Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Racing Teatray

Monstrous story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36940384

This second link has far more detail.

https://www.revealnews.org/articl...lt-through-african-aid-charities/
JohnC

It is very unfortunate that the lure of charity money and no tax are so strong that it draws in unscrupulous characters - but it happens all the time!
Big Blue

Yes. Charities are often primarily concerned with making sure that those that have to deliver their services are remunerated in a manner to make them want to deliver the services.....
PG

Big Blue wrote:
Yes. Charities are often primarily concerned with making sure that those that have to deliver their services are remunerated in a manner to make them want to deliver the services.....


When you hear charities talked about as a "sector of the economy" in learned papers, then you know that some are in many ways not really charities any more - they are businesses that have extra tax concessions because an auditable percentage of their income goes on "good causes".

About 30 years ago I started donating a set £ per month to an African-targeted charity where you sponsored a child. Over the years the communications went from a hand written letter from the child, through a typed or maybe form letter from the child; to a letter about a group of children; to a nice glossy folded A4 about their work; to a nice glossy brochure about their expansion into other areas; to a glossy sales brochure outlining their work and how they were lobbying the government about all and sundry. I don't donate anymore.
Alf McQueef

I hate these stories - I do give to various charities, and don't think many people need much excuse to decide "they're all on the take" and refuse to give anything. Overall they are a force for good - some are crooked, and some pay their top level staff far too much (pay on a level with the private sector should not be the motivation for working for a charity!).
Bob Sacamano

I sponsored a Donkey, Donk Dean was his name. It was a one-off contribution and he was living, in some comfort, at the Elizabeth Svendson Donkey Sanctuary. Fuck me if the bugger didn't keep writing;  cards at Christmas, lottery tickets, gifts, updates on how he was doing. It got so I wasn't answering the phone to numbers I didn't recognise incase it was him. This went on for years until I had a sad letter from the Trust saying Donk Dean had been put to sleep due to bad feet. It did create quite a hole in my life.

I have Gareth now..

Twelfth Monkey

He looks  shifty.  You'll come to hate him too, you know...
Bob Sacamano

At the moment Gareth seems less needy and not craving attention so much.

That said I did notice a familiar envelope drop through the door this morning as I left for work..
Michael

I sponsored William Donkey years ago and still get letters and raffle tickets to sell on his behalf.
Bob Sacamano

Michael wrote:
I sponsored William Donkey years ago and still get letters and raffle tickets to sell on his behalf.


They do take the piss; they spend two years ferrying kids up and down the beach at Blackpool and the rest of their lives with their hooves up at a luxury donkey spa outside of Birmingham, dictating begging letters and getting their ears massaged.
Frank Bullitt

Alf McQueef wrote:
... and some pay their top level staff far too much (pay on a level with the private sector should not be the motivation for working for a charity!).


You don't really believe that, do you? If so, that is incredibly naive.

Charities, certainly the larger ones, are a huge business that require robust governance and the right calibre of staff to make it a success - a few WI refugees with too much time on their hands can't run MacMilan, for example or even a well-connected retired major. The amount of people that are required to ensure charities like SAFFA, MacMillan et-al are properly tun are comparable to a business of similar turnover.
Bob Sacamano

Frank Bullitt wrote:
Alf McQueef wrote:
... and some pay their top level staff far too much (pay on a level with the private sector should not be the motivation for working for a charity!).


You don't really believe that, do you? If so, that is incredibly naive.

Charities, certainly the larger ones, are a huge business that require robust governance and the right calibre of staff to make it a success - a few WI refugees with too much time on their hands can't run MacMilan, for example or even a well-connected retired major. The amount of people that are required to ensure charities like SAFFA, MacMillan et-al are properly tun are comparable to a business of similar turnover.


That's true but I'm not sure they should be benchmarking their remuneration packages against some of the rather inflated private sector businesses. If pay to turnover were the way to go then the Prime Minister would be earning £100 million a year.

The top 10 highest-paying charities:

1. London Clinic £850,000 to £860,000
2. Nuffield Health £770,000 to £780,000
3. St Andrew’s Healthcare £750,000 to £760,000
4. Wellcome Trust £590,000 to £600,000
5. Royal Opera House £566,000
6. Anchor Trust £420,000 to £430,000
7. City & Guilds £400,000 to £410,000
8. Legal Education Foundation* £360,000 to £370,000
9. Children’s Investment Fund Foundation £350,000 to £360,000
10. Church Commissioners for England £330,000 to £340,000
Frank Bullitt

Most of those are charities in order to avoid tax rather than proper charities in the tin-rattling sense of the word.

The PM comment is valid, and you might argue it does attract the calibre of person keen to do it rather than those most capable.
Michael

Very few charities make their money from tin rattling. Look at the Kids Company fiasco, their business model was to be a charity that was dependent on government funding as are many charities who receive the majority of their funding through the government. I'm of the view that thr majority of a charities funding is received from the government they ought to be subject to the same rigour as the civil service.
Twelfth Monkey

Good job, as they aren't strongly advised not to 'rattle':

http://www.raisingfunding.co.uk/street-collecting-what-are-rules.html
Tim

I audited quite a few local charities years ago and was always quite surprised at how well they paid the mid-managers, they were always aligned with local authority pay rates and even bookkeeping staff were getting quite a lot more than me as the part-qualified audit person.

The local mobility bus groups all had a full structure but relied on volunteers to do most of the actual charitable work, those kind hearted people would be reimbursed expenses.


More recently I worked for a charitable trust that was a country estate - big house open to the public, visitor centre, tenanted farms, estate houses for rent and I suppose it was ultimately done as a way of avoiding inheritance tax.
I think the only charitable thing it did was educational (school visits and activities to help local kids get a better understanding of the countryside around them).
It wasn't profitable though and didn't rely on state handouts to keep going.
Alf McQueef

Frank Bullitt wrote:
Alf McQueef wrote:
... and some pay their top level staff far too much (pay on a level with the private sector should not be the motivation for working for a charity!).


You don't really believe that, do you? If so, that is incredibly naive.



I do, and personally I find that comment pretty insulting. Given the figures being thrown about, is the idea that "some" pay too much really that contentious or naive?

Even if we just talk about charities of the sort that purely exist towards a specific obviously charitable cause or set of causes (like the RSPCA, UNICEF, and so on) not a large healthcare or education business using charitable status as a tax reducer, then pay is - in some cases - very high in the larger charities. Sure, they have a lot of responsibility and so on - but the work culture is very different to private businesses and people should see working for a charity as a way of doing good for the world.

If, say, you do a job for £100k not the £200k you could earn privately, you will hardly starve, and will probably be under less stress and feeling that you contribute more to the world than working for a large private sector firm. Which is worth some of the £ difference. Mrs ALF vounteered quite heavily (and did some paid work when their marketing manager left) for a local animal charity that turns over a few £m. The CEO there was in silicon valley before, now she earns £40k in the charity. The marketing manager had a similar CV to Mrs ALF of corporate marketing manager jobs and earns £25k. That's the sort of attitude I expect from people wanting to work for a charity - though much bigger ones would pay more, it should not be to the levels you often see.

Sometimes, it seems a bit wrong the way they go about things, too. One of the various charities I make a DD payment to is the RNLI - the staff in the offices are paid, the people actually risking their lives - and putting in just as many hours in many cases - are not.

We all have choices about work/life balance and I would expect people working for a charity - even at the top end - not to prioritise earnings right near the top of their list, and not to pull the "I could earn more in the private sector card". Go on then. They would argue that that would mean insufficient talent in the space, I would argue there are a lot of capable, well trained, experienced people in the modern world and enough will still want to do the work for decent, but not stellar, money. They may well be nicer people too...
Frank Bullitt

I think if you are looking at the talent-pool of people who have earned mega-bucks and fancy doing some good as the only source then it's a pretty small one.

People that work for charities tend to also have bills to pay and their skills ought to be recognised, it's the same as public and private organisations - there is no distinction whatever when paying for talent.

Your comment about the RNLI has a degree of validity but those who go out on the boats do so whilst having other employment, those who spend 40 hours a week in admin don't, I suspect many also give spare time in other ways to the organisation or other charities.

You might find it insulting, I find it naive.
Big Blue

Yeah I think we need to see some balance here. People that man the lifeboats not only provide a much needed service, but they also like pissing about on very powerful boats that they don't have to pay mooring charges for, service or fuel. Some of my associates are on the Blood delivery roster and enjoy the chance to dart about on their bike with some purpose other than meeting for a Sunday morning coffee. Heads of charities and the senior management are also not averse to receiving "gongs" that they can brag about in their club and for some their spouse's income is a relief for the fact that they aren't remunerated as those in the private sector are purported to be.

Some people are motivated by other things and do enter into charitable work for the right reasons: I have a pair of cousins (sisters) that are like that but they have one advantage over others: their dad gave them each a substantial deposit on homes in London in the '90s so personal finances don't really feature in their lives as they would in those of others. Many other charity workers are students that want it on their cv: unfair perhaps but some do indeed get bitten by the bug and move into that sector and do charitable work throughout their career so it's a case of any way you can hook 'em.

I like to think of the higher echelons of the charity pay structure as being like becoming a barrister: if you can afford to live like a poor dormouse in the early years in chambers your rewards will come later.

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum