CEO PIETA house yearly Salary ?

addaword · 10-05-2020 12:56pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a large company with all the infrastructure and managerial demands that come with any large Company. The way to attract suitable candidates is to offer a pay package that reflects the demands of the job.

Well, as with Angela Kerins who was paying herself over 240K, offering more money than the p.m. of most countries make does not always attract suitable candidates.

I agree with you though, it is a good business to be in. There are almost 10,000 registered charities and a further 20,000+ organisations in Ireland's wider "nonprofit" sector.

Homelander · 10-05-2020 2:27pm

90K for the CEO of Pieta is reasonable.

In simple terms, if you capped that position at say, 40K, the quality of candidate would drop massively, the revenue stream would decrease massively, and services would inevitably be cut back.

That doesn't mean I agree with all salaries across the entire non-profit sector, but in this specific case, 90K seems very reasonable given the enormous size of the organisation in question, the services it provides, and the many millions it has to fundraise every year to keep those services on offer.

addaword · 10-05-2020 3:12pm

Homelander wrote: »

90K for the CEO of Pieta is reasonable.

Some of the staff of other charities in Ireland have bigger salaries, I will give you that.

According to the Irish Times a few years ago, the charities sector in Ireland is a pretty crowded space. There is also lots of duplication, which means it is quite territorial.

It can make for intense competition when pursuing donations whether from private or State sources. And the State is the mother of all funders where Irish charities are concerned.

It said a good example of proliferation in a specific area of service where charities are concerned has to do with suicide prevention/bereavement.

In all, a few years ago, it found there were 48 separate agencies supplying services in this area, with 13 doing so exclusively.

It said the largest by turnover was at Pieta House, which had a reported total income of €5.97 million in 2015. Six of its staff were on over €70,000 with two earning over €85,000.

Homelander wrote: »

...given the enormous size of the organisation in question,

6 million annual turnover is not what I would call an enormous organisation.

whisky_galore · 10-05-2020 3:59pm

addaword wrote: »

+1. A lot of people who work in "charities" have a sense of entitlement and expect people worse off than themselves to fund them.

There are almost 10,000 registered charities and a further 20,000+ organisations in Ireland's wider nonprofit sector. In such a small country, that says it all.

Crazy. A whole industry built out of governmental cop out. We are a soft touch as a people.
Can any gob****e set up a charity? It certainly looks that way.

Annasopra · 10-05-2020 4:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The difficulty I have with Pieta is the low money they pay their therapists. Skilled and experienced psychotherapists and psychologists should be paid more than 24k. Without them there would be no Pieta.

Where is this 24000 figure coming from? The reddit thread? I'd prefer facts rather than unsubstantiated rumours. I don't know how much their therapists are paid but I have been told the 24k is for a part time position.
So social media is telling me
A They get a salary of 24000
B The 24000 is for a part time job.

Zebra3 · 10-05-2020 4:19pm

Batrachotox wrote: »

They’re not going to attract high calibre people capable of running it well and bringing in high level donors by offering peanuts.
Has be viewed as an investment that will pay substantially larger dividends to the overall funding of the charity in the long term.

That's why all those top bankers were so well paid.....

Oh and John Delaney...

freshpopcorn · 10-05-2020 5:17pm

I’ve no issue with people in charities being paid Salaries. Some people don’t relies this tough and it comes as a shock to them.
However I have heard of a few people having negative experiences with Pieta House and if I was to donate a large sum of money to a charity they mightn’t be on the list anymore.

cmac2009 · 10-05-2020 5:26pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

That's why all those top bankers were so well paid.....

Oh and John Delaney...

"John Delaney could run anything. John Delaney could run UEFA easily. He could run FIFA as far as I’m concerned — certainly better than Sepp Blatter, and more honestly."

Whenever I see comments about poor John being ridiculed I always remember this timeless Denis O'Brien quote.

corner of hells · 10-05-2020 6:49pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Crazy. A whole industry built out of governmental cop out. We are a soft touch as a people.
Can any gob****e set up a charity? It certainly looks that way.

Anyone one can , your has to meet certain criteria.
A lot of the larger charities are in effect companies and some are trusts.

Zebra3 · 10-05-2020 10:24pm

cmac2009 wrote: »

"John Delaney could run anything. John Delaney could run UEFA easily. He could run FIFA as far as I’m concerned — certainly better than Sepp Blatter, and more honestly."

Whenever I see comments about poor John being ridiculed I always remember this timeless Denis O'Brien quote.

It was all a bit like Haughey commenting on Ahern.

Hellrazer · 13-05-2020 8:17pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where is this 24000 figure coming from? The reddit thread? I'd prefer facts rather than unsubstantiated rumours. I don't know how much their therapists are paid but I have been told the 24k is for a part time position.
So social media is telling me
A They get a salary of 24000
B The 24000 is for a part time job.

Their therapists are on 24k based on a 20 hour working week.Thats all they are allowed to work as a Pieta therapist.

Spanish Eyes · 13-05-2020 8:30pm

We as a country give approx 800 million per annum to Foreign Aid, imagine that.

I am a total sceptic I'm sorry. All these big picture charities have been offloaded from Central Government to the private sector. They are all in competition with each other. It rarely ends well.

Too many hands are out for a slice of the pie that should really be organised centrally by our Government.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2020 9:03pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a large company with all the infrastructure and managerial demands that come with any large Company. The way to attract suitable candidates is to offer a pay package that reflects the demands of the job.

Some people think a charity should have volunteer workers. I remember plenty of times hearing people be surprised that Chuggers are paid workers. Like, who'd do that job for free?

That’s most peoples understanding of the meaning of charity -

The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.

Plenty of people are willing to work for free, and large organisations purporting to be charities, are known to take advantage of that fact.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think the same sentiment is expressed when people call a job a "vocation". Calling someone else's job a vocation generally means you don't expect them to expect to be well paid. It's as if the reward is in the satisfaction they get for doing the job. It's often used for teachers, nurses and clergy and I think people expect people working in the charity sector to also work for poor wages.

That's not how it works. That's not how anything works. People work mostly for money. Pay peanuts...

That’s exactly how it works. Some people take advantage of the fact that most people are willing to give their time and skills for free to causes they care about. Those people are going to command big salaries because that’s what they believe they’re worth. It’s also true to point out that paying inordinately large salaries attracts the kind of individuals who overestimate their worth, and turn off people who see the organisation as nothing more than a money management Ponzi scheme -

Amnesty vote NOT to cut director's €100k salary to the average industrial wage

It’s perfectly understandable why the majority of members on the board of the organisation who are on salary wouldn’t want to choke that golden goose - because their necks would be next on the chopping block, in an organisation where most of the work is carried out by, you guessed it - unpaid volunteers.

corner of hells · 13-05-2020 9:18pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s most peoples understanding of the meaning of charity -

The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.

Plenty of people are willing to work for free, and large organisations purporting to be charities, are known to take advantage of that fact.

That’s exactly how it works. Some people take advantage of the fact that most people are willing to give their time and skills for free to causes they care about. Those people are going to command big salaries because that’s what they believe they’re worth. It’s also true to point out that paying inordinately large salaries attracts the kind of individuals who overestimate their worth, and turn off people who see the organisation as nothing more than a money management Ponzi scheme -

Amnesty vote NOT to cut director's €100k salary to the average industrial wage

It’s perfectly understandable why the majority of members on the board of the organisation who are on salary wouldn’t want to choke that golden goose - because their necks would be next on the chopping block, in an organisation where most of the work is carried out by, you guessed it - unpaid volunteers.

Do you really think its possible to run a charity full time with unpaid volunteers ?

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2020 9:20pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Do you really think its possible to run a charity full time with unpaid volunteers ?

Yes, I do, isn’t that what charity actually means?

whisky_galore · 13-05-2020 9:27pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Anyone one can , your has to meet certain criteria.
A lot of the larger charities are in effect companies and some are trusts.

So, basically rackets. But rackets we can all feel good about.

corner of hells · 13-05-2020 9:28pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I do, isn’t that what charity actually means?

I've been working in charities, specifically homeless and drug services for the last number of years and while some of them have good volunteers, it's just not possible to get get volunteers to commit to fulltime shifts.
In some cases volunteers are found lacking in the sense that reason they volunteer is for their own ego , others vanish in difficult moments. Volunteers often love the Christmas day shift but forget about the days around it.

Dont get me wrong, nowadays volunteers are interviewed for suitability, asked to commit to a certain number of shifts monthly or weekly and some cases they turn out to be excellent colleagues.

corner of hells · 13-05-2020 9:30pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

So, basically rackets. But rackets we can all feel good about.

Without doubt some are definitely rackets , 100% I'd agree with you.Ive seem some of them in operation with chancers self appointed as CEOs with fantastic lifestyles.

FatherTed · 13-05-2020 9:30pm

Also it's not like these CEOs of non-profit agencies wake up in the morning and say oh I think I'll give myself a 20K raise today. The Board is their boss and they are the ones who decide how much a CEO makes all in line with their budget etc.

anewme · 13-05-2020 9:40pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I do, isn’t that what charity actually means?

You will be left with a mickey mouse operation.

The objective of a charity is to get incremental reveneue.

Sometimes you get people who have retired, or for whatever reason can work for nothing, but for the most part that wont happen.

I was a volunteer with a charity and do a smalll no. of hours per week. The standard of people is very high, probably due to the fact many have day jobs and are volunteering.

I would not expect a CEO to work for 35K.

wandererz · 13-05-2020 9:52pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

Their therapists are on 24k based on a 20 hour working week.Thats all they are allowed to work as a Pieta therapist.

There are part time people who work their own hours. There are clinical support people who may work certain hours.

Therapists work their own own hours or may be on permanent staff. i.e some of them are contractors.
Therapists would be on quite decent salaries and would not be on 24K. Probably 2.5 times or more than that.

Keep in mind that contractors would be on hourly rates and would be able to charge more than permanent staff due to the nature of contracting.

There are no set hours for staff except for people who do need to be there 9-5.30.

It also depends on what location they are working from. For example a lowly populated area in the west of the country may not require many hours.

Therapists may also prefer to contract to PH and to offer a certain amount of hours and offer the rest of their time to private patients instead. That's their own personal perogative.

The number of staff have been severely reduced because they don't have sufficient funding. So, if anything else, staff are doing more hours.

They only have 10mins to write up their notes etc before taking on the next patient. That's tough.

wandererz · 13-05-2020 10:02pm

People probaly have this mentality that people who earn €100k or €95k are probably coming out with 9K or 10K per month.

€95K is €5200/month.

Not a lot when you have to consider Dublin rents/mortgages, loans, living expenses etc.

13-05-2020 10:08pm

wandererz wrote: »

There are part time people who work their own hours. There are clinical support people who may work certain hours.

Therapists work their own own hours or may be on permanent staff. i.e some of them are contractors.
Therapists would be on quite decent salaries and would not be on 24K. Probably 2.5 times or more than that.

Keep in mind that contractors would be on hourly rates and would be able to charge more than permanent staff due to the nature of contracting.

There are no set hours for staff except for people who do need to be there 9-5.30.

It also depends on what location they are working from. For example a lowly populated area in the west of the country may not require many hours.

Therapists may also prefer to contract and offer the rest of their time to private patients instead.

The number of staff have been severely reduced because they don't have sufficient funding. So, if anything else, staff are doing more hours.

They only have 10mins to write up their notes etc before taking on the next patient. That's tough.

Are you sure some work on a contract basis for Pieta? If so I wonder do they operate like
My Mind. Their therapists are classed as contractors but are badly paid. My Mind take a cut and the therapist can be left with as little as €11.

wandererz · 13-05-2020 10:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you sure some work on a contract basis for Pieta? If so I wonder do they operate like
My Mind. Their therapists are classed as contractors but are badly paid. My Mind take a cut and the therapist can be left with as little as €11.

This is a Charity. It is not a pay per consultation service.
The therapists are all highly qualified and vetted.
They get paid industry rates.

PH offers a service. It does not charge their patients a fee and then take a slice off the top.

13-05-2020 10:23pm

wandererz wrote: »

This is a Charity. It is not a pay per consultation service.
The therapists are all highly qualified and vetted.
They get paid industry rates. The service does not charge their patients a fee and then take a slice off the top.

I think because it's a charity then therapists should be aware that you might not be getting €70 - €90 per consultation. That's the norm in private practice. However being such an important part of the organisation, basically what allows it to exist, then surely therapists should be paid more. Or upper management paid similar because after all it is a charity.

wandererz · 13-05-2020 10:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think because it's a charity then therapists should be aware that you might not be getting €70 - €90 per consultation. That's the norm in private practice. However being such an important part of the organisation, basically what allows it to exist, then surely therapists should be paid more. Or upper management paid similar because after all it is a charity.

If I go to a private physio, for example, I pay €90.
If I go to a physio chain that has multiple physios working for them, I pay the same.

However, the physio working for the chain does not have the overhead costs of premises, insurance, administration, billing, prsi etc.

13-05-2020 10:53pm

wandererz wrote: »

If I go to a private physio, for example, I pay €90.
If I go to a physio chain that has multiple physios working for them, I pay the same.

However, the physio working for the chain does not have the overhead costs of premises, insurance, administration, billing, prsi etc.

Yes you make a good point. But. Let's say you didn't pay the same. Instead of €90 you paid €40 and the physio came out with €15 or less.
I'm not a figures person or an economist. My thinking is about fairness and at what point does it become ok to pay a highly qualified professional such as a physiotherapist, peanuts. Perhaps the physio practice would need to look at their model.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2020 11:12pm

corner of hells wrote: »

I've been working in charities, specifically homeless and drug services for the last number of years and while some of them have good volunteers, it's just not possible to get get volunteers to commit to fulltime shifts.
In some cases volunteers are found lacking in the sense that reason they volunteer is for their own ego , others vanish in difficult moments. Volunteers often love the Christmas day shift but forget about the days around it.

Dont get me wrong, nowadays volunteers are interviewed for suitability, asked to commit to a certain number of shifts monthly or weekly and some cases they turn out to be excellent colleagues.

No I’m not getting you wrong at all, I’ve worked with plenty of organisations purporting to be charities myself, in various roles, always voluntarily, and that’s the key point that’s missing in your post - you’re expecting people to volunteer their time on the terms set out by the organisation, as opposed to allowing for flexibility in return for the fact that the organisation is staffed and run by people who are willing to volunteer their time and skills because they are passionate about charity and giving, whether it’s in relation to giving aid to people who are homeless, experiencing ill mental health, drug addiction, education, etc, or some organisations which have a more holistic approach to what they call families in crisis.

Or, you can attract figurehead CEOs with generous remuneration packages which then require the organisation to generate revenue in order to finance these large salaries offered to people whom it’s quite clear have their own agenda that isn’t necessarily in line with the purported goals of the organisation.

It’s simply not true to say you couldn’t attract the calibre of person you want who is willing to manage the organisation on a voluntary basis, and so you have to offer a generous remuneration package funded primarily by the HSE and private donations from people with their own ideas for the organisation. I would be honest with the OP and tell them that their €50 isn’t even enough to cover the petty cash float in the local offices of many of the larger organisations. The more people in an organisation dipping into the collective pot for themselves, the less there is to provide services for “service users” and “clients”. There’s a point at which these organisations forgot about their founding purpose and became professional fundraising organisations which attract a calibre of person who knows exactly what the organisation can do for them.

anewme wrote: »

You will be left with a mickey mouse operation.

The objective of a charity is to get incremental reveneue.

Sometimes you get people who have retired, or for whatever reason can work for nothing, but for the most part that wont happen.

I was a volunteer with a charity and do a smalll no. of hours per week. The standard of people is very high, probably due to the fact many have day jobs and are volunteering.

I would not expect a CEO to work for 35K.

This simply isn’t true though, there are plenty of voluntary organisations run and staffed by volunteers and run incredibly efficiently, just as there are behemoth organisations which are run with the sole objective as you suggest of generating and increasing revenue, and there are some which achieve that objective in spite of incredible inefficiency in their operations - they’re able to market themselves well though in order to gain funding from the HSE and private donors. Donations from the public are a pittance of their revenue.

I acknowledge that you wouldn’t expect the CEO of a charity organisation to work for less than €35k, but your expectation is exactly what contributes to the conundrum you imagine of how to increase the organisations public profile and increase the organisations revenue - they think they won’t be able to find the calibre of person who will be willing to do that on a voluntary basis. It’s simply not true though -

One dollar salary

s1ippy · 13-05-2020 11:15pm

I saw recently, Germans don't give to charity because charity is an area of governmental failure.

I do give to charity, by the way. Just thought it was food for thought.

Spanish Eyes · 13-05-2020 11:29pm

Charities have been outsourced now. Nice earner for the connected.

Hellrazer · 14-05-2020 12:55am

wandererz wrote: »

There are part time people who work their own hours. There are clinical support people who may work certain hours.

Therapists work their own own hours or may be on permanent staff. i.e some of them are contractors.
Therapists would be on quite decent salaries and would not be on 24K. Probably 2.5 times or more than that.

Im sorry but you are completely incorrect.They are not part time people that work their own hours.
Therapists in Pieta are contracted for either 16 or 20 hours unless they are "sessional staff" which have no contracts but work week to week at a set hourly rate.
16 hours staff get paid 21k
20 hour staff get paid 24k
Clinical support usually work similar hours to the therapists.

Keep in mind that contractors would be on hourly rates and would be able to charge more than permanent staff due to the nature of contracting.

Contractors are called "sessional staff" and work on a week to week basis at a set hourly rate which is the same as permanent staff.

There are no set hours for staff except for people who do need to be there 9-5.30.

Yes there are-therapists works either 4 or 5 hours a day rotating between morning and afternoon depending if they are contracted for either 16 or 20 hours per week. Max 4 days per week. Otherwise how could you make appointments for the clients on a week to week basis??

Therapists may also prefer to contract to PH and to offer a certain amount of hours and offer the rest of their time to private patients instead. That's their own personal perogative.

Therapists dont contract to Pieta unless they are sessional staff and are allocated hours on a week to week basis.

The number of staff have been severely reduced because they don't have sufficient funding. So, if anything else, staff are doing more hours.

Reduced hours, 30% pay cut. Redundancies have also been put in place.All sessional staff receiving no more client hours.

Im not sure where you got your information from but its all incorrect.

Hellrazer · 14-05-2020 12:59am

wandererz wrote: »

This is a Charity. It is not a pay per consultation service.
The therapists are all highly qualified and vetted.
They get paid industry rates.

They don't get anywhere near industry rates. Its around the 25 euros an hour mark.
Most of PH therapists also run a private practice charging 70-90 per hour.

PH offers a service. It does not charge their patients a fee and then take a slice off the top.

All their income is from fundraising..which is why the loss of DIL has hit them so hard this year.

RandomViewer · 14-05-2020 1:03am

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.

Too many charities with washed up politicians as CEO, whole things a scam

Muahahaha · 23-05-2020 7:00pm

Seems something is amiss in Pieta House, it came out in the Dail during the week that Fine Gael are funding 100 therapy hours per month for their most vulnerable clients. All good so far until you see the price of it-

Mark Ward TD (Sinn Fein): “Last week the Minister stated there was additional funding of more than €343,000 to provide 300 hours of therapy per quarter for high-risk clients. I also have a written response from the Minister that reiterates that.

This works out at €1,146 per hour for therapy sessions. The average cost of a psychotherapy session is in the region of €70 to €120 per hour. If, for example, 300 sessions were charged at the higher end of the average – €120 per hour – that would cost the State €36,000. The State is paying Pieta House more than €343,000 to provide the same service. That is a difference of €307,000 per quarter.

I have also received information from some self-employed therapists who have contacted me and other members of my party and who counsel clients for Pieta House. They charge them only €24 per hour, yet the State is funding Pieta House to the tune of €1,146 per hour.

The Government, as the Minister said, has already invested heavily in Pieta House, to the tune of €2.03 million per year, and Pieta House has also availed of the wage subsidy scheme. Despite this, several staff were let go and others have been offered redundancy.

Will the Minister inform the House exactly where this funding is being directed? Is any of the additional funding being used to pay for the redundancies?

Does the Minister think we are getting value for money at €1,146 per therapy session when it would cost the State €120 per hour, or €24 per hour if a self-employed therapist at Pieta House was hired? The State should provide such services and not rely on a charity to do so. Pieta House provides an essential service but it is essential only due to the lack of investment in mental health by this and previous Governments.

More here
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/05/22/does-it-cost-the-state-e1146-per-therapy-session/

One eyed Jack · 23-05-2020 7:19pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Seems something is amiss in Pieta House, it came out in the Dail during the week that Fine Gael are funding 100 therapy hours per month for their most vulnerable clients. All good so far until you see the price of it-

More here
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/05/22/does-it-cost-the-state-e1146-per-therapy-session/

I would also question how much of that funding will be funnelled into their operations in New York -

Shortly after her nomination, Ms Freeman stated she would donate her €66,277 salary from the role to Pieta House, where she had served as chief executive until the end of 2014.

Ms Freeman instead donated €41,000 to Solace House, a separate New York-based charity she set up in 2015.

A spokeswoman for Ms Freeman said the donation amounted to her full Seanad salary “after tax and pension deductions, which Ms Freeman was obliged to deduct”.

The US charity first started as a pilot in 2015, launched by Pieta House Ireland. Financial statements from Pieta House state the US service would be an “arm's length domestic not-for-profit corporation” incorporated in New York. The project was initially funded by a €72,258 grant from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

...

Solace House is a counselling charity set up to offer support services to the Irish diaspora.

Joan Freeman donated Seanad salary to Pieta-linked charity in the US

Hellrazer · 25-05-2020 9:53am

Mark Ward TD (Sinn Fein): “Last week the Minister stated there was additional funding of more than €343,000 to provide 300 hours of therapy per quarter for high-risk clients. I also have a written response from the Minister that reiterates that.

This works out at €1,146 per hour for therapy sessions. The average cost of a psychotherapy session is in the region of €70 to €120 per hour. If, for example, 300 sessions were charged at the higher end of the average – €120 per hour – that would cost the State €36,000. The State is paying Pieta House more than €343,000 to provide the same service. That is a difference of €307,000 per quarter.

I have also received information from some self-employed therapists who have contacted me and other members of my party and who counsel clients for Pieta House. They charge them only €24 per hour, yet the State is funding Pieta House to the tune of €1,146 per hour.

The Government, as the Minister said, has already invested heavily in Pieta House, to the tune of €2.03 million per year, and Pieta House has also availed of the wage subsidy scheme. Despite this, several staff were let go and others have been offered redundancy.

Will the Minister inform the House exactly where this funding is being directed? Is any of the additional funding being used to pay for the redundancies?

Does the Minister think we are getting value for money at €1,146 per therapy session when it would cost the State €120 per hour, or €24 per hour if a self-employed therapist at Pieta House was hired? The State should provide such services and not rely on a charity to do so. Pieta House provides an essential service but it is essential only due to the lack of investment in mental health by this and previous Governments.

From what Ive heard - its not actually 300 client hours that the government have funded.Its 300 extra "client services"

Each client service is usually 15 individual hours so in effect they are funding 4500 hours which is 66.00 per hours not over a grand like Mark Ward has assumed.

Wildly Boaring · 25-05-2020 3:14pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

From what Ive heard - its not actually 300 client hours that the government have funded.Its 300 extra "client services"

Each client service is usually 15 individual hours so in effect they are funding 4500 hours which is 66.00 per hours not over a grand like Mark Ward has assumed.

Be unusual for SF to get their sums wrong

puppieperson1 · 25-05-2020 4:18pm

Donate to local and county animal rescue charities they actually use the money for the animals and have volunteers mostly food is bought veterinary interventions medicines etc

All charities related to the governments are scams for the failed politicians to lord over and claim big bucks. Germany is correct charities are examples of failed governments why are we raising money for HSE when they are spending a fortune on a childrens hospital ridiculous.

Muahahaha · 25-05-2020 4:27pm

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Be unusual for SF to get their sums wrong

Yeah a bit like that time Michael Noonan got his fiscal space calculation wrong by 1 billon euro then touted the figure for weeks before the budget until it was left to Pearse Doherty to tear him a new one for it. Fine Gael and their magic money tree again

Muahahaha · 25-05-2020 4:32pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

From what Ive heard - its not actually 300 client hours that the government have funded.Its 300 extra "client services"

Each client service is usually 15 individual hours so in effect they are funding 4500 hours which is 66.00 per hours not over a grand like Mark Ward has assumed.

Well not according to Simon Harris, read the transcript again-

Mark Ward TD (Sinn Fein): “Last week the Minister stated there was additional funding of more than €343,000 to provide 300 hours of therapy per quarter for high-risk clients. I also have a written response from the Minister that reiterates that.

Its Simon Harris himself who said that the 343,000 represents 300 hours of therapy per quarter and he reiterated this in a letter to Mark Ward. Thats come from the horses mouth by any measurement.

Whats your "from what I've heard" source for claiming otherwise? Is it Simon Harris rowing back what he said in the Dail and in a written response to Mark Ward?

murpho999 · 25-05-2020 5:06pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s most peoples understanding of the meaning of charity -

The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.

Your definition and understanding of charity is skewed.

Dictionary defines charity as an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

or

the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

Neither of these define charity as working for them for free.

The idea of charity is that it does not make profits and retain them and give to shareholders.

Famous places in Ireland such as Dublin Zoo or St Vincent's Hospitals operate as charities.

They are major operations do you expect them to have staff on a voluntary basis only?

Can you not grasp that a charity that requires thousands of people to run successfully therefore need structures such as finance, HR, operations, IT etc just like any other large organisation and therefore need professional people on a full time basis.

It's not just about answering the phone in Pieta House or The Samaratans or giving a food parcel to famine victims in Africa.

They do much more than that and need quality people to run them. They must compete within the normal job market to attract these people .

If the people weren't paid as they are then they would not be able to provide the services they provide and those that need the care would therefore suffer.

I don't understand why people do not grasp this.

Of course there's bad cases such as the lady in Rehab etc but that does not mean they're all like that and all good charities will offer clear transparency on their finances on their websites.

Alrigghtythen · 25-05-2020 5:27pm

The government should be funding these services. Relying on donations is a joke.

The Black Oil · 25-05-2020 6:52pm

Hellrazer wrote: »

All their income is from fundraising..which is why the loss of DIL has hit them so hard this year.

Is it? 2 million from the HSE and Tusla in 2018. https://search.benefacts.ie/org/6273b698-ee04-4ddb-af8d-7b1924435cb1/pieta-house

Hellrazer · 25-05-2020 9:15pm

The Black Oil wrote: »

Is it? 2 million from the HSE and Tusla in 2018. https://search.benefacts.ie/org/6273b698-ee04-4ddb-af8d-7b1924435cb1/pieta-house

Fair enough I probably should have said "most" of their funding so.

One eyed Jack · 25-05-2020 10:49pm

murpho999 wrote: »

Your definition and understanding of charity is skewed.

Dictionary defines charity as an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

or

the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.

Neither of these define charity as working for them for free.

The idea of charity is that it does not make profits and retain them and give to shareholders.

Famous places in Ireland such as Dublin Zoo or St Vincent's Hospitals operate as charities.

They are major operations do you expect them to have staff on a voluntary basis only?

I do, and I expect them to operate on donations received from the public as most charity organisations do. The largest charities operate on funding from the public, funding from private donors and funding from Government on a not for profit basis meaning they’re swimming in cash and still run like an amateur organisation. They would still be smaller organisations if they were solely dependent upon charity from the public.

murpho999 wrote: »

Can you not grasp that a charity that requires thousands of people to run successfully therefore need structures such as finance, HR, operations, IT etc just like any other large organisation and therefore need professional people on a full time basis.

It's not just about answering the phone in Pieta House or The Samaratans or giving a food parcel to famine victims in Africa.

They do much more than that and need quality people to run them. They must compete within the normal job market to attract these people .

If the people weren't paid as they are then they would not be able to provide the services they provide and those that need the care would therefore suffer.

I don't understand why people do not grasp this.

People don’t grasp it, because it’s simply not true. I’ve explained this numerous times in this thread already - the larger charities are staffed mainly with volunteers, people who are willing to provide their labour for free. A charity organisation with hundreds of thousands of volunteers could easily be run efficiently on public donations alone. They would undoubtedly still be able to provide the services they provide and be staffed by professionals who are willing to give their time and labour for free. Instead, they are more interested in gaining funding for the organisation than providing charity themselves.

Various religious denominations have been providing charity since their founding relying solely on donations from the public and people’s good will, and they are run professionally. They’re just better run than an organisation which the management feel they can’t run without providing generously for themselves before they spare a thought for the people they claim to be providing care for.

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course there's bad cases such as the lady in Rehab etc but that does not mean they're all like that and all good charities will offer clear transparency on their finances on their websites.

I don’t judge whether a charity organisation is good or bad based upon their book keeping ability, that’s what they have fund managers and accountants for. I judge charity organisations based upon whether they provide for the people they claim to be providing for, based upon whether they operate on a fully voluntary basis, and whether they could operate without receiving Government funding.

It’s a fact that the larger charity organisations which receive the majority of their funding from Government wouldn’t be as large as they are if they didn’t receive funding from Government, because they wouldn’t be able to attract people in management roles without providing a generous remuneration package. That’s not charity, it’s a business, run by people who are only doing it for the money. I completely understand how that would be hard to grasp if your understanding of charity means getting paid for your labour as opposed to providing your labour on a voluntary basis.

I mentioned earlier that I’ve worked with a few of these charities in various roles so I’m familiar with how they operate, a few outstanding memories are people with intellectual disabilities being paid £3 a week, and when I questioned it, it was explained to me that they don’t know any better, it’s all the one to them and they are provided with bed and board. If these people were actually paid a fair wage for their labour, they could pay for their own accommodation. I suppose this was 20 years ago though when the idea of people with intellectual disabilities living independently as opposed to being institutionalised was unheard of.

I’ve worked with charity organisations providing care for people who are homeless because having been homeless myself at one point in my life, I thought this was a way of supporting people who are homeless. As you can imagine, I wasn’t fond of their business model. They seemed to be more interested in expanding their operations to apply for more funding from the HSE. I used do the sleep outs which are now sponsored by utility companies, turned me right off the idea as before it was a way of publicising the work of the charity and asking the public for donations. The idea of utility companies which have no problem cutting people off who can’t afford to pay their bills and leaving them destitute, sponsoring an activity which was about providing for people who are destitute, somehow didn’t sit right with me.

I could give plenty more examples of my experiences and the experiences of others, but I won’t, we’d be here all night, but suffice to say that the PR managers in these charity organisations are playing a blinder. I don’t think it would be possible to attract people who have no morals to these roles without paying them generously. People with morals willing to volunteer their skills and time just aren’t attracted to larger charity organisations, but that doesn’t mean they don’t provide charity to people in need. The bigger organisations appear to be more interested in using people in need to justify funding their continued existence and expansion, and you’re right - they most certainly do have a different understanding of charity than most people, in that their idea of people in need is themselves, as opposed to the people they claim to be advocating for.

RandomViewer · 29-05-2020 11:08am

Funding manager was on Highland Radio this morning, tried to blame Covid for their woes, was contradicted immediately

mikemac2 · 09-06-2020 7:33am

The CEO Elaine Austin was on RTE Drivetime yesterday. Available by podcast

She could give government ministers lessons on how to duck and dodge

Didn’t answer one single question directly. Even when asked a question 3 times in a row she would deflect

I know less about their financing now than before the interview

ShamNNspace · 09-06-2020 8:00am

mikemac2 wrote: »

The CEO Elaine Austin was on RTE Drivetime yesterday. Available by podcast

She could give government ministers lessons on how to duck and dodge

Didn’t answer one single question directly. Even when asked a question 3 times in a row she would deflect

I know less about their financing now than before the interview

She sounded rather tetchy at being asked any questions at all. Couldn't warm to her. Her attitude wouldn't exactly encourage me to donate

screamer · 09-06-2020 8:10am

I am also slow to donate to charities with the lax rules and laws around them. There are good ones setup for the general good and there are slush funds set up for the benefit of the top guys. Problem is, it’s very hard to discern the difference and outlandish salaries just raises suspicion. I don’t expect people to work for free, but given that charities are not subject to normal vat tax etc and then you see huge salaries for the top brass and others paid really badly, you wonder who the ultimate recipients are of the charity.

addaword · 09-06-2020 9:03am

Knowing one person who "works" in an Irish "charity" and his lifestyle, I would never donate to an Irish charity again, none of the thousands of them. They are businesses set up for their staff to milk.

CEO PIETA house yearly Salary ?

Comments