the state be paid?

CEOs of the model 4 hospitals in ireland earn €120k
CEOs of the model 3, model 2 hospitals earns €80k
CEOs of the small section 38s - which is what pieta is more or less like - is €60k.

Are you saying that the ceo of pieta should earn the same as the ceo of St. James’s hospital - the largest hospital in the state with 4400 staff and incredibly complex services - inc inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services.


The charities sectors in Ireland has over 8000 bodies at a cost of some billion most of which was supplied by government. Which is impossible to manage. Because of a lack of transparency the charities regulator had to be set up.

On the other side of that - only 1% of charities staff are paid >€80k.

CEO of James’ sounds underpaid to be honest.

I know a retired school principal who was on €120K when he retired about 10 years ago.

It’d be better if these services were provided by the HSE, it’s a scandal that the charities are needed, but if that is how we are going to fund them then salaries like this to administrate everything are needed.

karlitob

lawred2 wrote: »

The heist is that these charities are needed in the first place. That 500k while maybe "well spent" in the context of a the individuals involved and their abilities is still 500k that should be spent by the state through the already middle management and admin heavy HSE on 15 - 20 councillors.

13m revenue. Christ. 13m would be pocket change to the HSE. Yet how many councillors and team leads would that pay for in the HSE!?

We're complete mugs.

Midpoint on the salary scale for counsellor therapist is 55€k plus 11.5% Employer prsi and presuming 5% non pay costs is €64k is 203 counsellors.

The HSE is not admin heavy. 1.5% are in the nefarious ‘management’. The NHS - according to the kings fund has 3.7% and their analysis culminates in the following ‘our analysis seems to suggest that the nhs - particularly given the complexity of health care - is under-, rather than over-managed.

We need more managers in the HSE. Not less.

Richard Hillman

Pieta have been a bit of a sham in recent years. I have never done the walk but would be sympathetic to what they were doing.

As usual though, the bigger the charity gets, the more business orientated they become and essentially lose the origins of what they started as.

The problem with these NGOs is that the bigger they become the more public funding they get. And there is absolutely no chance a government would be able to cut or reduce funding without screeching from the media. NGO funding is becoming perpetual and bleeding the country dry.

_Kaiser_

RTE R1 news a few minutes ago said they've collected €7 million so far for Darkness into Light (up on the €5 million they were forecasting), with the ability to donate still open. Final total expected this week apparently.

I wonder will they give a breakdown of where that money will go, but I'd guess not. As others here have said, too many of these big "headline" charities are not passing the money to where it needs to be.

zerosugarbuzz

Meeoow wrote: »

You can Google pieta house accounts. All their years accounts are downloadable. Same with most charities. It's shocking how little goes where it should go. That is why I don't give to them.

Completely agree, most seem to spend in excess of 70% of their revenue on running costs which is insane. The well known homeless charities and Drug Treatment Charities are also guilty of this.

Xander10

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Completely agree, most seem to spend in excess of 70% of their revenue on running costs which is insane. The well known homeless charities and Drug Treatment Charities are also guilty of this.

I never got the impression that this was the case in the likes of the Peter McVerry Trust?

lawred2

karlitob wrote: »

Midpoint on the salary scale for counsellor therapist is 55€k plus 11.5% Employer prsi and presuming 5% non pay costs is €64k is 203 counsellors.

The HSE is not admin heavy. 1.5% are in the nefarious ‘management’. The NHS - according to the kings fund has 3.7% and their analysis culminates in the following ‘our analysis seems to suggest that the nhs - particularly given the complexity of health care - is under-, rather than over-managed.

We need more managers in the HSE. Not less.

What has the king's fund got to do with the HSE?

Bannasidhe

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christ. You thought this was about her ringing 200 people every week to see how they are getting on. that explains a lot. She's the CEO. She reports to a board. She is taking RESPONSIBILITY for the management of 200 people and 13 centres. It is her fault completely whatever goes wrong. But let's pay her the average wage. Fcuk me, it's like trying to explain it to a child.

Do you generally get verbally abusive when 'trying to explain things to a child'?

Where did I say she's ringing anyone? I didn't.

I know exactly what the CEO of a charity does and I stand by my assertion that many of them - and the majority of them when it's high profile ones - are overpaid, have zero interest in the charitable work the organisation they are RESPONSIBLE for carry out, run it as a pyramid scheme, suck up all the available funding leaving small organisations run by actual volunteers (like the wonderful Men's Sheds) scrabbling for crumbs, and ensure that they- personally- enjoy the kind of benefits most people using their service could only dream about.

karlitob

Smee_Again wrote: »

CEO of James’ sounds underpaid to be honest.

I know a retired school principal who was on €120K when he retired about 10 years ago.

It’d be better if these services were provided by the HSE, it’s a scandal that the charities are needed, but if that is how we are going to fund them then salaries like this to administrate everything are needed.

Agreed. I find the discussion on salaries a severe distraction to the real issue of getting services where they are needed. Notwithstanding that - considering the complexity of healthcare, and the fact that teachers are paid for 9 months rather than 12 months, I think as a group they are very much overpaid. But I would say that from my perspective.

There is certainly a role for the charities sector to provide services - a very important role. But some groups are little more than major PR advocacy machines and while they help people with that particular condition, that’s time effort snd money from those who have no voice. Once you have an organisation, there is a wealth of governance issues that are required - HR, finance, board, policies etc etc.

I would also say that there is a very important societal role for small charities. People who work in these charities commit and awful lot to them above and beyond the Pay cheque - from frontline to board room. Brining ‘efficiencies’ may reduce the number of staff required leading to job losses. Part of governments role is to provide jobs - it makes the world go round. And this is a valuable social means of doing that.

For instance, in one fell swoop government could remove motor tax by increasing the prices at the pump. Every budget day, it’s done by that night. No more tax office, no more queuing, the more you use, the more you pay - but sure the job losses would be significant. It was hard enough to centralise drivers licences as you would be removing staff from local county councils.

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you generally get verbally abusive when 'trying to explain things to a child'?

Where did I say she's ringing anyone? I didn't.

I know exactly what the CEO of a charity does and I stand by my assertion that many of them - and the majority of them when it's high profile ones - are overpaid, have zero interest in the charitable work the organisation they are RESPONSIBLE for carry out, run it as a pyramid scheme, suck up all the available funding leaving small organisations run by actual volunteers (like the wonderful Men's Sheds) scrabbling for crumbs, and ensure that they- personally- enjoy the kind of benefits most people using their service could only dream about.

How much should the CEO of an organisation that employs 200 people be paid?

karlitob

lawred2 wrote: »

What has the king's fund got to do with the HSE?

Nothing at all. Sorry to have offended you. I was merely referencing our closest neighbours health service. The one that’s referenced every single day as the model to hold up our services to.

Would you mind if I kept providing my opinion on this thread? I’ll try my best not to offend your sensibilities.

Xander10

Xander10 wrote: »

I never got the impression that this was the case in the likes of the Peter McVerry Trust?

The McVerry trust is one of the charities that does need to be investigated - pronto.

lawred2

karlitob wrote: »

Nothing at all. Sorry to have offended you. I was merely referencing our closest neighbours health service. The one that’s referenced every single day as the model to hold up our services to.

Would you mind if I kept providing my opinion on this thread? I’ll try my best not to offend your sensibilities.

What a ridiculous response.

What has analysis of the NHS structures got to do with the current structures of the HSE?

karlitob

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you generally get verbally abusive when 'trying to explain things to a child'?

Where did I say she's ringing anyone? I didn't.

I know exactly what the CEO of a charity does and I stand by my assertion that many of them - and the majority of them when it's high profile ones - are overpaid, have zero interest in the charitable work the organisation they are RESPONSIBLE for carry out, run it as a pyramid scheme, suck up all the available funding leaving small organisations run by actual volunteers (like the wonderful Men's Sheds) scrabbling for crumbs, and ensure that they- personally- enjoy the kind of benefits most people using their service could only dream about.

I think this is an important point. In my view, the Irish cancer society is a major pr company that drives policy to the detriment of others. Eg their campaign for free parking for cancer patients and their families. What gives them a right to demand free car parking? What about all the other patients in ireland? Why do I have to pay for parking cos I don’t have cancer and you do?
If you die in a hospice in ireland you get to keep all your assets, and you would’ve had significant home supports from the state. But if you die of old age - ie stroke, frailty, cardiac conditions etc - in a nursing home, the state takes 90% of your pension and 15% of your assets. And you want free car parking as well.

Men’s sheds are a prime example of excellent community services, led by people who understand what’s needed and they need more money. But what voice do that have among the 8000 bodies.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No there's not.

There really are? The CEO of any organisation is a figurehead position. The whole idea of a voluntary organisation is that they do what they do because they are passionate about the organisations aims. Plenty of organisations run and staffed entirely by volunteers do exist, and they use their qualifications in their roles for the benefit of the organisation, not simply to benefit themselves.

Then there are organisations who’s purpose appears to be creating and maintaining jobs for themselves, dependent upon funding from the public and Government, without which they would be able to fund €100k salaries for the people on their Board of Directors, which is why organisations like Pieta House find themselves in the position they’re in now -


Pieta House has been told to “review” its structure and operations in a bid to bridge the financial gap from the collapse in its fundraising.

The mental health charity, a Section 39 agency which normally receives 20% of its funding from the HSE, has been profoundly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, leading the Government to inject a one-off payment of just under €700,000 to mitigate the effects of the virus.

So-called Section 39 agencies are voluntary organisations based on a public-private funding model, with wages paid from both private funding and State bodies.

The State has service level agreements (SLAs) - a type of agreement which defines the expected level of service and the penalties for non-attainment of same - in place with most Section 39 agencies, including Pieta.

Even before the onset of Covid the charity had endured a torrid 2019, recording losses of more than €710,000 due to a shortfall in income from its Darkness into Light event. That same event was cancelled for 2020 due to the ongoing Covid crisis.

Last year Pieta had turnover of €13.4 million, but also recorded expenditure of €14.1 million.


Pieta to review its operations after funding collapse


If a Board of Directors makes a decision to spend most of their funding on salaries, that leaves little funding to provide services. Basic arithmetic really that a four year old could figure out.