Truly Shocking Salaries for Charity Chiefs.. !! - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Truly Shocking Salaries for Charity Chiefs.. !!

edi Avatar
6y, 10m agoPosted 6 years, 10 months ago
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

Some, rather shocking figures for 2009.

British Heart Foundation - Leslie Busk 115,000
Barnardo's - Roger Singleton 105,027
Cancer Research UK - Paul Nurse 140,000
British Red Cross - Nicholas Young 125,000
Macmillan Cancer Relief - Peter Cardy 100,000
Marie Stopes International - Tim Black 125,230
National Trust - Fiona Reynolds 115,000
NSPCC - Mary Marsh 105,000
edi Avatar
6y, 10m agoPosted 6 years, 10 months ago
Options

All Comments

(81) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Charity begins at home...does make you think.
#2
edi - Unless you have sleeping pics of a fellow member, or a hand pic - This will be a lonely thread tonight
banned#3
bloody hell, what a joke!
#4
not really an issue for me. If they want to employ the best people out there to maximise their revenue then they will have to pay the top people the going rate.
#5
They would argue to get the best people in to maximise donations they have to pay big money otherwise they would go work elsewhere. I have seen jobs in my paper for charity work regularly paying £30,000 plus for just normal everyday jobs. If you want to work for a charity you should do it for free, but that's an idealist point of view I suppose.
#6
Doesn't seem that high to be honest, I'm sure that businesses generating similar revenues to the funds these charities raise would be paying their CEO's alot more. Sure it would be nice if volunteers could do as good a job as the people you mention but somehow I doubt you'll find many that could.
#7
It says from 2003 hence they are not that high?
banned#8
they should make the big banks pay for this so called talent? lol
#9
seems quite low to consider the amount of responsibility they are taking on.
#10
This is terrible. I personally think that anyone who is interested in charity work - no matter what capacity or level - should have a heart open to the work they are doing and not a wallet waiting to be filled. Charity is funds donated by others who expect it to go to those who are in need and not to fill the homes of men and women who live comfortably and better off than most. I understand that CEO are highly paid people - but when you are working for a cause it should be done whole heartedly and not just for the quids. These salaries should be capped imo or at least a certain percentage of what they do earn should be given back to the charity work that is going on. I think if more people in these high towers could empathise with those in need all over the world, things would be done much better and quicker.
banned#11
amibees
This is terrible. I personally think that anyone who is interested in charity work - no matter what capacity or level - should have a heart open to the work they are doing and not a wallet waiting to be filled. Charity is funds donated by others who expect it to go to those who are in need and not to fill the homes of men and women who live comfortably and better off than most. I understand that CEO are highly paid people - but when you are working for a cause it should be done whole heartedly and not just for the quids. These salaries should be capped imo or at least a certain percentage of what they do earn should be given back to the charity work that is going on. I think if more people in these high towers could empathise with those in need all over the world, things would be done much better and quicker.


SPOT ON!
#12
mmm a mod double team bashing some charity workers wages. am I sensing some sort of bitterwallet crusade or a thinly veiled swipe at the nasty charitys chiefs to justify a lack of a charity link (haiti) on the main page.
#13
but even ceo's of charities need to live and raise a family, good salary!!
#14
bigbill
It says from 2003 hence they are not that high?


well if these figures are from 2003 imagine what they are earning now.

I think what Aimbees has posted sums up my feelings too.
#15
comic/sport 'relief' ?
#16
bossyboots
well if these figures are from 2003 imagine what they are earning now.

I think what Aimbees has posted sums up my feelings too.


Ditto.....I belive Oxfam (though not listed) is one of the offenders too......
banned#17
bossyboots
well if these figures are from 2003 imagine what they are earning now.

I think what Aimbees has posted sums up my feelings too.


I think her post sums up everyone's ideal situation, bar money trees in each garden.

Unfortunately, in the real world people are far more selfish so we have to find a workaround.

Plus, posting a person's wage without any context is facile and serves only the basest emotions of jealousy:thumbsup:
#18
1duck
seems quite low to consider the amount of responsibility they are taking on.



what responsibilty !!

dont think they have to make budget every month

'we are in a recession' will be favourite saying

this person
Scope *2 Richard Brewster *28 95,000 85,000 93.2 1.02

was responsible of evicting 100s of tenants - some with over 20 years tenancy - from Scope houses - put them at the peril of local councils - living in the community - in hell more like

so they could make a few million when house prices were rocketing

lets not forget his lackeys - who are on good money as well

area manager for help the aged get £25000+ and company car

charity is jobs for the boys paid for by you me mums dads grans + kids who put pocket money in boxes

rant over - i will just get angrier
#19
FilthAndFurry
I think her post sums up everyone's ideal situation, bar money trees in each garden.

Unfortunately, in the real world people are far more selfish so we have to find a workaround.

Plus, posting a person's wage without any context is facile and serves only the basest emotions of jealousy:thumbsup:



My dad has twice in the past 4 years been diagnosed with lymphoma and my whole family have a direct debit to a cancer charity - even reading this information, I will continue my small donation as doctor told us that this type of cancer 10 years ago didnt have a high sucess rate but now thanks to the constant research helped by funding they have made so many advances.

For me, I think I feel I am doing a wee bit of good. Its a difficult one
#20
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/aap0028l.jpg

however im sure there are people out there that can do the same job for less. i mean these ceos cant be thaaaaat good can they?
#21
These people are most likely paid what they are worth. To ask them to forfeit a large proportion of their potential earnings in order to work for a charity would be silly as they would probably work elsewhere and the charity would make a net loss from this. These people most likely have put a lot of work into building up their careers and gaining the necessary skills to do this kind of job. Without looking at the performance of the charities in question it would be unfair to judge whether the expenditure is worth it.
1 Like #22
Charity = non profit making organisation

Do any of you lot go to work for free?

Mmm didn't think so,so why on earth do you expect those who work for charitable organisations to do it for nowt!!:roll:
banned#23
StudentJo;7599013
These people are most likely paid what they are worth. To ask them to forfeit a large proportion of their potential earnings in order to work for a charity would be silly as they would probably work elsewhere and the charity would make a net loss from this. These people most likely have put a lot of work into building up their careers and gaining the necessary skills to do this kind of job. Without looking at the performance of the charities in question it would be unfair to judge whether the expenditure is worth it.

SPOT ON! A CEO in a commercial business with a turnover matching these big charities would be paid arounnd £400,000 so in effect they are sacrificing a lot for the charity already

This is a great site for reviewing charities before giving

http://www.intelligentgiving.com/charity/226227
#24
csiman
SPOT ON! A CEO in a commercial business with a turnover matching these big charities would be paid arounnd £400,000 so in effect they are sacrificing a lot for the charity already

This is a great site for reviewing charities before giving

http://www.intelligentgiving.com/charity/226227


Ooo that is an interesting site! Interesting that according to this site only 54% of the British Heart Foundation's expenditure is on charitable work whilst their own website claims that 83p of every £1 donated goes on beating heart disease....
banned#25
StudentJo;7599677
Ooo that is an interesting site! Interesting that according to this site only 54% of the British Heart Foundation's expenditure is on charitable work whilst their own website claims that 83p of every £1 donated goes on beating heart disease....

and only 20p inthe £1 of all the income oxfam shops receives gets to a cause. The rest is in admin / rents etc! :w00t:

So it would be better to try to sell all your unwanted goods yourself and donate directly using Giftaid
#26
StudentJo
These people are most likely paid what they are worth. To ask them to forfeit a large proportion of their potential earnings in order to work for a charity would be silly as they would probably work elsewhere and the charity would make a net loss from this. These people most likely have put a lot of work into building up their careers and gaining the necessary skills to do this kind of job. Without looking at the performance of the charities in question it would be unfair to judge whether the expenditure is worth it.


+1

We need food and shelter.
Anyone who opposes what they are paid, live on the bare necessities, and give the rest to charity.

They are giving far more to charity than all of us on this site put together.
#27
bellabonkers;7598608
Ditto.....I belive Oxfam (though not listed) is one of the offenders too......


Indeed, in the £100k plus bracket ;-)

but wouldn't want that info to spoil the begging thread :whistling:
#28
csiman
and only 20p inthe £1 of all the income oxfam shops receives gets to a cause. The rest is in admin / rents etc! :w00t:

So it would be better to try to sell all your unwanted goods yourself and donate directly using Giftaid


I hear what your saying but who can be bothered to ebay for charity? It is a lot of work and what people generally give to charity shops is stuff they don't want which isn't worth much. For the reasons you have highlighted my family generally give unwanted things away on freecycle as it then helps someone directly.

In their defence, I think charity shops are valuable to a lot of people who can't afford to buy new though.
banned#29
thesaint
+1

We need food and shelter.
Anyone who opposes what they are paid, live on the bare necessities, and give the rest to charity.

They are giving far more to charity than all of us on this site put together.


So in theSaints little world, if you object to obscenely high salaries to charitiy workers (which means the money you donate is going to a real great cause - seriously), you need to go without everything or your opinion doesn't count.

Personally, I think the salaries sound a little high but I dont know enough to make the judgement on whether it is good value or not. It certainly puts a dent in any goodwill to know that the £5 you put in the pot, only 50p gets to the needy. Better than nothing you may say, but maybe that figure could and should be much higher.
#30
To put these salaries into context, I have been googling a bit and it looks like they are pretty much in the top 1% of salaried earners, although of course, the self-employed, the inherited/lottery wealthy etc will have a lot more people with that lot of annual income.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/best-paid-jobs

To my mind that makes them over-paid.

Not as bad as Oliver Cromwell though, back in the day. Puritans eh??
But further back you can find examples of "big" salaries in the British Isles. In 1654, Oliver Cromwell was paid £70,000 a year, an astronomical sum.
#31
thesaint
+1

We need food and shelter.
Anyone who opposes what they are paid, live on the bare necessities, and give the rest to charity.

They are giving far more to charity than all of us on this site put together.


absolute cobblers


good day
#32
Surely the point here is that it is an illustration of how salaries have become distorted in the UK - and then justified by some rather bold claims of 'being worth it'.

The logic that a CEO is somehow 'worth more' than a teacher, or nurse, or even factory worker seems a difficult position to defend. It seems to be a justification for differences in salary to be based on power rather than on responsibility, training or even skill (especially given that many senior posts owe more to cronyism than to intellect).

To get a grip on the flawed logic of 'size' here (the CEO has more responsibility than the nurse because what they do is 'bigger')), you could read Latour's analysis of a 'flat ontology' for example. Add to this his political epistemologies, or Mol's ontological politics and you could see an argument for enacting realities where this justification for such salaries disappears.

So put more simply, we really don't have to buy that old 'they must be worth it' line. They really just are not.
banned#33
Paidia
Surely the point here is that it is an illustration of how salaries have become distorted in the UK - and then justified by some rather bold claims of 'being worth it'.

The logic that a CEO is somehow 'worth more' than a teacher, or nurse, or even factory worker seems a difficult position to defend. It seems to be a justification for differences in salary to be based on power rather than on responsibility, training or even skill (especially given that many senior posts owe more to cronyism than to intellect).

To get a grip on the flawed logic of 'size' here (the CEO has more responsibility than the nurse because what they do is 'bigger')), you could read Latour's analysis of a 'flat ontology' for example. Add to this his political epistemologies, or Mol's ontological politics and you could see an argument for enacting realities where this justification for such salaries disappears.

So put more simply, we really don't have to buy that old 'they must be worth it' line. They really just are not.


Don't forget the most important point.....


Someone earns more money than me and I'm jealous. Thankfully there's a way to criticise them if you don't think about it too much:whistling:
#34
non issue they still have a business model
#35
guv
So in theSaints little world, if you object to obscenely high salaries to charitiy workers (which means the money you donate is going to a real great cause - seriously), you need to go without everything or your opinion doesn't count.

Personally, I think the salaries sound a little high but I dont know enough to make the judgement on whether it is good value or not. It certainly puts a dent in any goodwill to know that the £5 you put in the pot, only 50p gets to the needy. Better than nothing you may say, but maybe that figure could and should be much higher.


On reflection I think some of the salaries are pretty low, for example Cancer research spends £100,000,000 in total with only about 1.5% of this going to the CEO's wages and 86% of expenditure going to the cause! This is clearly an efficiently run charity which generates a HUGE amount of money and the CEO, in my opinion, more than earns his salary. I reckon he could earn a fair bit more than this in the private sector.

Some of the other charities don't seem to stack up so well though.
#36
FilthAndFurry
Don't forget the most important point.....


Someone earns more money than me and I'm jealous. Thankfully there's a way to criticise them if you don't think about it too much:whistling:


I was rather hoping that my post demonstrated that I had given it more thought, perhaps unlike you with your rather sweeping dismissal of the long tradition of critical sociological inquiry in favour of some 'pop' psychological explanation. An actual psychologist might suggest that you are projecting rather too much of yourself here. Protests such as yours (and the obvious trolling) are no more that the ego trying for attention. I can give.
#37
Paidia
Surely the point here is that it is an illustration of how salaries have become distorted in the UK - and then justified by some rather bold claims of 'being worth it'.

The logic that a CEO is somehow 'worth more' than a teacher, or nurse, or even factory worker seems a difficult position to defend. It seems to be a justification for differences in salary to be based on power rather than on responsibility, training or even skill (especially given that many senior posts owe more to cronyism than to intellect).

To get a grip on the flawed logic of 'size' here (the CEO has more responsibility than the nurse because what they do is 'bigger')), you could read Latour's analysis of a 'flat ontology' for example. Add to this his political epistemologies, or Mol's ontological politics and you could see an argument for enacting realities where this justification for such salaries disappears.

So put more simply, we really don't have to buy that old 'they must be worth it' line. They really just are not.


Maybe not but we live in a capitalist country with a competitive labour market and, whilst that fact remains, a person with the skills to manage a multi million pound budget will be able to command more than 15k a year.
banned#38
Paidia
I was rather hoping that my post demonstrated that I had given it more thought, perhaps unlike you with your rather sweeping dismissal of the long tradition of critical sociological inquiry in favour of some 'pop' psychological explanation. An actual psychologist might suggest that you are projecting rather too much of yourself here. Protests such as yours (and the obvious trolling) are no more that the ego trying for attention. I can give.


Woah....someone's crammed everything they've learnt from Frasier and The Sopranos into one post.

Your post was very A-grade at GCSE-worthy, but without any context of the jobs each CEO does and an objective report on the business then an judgment is flawed.

The OP is the worst type of 'trolling' because it's simply tapping into the politics of jealousy that this country is famous for, especially in times of financial hardship.
#39
StudentJo
Maybe not but we live in a capitalist country with a competitive labour market and, whilst that fact remains, a person with the skills to manage a multi million pound budget will be able to command more than 15k a year.


True, but only as long as we enact this. We can change this situation. Reality is never fixed, or complete. It doesn't determine us as your post suggests. And my experience of 'management skills' suggests that most are nothing special at all. Really, they cannot possibly justify such salary on the basis of their 'skills'. Luck maybe. Social capital, perhaps. Aggression in some cases. But not what we might like to call 'skills'.
#40
FilthAndFurry
Woah....someone's crammed everything they've learnt from Frasier and The Sopranos into one post.

Your post was very A-grade at GCSE-worthy, but without any context of the jobs each CEO does and an objective report on the business then an judgment is flawed.

The OP is the worst type of 'trolling' because it's simply tapping into the politics of jealousy that this country is famous for, especially in times of financial hardship.



LOL, Can I polity invite you to review your logic here. Or just carry on ranting. Either is fine.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!