Shitty Charities?
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
My sister recently got made redundant from one. Can't say where as she had to sign a contract to not speak about it.
She was treated appallingly though and there's no way that place will ever get a penny from me
She was treated appallingly though and there's no way that place will ever get a penny from me
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Figures. I work in IT so being made redundant is something one gets used to. But when I got made redundant by a well-known national charity I was treated very badly. They asked us programmers what retraining we needed ... and then ignored our requests completely. No discussion. No retraining, no careers advice or help. Nothing. We were just thrown out with the old kit. And this outfit even had an "Investors in People" award. What a joke 
In an earlier redundancy, I was treated *far* better by an ordinary City Bank than by that pretentious "we're so people oriented" charity.
In an earlier redundancy, I was treated *far* better by an ordinary City Bank than by that pretentious "we're so people oriented" charity.
It doesn't cover campaigning, policy or research -- they're different departments.lighterthief said:
What it does cover are things like travel expenses -- which, when you consider that NSPCC management travel first class rail, explains why £3.6m of that £60m will go on travel.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
knopf said:
That is a fucking disgrace
Andy the Don
Wise men say only fools..
lighterthief said:
Under the new SORP these will covered under the organisations core objectives. The cost of support staff will then by allocated under these core objectives (including goverance costs) & costs of activities to generate funds (fundraising).
trashpony
Hag
Mrs Miggins said:That is a fucking disgrace
Why?
Why do people think that people working for charities deserve less perks and pay than people doing equivalent roles in the private sector?
I'm not having a go - I'm just interested. Do people think that people in the charity sector should get paid less because they should be more altruistic? Or that their jobs aren't as hard and so they don't need as many qualifications or experience?
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
trashpony said:
The first one, I'd have thought.
In this particular case I'm of the opinion, and probably a lot of others are, that travelling first class is essentially pissing huge amounts of money up a wall, and that maybe charities shouldn't be doing that. I think the same for private industry incidentally, but that's up to them.
trashpony
Hag
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
It just seems like a really easy target. The cost of a first class open return from Londonto Manchester is £300. It's quiet, there's space to work, they bring you food and you can plug your laptop in. The cost of an open standard class return - which is noisy, there is very little space to work, no power, and you have to get your own food - is £200.
That doesn't seem like a very sensible cost saving to me.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Jonti said:
Yeah of course. I just meant that as a member of the public I have no particular interest in it.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
trashpony said:
Aside from the fact that you should be able to get it for less than £200 quite easily, and that a lot of second class carriages have power now, I think what you're saying there is essentially that £100 isn't a lot of money. Maybe to you it isn't, but if you're a charity asking people to cough up a fiver a month or something, and to a lot of people that's a fair amount, it's a pretty bad attitude IMO.
secretsquirrel
Respectable married lady
Fucking hell. I'm in the private sector and I work in the media - and we would get bollocked for travelling 1st class anywhere unless the client covered it. And that includes long-haul flights (memories of team going to Russia economy class Aeroflot...)
trashpony
Hag
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
I'm not saying that £100 isn't a lot of money at all - far from it. I'm talking about cost benefit analysis. An open standard class return to Manchester is £200 - honest. You need an open return in case whatever you're there for runs over - which they regularly do. If you miss your train, then you have to buy another ticket, which costs more so you would have been better off buying the open ticket.
You're talking about 5 hours on a train. I don't know whether you've ever tried to do serious work in the second class compartment of a train during rush hour but it's pretty difficult - tiny seats and no privacy. If your senior charity executive is spending those five hours staring out the window or reading a book, then that's those five hours which they're being paid for, wasted. And those five hours would probably come to over £100 in terms of their salary (ie if they're on £80k a year, their hourly pay is £60).
souljacker
innit
Alex B said:
Its not one of the big ones, but even so, I'll keep the name to myself, ta!
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
trashpony said:
It's not 5 hours to Manchester on the train.
ETA: Actually it is both ways.
And yeah, I've occasionally worked on the train in second class. It's fine on the whole. I've travelled first class once and it was marginally more comfortable. Have you ever actually seen a serious cost-benefit analysis of the extra work done, btw? Does one exist?
And however sensible it seems to you, the reaction to something like first class travel is always likely to be what you've seen here from the majority of people. Even from a purely practical viewpoint, something like that is likely to have a negative effect on a charity's ability to raise money if it becomes widely known.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
trashpony said:
I don't think that people who work for charities necessarily "deserve" less perks but I do think that every penny spent has been donated and should therefore be spent carefully. I think that it would be a total PR disaster if it were widely known that people working for charities travelled first class - no matter what the benefits to the individual worker.
trashpony
Hag
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:It's not 5 hours to Manchester on the train.
And yeah, I've occasionally worked on the train in second class. It's fine on the whole. I've travelled first class once and it was marginally more comfortable. Have you ever actually seen a serious cost-benefit analysis of the extra work done, btw? Does one exist?
And however sensible it seems to you, the reaction to something like first class travel is always likely to be what you've seen here from the majority of people. Even from a purely practical viewpoint, something like that is likely to have a negative effect on a charity's ability to raise money if it becomes widely known.
There and back silly!
Two and a half hours each way. The reason I used the London to Manchester example is that I've been up twice recently. The first time I went in normal class. There was no room for my laptop and papers, the bloke next to me tried to read what I was writing, there were screaming kids behind me and I ended up cross, tired and got fuck all done. That isn't what happened in first. I got loads done and it was the same as being in the office for five hours. Time is money.Anyway - my point is that I can completely see why people get up in arms about stuff like this but that there's way more wastage to get your knickers in a twist about. How about the cost of chuggers compared to how much money they bring in? The cost of a full page ad in a national newspaper or a TV 30 second slot? And how much money does that really bring in?
What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
I heard the NSPCC beat babies into happiness. They smash their heads in until they smile.
my mate who knows told me.
my mate who knows told me.
trashpony said:
Hiya
Depends entirely on where you work as to if you get time in lieu.
I used to get time in lieu in the NHS for 8 years because it's doesn't show as overtime payments. I'm now in the private sector and have been for almost 10 years I get time in lieu if I work overtime because my time is billed to clients & I can't bill as overtime
One of my friends is v senior at a major retailer and he gets holiday in lieu
So it just depends on where you work and what the policies are afaik
(My mother got goliday in lieu when she was a District Nurse for 20 years too)
trashpony
Hag
pete_w_one said:
I know someone who is very senior at a big national charity, earns around 50k a year and gets TOIL. I don't know anyone in the private sector on that sort of salary with that level of responsibility who earns TOIL. She gets an average of 2 extra weeks' holiday a year. I don't have an issue with equivalent pay, but what does piss me off if if charity workers want their packages equivalent in some respects but not in others. I just think there's a certain level of pay and responsibility you get to where you shouldn't be charging every extra half hour you're in the office.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
trashpony said:
i've worked for numerous charities and i've never heard of such a thing.
Macabre
digiratti
I work for a cancer charity as a scientific researcher and I probably get paid the top end for my qualifications/experince. Most charities pay their people well as they arent bound by the stock market to fuck over their own staff by paying them as little as they possibley can. Its not so much that Im being paid well, its more my peers in commerical pharma are being screwed.
Good thread!
Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...
Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...
Similar threads
