RSPCA phone calls

Out,_Vile_Jelly

mr_sharma wrote: »

I just don't see a capitalist looking at the charity sector as a lucrative way to be recompensed. I understand the practicalities of running a large organization but it's equally a fine balance for a donator to consider the way that organization chooses to spend its money and paying its CEO just shy of £100,000 (regardless of their super powers) is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

.

I know to those who put hard-earned fivers into collecting tins £100k sounds like a ridiculous amount of money, but what salary would you suggest for a CEO of a major charity- £25k? Do you really want a 21 year old graduate or provincial administrator in charge of tens of millions of pounds, hundreds of staff and complex political lobbying? If it were viable for large charities to be run by the very wealthy as hobbies (as they were in Victorian times) then they would be.

Sally_A

These days, if I find a dog, I will notify doglost.co.uk, police and dog warden: take it to the local home for a chip check and to registerer the dog as found, but if they huff and puff about how full they are - I just say "Fine, I can look after this one for a week or so" Then I ask if they can just give it the once over for possible ailments, isit neutred?, take some pics (saying that, have never seen a pic on our local dogs home stating "Found Dog" "Here's Pics" "Finder is keeping them safe for you").

Luckily all the one's I've found have been chipped and reunited.

As for donations - it's now dog food rather than cash - too much lost in admin.

Fire_Fox

mr_sharma wrote: »

I just don't see a capitalist looking at the charity sector as a lucrative way to be recompensed. I understand the practicalities of running a large organization but it's equally a fine balance for a donator to consider the way that organization chooses to spend its money and paying its CEO just shy of £100,000 (regardless of their super powers) is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

EDIT - Just to add, very commendable to volunteer.

So which sector should be a lucrative way to be recompensed? We moan about the bankers' salaries and bonuses, whinge about how much senior executives in the police and NHS are paid, we freeze public sector staff wages because increases in line with inflation or the private sector means paying way more income tax and council tax .... Oh and we start threads insulting senior politicians as "rich boys" and "posh boys", when Cameron is being paid only about £140K to run the country.

How many independently wealthy people who have the skills and experience suited to be a CEO for such a large organisation do you think there are sitting around twiddling their thumbs (rules out anyone running their own successful business) waiting to take a massively underpaid job? How many are in similar highly paid jobs, thinking of moving careers but with too many financial commitments to drop to the sort of wage you think is reasonable?

Could you afford to take say a 50% paycut? I don't know where this guy lives, but £100K would get you a £300K mortgage at a standard three times salary mortgage multiplier. Add a bit more on for any equity they have from a previous property, or maybe the missus works part time so purchase price might be £500K - that's hardly palatial in the south of England. 50% paycut: do you want him to entertain political and media contacts and wealthy private donors in his two up two down back to back? :rotfl:

mr_sharma

Fire_Fox wrote: »

So which sector should be a lucrative way to be recompensed

One that isn't pertaining to be charitable, I would've thought that would be quite obvious?

mr_sharma

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I know to those who put hard-earned fivers into collecting tins £100k sounds like a ridiculous amount of money, but what salary would you suggest for a CEO of a major charity- £25k? Do you really want a 21 year old graduate or provincial administrator in charge of tens of millions of pounds, hundreds of staff and complex political lobbying? If it were viable for large charities to be run by the very wealthy as hobbies (as they were in Victorian times) then they would be.

Sorry, sounds a bit too much like jobs for the boys to me. Yes I'd much rather have a 21 year old graduate in charge of as much hyperbole as you can imagine, it would certainly beat an expectant fat cat defending their ridiculous salary by declaring themselves as some self-appointed master of the universe.

I don't have any problem giving to charity but I do have a big problem with the perception that such "freedom fighters" are entitled to be compensated in the charity sector because they're so "knowledgeable" and "talented".

My own experience of self-important executives is that half the time they don't know what they're doing and pay for people that do know what they're doing! And don't get me started on meetings about meetings. Been there, seen that