My salary is €93,338 says Irish charity boss...do you think this is too much?

Nalz

blackwhite wrote: »

Sure give the money directly to the dogs and cats! It'll be put to better use that way - the charity is only a middle man that incurs costs after all.

I don't fully get your point, I'm guessing there's sarcasm in there somewhere.
My point is if this guy up in the DSPCA was on 90k or 40k its still too much... considering what he doesn't do, or more to the point what he does do. Anyways I'll say no more

corner of hells

Cantremember wrote: »

I'm curious about this. Simon isn't a manufacturing facility, not a cutting edge R & D centre, its employees / volunteers would seem to spend their time doing very low skill work. I can see admin being needed, compliance issues on buildings but what else? I'm just asking by the way, to see what is the nature of the work that is being done by a CEO there and to compare it to a business.

I work fulltime in homeless hostels in Dublin city , every one of us has a variety of skills and education in order to engage and work with the multitude of problems a homeless individual presents with from mental health issues , addiction , physical ill health , disabilities , educational needs , legal concerns ... the list is endless.
Everyone of us is expected to continue to further or training and anyone case return to education.
My background of employment is in homeless and drug services , all low threshold, indeed you should spend a night or day in a homeless hostel.

LoganRice

Too little

Cantremember

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Different professions, different set of skills required.

Ironically enough, you've implied that people who work in such services aren't comparable to medical professionals, when the reality is that Simon and other services like them would have qualified counsellors and nurses on their payroll.

Helping people suffering from addiction and mental health issues is not something everyone can do.

I asked several questions. The implication is in your own mind. Interesting. So they employ counsellors and nurses. What percentage of the employees?

Cantremember

corner of hells wrote: »

I work fulltime in homeless hostels in Dublin city , every one of us has a variety of skills and education in order to engage and work with the multitude of problems a homeless individual presents with from mental health issues , addiction , physical ill health , disabilities , educational needs , legal concerns ... the list is endless.
Everyone of us is expected to continue to further or training and anyone case return to education.
My background of employment is in homeless and drug services , all low threshold, indeed you should spend a night or day in a homeless hostel.

So Simon has mental health services, addiction counsellors, teachers, occupational therapists? , legal advisers and more. That certainly would make it a multi disciplinary service delivery vehicle. I wasn't aware it employed all these people. It sounds like a contract based delivery vehicle for the HSE.

murpho999

This often comes up and I don't get the complaint.

Charities are professional organisations with large amounts of staff and demands.

For example, Concern, a charity that I know as a someone I know works there employs about 3,500 people. An organisation of that size cannot be run a crowd of sandal wearing volunteers.

It needs a CEO to direct them and guide them to maximise their earnings that will in turn benefit the people in the countries they work in.

In all the countries they work in they run major operations.
Logistics are required to deliver equipment etc.
Engineers are required to build an design infrastructure.
Accountants are required to record all transactions. Drivers to bring people around as required.
All of this needs to be supported in head office by a fully professional finance, HR , IT and even Marketing department. Yes, marketing, as glossy brochures are designed to increase income to provide more aid.

Do people really expect all this to be done for nothing or lower rates?

When the recession hit, incomes dropped and all staff were put on pay freezes for the last few years. Now their salaries are out of kilter with the current jobs market and they are struggling to attract the right people so they become less effective and people who need the help suffer in the long run.

I don't understand why people don't get this.

Also,, people have no issues with other charties being commercial.

For example Dublin Zoo is a charity (link and charge top money for everything and pay their staff well.

Also many hospitals are registered charities too and their doctors are all highly paid as you would expect.

darkpagandeath

Someone has the buy all the brand new land-rovers and such when they arrive to help, And pay the fancy hotel bills they stay in and so on so forth.

Judgement Day

murpho999 wrote: »

This often comes up and I don't get the complaint.

Charities are professional organisations with large amounts of staff and demands.

For example, Concern, a charity that I know as a someone I know works there employs about 3,500 people. An organisation of that size cannot be run a crowd of sandal wearing volunteers.

It needs a CEO to direct them and guide them to maximise their earnings that will in turn benefit the people in the countries they work in.

In all the countries they work in they run major operations.
Logistics are required to deliver equipment etc.
Engineers are required to build an design infrastructure.
Accountants are required to record all transactions. Drivers to bring people around as required.
All of this needs to be supported in head office by a fully professional finance, HR , IT and even Marketing department. Yes, marketing, as glossy brochures are designed to increase income to provide more aid.

Do people really expect all this to be done for nothing or lower rates?

When the recession hit, incomes dropped and all staff were put on pay freezes for the last few years. Now their salaries are out of kilter with the current jobs market and they are struggling to attract the right people so they become less effective and people who need the help suffer in the long run.

I don't understand why people don't get this.

Also,, people have no issues with other charties being commercial.

For example Dublin Zoo is a charity (link and charge top money for everything and pay their staff well.

Also many hospitals are registered charities too and their doctors are all highly paid as you would expect.

Dublin Zoo has charitable status and is a commercial operation - entirely different to something like Goal, Rehab, Simon etc. who employ hordes of 'chuggers' to extract cash from people on the high street. I've never seen Dublin Zoo collectors on the street.

murpho999

Judgement Day wrote: »

Dublin Zoo has charitable status and is a commercial operation - entirely different to something like Goal, Rehab, Simon etc. who employ hordes of 'chuggers' to extract cash from people on the high street. I've never seen Dublin Zoo collectors on the street.

They have different methods of raising cash.

Concern, Goal etc have the exact same status as Dublin Zoo.
Not having anything on display in their offices to attract a public willing to pay in means that they have to earn their funding in a different way.

Chucky the tree

Judgement Day wrote: »

Dublin Zoo has charitable status and is a commercial operation - entirely different to something like Goal, Rehab, Simon etc. who employ hordes of 'chuggers' to extract cash from people on the high street. I've never seen Dublin Zoo collectors on the street.

Probably because they can earn money by charging people to enter the zoo.

Judgement Day

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Probably because they can earn money by charging people to enter the zoo.

Precisely the point that I was making and a Dublin Zoo type of charity cannot be compared with the likes of Simon, Goal etc.

My point about attracting CEOs from philanthropic minded retired people - with the right skill sets - seems to be outrageous judging by the response. The idiom, do as I say, not as I do, can be applied to the CEOs of many charities along with politicians, trade union leaders etc.

Deenie123

UCDVet wrote: »

It's fine. But just remember, every single person who earns less than 93k and donates to his charity cares far more about the charity than the CEO does. I think it's hypocritical and wrong; so I wouldn't donate.

Actually if the CEO is earning less than they would in a private enterprise you're wrong. Downright, absolutely, entirely wrong.

Private industry salary for CEO of similar organisation - €300,000 + perks
Large charitable organisation salary for their CEO - €93,000


Donation to the charity by the CEO valued at €207,000


Running any large organisation requires skills that are difficult to obtain. A person offering their time at a massively marked down rate while still providing the skills required is a benefit in kind donation to the charity.


If you don't want waste, you have to have skills. You're not going to get that for nothing. Everyone chipping in and doing their little bit might work for a small organization, but once the organization becomes any larger, you just end up with inconsistent labour force (you can't compel a volunteer to be there certain days), lack of oversight and wasted resources.

murpho999

Judgement Day wrote: »

Precisely the point that I was making and a Dublin Zoo type of charity cannot be compared with the likes of Simon, Goal etc.

Of course they can be compared as they both have Charitable status but nobody cares what Dublin Zoo pay their staff. Also Temple Street hospital is another good example. They are high profile fund raisers. Do people who donate think that the doctors there are paid less than at other hospitals?

Judgement Day wrote: »

My point about attracting CEOs from philanthropic minded retired people - with the right skill sets - seems to be outrageous judging by the response. The idiom, do as I say, not as I do, can be applied to the CEOs of many charities along with politicians, trade union leaders etc.

Why would a retired CEO want to return to the huge task of running a charity.
You seem to be of the mindset that it's a charity and they just feed the hungry or shelter the homeless and quality people are not required for the roles is just plain wrong.

Judgement Day

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course they can be compared as they both have Charitable status but nobody cares what Dublin Zoo pay their staff. Also Temple Street hospital is another good example. They are high profile fund raisers. Do people who donate think that the doctors there are paid less than at other hospitals?


Why would a retired CEO want to return to the huge task of running a charity.
You seem to be of the mindset that it's a charity and they just feed the hungry or shelter the homeless and quality people are not required for the roles is just plain wrong.

It hasn't been established - to my satisfaction - the 'huge' task involved for a CEO in running a charity. As I have mentioned previously, Fergus Finlay seems to be able to hold down numerous other jobs at the same time - is he Superman?

Philanthropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy - if I have to explain it to you, you obviously don't have it.

murpho999

Judgement Day wrote: »

It hasn't been established - to my satisfaction - the 'huge' task involved for a CEO in running a charity. As I have mentioned previously, Fergus Finlay seems to be able to hold down numerous other jobs at the same time - is he Superman?

Philanthropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy - if I have to explain it to you, you obviously don't have it.

So you don''t think running an organisation with thousands of people requires a top class CEO at the top of their game?

Thank you for the link to Philantrophy. I fail to see why a charity would have to have one of these types of people just because they are a charity.

CEO's of Facebook, Microsoft & Apple etc earn billions which is more absurd in my opinion than €93k but no one seems to mind that.

Chucky the tree

Judgement Day wrote: »

Precisely the point that I was making and a Dublin Zoo type of charity cannot be compared with the likes of Simon, Goal etc.

My point about attracting CEOs from philanthropic minded retired people - with the right skill sets - seems to be outrageous judging by the response. The idiom, do as I say, not as I do, can be applied to the CEOs of many charities along with politicians, trade union leaders etc.

That's because it is. Generally retired CEO's who want to give back will do so by becoming a Board member of a charity, not a part-time CEO. A CEO takes up a huge amount of time and energy. Not sure why someone retired with want to give up all that time in return just for the love of it.

C14N

Honestly, it depends on what he can do for the charity. I don't give a shiet what the top guy makes as long as it's worth it. If you can get a brilliant leader who can do incredible work managing the charity and increase their effectiveness tenfold, it makes no difference if he's also a greedy bollox and wants half a million in salary and this guy isn't getting close to that. Better to have a greedy CEO who knows his stuff than a saintly one who can't do anything right.

Rightwing

It seems too much for a charity. Yes, it's low for a CEO, but does that mean a CEO of a sweet shop should get €100K as well?.

Charity depends on the generosity of others, that's the bottom line.

murpho999

Rightwing wrote: »

It seems too much for a charity. Yes, it's low for a CEO, but does that mean a CEO of a sweet shop should get €100K as well?.

Charity depends on the generosity of others, that's the bottom line.

Large charities are equivalent to big businesses and are more complex than sweet shops.

If they pay poorly then they won't attract quality people to take the organisation forward and at the end of it all they will be able to provide less aid/support.

The fact that the money is donated makes no difference.

Rightwing

murpho999 wrote: »

Large charities are equivalent to big businesses and are more complex than sweet shops.

If they pay poorly then they won't attract quality people to take the organisation forward and at the end of it all they will be able to provide less aid/support.

The fact that the money is donated makes no difference.

They won't take the organisation forward without the generosity of others. That's the bottom line. We can call school princials CEOs too, and raise their salaries from €100K to €300K. Don't be fooled by the title 'CEO'.

murpho999

Rightwing wrote: »

They won't take the organisation forward without the generosity of others. That's the bottom line. We can call school princials CEOs too, and raise their salaries from €100K to €300K. Don't be fooled by the title 'CEO'.

A school principal is more in line with a Senior Manager/Director, a CEO is several levels above that.

I actually think people who complain about a CEO's job don't fully understand what it is and what it demands.

Also the salary under discussion was €93k not €300k

Judgement Day

murpho999 wrote: »

So you don''t think running an organisation with thousands of people requires a top class CEO at the top of their game?

Thank you for the link to Philantrophy. I fail to see why a charity would have to have one of these types of people just because they are a charity.

CEO's of Facebook, Microsoft & Apple etc earn billions which is more absurd in my opinion than €93k but no one seems to mind that.

Glad you found the link to Philantropy useful. I too think that the salaries paid to CEO's of Facebook, Microsoft etc are outrageous but they are private companies and as long as their shareholders are prepared to put up with it...This, shareholder (me), no longer gives to street collectors for charities (I'm not unique in this especially since the Rehab scandal) but you seem unwilling to address this issue. If street collections and other donations to charities start to dry up where will the extravagant payment to CEOs come from ....I think we all know the answer to that.

murpho999

Judgement Day wrote: »

Glad you found the link to Philantropy useful. I too think that the salaries paid to CEO's of Facebook, Microsoft etc are outrageous but they are private companies and as long as their shareholders are prepared to put up with it...This, shareholder (me), no longer gives to street collectors for charities (I'm not unique in this especially since the Rehab scandal) but you seem unwilling to address this issue. If street collections and other donations to charities start to dry up where will the extravagant payment to CEOs come from ....I think we all know the answer to that.

Rehab is an extreme case that has actual done a lot of damage to the charity sector.
Chairities like Concern and Goal don't pay their CEO anywhere near that level.
In fact Concern's new CEO is paid a lot less than his predecessor.
Link.
I don't think €99k a year to run an organisation wih a budget of approx €150m is that much.

Also your comment about 'shareholder' is telling.

Whilst you donated to a charity was good it did not make you a shareholder.
Same as a person who buys a product in a shop becomes a customer not a shareholder.
People seem to think they have a moral high ground on this but the shareholders of Facebook, Microsoft etc are capital investors in the companies not customers.

Duck Soup

Let's take two charity CEOs of identical charities. Both manage to keep costs unchanged.

The first is on €93,000 a year and increases donations to his charity, via improved marketing and collection, by €100,000 a year for five years straight.

The other CEO is on €43,000 a year and his charity's annual income remains essentially static for the five years of his tenure.

Which CEO is actually more 'expensive'? Which is the more valuable to his charity?

Duck Soup

Page 5 of the PDF has bucket loads of various Irish charity CEO salaries for those of a mind to have a look.

https://www.alzheimer.ie/Alzheimer/media/SiteMedia/ImageSlider/Fixed/Daily-Mail-Piece_1.pdf

Podge_irl

Judgement Day wrote: »

Glad you found the link to Philantropy useful. I too think that the salaries paid to CEO's of Facebook, Microsoft etc are outrageous but they are private companies and as long as their shareholders are prepared to put up with it...This, shareholder (me), no longer gives to street collectors for charities (I'm not unique in this especially since the Rehab scandal) but you seem unwilling to address this issue. If street collections and other donations to charities start to dry up where will the extravagant payment to CEOs come from ....I think we all know the answer to that.

93k a year for a CEO of an organisation that size simply is not extravagant. Far from it in fact.

T-K-O

Duck Soup wrote: »

Let's take two charity CEOs of identical charities. Both manage to keep costs unchanged.

The first is on €93,000 a year and increases donations to his charity, via improved marketing and collection, by €100,000 a year for five years straight.

The other CEO is on €43,000 a year and his charity's annual income remains essentially static for the five years of his tenure.

Which CEO is actually more 'expensive'? Which is the more valuable to his charity?

If CEO #2 is offered 45k, maybe he could find the time to improve marketing and god forbid increase collections.

Personally, I have little faith in the larger organisation that requires a google-eque CEO.

Deenie123

T-K-O wrote: »

Personally, I have little faith in the larger organisation that requires a google-eque CEO.

That's fine, just do everyone who donates a favour and stay away from the coast and stay on land. Wouldn't want you to be at risk of having to use the RNLI's services, seeing as you have no faith in their organisation.

murpho999

T-K-O wrote: »

If CEO #2 is offered 45k, maybe he could find the time to improve marketing and god forbid increase collections.

Personally, I have little faith in the larger organisation that requires a google-eque CEO.

A person who has that ability would work for another organisation that would pay him more for his skills. Offering €2k extra year is not going to attract the right person. It's not just about increasing collections, as if they stand outside a church every Sunday with a bucket.
It's about designing programmes to administer aid, education etc.. Security in dangerous countries where they operate is a major issue as well. People really need to read up on these things.

An organisation that does not have a CEO would not be a large organisation. All large organisations have them and the position was not invented by Google so who you want to be in charge is beyond me.

T-K-O

Deenie123 wrote: »

That's fine, just do everyone who donates a favour and stay away from the coast and stay on land. Wouldn't want you to be at risk of having to use the RNLI's services, seeing as you have no faith in their organisation.

Will do.