you see this is where it is totally wrong .. the people who are motivated by this sort of money are no good simply .. all these high paid execs we now see in the public sector with their 'private sector experiance etc' have brought NO improvements whatso ever
How much do you think chief executives of councils and charities should earn?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
you see this is where it is totally wrong .. the people who are motivated by this sort of money are no good simply .. all these high paid execs we now see in the public sector with their 'private sector experiance etc' have brought NO improvements whatso ever
no rubbish .. see my post above .. these high wages attract the worst sort of suit
You couldn't be more wrong. Firstly, I was really answering about charities, I don't have a clue about councils. Secondly, it's not really a great deal to do with political ideals, it's to do with how best a charity should operate in the current socio-economic climate.
I'm not saying it's right, but that's how it is. You want someone to make your charity successful, you pay the market rate for the best person.
You come across as a bit dim.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
This is bollocks though. The charity I work for employs people from the private sector, from the city. People who know fuck all about substance misuse, people who get paid shit loads and as a result, we have our pay restructured, taken off the NJC scales and linked to a divisive performance related structure that is ill thought out and is an excuse for managers to play favourites. We then lose contracts and our "peformance" related pay rises are cut further. Who pays for their fuck ups? Us, not them.
100% agree with Comrade D. He really should have his own column.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
This is bollocks though. The charity I work for employs people from the private sector, from the city. People who know fuck all about substance misuse, people who get paid shit loads and as a result, we have our pay restructured, taken off the NJC scales and linked to a divisive performance related structure that is ill thought out and is an excuse for managers to play favourites. We then lose contracts and our "peformance" related pay rises are cut further. Who pays for their fuck ups? Us, not them.
I'm just basing it on what I know, and that's that my Mum is the CEO of a charity (here comes the flames) and since she's joined they've more than doubled their donations. She joined them on the back of years and years of experience, including acting as an unpaid non-executive director of several NHS trusts, and was offered market rate to join the charity. (though, to counter my original argument, I'm sure she'd have accepted less)
They may have been able to offer comparitively low wages and get someone with the necessary skills to turn things round, we'll never know, but the fact is they paid money to make money and it's been a resounding success.
So what type of charity does your mum run Chris?
And do you think those donations came from other trust funds and govt depts etc that would have donted to other charities? Your mum might be good at getting the money in but what about delivering a service to the beneficiaries? In my experience the two dont often go hand in hand. Some of the best funded charities are amongst the worst organisations created since the fall of the nazi party in germany in 1945. He said without a hint of bitterness.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Part of the problem is the society in which public sector organisations work. They are expected to act like businesses by the government, who increasingly hand out grants and whatnot to organisations based on their audit report which analyses them in the same way a business would be analysed, if this ever happened. It's allegedly about being responsible with money, but is mostly about the transference of public services to contractors overseen by public sector organisations. The previous few sentences are, of course, a massive oversimplification of a problem that has become completely systemic since Thatcher.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
comparing charities to the nazis? you've lost the plot
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
If a business is income-dependant (as is a charity), it would seem sensible to use performance related pay for CEOs. Init?
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
of course i am not aware of any concentration camps started by the donkey sanctuary - but i could be wrong
yupThis is bollocks though. The charity I work for employs people from the private sector, from the city. People who know fuck all about substance misuse, people who get paid shit loads and as a result, we have our pay restructured, taken off the NJC scales and linked to a divisive performance related structure that is ill thought out and is an excuse for managers to play favourites. We then lose contracts and our "peformance" related pay rises are cut further. Who pays for their fuck ups? Us, not them.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
As far as charities go suprised(pleasntly), that Oxfam, one that you here most people complianing about so low down on the list:
Oxfam Barbara Stocking 75,000 75,000 0.0 189.0 0.40
Charities originally were established because the middle class were'nt getting a cut that the 'plebs' were getting from grey/black economy and working class poverty during mainly during the 19th Century.
This and bible/musket missionary initiative to 'civilise the native' in the interests of colonial imperialism.
Both imposing petty bourgieous morality in the interests of the Ruling Classes.
Much of the funding for many registered charities would come from affluent sources as a tax break.
For instance Ballington Booth seeing a beggar earning more than someone in a middle income profession, was outraged and was one the main inspirations for him setting up Salvation Army.
If charities are necessary what would be more important would be to a creation of empowering communities and individuals and change that environment so that they are not in need of petty handouts. But that could end up being self destructive for these institutions.
As far as the public sector goes, tradtionally employees expected to be paid less than the private sector for gaining higher job security, longer holidays, pensions etc., which in long term has been eroded.
I think that it is self evident the disasters that have occured in the NHS, Railtrack, Acadamy Schools etc. Not to mention the asset stripping and liquidation of public sector industries during the eighties and early nineties under Tory administration.
A good example of this process can be seen in NHS plc in the beginning chapters.
http://www.amazon.com/NHS-plc-Priva...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238237331&sr=8-1
Oxfam Barbara Stocking 75,000 75,000 0.0 189.0 0.40
Charities originally were established because the middle class were'nt getting a cut that the 'plebs' were getting from grey/black economy and working class poverty during mainly during the 19th Century.
This and bible/musket missionary initiative to 'civilise the native' in the interests of colonial imperialism.
Both imposing petty bourgieous morality in the interests of the Ruling Classes.
Much of the funding for many registered charities would come from affluent sources as a tax break.
For instance Ballington Booth seeing a beggar earning more than someone in a middle income profession, was outraged and was one the main inspirations for him setting up Salvation Army.
If charities are necessary what would be more important would be to a creation of empowering communities and individuals and change that environment so that they are not in need of petty handouts. But that could end up being self destructive for these institutions.
As far as the public sector goes, tradtionally employees expected to be paid less than the private sector for gaining higher job security, longer holidays, pensions etc., which in long term has been eroded.
I think that it is self evident the disasters that have occured in the NHS, Railtrack, Acadamy Schools etc. Not to mention the asset stripping and liquidation of public sector industries during the eighties and early nineties under Tory administration.
A good example of this process can be seen in NHS plc in the beginning chapters.
http://www.amazon.com/NHS-plc-Priva...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238237331&sr=8-1
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
It's what they do with that money which is the issue. Paying big wages to upper management and freezing pay for the people who work on the frontline is my experience.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
same in my sector - social housing
Very very true unfortunately.And it seems to have got steadily worse over the years. A good few charities are run like mini empires. OK the nazi comparison was a bit of a joke. But i do think there is a genuine element of evil in the way some of these charities operate.
They take the nievety and goodwill of funders and the public and fritter there money away and treat a lot of good frontline staff appalingly.
Yes but hopefully not just based on income levels.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Those Cats Protection League people have a militaristic look about them, though.
, and many Northerners will see it that way
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Which bit, though? Not the punchline, anyway.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Hear hear! And also what Blagsta said about the public/charitable/third sector importing people from the private sector with business skills (well, alleged ones IMHE) and no experience of the sector they are now working in.
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
Excellent post.
And while there seems to be an increasing trend for public/voluntary/'third' sector organisations to act like private businesses (complete with bonuses) which we shouldn't ignore, we should be concentrating our wrath on the Fred Goodwins of this country first.
A council chief exec on £120k - it is after all a huge responsibility, you're responsible for providing most public services for a whole town - is a drop in the ocean compared to Fred Goodwin's £4.2 million.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Well, not at my Mum's place. She's a very principled woman who works 60 hours a week for her charity. She faces massive pressure from the US branch to conform to their views, and she refuses because she's listened to the people they support and is tackling things in a very different way to just throwing money at it. The US branch see the condition they support as something that can be wiped out, whereas my Mum's approach is to try and understand it, and support and develop the lives of the people who suffer from it.
She was recruited for being very good at what she does, and because she's worked in her spare time for nothing, for trusts and charities for years.
You can't judge every case by the same standards. Of course market rate salaries don't guarantee the right people, but they certainly lure them away from the undoubtedly more luctrative private sector.
well nine out of 169000 registered charities is not loads is it (assuming the link posted earlier is correct)
Autism charity is it?
Agree with Blagsta that too many charities are suffering from a lack of charity. And as they compete more against each other what they are supposedly there to do gets`lost along the way as they build their empires....Competing against other Cancer or Development charities etc....
You really believe that only 9 people working for charities earn over £100k....May i introduce you to my friend Father Christmas, hes just next door playing drums in Elvis presleys and Biggie Smalls new band.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
It is, yes. They aren't really competing with anyone. They're pretty small, but they're standing up to the billionairre US guy and getting sod all support from them.
It's only a single case example, but I think my Mum thoroughly deserves her salary.
Good guess for someone dim and ignorant eh Chris? So what is it exactly that your mum does that makes you think she deserves a high salary. You say she works 60 hours a week. Ive known people who do way over their hours but are completely hopeless and non productive. I thought they only did their hours cos they had few friends and their families didnt like them?
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Come on now. Don't be a dick. My Mum works exceptionally hard because she cares, and wants to do what she can to run a succesful charity to help the people that need help. This isn't a career thing, she'll retire after this. She's been very successful there because her dedication to the cause compliments the years of experience she's had in the private sector and, in her spare time, the charity/public sector.
The charity was set up by her old boss, who's son had autism, when her old boss wanted to step down she contacted my Mum straight away, having worked with her before, knowing she'd do a great job.
I was round there today, actually. Grandparents and my aunt, uncle and cousins were round as well for my grandparents 60th wedding. She cooked for 12 people, made a cake, had a great day then will get up at 6am tomorrow to be at a half-marathon where 100 people are running for the charity. She's going to act as a steward. She has no problem with being involved at all levels.
Please don't try an insult my Mum. She's an exceptional woman, and does a great deal of good. Far more than you have done, or ever will do, I imagine. The same applies to me too, I don't do much to make the world a better place.
Similar threads
- Poll
