belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
oh dear, looks like we'll have to add 'scab' to the list of things tory baldwin doesnt know the meaning of (alongside 'fact', and'evidence')
How much do you think chief executives of councils and charities should earn?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
oh dear, looks like we'll have to add 'scab' to the list of things tory baldwin doesnt know the meaning of (alongside 'fact', and'evidence')
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
lol, you se this just proves you dont really know what you're talking about. As someone who actually works with charity and voluntary sector workers (ie, I'm not like you sitting at home wanking off on the internet) I know absolutely and full well what the causes of demoralisation and poor services are. And too high salaries for the boss barely come into it. Lack of funds (which knocking off 20k off one persons salary wouldnt alter), bullying bosses, being forced into unpaid over-time, lack of long (or even mid) term job security - those are the issues that wear down staff. Bosses over-payments are an irritant, and a symbol of what is wrong with the system, not the main cause.
You just don't klnow what you're talking about tory boy.
I recently left the 3rd sector, working within finance of one of the countries larger charities. For the skills, experience, responsibiliy and successes, the CEO there was worth his £75000pa.
My problem with some charity CEO's is that i can't see the same level of justificaton. For example, in 2003, Andrew Purkis was the CEO of the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, he took home a wage of £78,740 that year, about 20% of all money raised that year. Perhaps there was some anomoly to that example but there are may similar cases. Quite how the trustees allow it i don't know.
My problem with some charity CEO's is that i can't see the same level of justificaton. For example, in 2003, Andrew Purkis was the CEO of the Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, he took home a wage of £78,740 that year, about 20% of all money raised that year. Perhaps there was some anomoly to that example but there are may similar cases. Quite how the trustees allow it i don't know.
Who was it who said the figures should be easy to find? Was it Durruti or me or was it you and belushi?
You have consistently bullshitted thru the thread..
Your scab politics pretends that huge salaries in the public and voluntary sector should be largely ignored by anybody on the left....What a wanker you are.
How ?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
lol, your sound and fury signifies what a joke you are. You've come out with nothing but bullshit on this thread, and been unable to back it up in any way shape or form. Nothing but hollow blusterand a few porkies thrown in along the way.
Show me where I've bullshitted my dear Lib-Dem voter or fuck off, there's a good boy. I make no defence of huge salaries, I just dont have have your liberal view that charities are really any different to your beloved private sector, and dont, therefore expect them to behave particularly differently. I also know, for an absolute fact, that high slaries are not the main problem in the sector, and you have chosen to ignore the real issues facing us. Instead you prefer to go along with the tory view that vast amounts are wasted on salaries, you (probably without meaning to, you just haven't thought it through, as ususal) lend credence to the view that it is the workers who are being overpaid and depriving the 'deserving poor' of their dues.
You really are confused.....One more braincell and you would be dangerous....
So after trying to say that i was exaggerating the numbers of people on salaries of 100k in charities....You now say you dont think charities are any different from the private sector....And that im being to liberal.....sorry but im laughing as im typing......
And you go on to say that i have chosen to ignore the real issues facing us....... Have you ever thought of a career in public speaking?
And its a Tory view that vast amounts are wasted on salaries now is it?
erm ........... wot a hopeless twat.....
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I note that you continue to ignore the actual points raised, as usual.
You really are so very boring and repetitive.
if you manage to raise yourself above your pathetic and childish abuse (nowt wrong with abuse, but you could try and make an actual point to go salongside it, or at least come out with an original insult) you might get some interesting responses, but until then, bye bye my dear liberal.
i qouted figures above that suggested there are .. easyly .. you ignored them .. belushi works for a charity .. i do not .. s/he will have better access then me
it was a challenge to all of you to put up and shut up .. and you reply with 'cunt' .. sad
it is quite simple TB has to show there are over 2000 100k earners ( and it seems to me that the tea leaves are pointing that way .. see my post you ignored ) and you have to show there are not .. simple .. put up and shut up
btw my experiance of HR is not good .. they empitomise the overpaid m/c who while apparrently being neutral operates entirely on behalf of management and a status quo that benefits them .. i guess you do not agree?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
yet more meaningless wriggle from you. You kn oiw full well your comment was just you being a snidey cunt, but you're not honest enough to admit it. Shame.
Your 'quoted' figures are just ultra-vague guess work with no beraring on reality.You pulled them from thin air. They mean nothing and aren't worth commenting on. And you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's a shame, but there you go.
Your 'quoted' figures are just ultra-vague guess work with no beraring on reality.You pulled them from thin air. They mean nothing and aren't worth commenting on. And you've added absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's a shame, but there you go.
snidey against HR types? yes of course (btw can you reply not post without swearing?)
.. so you answer on the stats? .. if they mean nothing ( clearly they mean more than nothing if not giving a clear answer but hey ) then the ball is back in your court .. guesswork? .. not shit watson .. i made that quite clear .. now your go .. belushi could tell us btw as s/he will have access to the stats i would think .. surely you would wish to humilitate TB? well go on then .. give us the facts
btw was speaking to Pat Carmody, he of 'sacked call centre shop steward gets job back after strike' fame, who works for a company that fundraise for charities and he laughed when i said people were arguing against there being more than 2k bods in this sector earning over 100k ..
so as i see it still for the the non believers to disprove ..
so as i see it still for the the non believers to disprove ..
People seem really ignorant and nieve about how much public money goes to make the already rich wealthier.
The whole laughable outrage over MPs expenses shows just how misled people are. Do they really imagine in terms of corruption and public money it would even register on the richter scale sadly most of them think it is a major scandal uncovered.....
Complex one that. A voluntary society but one that people would stay in and join for reasons of their employment.
Who decides what the membership can stand?
I suppose a sort of equivalent might be the huge salary the chief exec of the Co-op bank gets.
Personally i think it stinks. The unethical ethical bank....
Show us a photograph of the problem.
When it's not real enough to emit a smell. Can we seriously believe another can be converted to some ethical position through a process of debate? To have laws against people in certain jobs making more than whatever, then deploy better powers of persuasion. If that in itself is unethical, well then, you're caught in a logic loop.
People in glass houses...
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2009/05/bbc_news_presen.html
http://www.tvscoop.tv/2009/05/bbc_news_presen.html
Similar threads
- Poll
