Uk charity staff salaries

[mrsblue]

How do you know without the executives donations wouldnt have dropped by more?

I wouldnt be surprised donations have dropped seeing how many charities there are now expecting £3 a month to save a donkey in some third world country. Every train I get each day, every time I turn on Sky News, every road I walk down in London someone is after Charity money.

It looks to me like a very competitive market now, so also wouldnt surprise me that they have to compete for the best fund raisers too.

Or

The charity gravy train is slowly being derailed !,because people have become more aware.

Charity organisations employ thousands of workers who all need to be paid first before anything else.most charities have plush offices with smart London post codes,why ?

As you rightly say,Sky news must have in excess of 100 charity adds every single day,it's weird .

 

[rigsby]

OK so you remove all the big salaries, now you're left with part time volunteers who have no idea what they are doing, maybe in the short term that means the charity will assist more people but in the long term it's going to lead to people donating to a different charities that seems more professional.

Totally not true. As you may be aware successive governments have never funded injured army, fire and police personnel. we have to support these people by the sort of charities that always come out as financially very well run. No need for any part timers on £200,000 per year.

As an ex firefighter I have always, and still do, support the fire service benevolent fund. The reason all firefighters and many of their benefactors support the fund is because the money is very well spent. So you could say we raise more money by not having needless directors, first class flights to see poverty or brand new BMW's for staff members. One overseas aid charity was operating on 97% running costs.

I myself have used the Fire service charity rehabilitation centres after getting injured at work. I was truly amazed by the quality of the staff from admin to the physios They achieve some fantastic results and actually save the NHS thousands. These Charities have helped thousands of Firefighters and Police to get back to work much quicker. Which of course saves you the tax payer even more money.

Perhaps you could remember this if you have any spare change :winking:

 

[Jam_Man]

Totally not true. As you may be aware successive governments have never funded injured army, fire and police personnel. we have to support these people by the sort of charities that always come out as financially very well run. No need for any part timers on £200,000 per year.

As an ex firefighter I have always, and still do, support the fire service benevolent fund. The reason all firefighters and many of their benefactors support the fund is because the money is very well spent. So you could say we raise more money by not having needless directors, first class flights to see poverty or brand new BMW's for staff members. One overseas aid charity was operating on 97% running costs.

I myself have used the Fire service charity rehabilitation centres after getting injured at work. I was truly amazed by the quality of the staff from admin to the physios They achieve some fantastic results and actually save the NHS thousands. These Charities have helped thousands of Firefighters and Police to get back to work much quicker. Which of course saves you the tax payer even more money.

Perhaps you could remember this if you have any spare change :winking:

Thats the key point, if charities are being run at high costs compared to output then thats an issue.

Just to say people shouldnt be earning X amount working for a charity without analysing the actual facts and figures is pointless. If a charity is running at 97% running costs then its being badly run by the sound of it, but how many are like that...

 

[mrsblue]

Thats the key point, if charities are being run at high costs compared to output then thats an issue.

Just to say people shouldnt be earning X amount working for a charity without analysing the actual facts and figures is pointless. If a charity is running at 97% running costs then its being badly run by the sound of it, but how many are like that...

Well only last week the kids thing went belly up even though the government a few days prior gave them £3,000,000.

 

[Jam_Man]

Well only last week the kids thing went belly up even though the government a few days prior gave them £3,000,000.

The woman who ran that looked rather suspect for sure and she has been accused of dodgy behaviour, although nothing has been proved.

Thats not the same for all charities though, from a quick Google search:

Unicef CEO earned around $470,000 but the charity runs at 91% efficiency.

American Red Cross $561,000 in 2011 yet charity ran at 93% efficiency.

So they are making a big salary, but they are running well run organisations.

That's the point Ive been making, its not about the salary its about whether they earn it.

You can check any charity here to see just how much they pay in costs http://www.aliveandgiving.com/

 

[rigsby]

Well only last week the kids thing went belly up even though the government a few days prior gave them £3,000,000.

Have you seen that woman giving evidence. They were handing out envelopes of cash. She now claims crime has gone up because people could not pay their drug debts.

 

[mrsblue]

Have you seen that woman giving evidence. They were handing out envelopes of cash. She now claims crime has gone up because people could not pay their drug debts.

Complete wee take,how on earth Batty woman can sit there straight faced without giggling is beyond me,they were handing out lumps of cash to kids so they could pay the drug dealers.

She should be locked up and made to wear tight jeans and a wet t shirt.

 

[rigsby]

looks like Hattie Jacques has spent all the cash on pies

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

How many donations required just to cover his salary and expenses?,I understand 60p in every pound raised is paying for salaries.

Old age pensioner puts a quid into a collection thinking there pound will assist,yet only 40p actually helps,if it is even that much,which I doubt.

60% of donations being spent on salaries - which charity is that figure for?

 

[mrsblue]

60% of donations being spent on salaries - which charity is that figure for?

RSPCA according to the news story the other week,they have at least 3 staff earning over 100k each for completing the odd day here and there.

 

[mrsblue]

looks like Hattie Jacques has spent all the cash on pies

:hilarious: Good one Riggers,daft old bint looks as though she has scoffed the entire bakers contents:hilarious:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

:hilarious: Good one Riggers,daft old bint looks as though she has scoffed the entire bakers contents:hilarious:

There is healthy cynicism, and there is ugly cynicism.....

 

[mrsblue]

There is healthy cynicism, and there is ugly cynicism.....

Abusing the public purse leaves that abuser open to abuse,don't you think.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Abusing the public purse leaves that abuser open to abuse,don't you think.

The lady talks sense :thumbsup:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Abusing the public purse leaves that abuser open to abuse,don't you think.

That's just a sound bite, maybe say exactly what wrong doing you are talking about?

 

[OldBlueLady]

That's just a sound bite, maybe say exactly what wrong doing you are talking about?

I'd say she's spot on....different scenario but look at Lord Hanningfield if you want a prime example!

 

[mrsblue]

That's just a sound bite, maybe say exactly what wrong doing you are talking about?

This charity has had £30,000,000 from the public purse in the past few year's.

Camilla had 5 yes five personal assistants.
Vastly over staffed whilst paying nice salaries.
Handing out money willy nilly so youngsters can buy drugs.
Giving families nice pay outs to but £150 trainers.

No doubt more will be revealed.

*** is this abuse or just kindness?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This charity has had £30,000,000 from the public purse in the past few year's.

Camilla had 5 yes five personal assistants.
Vastly over staffed whilst paying nice salaries.
Handing out money willy nilly so youngsters can buy drugs.
Giving families nice pay outs to but £150 trainers.

No doubt more will be revealed.

*** is this abuse or just kindness?

I completely agree that charities should be accountable.
I don't take this information on face value though. She had 5 assistants. That information could mean something or nothing. To judge you would need to know their job description and hours. If they were all full time and booking appointments at the nail bar and picking up her dry cleaning then that would not be appropriate but I suspect that they may have positions that incorporate a party of the charity and they also arrange things for her obo that section of the charity. Just guessing but I'm saying that a tabloidesque '5 personal assistants' line probably isn't what that implies.


Bear in mind she is a walking advert for her charity. People know of her charity because of the way she looks and she is photographed and talked about. Boris Johnson spends more of his time playing the buffoon for cameramen for the same reason. It's all just PR.


Handing out cash for kids to buy drugs. That for me is where I question the validity of the criticism. I got pocket money, my dad never asked for receipts as he gave it to me to decide what to spend it on. If it was CDs, football, drugs, porn - he would never know. They were giving cash to kids to have a level of responsibility for cash that was just theirs. That is not a bad thing and inevitably some kids will spend it on drugs same as that's where my pocket money could have been spent. Kids that are cooped up in little flats with parent(s) with low income - if someone trusts them with a bit of cash to do what they want with there can be a lot of value in that.


I'm all for scrutiny of a charity who are responsible for a lot of funds. I'm not up painting everything they did in a bad light as not everything has to be painted in a shade of miserable.

 

[mrsblue]

I completely agree that charities should be accountable.
I don't take this information on face value though. She had 5 assistants. That information could mean something or nothing. To judge you would need to know their job description and hours. If they were all full time and booking appointments at the nail bar and picking up her dry cleaning then that would not be appropriate but I suspect that they may have positions that incorporate a party of the charity and they also arrange things for her obo that section of the charity. Just guessing but I'm saying that a tabloidesque '5 personal assistants' line probably isn't what that implies.


Bear in mind she is a walking advert for her charity. People know of her charity because of the way she looks and she is photographed and talked about. Boris Johnson spends more of his time playing the buffoon for cameramen for the same reason. It's all just PR.


Handing out cash for kids to buy drugs. That for me is where I question the validity of the criticism. I got pocket money, my dad never asked for receipts as he gave it to me to decide what to spend it on. If it was CDs, football, drugs, porn - he would never know. They were giving cash to kids to have a level of responsibility for cash that was just theirs. That is not a bad thing and inevitably some kids will spend it on drugs same as that's where my pocket money could have been spent. Kids that are cooped up in little flats with parent(s) with low income - if someone trusts them with a bit of cash to do what they want with there can be a lot of value in that.


I'm all for scrutiny of a charity who are responsible for a lot of funds. I'm not up painting everything they did in a bad light as not everything has to be painted in a shade of miserable.

Government ministers were advised not to give this charity further money,yet they ignored the advice from Whitehall and gave another 3 million,few days later the charity was closed forever.By all accounts the 3 million was mainly blown on redundancies.

Watching Camilla being questioned left an uneasy feeling,she is either very stupid or very clever !

She IMO should be banned forever from charity work or having access to public funds.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Government ministers were advised not to give this charity further money,yet they ignored the advice from Whitehall and gave another 3 million,few days later the charity was closed forever.By all accounts the 3 million was mainly blown on redundancies.

Watching Camilla being questioned left an uneasy feeling,she is either very stupid or very clever !

She IMO should be banned forever from charity work or having access to public funds.

I think they gave them the benefit of doubt because these type of charities are often doing work that social services should be doing.
If an employer needs to make you redundant you get a payment, it's the law.

Its very likely that it will be shown the place was run in a shambolic fashion and not value for money. But I lose faith in the reporters when they throw around one liners that seem to be negative hype.