My salary is €93,338 says Irish charity boss...do you think this is too much?

yosser hughes · 13-11-2014 08:38PM

Maverick Black Plasterboard wrote: »

The success of the charity is down to the hard work of the staff. They should be paid well as the work they are doing is considered "good" and benificial to others.

93K looks like a savage amount of money, I know I would love to make that much, but I don't think people realise the responsibility involved in these roles. It's not a fantastic wage for a CEO.

People just see the figure and become annoyed. The tax this man pays a year is quite a lot. I think the take home pay is about 55K. In comparison, somebody on 50K will take home about 34K. Massive tax gap there.

How successful is this charity do you think? Do you know how much money it takes in and how much is spent on actually housing people?
I suspect nobody here has bothered to look at the accounts of Simon to see how effective their CEO actually is.

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 08:59PM

I note from the Guardian here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html that many Irish charities CEO salaries appear to be broadly in line with their UK counterparts. That said, what exactly does the CEO of a charity do? I know some like Jonathan Irwin, CEO of the Jack and Jill Foundation, claim that they are directly involved in raising large sums of money but are they all? I mean surely Fergus Finlay of Barnardos doesn't have time for fundraising between his permanent guest appearances on, and presenting of, radio shows, writing newspaper columns etc.etc.

So what does your average CEO do to justify their substantial salary - just asking?

jetsonx · 13-11-2014 09:04PM

Manach wrote: »

Charity should be a matter of amateurism, an ad-hoc voluteering of for societal good. That they call themselves CEOs in ape of Businesses indicates something clearly wrong were the implemenators of charity are modelled on a process that values the marginalised least.

Well said.

BrookieD · 13-11-2014 09:20PM

nope its not over the top at all, I work for a major charity and the work put in at every level to make sure the its run in the right way and helping the right people is just crazy. Every person working in my place has had a pay freeze for a number of years like most others yet still peform some of the most amazing things i have ever seen without complaint.

UCDVet · 13-11-2014 09:27PM

It's fine. But just remember, every single person who earns less than 93k and donates to his charity cares far more about the charity than the CEO does. I think it's hypocritical and wrong; so I wouldn't donate.

How can a CEO promote an organization that goes around to people who make....40k and say, 'Oh surely you can spare some coin for ______. It's a good cause!' - while they go home and cash their paycheck. They're literally saying, I'm not willing to work for less than 93k, and I know that every euro I get paid is a euro that is not going to help my charity - and I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

Why would anyone give money to a charity run by a CEO like this?

Tail Docker · 13-11-2014 09:58PM

Charity is the giving, free and no strings attached, of your money or time to a worthy cause. Business is getting paid to do a job/task.

Simon sounds more like a business to me. Businesses have CEOs, charities have volunteers. But that's just my view.

corner of hells · 13-11-2014 10:00PM

UCDVet wrote: »

It's fine. But just remember, every single person who earns less than 93k and donates to his charity cares far more about the charity than the CEO does. I think it's hypocritical and wrong; so I wouldn't donate.

How can a CEO promote an organization that goes around to people who make....40k and say, 'Oh surely you can spare some coin for ______. It's a good cause!' - while they go home and cash their paycheck. They're literally saying, I'm not willing to work for less than 93k, and I know that every euro I get paid is a euro that is not going to help my charity - and I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

Why would anyone give money to a charity run by a CEO like this?

At what salary figure would you start to donate at ? Lower than your own , the equivalent of your own ?
One of the charities Ive worked for had original long term employees who had a salary based on old HSE increments , in some cases earning 45000 approx. , would you donate to that charity ?

My own salary is ok , but my contract is watertight , in effect , im permanent , with opportunity for further education , good benefits and promotion , would that stop you donating ?

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 10:16PM

corner of hells wrote: »

At what salary figure would you start to donate at ? Lower than your own , the equivalent of your own ?
One of the charities Ive worked for had original long term employees who had a salary based on old HSE increments , in some cases earning 45000 approx. , would you donate to that charity ?

My own salary is ok , but my contract is watertight , in effect , im permanent , with opportunity for further education , good benefits and promotion , would that stop you donating ?

It would probably stop me. I dislike Fergus Finlay and others, portrayal of the charity sector as virtually an industry. He's correct in fact, and in the unlikely event that a cure for cancer is one day discovered there's going to be a lot of unemployed charity workers.

13-11-2014 10:33PM

If they all decided that they were not charities and recast themselves as not for profit organization providing services to at risk group and for social good and then asked for donations would people donate then,

rob316 · 13-11-2014 10:35PM

Pretty modest actually for a CEO. You need good people to run an organisation and the wages need to be attractive.

Soft Falling Rain · 13-11-2014 10:41PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Charity is the giving, free and no strings attached, of your money or time to a worthy cause. Business is getting paid to do a job/task.

Simon sounds more like a business to me. Businesses have CEOs, charities have volunteers. But that's just my view.

Once someone walks through the doors of Simon their care and wellbeing is now in their hands. Simon are responsible, legal and otherwise, for that well being. There are also laws to be adhered to in hostels that if they're broken, can see that hostel closed down and the premises lost.

That's why more than just volunteers are needed (and that's not a dig as I was one). If an operation like Simon depended on just volunteers with no staff or management to guide them and make hard decisions then the service would crumble.

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 10:43PM

So nobody can throw any light on what a CEO of a charity actually does?

Sierra Oscar · 13-11-2014 10:45PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

So nobody can throw any light on what a CEO of a charity actually does?

Run the organisation, just like a normal CEO?

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 10:48PM

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Run the organisation, just like a normal CEO?

What exactly or even roughly?

HamsterFace · 13-11-2014 10:50PM

Manach wrote: »

Charity should be a matter of amateurism, an ad-hoc voluteering of for societal good. That they call themselves CEOs in ape of Businesses indicates something clearly wrong were the implemenators of charity are modelled on a process that values the marginalised least.

In a perfect world. But running a charity is a full time job. Even wiring money to other countries is significant work these days.

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 10:51PM

HamsterFace wrote: »

In a perfect world. But running a charity is a full time job. Even wiring money to other countries is significant work these days.

Well in the case of Fergus Finlay it obviously isn't!

Soft Falling Rain · 13-11-2014 10:58PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

So nobody can throw any light on what a CEO of a charity actually does?

A lot of PR, speeches, lobbying, justifying spending of budget to the "board", making final decision on what is and what is not a go in terms of new ideas/programmes and basically deciding on what should be the short and long term strategy of the operation.

The last point is particularly key as most charities will have to lay down a 5 year strategy in order to secure funding. If the strategy fails, then the fault goes squarely on the shoulders of the CEO.

I've probably made it sound like a handy number but it ain't. In the case of Simon the decisions you make, if wrong, are going to hurt the people whose lives and wellbeing are literally in your hands. Not a lot of people would welcome that pressure tbh.

Judgement Day · 13-11-2014 11:04PM

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

A lot of PR, speeches, lobbying, justifying spending of budget to the "board", making final decision on what is and what is not a go in terms of new ideas/programmes and basically deciding on what should be the short and long term strategy of the operation.

The last point is particularly key as most charities will have to lay down a 5 year strategy in order to secure funding. If the strategy fails, then the fault goes squarely on the shoulders of the CEO.

I've probably made it sound like a handy number but it ain't. In the case of Simon the decisions you make, if wrong, are going to hurt the people whose lives and wellbeing are literally in your hands. Not a lot of people would welcome that pressure tbh.

Thank you. In that case it seems - to me - that charity CEOs are grossly overpaid - especially given the other people with expertise that the bigger ones have in their management and boards.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 14-11-2014 03:14AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

They can run them whatever they want, I don't care. I just won't be donating to them.

I don't donate money, time, or anything else unless I know for a fact there are no wages, running costs or administration fees coming off the back of it.

Wow, well lets hope you never have need of charity.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Thank you. In that case it seems - to me - that charity CEOs are grossly overpaid - especially given the other people with expertise that the bigger ones have in their management and boards.

93K is grossly overpaid? Christ... Unless there's somebody here with first hand experience working as a CEO for a charity, everybody is cluthcing at straws as to what the daily job is.

StupidLikeAFox · 14-11-2014 03:26AM

If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur!

TheDalioLama · 14-11-2014 04:30AM

UCDVet wrote: »

It's fine. But just remember, every single person who earns less than 93k and donates to his charity cares far more about the charity than the CEO does. I think it's hypocritical and wrong; so I wouldn't donate.

How can a CEO promote an organization that goes around to people who make....40k and say, 'Oh surely you can spare some coin for ______. It's a good cause!' - while they go home and cash their paycheck. They're literally saying, I'm not willing to work for less than 93k, and I know that every euro I get paid is a euro that is not going to help my charity - and I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

Why would anyone give money to a charity run by a CEO like this?

Nonsense.

As mentioned already, many charity CEO's are taking a fraction of what they could be earning elsewhere e.g. as low as 30% of the going market rate. Many are essentially donating 10s or 100s of thousands of euros each year to their charity by offering their skills & experience for bargaintown wages.

Sofiztikated · 14-11-2014 07:27AM

€93K isn't a lot of remuneration for a job of that nature, tbh. Especially as he's responsible for the organisation pulling in a lot of much needed donations.

It's a hell of a lot more that what I get paid, but it's fairly easy to see (as far as I'm concerned) why he gets paid that much. Pay much less that than, and you'll not really have any interest from people with the right skillset.

COYVB · 14-11-2014 07:47AM

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

If you think hiring a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur!

[/thread] for me

There's a saying about peanuts and monkeys that's also relevant. Charities need to be well run in order to generate more money for charitable work or, more likely, keep their heads above water. Sure, 93k might sound like a huge amount, but it's not about what he's paid, it's about what the return is on his wages.

Stick someone in there on 30k and watch as the income for the charity takes a nosedive, and those reliant on their services suffer/die. Whether you're a charity or private company you want the best possible people running the show - and they cost big bucks.

There's also the case of the value of the factors invisible to the public - the most pertinent for a charity being how big is the CEO's black book, and how many favours can he call in. That alone could be worth millions annually.

I know nothing about this guy, or Simon's books, though, and I'm just making a general point about charities. If you want a job done right, you usually have to spend money. The alternative is a job done poorly, which loses money like the quoted post above says

Judgement Day · 14-11-2014 12:15PM

COYVB wrote: »

[/thread] for me

There's a saying about peanuts and monkeys that's also relevant. Charities need to be well run in order to generate more money for charitable work or, more likely, keep their heads above water. Sure, 93k might sound like a huge amount, but it's not about what he's paid, it's about what the return is on his wages.

Stick someone in there on 30k and watch as the income for the charity takes a nosedive, and those reliant on their services suffer/die. Whether you're a charity or private company you want the best possible people running the show - and they cost big bucks.

There's also the case of the value of the factors invisible to the public - the most pertinent for a charity being how big is the CEO's black book, and how many favours can he call in. That alone could be worth millions annually.

I know nothing about this guy, or Simon's books, though, and I'm just making a general point about charities. If you want a job done right, you usually have to spend money. The alternative is a job done poorly, which loses money like the quoted post above says

Ah yes, the old pay peanuts and you get monkeys argument - did you notice where that got us with the banks. Of course charities are different - no gravy train there and they are all there on merit. I still want to know how the like of Fergus Finlay find time to do a full time job running a charity while doing numerous other unrelated gigs. Superman eat your heart out. :rolleyes:

newport2 · 14-11-2014 12:33PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

Ah yes, the old pay peanuts and you get monkeys argument - did you notice where that got us with the banks. Of course charities are different - no gravy train there and they are all there on merit. I still want to know how the like of Fergus Finlay find time to do a full time job running a charity while doing numerous other unrelated gigs. Superman eat your heart out. :rolleyes:

Pay peanuts and you get monkeys is true though.

However, just because you don't pay peanuts does not mean you won't still get monkeys.

The trouble in Ireland is that in a lot of cases we have monkeys deciding which other monkeys get the gravy train roles. And they don't pay peanuts.

Judgement Day · 14-11-2014 01:02PM

My thought on charity CEOs is that they should be headhunted from retired CEOs with a proven track record and who might be interested in taking on the role as a philanthropic act - paid but not an outrageous amount. Perhaps the role could be for a couple of years or part time? I'm sure that there are plenty of retired CEOs out there with good pensions who would be delighted to do something worthwhile for their country for small beer. They're not all like Seanie Fitzpatrick and that David Drumm fecker...

UCDVet · 14-11-2014 01:24PM

TheDalioLama wrote: »

Nonsense.

As mentioned already, many charity CEO's are taking a fraction of what they could be earning elsewhere e.g. as low as 30% of the going market rate. Many are essentially donating 10s or 100s of thousands of euros each year to their charity by offering their skills & experience for bargaintown wages.

Sure - they are donating 10s or 100s of thousands of euros each year, and CHOOSING TO STOP giving at 93k euro.

They are saying, look, I'd LOVE TO GIVE MORE, but I can't. I already gave a lot, and I *need* 93k for me and my family. I can't possibly give anymore because 93k is the MINIMUM I need.

And then, they turn around and ask people with far less, to give to support their cause.

UCDVet · 14-11-2014 01:34PM

corner of hells wrote: »

At what salary figure would you start to donate at ? Lower than your own , the equivalent of your own ?
One of the charities Ive worked for had original long term employees who had a salary based on old HSE increments , in some cases earning 45000 approx. , would you donate to that charity ?

My own salary is ok , but my contract is watertight , in effect , im permanent , with opportunity for further education , good benefits and promotion , would that stop you donating ?

Thanks for asking

This is just my own personal take on it....but here is how I look at it. If anyone who is responsible for 'running' the charity earns more than I do, I won't donate. I would expect the people running the charity to take a paycut, to practice what they preach, and lower their own salary for the good of those in need. That includes all the fancy perks that go along with CEO types positions.

That doesn't include general employees though. As long as their pay is comparable to the going rate, I don't mind.

EDIT: And when I say 'earns' that includes all their perks and benefits. None of this, 'Our CEO only has a 1 euro salary....'' b.s.

corner of hells · 14-11-2014 01:43PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Thanks for asking

This is just my own personal take on it....but here is how I look at it. If anyone who is responsible for 'running' the charity earns more than I do, I won't donate. I would expect the people running the charity to take a paycut, to practice what they preach, and lower their own salary for the good of those in need. That includes all the fancy perks that go along with CEO types positions.

That doesn't include general employees though. As long as their pay is comparable to the going rate, I don't mind.

EDIT: And when I say 'earns' that includes all their perks and benefits. None of this, 'Our CEO only has a 1 euro salary....'' b.s.

Well , you're honest , if anything.

osarusan · 14-11-2014 02:00PM

So much stinge masquerading as principle.

My salary is €93,338 says Irish charity boss...do you think this is too much?

Comments