nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Over 40% of charities pay chiefs more than €100,000

Death and Taxes

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1219/breaking4.html

Worth bearing in mind before you part with your hard earned cash, just who are you supporting, the needy or some overpaid CEO.
Whats worse many of these organizatios are also recieving state funds.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LivelineDipso

gurramok wrote: »

The CEO's on those salaries are only in the job for the money. If they were really charitable in their nature, they could half their salary and still be fighting for charitable causes, their principles are worthless.

and if they are such top business hot shots then why are they not in the business world?

UCDVet

Dravokivich wrote: »

Nope:

In reference to the second use of the word. You know the way priests would generally mention a "calling" as such. Becoming one, would then be considered undertaking a vocation.

Absolutely. Thank you for clarifying.

Mena

When did over 100k become a large salary anyway.

Too many idealist students on AH to be honest.

LivelineDipso

Mena wrote: »

When did over 100k become a large salary anyway.

Too many idealist students on AH to be honest.

It's a huge salary to most Irish people not in the public sector.

Massive in fact.

summerskin

LivelineDipso wrote: »

It's a huge salary to most Irish people not in the public sector.

Massive in fact.

Nonsense. It's a reasonable salary for a senior management role. I'm in the private sector and don't consider €100k to be a huge salary at all, it's the minimum expectation for many jobs.

Most people are not suitable for the kinds of position that command that salary, hence they don't get it. Supply and demand. Most people are capable of doing jobs that are worth up to €35k, some are capable of jobs up to €100k, few have the ability to do the senior roles that come with the higher salary.

Nonoperational

So sick of this bollox. Sometimes people deserve to be paid over €100k. People should be striving to be in demand enough to command that salary not continuously bitching about what other people earn.

handlemaster

summerskin wrote: »

Nonsense. It's a reasonable salary for a senior management role. I'm in the private sector and don't consider €100k to be a huge salary at all, it's the minimum expectation for many jobs.

Most people are not suitable for the kinds of position that command that salary, hence they don't get it. Supply and demand. Most people are capable of doing jobs that are worth up to €35k, some are capable of jobs up to €100k, few have the ability to do the senior roles that come with the higher salary.

Do you think ? I've worked with a few on those salaries and competence and ability would not be the first words to describe their proformance.

Blisterman

handlemaster wrote: »

I think your missing the point. The charity is a non profit making organisation it doesn't mean you can take what you want because you know how to count beans. The general perception would be that people who work with charity organisation have a different view point to life/work than the profit making sector. E.g. if a man/woman was running a charity that was saving kids from dying from starvation one would expect they would not be taking home 100k plus expenses. I would expect there would be some guilt in that because they would know exactly what a reduction in their salary would actually do. Perhaps save a few lives.

The problem is, there's not many talented CEOs who would choose to take an enormous pay cut work to for a charity.

And just because somebody works for a charity, doesn't mean they have to be some kind of philanthropist.

summerskin

handlemaster wrote: »

Do you think ? I've worked with a few on those salaries and competence and ability would not be the first words to describe their proformance.

Unfortunately that is often the perception from junior members of staff, as they usually expect the senior manager to be able to do the same job they do. A prime example is when sales staff expect the manager to be able to do their job to the level they do. Chances are he/she did that job years ago, and their core competencies are now focussed on management, bringing the best out of others, analysing trends, performance, budgets etc.

The manager's job is hugely different, and of course there are exceptions, but a company will not continue to employ someone on that salary, in a senior position, if they are not up to the task.

summerskin

Blisterman wrote: »

The problem is, there's not many talented CEOs who would choose to take an enormous pay cut work to for a charity.

And just because somebody works for a charity, doesn't mean they have to be some kind of philanthropist.

I worked for various charities over the years, earning good money, doing my job to a high standard, while never actually giving a fúck about the cause.

I worked for the WWF, for example, and my ambition in life is to eat Giant Panda before they go extinct. Didn't stop me being professional at my job though, and I was highly rewarded for it.

franktheplank

The biggest problem I have with charities is not the salaries in themselves but the lack of regulation in the sector.

We don't have any reliable way of knowing what happens the hundreds of millions, perhaps a figure into the billions (who knows) that goes to Irish charities.

As such I think it's crazy to be paying such high salaries, especially when we get to 300-400k plus, and not having any reliable accountability for this money.

We can't even tell how much extra some of these charity heads are paying themselves in bonuses, expenses, pension benefits, questionable business deals etc. etc.

I for one no longer give to charity, and I won't until the recent Charities Act which allows for inspection and regulation is implemented.

suicide_circus

Kind of irking to hand my cash over to an organization whose CEO earns a few multiples of what i do

summerskin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Kind of irking to hand my cash over to an organization whose CEO earns a few multiples of what i do

Why? You wouldn't be able to do their job, only a person with adequate skills and experience would. Would you rather they employed someone more junior, who was less able to manage the funds raised effectively, as happens with numerous smaller charities?

franktheplank

summerskin wrote: »

Why? You wouldn't be able to do their job, only a person with adequate skills and experience would. Would you rather they employed someone more junior, who was less able to manage the funds raised effectively, as happens with numerous smaller charities?

It's often put forward that these charity CEO's have wonderful business skills, but how many would get a CEO job with an actual business?

I think the fear people often have is that the CEO's get their jobs through cronyism or political influence. I think that was certainly the case in the large charity I worked for, where the CEO certainly wasn't worth the money they were paid and only a tiny fraction of the millions (and millions) raised actually went where it was supposed to.

Again though, implement the Charities Act and we should see a lot less of this.

s_carnage

franktheplank wrote: »

The biggest problem I have with charities is not the salaries in themselves but the lack of regulation in the sector.

We don't have any reliable way of knowing what happens the hundreds of millions, perhaps a figure into the billions (who knows) that goes to Irish charities.

As such I think it's crazy to be paying such high salaries, especially when we get to 300-400k plus, and not having any reliable accountability for this money.

We can't even tell how much extra some of these charity heads are paying themselves in bonuses, expenses, pension benefits, questionable business deals etc. etc.

I for one no longer give to charity, and I won't until the recent Charities Act which allows for inspection and regulation is implemented.

And here lies the true problem

handlemaster

summerskin wrote: »

Unfortunately that is often the perception from junior members of staff, as they usually expect the senior manager to be able to do the same job they do. A prime example is when sales staff expect the manager to be able to do their job to the level they do. Chances are he/she did that job years ago, and their core competencies are now focussed on management, bringing the best out of others, analysing trends, performance, budgets etc.

The manager's job is hugely different, and of course there are exceptions, but a company will not continue to employ someone on that salary, in a senior position, if they are not up to the task.

My learned friend. I understand your point of view and on the whole aggree with staff having that opinion. I was refering to the job that the manager actually does. It is ignorance to assume one working at a junior level doesn't know the task required by someone on a more senior level. It is not true to say a company will not employ someone on a high salary / senior position if they are not up to the task. It is often to case someone down the chain of command gets the blame (if you see the bullet coming its best to deflect or avoid).

summerskin

franktheplank wrote: »

It's often put forward that these charity CEO's have wonderful business skills, but how many would get a CEO job with an actual business?

In every charity i worked with or for, the senior management all moved to the charity directly from private businesses, having displayed high levels of business acumen in their previous roles.

franktheplank

summerskin wrote: »

In every charity i worked with or for, the senior management all moved to the charity directly from private businesses, having displayed high levels of business acumen in their previous roles.

Great, that certainly wasn't the case in the Charity I worked for, which is one of the biggest in the country.

It still doesn't deal with the issue of regulation, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing Irish charities.

To my knowledge most other Western countries have brought in Charity regulation. It's clearly needed here. Until that happens I just can't give money to a system that I know to be so wasteful and open to abuse.

summerskin

franktheplank wrote: »

Great, that certainly wasn't the case in the Charity I worked for, which is one of the biggest in the country.

It still doesn't deal with the issue of regulation, which IMHO is the biggest problem facing Irish charities.

To my knowledge most other Western countries have brought in Charity regulation. It's clearly needed here. Until that happens I just can't give money to a system that I know to be so wasteful and open to abuse.

That may be the case, I worked with charities in the UK and Switzerland, which are highly regulated.

[Deleted User]

Its a difficult one I work for a charity, it more important to look at how much of the charities income is used for administration that to look at the CEO salaries which is often fully funded by the HSE for example, ( and despite what people think about the HSE it does not give out money without the organisation having a detailed services plan and strict controls on how the money is accounted for) it is also important to look at the qualification of the CEO at a minim I would expect them to have significant management qualifications such as an MBA especially if they get a lot of government funding.

I give money to charity but I am very carefully about which ones I support.

Odysseus

LivelineDipso wrote: »

It's a huge salary to most Irish people not in the public sector.

Massive in fact.

Because most of the public sectoe are on 100k+ I presume. It is an acceptable wage for the position and qualifications required to do the job.

frfintanstack

UCDVet wrote: »

People are forgetting that businesses *produce* things.
Charities are given things.

Direct comparisons are meaningless.

If you run a charity and want money from me - you'd better earn less than I do. If I can live my life on X euro per year, the person running the company could also live on X euro per year and donate all the rest to the actual cause they claim to be fighting for (or against, as the case may be).

Yet you directly compare your salary against someone who might be running an organisation employing hundreds of people :rolleyes:

GalwayGuy2

Why should they give half their wage?:S

UCDVet

frfintanstack wrote: »

Yet you directly compare your salary against someone who might be running an organisation employing hundreds of people :rolleyes:

I'm claiming that comparing the wages of CEO operating a company to the wages of a CEO operating a charity are not valid because a charity is fundamentally different from a company.

Companies produce a product/service/good.
Charities accept donations.

Comparing the wage of SOME PERSON who wants me to donate to charity and MYSELF is valid. Because we are both people. Most people have very similar needs. We all need food. We all need shelter. If a livable wage is X, it's a livable wage for most any person in that given area.

Thus, if I can live on X euro in Ireland the CEO of a charity can live on X euro in Ireland.

Now, if you want to argue for the sake of arguing; you'll tell me that it's not fair to compare the salary of a 'normal', lowly, worker to that of a CEO who runs a charity. That doesn't change the hypocrisy of the situation. A CEO who gets a competitive wage is not acting charitable. That's just business as usual. Asking someone who has a worse standard of living (myself) to donate money to a charity when the CEO themselves will not is unbelievably hypocritical. So sure, pay the CEO 500k, and when the CEO donates 460k of it to charity and skips all of the endless benefits they get, it'd be time for me to consider tossing in some coin.

The entire concept of charity is opposite to maximizing benefits and profits.

You can't, in one breath, tell me it's fair for a CEO to earn 100k because he has the qualifications to do so; and then in the next ask me to give you money for free.
The first is business, the later is charity.

If the CEO isn't acting charitable (and maximizing his profit), then I will do exactly the same.
Maximizing my profit means not giving to charity.

'Do as I say, not as I do' - CEOs of Charities

Death and Taxes

summerskin wrote: »

In every charity i worked with or for, the senior management all moved to the charity directly from private businesses, having displayed high levels of business acumen in their previous roles.

Barry Andrews, former Govt junior minister who lost his Dail seat after the FF government of which he was a member bankrupted Ireland is now the CEO of Goal, great business accum would not be the forte of those who led us into the bailout imo.
Similarly Fergus Finlay CEO of Barnardos is an ex spin doctor special advisor to the Labour Party, not someone who made their name and reputation as a successful businessperson.

fastrac

I always ask cold callers if there is anything relevant I can buy and donate to the charity . 99% of them only want cold hard cash. The list of reasons is endless.

UCDVet

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Why should they give half their wage?:S

For all the same reasons they expect people to donate to their charity.

big_joe_joyce

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Barry Andrews, former Govt junior minister who lost his Dail seat after the FF government of which he was a member bankrupted Ireland is now the CEO of Goal, great business accum would not be the forte of those who led us into the bailout imo.
Similarly Fergus Finlay CEO of Barnardos is an ex spin doctor special advisor to the Labour Party, not someone who made their name and reputation as a successful businessperson.

personally i think finlay is a sly , slick, phoney but i can see how his urbane , polished , cultured persona would come in very usefull for a charity like bernardos who need to persuade people to make generous donations

Boombastic

big_joe_joyce wrote: »

personally i think finlay is a sly , slick, phoney but i can see how his urbane , polished , cultured persona would come in very usefull for a charity like bernardos who need to persuade people to make generous donations

I heard he was spitting feathers when newstalk challenged him about his salary as couple of weeks ago, it's not on the podcast as I have checked but by all reports he didn't hold his head too well:)
Would have love to have heard him try and defend it

NegativeCreep

And people still have the cheek to look at me funny when I say I don't donate to charity.