SIX PACK wrote: » Can anybody answer me this simple question. Couldn't get a straight answer on Google. Thanks in advance just about to Donate €50
satguy wrote: » I stopped giving money to charities when I saw what big wages the head guys are on. Angela Kerins was paying herself over 240K,, and we all know the carry on that was happening over there.https://www.thejournal.ie/rehab-angela-kerins-1335670-Feb2014/https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rehab-chief-is-entitled-to-35-salary-bonus-260410.html These people will never get a penny from me..
ChikiChiki wrote: » Pieta is a very well run organisation offering a vital service. Their fundraising drives and brand are quite strong as evidenced by DIL reaching all continents. Compared with the Console spoofers, I think the salary has merit.
TheValeyard wrote: » Pieta used to be a very well run organisation. I do have my doubts about the new current leadership. I wonder if its treated more like a business now, rather than its original ideals. But still a valuable service.
auspicious wrote: » Offer high salaries and you get to pick the best qualified for the position. Those with a recorded 'wherewithal' to generate the best revenue stream/funding for the charity which is ideally the end goal.
Geuze wrote: » 2017 CEO = 95k 2018 CEO = 95k See note 13.
Jizique wrote: » Speaking of Goal, that is an interesting story. There seems to be a revolving door between the sector and the political arena - must attract the same characters. Didn’t Avril Power (mrs indo editor) take over at the cancer society after failing in multiple elections
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » That sort of thing goes on a lot even with the CEO of Pieta House running for presidency lat time out and the CEO of Bernardos running previously. All these services should be run by the state as part of the health service.
ShareShare wrote: » If i understand, These services types are run by the state, but people find them inadequate, and decided to voluntarily do better themselves. They get successful and big, and become part of the overall societal services. Some get government help, others try to stay detached from the government so they don't become part of the inefficient wheel. If they all get run by the state, the new ones just appear just like these formed.
zerosugarbuzz wrote: » I also get this impression. I have a friend who was very depressed a few years ago who contacted them. They took his details and he got a call back 3 or 4 weeks later by which time he had got help elsewhere. Not sure if this is the norm, but I thought it was a bit lax for someone thinking of ending it all.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I appreciate that. Charities who run as a business are pretty much the anthesis of what their "intention" is. Some are great but sadly the ones who pump a lot of donations into pr are the ones that get the lion's share.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » They do great work, do you expect him/her to work for free? What's the cut off salary that will make you not donate?