Just £2 a month. Noooooo!!!

[vickster]

As I said before, money shouldn't be the main motivation in doing something like administering a charity. Actually believing in the charity's objectives should be the driver, not how many pennies in the pound you can cream off the efforts of all the unpaid volunteers and well-meaning donors. Many charity givers would be horrified if they knew how much of their generosity gets absorbed in admin cost and paid staff wages.

Your friend earns a comfortable living and probably enjoys a fairly pleasant & harmonious working environment. She's not doing something dirty, unpleasant, or downright dangerous for the minimum wage or something fairly close to it. She may well be good at her job, and have competent skills, but in the scheme of things, she doesn't have a tough life.

I never said she did. Charities should attract donations (not only the £2 a month via TV appeals but the large sums from corporations) , be run effectively and efficiently. That needs qualified and motivated people do it well and to attract enough of those individuals you need to be appealing. I’m sure her workplace like any other is not always appealing or harmonious.

I believe charities have to publish detailed accounts which are available to anyone who wishes to assess staffing costs and choose their charity on that basis if they want

 

[Saluki]

The last time I went to buy the Big Issue the guy hassled me to give him more than the £2. Is that all? he said. I wasn't the only one I saw him doing it to everybody. Shame is I don't buy it anymore.

I had a big issue seller try that too. I took my money back and returned his magazine.

 

[Chris S]

I expect the the list of qualified individuals who could run a major charity well and efficiently like STC is actually pretty short

Anybody whose worked their way up through the ranks could do it.
A former acquaintance of mine is now head of UNICEF in a Balkan country. He left school with hardly any qualifications and was a self-confessed social climber who committed minor acts of theft before he decided to carve out a career for himself.

 

[vickster]

Anybody whose worked their way up through the ranks could do it.
A former acquaintance of mine is now head of UNICEF in a Balkan country. He was a self-confessed social climber who committed minor acts of theft and didn't seem to give a sh1t about other people before he decided to carve out a career for himself.

Indeed...and?

 

[Chris S]

It means that the list of individuals who could run a major charity is a lot longer than you expect.

 

[Chris S]

Save the children has an annual income of over $2bn a year. How much do you think someone with that amount of fiscal responsibility, size of team, global reach should earn. Given the need attract an individual with the appropriate skill set to manage and indeed grow the charity to meet the demands of it?

So you agree that's the motivation.

 

[vickster]

So you agree that's the motivation.

For what?

 

[vickster]

It means that the list of individuals who could run a major charity is a lot longer than you expect.

Very good, means you can find the best (qualified) person for the job

 

[Chris S]

Very good, means you can find the best (qualified) person for the job

But your justification for proportionally paying somebody a thousand times more than the PM was that there were very few people who could do the job.

 

[vickster]

But your justification for proportionally paying somebody a thousand times more than the PM was that there were very few people who could do the job.

A thousand times more??? £140m???

 

[Chris S]

A thousand times more??? £140m???

That's what the PM would be on if their pay was proportional to that of the head of Save the Children.

The UK has a GDP of over $2 trillion a year. The Prime Minister's salary is £140,000 a year.
If the PM was paid in the same proportion as the head of Save the Children then they would be on £140 million a year.

 

[vickster]

That's what the PM would be on if their pay was proportional to that of the head of Save the Children.

Except as I said, the PM has 430000 civil servants actually doing all the work and thus does sweet FA actual fiscal management

You're clearly the expert in charity staffing and recruitment. Question if I may...if there are so many qualified candidates to be global charity CEOs, how many individuals were shortlisted for the job when the STC CEO was changes recently?

You said your buddy is a UNICEF head of country...what does he earn and what's the charity's budget for that country? Balkan? Which one? How big is his overall staff solely dealing with that geography?

 

[Chris S]

Except as I said, the PM has 430000 civil servants actually doing all the work and thus does sweet FA actual fiscal management

So the PM is just a symbolic role? I'm glad we've got that sorted.

You said your buddy is a UNICEF head of country...what does he earn and what's the charity's budget for that country? Balkan? Which one? How big is his overall staff solely dealing with that geography?

He's not my friend, he's a go-getter I used to know.

 

[vickster]

So the PM is just a symbolic role? I'm glad we've got that sorted.

In my view in terms of actual fiscal management, planning, getting stuff done etc...yes a figure head
So in your expert view (I’m guessing you work in the charity sector) what would be an appropriate salary for the CEO of STC if not the quoted $310k or thereabouts? And why that amount?

And for the PM who’s minutely managing the GDP day in day out?

 

[Banjo]

I phoned Oxfam and told them if they didn't stop sending us stuff asking us to increase what we donate we would stop donating completely.

It didn't stop so we no longer donate.I don't think anyone lost out as they must have spent more on the mail we received than we were donating.