How much do you think chief executives of councils and charities should earn?

[tbaldwin]

Hi Chris.
I don't think ive had a go at your mum....As so to speak!
My arguement is with your preety hopeless defence of massive wage differentials in the voluntary sector. Very high wages for bosses are not a good idea...full stop.. And they are definetely not a good idea in the public and voluntary sector.

 

[oryx]

Very high wages for bosses are not a good idea...full stop.. And they are definetely not a good idea in the public and voluntary sector.

But why should large salaries in the public/voluntary sector be worse than (criminally) large salaries in the private sector?

 

[smokedout]

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.

well the link posted seems to represent the the largest charities in the UK of which (I stand corrected) only 14 of em seem to earn over 100k

which isn't a lot is it

 

[tbaldwin]

But why should large salaries in the public/voluntary sector be worse than (criminally) large salaries in the private sector?

Because the money meant for public services and charities is not given ideologically free. People expect them to be better than private companies that have been much more set up with profit in mind.

 

[tbaldwin]

well the link posted seems to represent the the largest charities in the UK of which (I stand corrected) only 14 of em seem to earn over 100k

which isn't a lot is it

No. If it were true that wouldnt be a lot. but if you believe that i think your probably in line for your 57th visit from santa this december. If i was you i would ask him for a time travel kit and a hot date with jade goody.

 

[oryx]

Because the money meant for public services and charities is not given ideologically free. People expect them to be better than private companies that have been much more set up with profit in mind.

Do you mean money donated to charity isn't given free from the ideology of the donors, i.e. that people have expectations that it will be spent on front-line services & not salaries/admin?

Re. your second point - you're saying 'People expect them to be better than private companies' yet you seem to think it's OK to pay them a tenth of the salary of the private sector?

 

[tbaldwin]

Do you mean money donated to charity isn't given free from the ideology of the donors, i.e. that people have expectations that it will be spent on front-line services & not salaries/admin?

Re. your second point - you're saying 'People expect them to be better than private companies' yet you seem to think it's OK to pay them a tenth of the salary of the private sector?

1 Yes
2 I dont think you can justify either. But just because people some people can earn shit loads in private companies does not mean you should have thousands of people working in the public and voluntary sector who earn more than MPs and even the Primeminister.
Charities and private businesses have been set up with different aims in the past. But now the difference is becoming much more blurred. In someways that can be a good thing but not when too often it leads to a detoriation in front line services as staff get demoralised by managers who are greedy and out of control.

 

[oryx]

In someways that can be a good thing but not when too often it leads to a detoriation in front line services as staff get demoralised by managers who are greedy and out of control.

Completely agree with you there.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

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.

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.

I can guess as well.

My problem with your mum then Chris Filter, is why not work for NAS? Why work for that f'ing US import that basically just raises money for medical research to wipe out autistics, which smacks of eugenics, and also spends loads of money on salaries and marketing. A very small amount, if anything at all, actually goes to helping support families financially, and they particularly struggle in the US where they lots of interventions and behavioural therapies aren't covered by insurance.

It's bad enough that organisation exists in the US, without that Mr and Mrs Wrong trying to export it everywhere bloody else as well.

 

[smokedout]

No. If it were true that wouldnt be a lot. but if you believe that i think your probably in line for your 57th visit from santa this december. If i was you i would ask him for a time travel kit and a hot date with jade goody.

well its very easy to find out, all charities annual reports are available to download on the charity commission website and usually contain chief execs salary

perhaps you can find some more example

until you do ill assume that youre talking your usual crap

 

[tbaldwin]

well its very easy to find out, all charities annual reports are available to download on the charity commission website and usually contain chief execs salary

perhaps you can find some more example

until you do ill assume that youre talking your usual crap

You can assume what you like. if your really stupid enough to believe that only 14 people working for charities earn over £100,000.

 

[tbaldwin]

I can guess as well.

My problem with your mum then Chris Filter, is why not work for NAS? Why work for that f'ing US import that basically just raises money for medical research to wipe out autistics, which smacks of eugenics, and also spends loads of money on salaries and marketing. A very small amount, if anything at all, actually goes to helping support families financially, and they particularly struggle in the US where they lots of interventions and behavioural therapies aren't covered by insurance.

It's bad enough that organisation exists in the US, without that Mr and Mrs Wrong trying to export it everywhere bloody else as well.

NAS oh my god are you sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From what ive witnesssed a shocking charity.
But given the attitude you expressed on the slumdog millionaire thread its not such a suprise that your a fan.

 

[ChrisFilter]

I can guess as well.

My problem with your mum then Chris Filter, is why not work for NAS? Why work for that f'ing US import that basically just raises money for medical research to wipe out autistics, which smacks of eugenics, and also spends loads of money on salaries and marketing. A very small amount, if anything at all, actually goes to helping support families financially, and they particularly struggle in the US where they lots of interventions and behavioural therapies aren't covered by insurance.

It's bad enough that organisation exists in the US, without that Mr and Mrs Wrong trying to export it everywhere bloody else as well.

I'll reply properly tomorrow, but to summarise: get your facts straight. Whilst they share a name, Mum's charity existed before they shared the branding. They are totally seperate charities, and as alluded to earlier in the thread, she has a constant running battle with the US version. They have a small staff and dedicate their efforts towards support and understanding of autism, not the guilt-ridden 'war on Autism' offered by the US.

What a shame that her hard work, and the hard work of everyone on the team, is dismissed by ignorance.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

NAS oh my god are you sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!From what ive witnesssed a shocking charity.

It does less damage than the other one, that's for sure. At least NAS tries to make a token attempt at promoting acceptance and understanding instead of eugenics style elimination from the gene pool. And NAS does offer lots of services, a helpline for families, day care, support groups for adolescents, careers counselling and helping getting employment placements. Not saying it's perfect, but compared with the US charity that basically funds eugenics-stye genetic research with the aim of providing prenatal testing (which of course would be likely to lead to automatic abortions in the majority of cases), and spending money on marketing and advertising, but little to no money on financially supporting struggling families -when I know for a fact that that charity's executives stay in 5* hotels when they travel for business, making it all the more galling. I'd say if anyone's going to give money or volunteer for an autism charity, then it would be far better to give or to be involved with NAS than the other one. imho.

But given the attitude you expressed on the slumdog millionaire thread its not such a suprise that your a fan.

I've no recollection as to what you're referring. Your point please?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I'll reply properly tomorrow, but to summarise: get your facts straight. Whilst they share a name, Mum's charity existed before they shared the branding. They are totally seperate charities, and as alluded to earlier in the thread, she has a constant running battle with the US version. They have a small staff and dedicate their efforts towards support and understanding of autism, not the guilt-ridden 'war on Autism' offered by the US.

What a shame that her hard work, and the hard work of everyone on the team, is dismissed by ignorance.

So why share the branding then? If that leads to ignorance as to the difference between the two different country branches of the same-named charity, then surely you and your mother can understand where any confusion has arisen from?

If they want people to know that they're not like that, to ensure that they're not dismissed due to ignorance, why share the branding? Why not rebrand in order to distinguish themselves from a charity that isn't respected by many in the autistic community, in fact it's detested?

If they don't share the same aims and objectives, why share their branding? Surely you can see why people would make such assumptions?

 

[ChrisFilter]

I honestly don't know. I've emailed Mum with the following:

"Was speaking to a friend yesterday who was interested to know why it was decided to take on the XXXX XXXX brand, when you're independent from them and they are seen as very unpopular with parents of Autistic children (I wasn't aware that they were, but she seems to think they're widely despised for their way of tackling Autism - 'eugenics', 5* hotels and first class flights, little or no support offered to families)

So I said I'd ask (after having explained that you operate in a very different manner to the Yanks)."

 

[tbaldwin]

It does less damage than the other one, that's for sure. At least NAS tries to make a token attempt at promoting acceptance and understanding instead of eugenics style elimination from the gene pool. And NAS does offer lots of services, a helpline for families, day care, support groups for adolescents, careers counselling and helping getting employment placements. Not saying it's perfect, but compared with the US charity that basically funds eugenics-stye genetic research with the aim of providing prenatal testing (which of course would be likely to lead to automatic abortions in the majority of cases), and spending money on marketing and advertising, but little to no money on financially supporting struggling families -when I know for a fact that that charity's executives stay in 5* hotels when they travel for business, making it all the more galling. I'd say if anyone's going to give money or volunteer for an autism charity, then it would be far better to give or to be involved with NAS than the other one. imho.

I've no recollection as to what you're referring. Your point please?

1 Yes and isnt the CEO of NAS a joy!!!! ex Army man in his own words just what a charity needs.
I went to an event in lambeth where speakers from NAS did their best to try and convince all the parents to lobby for more local autism services. ( Wonder who they thought should deliver them?) They tried to totally ignore the voices of any critical parents it was a typical example of just how parasitical many charities have become.

2 The last bit on the Slumdog Millionaire....I mean youve gone on about eugenics on this thread but your comments on that thread show about as much humanity as the Nazis.
You had a go at the child stars parents for using some of their money on their own tb drugs.....As though anybody would take tb drugs out of choice! As though the kids would have prefered them to die! As though the issue wasnt how little the film company paid the child actors!
Disgusting.

 

[trevhagl]

I think 25-35 grand for a 37 hour week is about right but NO ONE should be forced to work extra without overtime pay

 

[belboid]

Poor you belboid way down the gravy train doffing your cap,talking your crap.
Why dont you start a thread on your views...maybe a manifesto...like i did if you want to know my views on private sector pay the evidence is on the thread.

lol, it's posts like these that make make love baldie, makes it clear his 'politics' are really just personality based bullshit, all about his personal likes and dislikes. Tedious things like theories and facts simply dont come into play! Or when they do (eg over the numbers who do actually earn over 100k) he just ignores them, doesn't even make any attempt at showing why or how he's right, just asserts and re-asserts his point. Which makes attempting to have any discussion with toryboy a complete waste of time.

 

[tbaldwin]

lol, it's posts like these that make make love baldie, makes it clear his 'politics' are really just personality based bullshit, all about his personal likes and dislikes. Tedious things like theories and facts simply dont come into play! Or when they do (eg over the numbers who do actually earn over 100k) he just ignores them, doesn't even make any attempt at showing why or how he's right, just asserts and re-asserts his point. Which makes attempting to have any discussion with toryboy a complete waste of time.

Belboid you really are a cap doffer. What you think of as facts are things like statistics which are produced by the great and good. Unless of course you realise the people producing the stats have a different political agenda to yours and can be dismissed.
Your a soppy liberal but you are really quite entertaining at times.
Do you really think i will take anybody seriously who suggests things like only 9 or 14 people working for charities earn over 100k as one other poster did.

 

[durruti02]

here is a list
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

wow thats some big money in there!

 

[CyberRose]

I guess it's a tough question that could be put to heads of all public departments, not just the ones listed. I think the fact that it's public money automatically makes people horrified at the size of the wage, and the attitude manifests itself in some people to say that all public workers should be working for peanuts (which I'm sure the Tax Payers Alliance etc would love, if not to abolish anything remotely public). The counter argument would be to look at the equivalent wages in the private sector, which would probably be much higher. The argument goes that these are important jobs and every single person in the country would expect an excellent service from these organisations, and therefore the people that head them up. So in order to attract the best and compete with the private sector they argue the wages should reflect that. You don't get many people arguing against massive private sector wages unless something specific happens (like the credit crunch and even then, that's only towards bankers, it's not developed into a critique of the wages paid in the retail industry, for example), but if you ask someone if it's more important that the council works more efficiently or if it's more important that Apple sell shit loads of iPhones not many will say the latter, yet they will argue that the public sector bosses earn considerably less than jobs that are not deemed as "important".

Personally I think something around £50k is more than enough for anyone to live extremely comfortably with many luxuries (plus partner's wage) so perhaps the answer to solve this "wage problem" is to look at regulating wages in the private sector so they're more in line with the public sector bosses. But that would, imo, have to go hand in hand with a fairly significant minimum wage rise because we don't want all that extra money just going into the companies' profits do we?!

 

[tbaldwin]

wow thats some big money in there!

The list is just a very lazy tip of the iceberg. What about all the Housing associations? What about services run supposedly for people with learning difficulties,mental health. What about the pay of the finance directors of these charities? What about the pay of consultants and fundraisers?

 

[Blagsta]

here is a list
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

The charity I work for isn't listed there, but I know the chief exec was on £100K+ 4 years ago.

 

[tbaldwin]

The charity I work for isn't listed there, but I know the chief exec was on £100K+ 4 years ago.

Blagsta, im begining to love you. I have to say it wasnt exactly love at first sight. But its growing.
A lot of Charities really try to cover their very mucky tracks. Too many people are still frighteningly nieve about a lot of this and the Charity Commission is a sick sick joke they totally fail to do anything about really shit charities.

And lets not forget when we still have people coming out with LUDICROUS statements that they think are FACTS! like just 14 people who work for Charities earn over 100k just how many private schools there are.
Perhaps they think the bursars and headmasters of Eton and Harrow earn the minimum wage!

 

[ChrisFilter]

I think the biggest cause for concern when it comes to charities is those with massive reserves that persist with aggressive fundraising.

 

[durruti02]

The list is just a very lazy tip of the iceberg. What about all the Housing associations?

yes would love to see a break down for Housing Associations!

 

[tbaldwin]

well the link posted seems to represent the the largest charities in the UK of which (I stand corrected) only 14 of em seem to earn over 100k

which isn't a lot is it

Did you really believe that list represented all the people who earn over 100k working for charities?
I really cant believe the level of nievety about charities in this country.
It is really sick. Red Nose day raises virtually nothing compared to the huge turnovers some charities enjoy.
The charity law and charity commission need to be replaced asap.

 

[Belushi]

Did you really believe that list represented all the people who earn over 100k working for charities?
I really cant believe the level of nievety about charities in this country.
It is really sick. Red Nose day raises virtually nothing compared to the huge turnovers some charities enjoy.
The charity law and charity commission need to be replaced asap.

Yet again balders what exactly is your experience fo the charity sector? I've worked all over the sectr and dont recognise iit from your posts - you do relaise that there are tens of thousands of organisations with charitable status in the UK and that very very few of them have a 'huge turnover' and very very few people in the sector earn over 100k?

 

[Belushi]

Did you really believe that list represented all the people who earn over 100k working for charities?

It may well do, I doubt there are very many in the sector earning that level of salary - theres only a few very large charities.