Why are charity salaries so ridiculously high?

The simple answer is, the charity feels that they need to pay that much money in order to attract a candidate of sufficient quality for the job. No company, charity or otherwise, is going to overpay its employees purely out of the goodness of its heart.

I know that instinctively, it seems strange for people who work for a charity to get paid a lot, because you naturally think that the point of a charity is to give money to their cause (e.g. poor people), and so all this salary money should go there instead. But paying these salaries is supposed to be an investment, which makes the charity able to help poor people more constructively and efficiently than giving them a lump sum of money, totalling all the donations they've collected. So it doesn't mean the donation is going to waste.

It's also natural to think, "well if you're going to work for a charity, surely you sympathise with their cause, and should be happy for a portion of your salary to go to that cause - you shouldn't need a high wage to attract you to the job". And some charity employees do give a lot of money to their cause. But some don't, and don't want to - they're just in it for the job, just like anybody else is. And that's up to them.
It's unreasonable to say that people working for a charity have to have a certain amount of their would-be salary go to the cause. Their salary is like any other company expense - in the same way that if the charity were say, flying people over to Africa to help build wells, their airline company wouldn't have to subsidise their tickets. It can if it wants to, but it's up to them. By default, the costs of these services the company is buying should be expected to be just the same as they would be for any other company, regardless of the fact that it's a charity.

Reply 2

chefdave

Because the charities and public sector are all in cahoots with one another.

They all want more money, more donations, more taxes and more of everything for themselves so they can line their own pockets under the guise of helping the 'poor and needy'. It's an excercise to keep professional left-wingers rich and powerful. The charity part of the operation is just a smokescreen.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 3

chefdave

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Ahhh, a quick chance to slag off Greenpeace under the guise of a complaint about high salaries for charities, eh? Is that what this is about, OP?

(1) People attack leading pressure groups if they pay low wages or offer bad terms and conditions for staff.
(2) Greenpeace HQ is near Central London, where salaries are very high generally compared to the rest of the UK.
(3) They want very good people - they are well known for having a very strong staff team.

Next complaint please.

Why don't they relocate to the North where rents and wages are cheaper? The north could do with the jobs too.

Point 2 seems like an excuse to me. Their HQ could be anywhere they want it to be but they've freely chosen to set up camp in the most expensive part of the country because that way their staff can demand higher wages. Hell, if being in London was that important (near all those eeeevil banks and multinationals lets not forget) they could set up in Kent which is only a short train ride away and slash their fixed costs in half easily.

Nope, the truth is these activists are in it for themselves. Just look at the former CND campaigner and Labour politician Baroness Ashton who's now lining her pockets to the tune of £330k per year courtesy of the EU. She's done very nicely out of the activist sector, a role model for us all.

Reply 4

roh

17

Original post by chefdave

Why don't they relocate to the North where rents and wages are cheaper? The north could do with the jobs too.

Point 2 seems like an excuse to me. Their HQ could be anywhere they want it to be but they've freely chosen to set up camp in the most expensive part of the country because that way their staff can demand higher wages. Hell, if being in London was that important (near all those eeeevil banks and multinationals lets not forget) they could set up in Kent which is only a short train ride away and slash their fixed costs in half easily.

Nope, the truth is these activists are in it for themselves. Just look at the former CND campaigner and Labour politician Baroness Ashton who's now lining her pockets to the tune of £330k per year courtesy of the EU. She's done very nicely out of the activist sector, a role model for us all.

40k's not exactly minting it in Central London, I have mates who graduated last year earning that much plus bonus in London. To be blunt I wouldn't get out of bed for 40k in London once I'm more than 30 at most, imagine many feel the same.

Greenpeace isn't a charity, just not for profit and as said they still have to compete for staff.

I've asked a Greenpeace guy this, basically a lot of their headhunting is done internationally and central London is much easier to sell to staff and, also, being essentially a lobbying group it helps to be near Whitehall and Parliament.

Reply 5

Original post by chefdave

Why don't they relocate to the North where rents and wages are cheaper? The north could do with the jobs too.

Point 2 seems like an excuse to me. Their HQ could be anywhere they want it to be but they've freely chosen to set up camp in the most expensive part of the country because that way their staff can demand higher wages. Hell, if being in London was that important (near all those eeeevil banks and multinationals lets not forget) they could set up in Kent which is only a short train ride away and slash their fixed costs in half easily.

Nope, the truth is these activists are in it for themselves. Just look at the former CND campaigner and Labour politician Baroness Ashton who's now lining her pockets to the tune of £330k per year courtesy of the EU. She's done very nicely out of the activist sector, a role model for us all.

They located in London for the same reason all other major pressure groups locate in London - to be close to the politics, opinion formers and other key national and international organisations. You don't know much about pressure groups if you think they can locate in Scotland (or even Kent) and still have the same ability to influence or to acquire the best staff.

Saying they are "in it for themselves" is standard smear stuff and not really worth replying to - nobody can ever prove they aren't, but capable people can work for a number of possible organisations and yet they choose to work for Greenpeace.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 6

Clip

Original post by Fullofsurprises

They located in London for the same reason all other major pressure groups locate in London - to be close to the politics, opinion formers and other key national and international organisations. You don't know much about pressure groups if you think they can locate in Scotland (or even Kent) and still have the same ability to influence or to acquire the best staff.

Saying they are "in it for themselves" is standard smear stuff and not really worth replying to - nobody can ever prove they aren't, but capable people can work for a number of possible organisations and yet they choose to work for Greenpeace.

I don't really see why the whole "in it for themselves" is always assumed to be a perjorative. So what if a person's heart and soul isn't in a cause? If they can do a competent job for the organisation and get well paid, it's win-win.

One of the alternatives would be to hire people who are really devoted, but otherwise complete wingnuts.

Classic ignorant cynicism: need advice? Get good advice for £500 or bad advice for £300 - but the person giving the bad advice really believes in it.

Reply 7

Original post by Clip

I don't really see why the whole "in it for themselves" is always assumed to be a perjorative. So what if a person's heart and soul isn't in a cause? If they can do a competent job for the organisation and get well paid, it's win-win.

One of the alternatives would be to hire people who are really devoted, but otherwise complete wingnuts.

Classic ignorant cynicism: need advice? Get good advice for £500 or bad advice for £300 - but the person giving the bad advice really believes in it.

Very true. It's certainly the case that NGOs would prefer in many cases to have someone very good at their jobs and 50% committed, to someone useless and 100% committed. Many people who work for top NGOs are not 24/7 zealots for the cause, they do a job like anyone.

Reply 8

Hal.E.Lujah

Spoiler

Now I understand completely why charities justified these high salaries, but I've always felt that this is one of the worst symptoms of our out of control oligarchical society.

Charities do not make as much money as a commercial enterprise. Attracting someone with the ability to make money, such as Oxfams infamous telehphone salary, is like hiring a pilot to sail a ship. There is no reason to fight competitively in terms of salary because hiring based on financial motivation doesn't automatically attract the best person for the jobs. It's not the case that they provide the same salary that other jobs would in order to compete with commercial companies - they provide excessively higher amounts.

Worse, numerous charities do great work purely on a voluntary basis. Doing voluntary work abroad, which you pay for yourself, only to find out as I did that the person supervising you is being paid over £40,000 for the same trip is extremely off putting. The bad press associated with these salaries, especially when everyone is frothing at the mouth about banker salaries, probably loses alot of donations too.

And the main reason that I hate this kind of culture in charities is that it's incredibly counter productive. Charities that fight world poverty for example, and yet encourage the borderline slave trade culture that they're fighting probably does more damage than good.

I've always felt that there was a serious logical flaw in this all, and I'd be open to the idea of someone convincing me otherwise. I've heard alot of justifications for this over the years, but I've never felt any of the above issues were really tackled by any of them. There's a huge distinction between offering to pay higher than a competitor and offering excess.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9

Original post by Hal.E.Lujah

I've always felt that there was a serious logical flaw in this all, and I'd be open to the idea of someone convincing me otherwise. I've heard alot of justifications for this over the years, but I've never felt any of the above issues were really tackled by any of them. There's a huge distinction between offering to pay higher than a competitor and offering excess.

Anyone who has worked in an NGO (as I have - admittedly only as an intern) is very aware of the problems they face. To be heavy-hitters in their field, to get noticed, to be trusted, to extend their reach and to influence those who control policy are all extremely demanding, complex and difficult challenges.

There probably is a big difference between a charity that shelters abandoned donkeys and one that tries to significantly change the international discourse on conservation, the environment and the green agenda. Greenpeace have a very strong track record in doing so - they didn't get there by relying on the same local volunteers who do fund raising for them and buttonhole people on a Saturday morning outside Tesco to campaign for them nationally and internationally, chat with top politicians and mastermind global campaigns. Sorry, but they need both and that needs paying for.

Reply 10

Clip

I don't really see what the problem is. This isn't a religious crusade. Everywhere you go, there will be people being paid top dollar because of what they can do or who they know - not because of what they believe.

I would go so far as to say that in a large number of roles, the further detached that one is from the core functions, the better. Certainly, I'd want a good accountant, not an indoctrinated one.

The private sector is no different. In big business, there's no generally requirement that the finance or support people have to be into the product. At Mattel I doubt it matters if the HR people like Barbie, as long as they are keeping the company out of the Employment Tribunal.

Reply 11

Hal.E.Lujah

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Anyone who has worked in an NGO (as I have - admittedly only as an intern) is very aware of the problems they face. To be heavy-hitters in their field, to get noticed, to be trusted, to extend their reach and to influence those who control policy are all extremely demanding, complex and difficult challenges.

There probably is a big difference between a charity that shelters abandoned donkeys and one that tries to significantly change the international discourse on conservation, the environment and the green agenda. Greenpeace have a very strong track record in doing so - they didn't get there by relying on the same local volunteers who do fund raising for them and buttonhole people on a Saturday morning outside Tesco to campaign for them nationally and internationally, chat with top politicians and mastermind global campaigns. Sorry, but they need both and that needs paying for.

I'm disappointed that you weren't able to provide a response, and that you adopted such a patronising tone. I normally enjoy your posts.

Regardless, you ignored all of my criticisms and regurgitated a response. I think you might want to reread my post, as you seem to have missed the main point I was making: Paying for it is fine, paying excessive amounts isn't. I'm not aware of the inner workings of green peace, but please try not to take it so personally this time and know that I wasn't insulting your personal place of work.

Reply 12

Original post by Clip

I don't really see what the problem is. This isn't a religious crusade. Everywhere you go, there will be people being paid top dollar because of what they can do or who they know - not because of what they believe.

I would go so far as to say that in a large number of roles, the further detached that one is from the core functions, the better. Certainly, I'd want a good accountant, not an indoctrinated one.

The private sector is no different. In big business, there's no generally requirement that the finance or support people have to be into the product. At Mattel I doubt it matters if the HR people like Barbie, as long as they are keeping the company out of the Employment Tribunal.

People like charities and pressure groups have been notorious for 'burn-out' in junior and middle ranks, precisely because of the tendency toward over-commitment - it's very difficult to work all day for something you care passionately about, then still care about it deeply when you go home. A certain detachment often leads to greater practical success and more relaxation.

However, it is also the case that the right-wing press have used the issue of salaries in big charities for many years as a tool with which to bash them. To some people, the idea that something as big as Oxfam can exist, the sole purpose of which is to try to improve the lot of people in poor countries, is anathema. They don't want it to be a success and they want to undermine it, but they don't want to admit this campaign publicly, so they hide it behind attack stories about salaries.

A lot of research has been done on the big charities and on the whole, their admin costs remain low and they are efficiently run. Despite the blather, people in good jobs in NGOs typically earn less than for equivalent roles elsewhere.

Reply 13

Hopple

18

Oxfam HQ is in Newcastle (I think) rather than the expensive Oxford where it started, so it isn't all charities. I also don't think Greenpeace really counts as a charity, more a radical (terrorist?) pressure group, so it isn't as if they're siphoning money away from people in need.

Reply 14

Original post by Hal.E.Lujah

I'm disappointed that you weren't able to provide a response, and that you adopted such a patronising tone. I normally enjoy your posts.

Regardless, you ignored all of my criticisms and regurgitated a response. I think you might want to reread my post, as you seem to have missed the main point I was making: Paying for it is fine, paying excessive amounts isn't. I'm not aware of the inner workings of green peace, but please try not to take it so personally this time and know that I wasn't insulting your personal place of work.

I'm sorry if it came over that way, I am slightly rushed this morning and perhaps shouldn't engage if I don't have sufficient time, but it wasn't intentionally patronising, so apologies if it sounded it. I also enjoy your posts.

I guess fundamentally I just disagree that they pay excessive amounts. I know there has been sustained criticism of some of the big UK charities for paying too much to top executives, but the latter seems to be a widespread phenomenon, so it feels like its unfair to single out the charities, other than because of the obvious component of good intention when giving donations. Some of the really big charities make strenuous efforts to try to explain their salary policies. People worked incredibly hard at all levels at the NGO I worked with and were acutely aware of the nature of their funding and what had gone into that.

Reply 15

Original post by Hopple

Oxfam HQ is in Newcastle (I think) rather than the expensive Oxford where it started, so it isn't all charities. I also don't think Greenpeace really counts as a charity, more a radical (terrorist?) pressure group, so it isn't as if they're siphoning money away from people in need.

Oxfam (like Greenpeace) has both an international and local, national structure in each country, so they have a range of different HQs - they have a strong presence in Washington and Brussels, the Oxford HQ is still going but downsized and is still the overall HQ and Newcastle is where a lot of the support functions have gone.

Reply 16

Studentus-anonymous

12

Original post by Just Josh

x

Congrats, you've just discovered that big charities in the UK are in fact a self-serving and self-sustaining industry with commercial interests.

Now look into how big charities, NGO's and stuff impact developing countries, and you'll see how flawed the system is.

Just like any other business big charities use psychology to 'make the sale' (your donation). It's even more sinister really because you don't get anything in return (aside from a falsely inflated sense of moral superiority?).

I agree entirely that people in these roles are over-paid. Everyone has to make a living for sure but you don't get into charity work so you can pay a mortgage on a reasonably nice house and send your kids to the nicest schools and a few holidays a year, etc.

Just be more critical of what charities you want to work with/give to in future, lean towards smaller hands on organizations, research charities (for medicine, technologies that lead to development) and try and avoid charities that are heavily reliant on 'pressure groups' and other political activities. Usually they aren't much better than the perceived flaws of the politicians.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

Hal.E.Lujah

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I'm sorry if it came over that way, I am slightly rushed this morning and perhaps shouldn't engage if I don't have sufficient time, but it wasn't intentionally patronising, so apologies if it sounded it. I also enjoy your posts.

I guess fundamentally I just disagree that they pay excessive amounts. I know there has been sustained criticism of some of the big UK charities for paying too much to top executives, but the latter seems to be a widespread phenomenon, so it feels like its unfair to single out the charities, other than because of the obvious component of good intention when giving donations. Some of the really big charities make strenuous efforts to try to explain their salary policies. People worked incredibly hard at all levels at the NGO I worked with and were acutely aware of the nature of their funding and what had gone into that.

I don't know much about Green Peace if I'm being honest, though I know some of their work. The charities I am thinking of definitely pay excess for the work load, even at the most basic level.

Charity Muggers (I genuinely don't know what the PC term is for them) are paid on average £8-£9 ph. A similar line of work such as leafleting would pay minimum wage, working as a customer sales assistant would pay minimum wage, most middle management jobs would pay less than the charity muggers ph. Festival workers are paid minimum wage, promoters are paid minimum wage. All of these jobs are just as demanding as being a chugger, and charities such as Oxfam are willing to pay £2 per hour more to them. They ask for £2 a month, imagine how many people it takes per hour to cover that excess.

On the other end of the scale it's the same, as I said before managerial roles offer nearly double their competitors. A managerial role at an event or festival would offer around £20'000 for a season. A managerial role abroad with Oxfam (Sorry to stick with this one example but it's the only one I know intimately) would offer between £50-60'000. I'll grant that the work is more pressing, I know that first hand. But it's work that requires a very special and enduring type of person, and nobody I know who has ever been out there kept telling themselves 'At least the moneys good' whilst impoverished children learnt English around them.

As I said before, this huge increase in wage across all areas doesn't attract people who are in it for the money. It's great for the workers that they get such a reward, but it's not why they applied for the jobs in the first place - and in the case of charity muggers, who have the highest turnover of staff in any profession, it's only the people who are interested in their charity who actually stay in the role.

This is to me why I don't like the direction of big budget charity. It feels like they've picked up the habit of paying too much and justified it for themselves. It feeds the culture they're trying to tackle. I'm aware that at the moment, it can't be done differently, but it's a conciliatory method that they more than anyone know is doomed to implode.

Reply 18