Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why are charity salaries so ridiculously high? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    here is an interesting talk about why this is acceptable if you have 20 mins
    http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallott...ead_wrong.html
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    I've done chugging, for Greenpeace incidentally, and I've also done leafleting and it's nothing like. Given the amount of abuse you have to take (I was told to **** off constantly, called a c every day, had people tell me I was worse than actual muggers, rant at me for 5 mins etc.) and the difficulty of persuading people to give I wouldn't have done it for less than the wage, it's really not a pleasant job. Even working for the census, which gets a fair bit of stick, was nothing like the amount I took doing that job.

    Also, people who stay with it aren't necessarily that committed, a lot flip from one charity to another fairly regularly though this was less prevalent at Greenpeace, they just really need the money and the charities do it because it works, they get more donations than they pay chuggers (PC is street fundraisers), otherwise they wouldn't do it.

    I've done both, and to be honest I found leafleting worse. I had crazy people come up and talk to me for hours, abuse hurled at me, people push me out of the way etc etc. With chugging, it wasn't really that bad for me, the only drawback that it has from leafleting was having to get a coach with everyone to somewhere I could get the tube to.

    The only one out of my friends who stayed on was the one who really cared about the charity, and wanted to follow into a similar line of work with his degree.

    I've started to wonder if the effect of using chuggers is wearing off now though. It worked amazingly the first few years, nowadays people seem to just be immune to it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    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.
    I wonder - what makes you think that these charities are paying "excessive" salaries, as opposed to paying competitive salaries so that people are willing to work for them, or higher than competitive salaries so they can attract workers of sufficient quality? It seems as though you're suggesting that these charities could get away with paying less and still attract exactly the same calibre of worker for those particular jobs (hence, excessive salary) - but I'm not sure why you think so. The OP for example, has not provided any comparison about what a worker might be paid elsewhere for the same job.

    I'm also interested in what you think is the reason why a charity would want to pay out higher salaries than they need to. If they can get someone to work for them for £30k, why would they want to pay them £40k? I don't see how it's in their interests to do so. Is there some ulterior motive behind it? Or are they just being stupid?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The high salaries is one of the reasons why I refuse to support the "big" charities. The only exception would be those charities who really do require skilled workers, such as RSPCA vets and surgeons - But their salaries are only around the £30k mark anyway!


    I have no idea how a charity store can afford to pay for a £35k manager. That's excluding the cost of rent and electricity for the building! They'd have to make well over £100 in sales each day for that one person, and I rarely see anyone buying from those stores.


    That third job listing (I believe it is GreenPeace) would enable someone to earn well over £60k a year for something really not worth that much. There are people out there working their arses off for far less.


    Sure, they need to attract suitable staff, but the wages are way too high. Highly skilled workers in other fields would be lucky to make that much with a decade of experience.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I wonder - what makes you think that these charities are paying "excessive" salaries, as opposed to paying competitive salaries so that people are willing to work for them, or higher than competitive salaries so they can attract workers of sufficient quality? It seems as though you're suggesting that these charities could get away with paying less and still attract exactly the same calibre of worker for those particular jobs (hence, excessive salary) - but I'm not sure why you think so. The OP for example, has not provided any comparison about what a worker might be paid elsewhere for the same job.

    I'm also interested in what you think is the reason why a charity would want to pay out higher salaries than they need to. If they can get someone to work for them for £30k, why would they want to pay them £40k? I don't see how it's in their interests to do so. Is there some ulterior motive behind it? Or are they just being stupid?

    I discussed it extensively already, in an above post. I would attribute it to the fact they don't base the salaries on a commercial profit margin despite competing with those who do.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I discussed it extensively already, in an above post. I would attribute it to the fact they don't base the salaries on a commercial profit margin despite competing with those who do.
    Charities/NGOs (Greenpeace, the topic of the thread, is not really a standard charity in the traditional model) operate in the same labour market as everyone else, it is unlikely that their salary models are not strongly influenced by market conditions and commercial pressures. Also, many of the best-paid jobs in the sector, particularly in fund raising and in campaign management experience shortages as they are highly skilled.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    I've done both, and to be honest I found leafleting worse. I had crazy people come up and talk to me for hours, abuse hurled at me, people push me out of the way etc etc. With chugging, it wasn't really that bad for me, the only drawback that it has from leafleting was having to get a coach with everyone to somewhere I could get the tube to.

    The only one out of my friends who stayed on was the one who really cared about the charity, and wanted to follow into a similar line of work with his degree.

    I've started to wonder if the effect of using chuggers is wearing off now though. It worked amazingly the first few years, nowadays people seem to just be immune to it.
    See I had the reverse, endless abuse chugging, leafleting just handing them out, might be as chugging has become more common.

    Ah with me it was the people who had families who stayed as they couldn't give up the money, probably just the area I worked in as much as anything.

    Maybe a bit, but I was still getting 4 sign ups for 8 quid a month each day so it wouldn't have been long before they paid off that day's salary for me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Evidence? Maybe some are, but most aren't. Basically you're just smearing.


    Oh no, they use modern techniques to improve their sales performance and get more money in to support the goals of the charity! The swines!


    Just because many employers rely on the state to make up the low wages they pay with WTC doesn't mean charities should do the same - although sadly, some do. There are loads of low-paid jobs in charities as well as (some) reasonably well-paid ones.



    The 'pressure group' ones tend to make the most difference - it's the old argument - "if I give to the poor, they call me charitable. If I question why there are poor people, they call me a Communist".
    "I identify with the target of criticism so I'm going to take it personally and reject it with sarcasm."

    Criticism isn't smearing.

    Not sure why you're defensive, nothing I say here is going to bring the Big Brand charity industry down, so calm yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    I've done chugging, for Greenpeace incidentally, and I've also done leafleting and it's nothing like. Given the amount of abuse you have to take (I was told to **** off constantly, called a c every day, had people tell me I was worse than actual muggers, rant at me for 5 mins etc.) and the difficulty of persuading people to give I wouldn't have done it for less than the wage, it's really not a pleasant job. Even working for the census, which gets a fair bit of stick, was nothing like the amount I took doing that job.

    Also, people who stay with it aren't necessarily that committed, a lot flip from one charity to another fairly regularly though this was less prevalent at Greenpeace, they just really need the money and the charities do it because it works, they get more donations than they pay chuggers (PC is street fundraisers), otherwise they wouldn't do it.
    I always think Chugging must be one of the toughest jobs out there, is it really awful? People must direct a lot of rudeness towards you.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I always think Chugging must be one of the toughest jobs out there, is it really awful? People must direct a lot of rudeness towards you.
    I wouldn't go to extreme, there are still a lot of jobs in caring professions and the like which are quite a bit tougher, but you do cop a lot of abuse.

    Unfortunately to do your job well you've got to both be very visible in the street and also approach strangers, thus giving an opportunity to call you a ******** or something/deliver a rant.

    What I found odd was that when they said my job was worthless and I should get a real job they were appeased by the fact I'd recently done work experience at a City law firm, whose actions of being paid vast sums of money in order to sort out the legal side of asset stripping and sacking half the staff (whilst tying remaining employees to much worse contracts) of a national retailer in order to provide a good return for the super rich investors of this particular private equity fund were apparently much more laudable than Greenpeace's work.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roh)
    I wouldn't go to extreme, there are still a lot of jobs in caring professions and the like which are quite a bit tougher, but you do cop a lot of abuse.

    Unfortunately to do your job well you've got to both be very visible in the street and also approach strangers, thus giving an opportunity to call you a ******** or something/deliver a rant.

    What I found odd was that when they said my job was worthless and I should get a real job they were appeased by the fact I'd recently done work experience at a City law firm, whose actions of being paid vast sums of money in order to sort out the legal side of asset stripping and sacking half the staff (whilst tying remaining employees to much worse contracts) of a national retailer in order to provide a good return for the super rich investors of this particular private equity fund were apparently much more laudable than Greenpeace's work.
    I thought chuggers worked for companies that rent out their services to a different charity each week? Do some organisations like Greenpeace employ their own full-time staff of chuggers? That surprises me.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I thought chuggers worked for companies that rent out their services to a different charity each week? Do some organisations like Greenpeace employ their own full-time staff of chuggers? That surprises me.
    Yeah there's a few that do it, Red Cross, Guide dogs, Every Child and some others. It means you know the charity better and they're more focussed on quality rather than quantity of sign ups but it also means you tend to work over a bigger area which can be a pain.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.