Pieta

The Black Oil

The Black Oil wrote: »

A difficulty with Pieta is there's a mismatch between their brand and what they actually do. They don't seem to deal with anything more than mild or moderate cases, complex issues, dual diagnosis and so on. Considering there's enormous public good will on their side, along with a pat on the back from the media, they should be more upfront about the limitations of their services.

Complex issues that might have a psychotic/neurological/medical aspect can only be dealt with by a medically qualified consultant psychiatrist and psychiatric nurses. As far as I know Pieta doesn't offer any medical aspect to their services directly, they have no psychiatrist in their employment.

So indeed, their services can only be limited to the purely psychological aspects of mental distress. Psychologists are normally qualified to recognise what might be a condition that needs referral to a psychiatrist so they would indeed make that referral where necessary to medical services.

corks finest

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've a daughter a social care worker says Pieta house don't deal with anyone suicidal, they refuse and send them elsewhere. Is this true?

Incorrect,my son was dealt with after contacting a school counselor he had an appointment within 30 hours(going on 16 at the time)

Furze99

Deleted User wrote: »

See the post about. If you run a charity that has multiple centres, fund raising activities, staff etc then you aren’t going to get Mike who drives a forklift down the hardware store to run it.

120k sounds very cheap tbh.

Maybe, but there comes a stage in the growth of charities when it becomes all about the staff. We need 'x' amount of funding to pay 'y' staff and if we don't get it we fold and so on.

They often start out as kitchen charities with volunteers providing some service at little or no cost, get their feet on the funding and fundraising ladders and expand from there.

They reach a stage where the original purpose is not lost but becomes secondary to the existence of the charity, it's staff and their wages and pensions etc.

It's not a great model.

zerosugarbuzz

corks finest wrote: »

Incorrect,my son was dealt with after contacting a school counselor he had an appointment within 30 hours(going on 16 at the time)

Good to hear he had a good experience. I have a close friend who contacted them and it took them 3 months to get back to her. She was going through a very traumatic situation at the time and thankfully got help elsewhere. Hopefully that was a one off.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t manage the organisation, and the CEO of Pieta House does not manage a team of 200 employees. It’s not what she was hired to do. I provided you with examples of people who are the CEOs of charity organisations who are passionate about what they do and they are passionate about the aims of the organisation, and they would easily be suitably qualified for the CEO position in Pieta House. The reason why I imagine they don’t want the position is because they aren’t particularly passionate about the aims of the organisation.

That’s why even if tne position were €500k, it still wouldn’t be any reflection on a person’s abilities as a CEO, it would just mean that the CEO of the organisation is an incredibly well paid position for a charity organisation. If the charity doesn’t perform as expected by meeting goals set for the organisation, then that’s a reflection on the CEOs abilities, not a reflection on their salary.

Sorry, if Elaine Austin is paid 150k pa as CEO, and she isn't managing Pieta House, what exactly is her role?

Antares35

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Christ. They are not qualified or experienced to be CEO of Pieta House. Nor would they want the responsibility. This is simplistic nonsense.

There seems to be a misconception that anyone working for a charity should do it for completely altruistic purposes simply because it's a charity. But they forget that a CEO still needs appropriate skill and expertise to be CEO, notwithstanding that the role is within a charity.

Professor Moriarty

Antares35 wrote: »

There seems to be a misconception that anyone working for a charity should do it for completely altruistic purposes simply because it's a charity. But they forget that a CEO still needs appropriate skill and expertise to be CEO, notwithstanding that the role is within a charity.

Exactly. A point that seems lost on many. The very best thing any charity can do is to appoint a qualified and experienced CEO to ensure that it is run in a way that optimises performance. The net beneficiaries of that process are the people that the charity supports.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Sorry, if Elaine Austin is paid 150k pa as CEO, and she isn't managing Pieta House, what exactly is her role?

Beats the hell out of me tbh :pac:


But seriously though, the role of the CEO position in any organisation is simply a figurehead position. It’s why charity organisations such as PH and others try to attract executives from business to be the CEO of their organisation. Generally speaking they hire people who they imagine will increase the public profile of the organisation. Who they get are people who are attracted to the easy money. I’m sure you’re familiar with the expression - taking candy from a baby.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Beats the hell out of me tbh :pac:


But seriously though, the role of the CEO position in any organisation is simply a figurehead position.

Not a clue.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Beats the hell out of me tbh :pac:


But seriously though, the role of the CEO position in any organisation is simply a figurehead position. It’s why charity organisations such as PH and others try to attract executives from business to be the CEO of their organisation. Generally speaking they hire people who they imagine will increase the public profile of the organisation. Who they get are people who are attracted to the easy money. I’m sure you’re familiar with the expression - taking candy from a baby.

Maybe you are right! I don't know the woman, but my own thinking is that the board employed a person with a lot of experience in HR management and strategy development for a reason. Plus she has an MBA. That CV seems ideal for an organisation that simply employs people to offer services. The question then is this: If her desk isn't where the buck stops, then who has responsibility for the management of the organisation? Some one person has to be in charge.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Zero. The clue is in the type of organisation it is - a charity. Plenty of much larger voluntary organisations than Pieta where the management are volunteers, and the staff are volunteers, all qualified in what they do.

€100k salaries attract figureheads, it says nothing about their ability to manage a charity organisation.

You think someone with the skills to manage a large organisation with 200+ workers should not be paid?

HBC08

HBC08 wrote: »

Sinn Fein are insulting peoples intelligence with this sort of nonsense.

I disagree. It's a shrewd bit of politicking by a party that has performed atrociously during the pandemic. Plenty of gullible people will look at this article, see the salary, and they'll believe that SF are looking out for the little guy. I see PD is going to bring a motion before the Dáil this week which will demand that property funds pay "appropriate", whatever that means, levels of tax. He's upset that affordable housing bodies are getting outbid by property funds. Plenty of people will fall for this also. The governing parties in this country, and I'm including SF & PD in that, given that he is going to be Minister for Finance next time round, need these property funds.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. Let's get someone highly qualified and very experienced to manage an organisation employing 200 people across 13 centres throughout Ireland. Let's pay the minimum wage. It'll be grand.

And if the CEO was a minimum wage or AIW worker, the same people would be whinging about that.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not a clue.

You are aware that anyone can be the CEO of an organisation? It doesn’t require any educational qualifications or management experience whatsoever. There are both good CEOs, and bad CEOs, regardless of their educational qualifications or management experience or salary. The type of organisation it is will determine what they require of a CEO position on a day to day basis, but in order to determine whether an organisation is getting good value for money for what they’re paying a CEO, looking at their salary alone won’t tell you much, nor will looking at the number of employees within the organisation, particularly in the charity sector where a lot of organisations are top-heavy in administration and they all take their cut from funding before anything trickles down to the provision of services to the public whom the organisation claims to provide services for.

That’s why I have an issue with an organisation which agrees to pay their CEO a salary they clearly cannot afford, while also claiming that they need more funding to provide their services to the public.

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

You think someone with the skills to manage a large organisation with 200+ workers should not be paid?

I don’t know where you came up with that idea. I was referring specifically to charity organisations, which is what we’re talking about here. Plenty of people have the skills to manage large organisations, and they also volunteer their time and skills in organisations which they are passionate about.

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know where you came up with that idea. I was referring specifically to charity organisations, which is what we’re talking about here. Plenty of people have the skills to manage large organisations, and they also volunteer their time and skills in organisations which they are passionate about.

I'll rephrase it for you so.

Originally Posted by BattleCorp :
You think someone with the skills to manage a large CHARITY organisation with 200+ workers should not be paid?

corks finest

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Gravy train??? Have you any experience of Pieta House and it's work? Or did you just go for the auld cynical line for the crack?

Well said

dublin49

IMO most charities initially are well intentioned ,over time the funding /renumeration of staff becomes more important than the service they seek to supply and are more vunerable in my opinion to stray into financial misbehaviour than purely commercial entities.The Bothar and other scandals demonstrates how little real scrutiny there is of this sector.The reason for this is simple,normal business activity has a Debitor/Creditor relationship that tends to highlight issues pretty quickly,this doesnt really apply to Charities and hence the tendency over time for bad practise to occur,I am not suggesting this is case with regard to Pieta but do believe it is a problem for the sector.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maybe you are right! I don't know the woman, but my own thinking is that the board employed a person with a lot of experience in HR management and strategy development for a reason. Plus she has an MBA. That CV seems ideal for an organisation that simply employs people to offer services. The question then is this: If her desk isn't where the buck stops, then who has responsibility for the management of the organisation? Some one person has to be in charge.

The Board of Management has responsibility for managing the organisation at the highest level, of which the CEO may be a member of the Board, or sometimes they have the title of Executive Director, as is the case with Colm O’ Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International, on a salary of €99k, who’s previous experience amounts to being able to wangle €600k out of the HSE under threat of withdrawing the services provided by the the organisation to the HSE, half of it to cover salaries -


At a meeting in May, 2002, One in Four agreed funding with the Department of Health of €633,000, of which €208,000 was made available to the original organisation in Britain "to assist it in dealing with calls from Ireland".

Of the remaining funding, €302,000 was spent on salaries for its staff; €79,000 was spent on renting and refurbishing offices in Dublin's Holles Street; €5,000 was spent on recruitment and €8,000 on volunteers.


One in Four head Colm O'Gorman earns ?80k a year


There were moves by some members of the board of Amnesty who proposed a reduction in his salary, but the motion was defeated -


Amnesty members vote to maintain Colm O’Gorman salary


The point being, it’s not the CEO who will decide their own salary, it’s the Board of Management in any organisation will make these decisions.

Big Gerry

I wonder if there is any "charity" in Ireland that is a legitimate charity ?

One eyed Jack

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll rephrase it for you so.

Originally Posted by BattleCorp :
You think someone with the skills to manage a large CHARITY organisation with 200+ workers should not be paid?

What’s to be confused about? It’s a charity, the purpose of its establishment is purported to provide aid to the people it claims to provide aid to, which is where all funds received should be going, as opposed to providing charity for those people running the charity and very little of its funding going to providing services for the people it claims to be providing services for.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Board of Management has responsibility for managing the organisation at the highest level, of which the CEO may be a member of the Board, or sometimes they have the title of Executive Director, as is the case with Colm O’ Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International, on a salary of €99k, who’s previous experience amounts to being able to wangle €600k out of the HSE under threat of withdrawing the services provided by the the organisation to the HSE, half of it to cover salaries -


At a meeting in May, 2002, One in Four agreed funding with the Department of Health of €633,000, of which €208,000 was made available to the original organisation in Britain "to assist it in dealing with calls from Ireland".

Of the remaining funding, €302,000 was spent on salaries for its staff; €79,000 was spent on renting and refurbishing offices in Dublin's Holles Street; €5,000 was spent on recruitment and €8,000 on volunteers.


One in Four head Colm O'Gorman earns ?80k a year


There were moves by some members of the board of Amnesty who proposed a reduction in his salary, but the motion was defeated -


Amnesty members vote to maintain Colm O’Gorman salary


The point being, it’s not the CEO who will decide their own salary, it’s the Board of Management in any organisation will make these decisions.

Indeed. But getting back to Pieta House, why do you think they employed Elaine Austin? What do you think her role is?

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. But getting back to Pieta House, why do you think they employed Elaine Austin? What do you think her role is?

They employed Elaine Austin for the role of CEO as they imagined she fit the bill for the role given her background in business. It’s not unusual or unreasonable for charity organisations to do this. They would likely apply the same criteria when hiring for the positions of CFO or COO, depending upon the structure of the organisation. They obviously feel that the salary for the CEO position is justified.

That leaves the public in a position where they have to decide whether they wish to contribute to an organisation knowing that the majority of their contributions will go towards administrative services as opposed to going towards giving aid to the people who need support.

That’s where the ethical dilemma of paying a CEO position in a charity a €100k salary is an issue for the organisation that isn’t going to be resolved simply by claiming they need more funding to provide their services to as many people as possible. I happen to take a very dim view of that sort of behaviour.

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They employed Elaine Austin for the role of CEO as they imagined she fit the bill for the role given her background in business. It’s not unusual or unreasonable for charity organisations to do this. They would likely apply the same criteria when hiring for the positions of CFO or COO, depending upon the structure of the organisation. They obviously feel that the salary for the CEO position is justified.

That leaves the public in a position where they have to decide whether they wish to contribute to an organisation knowing that the majority of their contributions will go towards administrative services as opposed to going towards giving aid to the people who need support.

That’s where the ethical dilemma of paying a CEO position in a charity a €100k salary is an issue for the organisation that isn’t going to be resolved simply by claiming they need more funding to provide their services to as many people as possible. I happen to take a very dim view of that sort of behaviour.

But, according to the Chair of the BoM, she was employed to "provide leadership" to the organisation. Given her experience and qualifications, I can only imagine this meant she was hired to manage the organisation. Besides which, if she were to streamline the operation and maintain optimal performance, then she will have easily earned her salary and the people who need the services will benefit.

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But, according to the Chair of the BoM, she was employed to "provide leadership" to the organisation. Given her experience and qualifications, I can only imagine this meant she was hired to manage the organisation. Besides which, if she were to streamline the operation and maintain optimal performance, then she will have easily earned her salary and the people who need the services will benefit.

Providing leadership means to promote the values and ethos of the charity, that’s all. The management of the organisation is done by the Board of management as a whole. The idea of “streamlining the operation” or “maintaining optimal performance” when speaking of a charity organisation is meaningless. They’re operating at a loss, and they are dependent upon the good will of the public for their continued operation. She earns her salary by ensuring that the public still want to contribute to the organisation, regardless of whether people who need the services benefit or not.

Providing the services at local level and how each branch of the organisation is managed is generally done at local level, and the CEO might make a flying visit every so often to motivate the staff, ie - provide leadership by reminding them of the reason the organisation exists, as opposed to having them thinking they’re essentially working for nothing while the CEO is being paid €100k

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Providing leadership means to promote the values and ethos of the charity, that’s all. The management of the organisation is done by the Board of management as a whole. The idea of “streamlining the operation” or “maintaining optimal performance” when speaking of a charity organisation is meaningless. They’re operating at a loss, and they are dependent upon the good will of the public for their continued operation. She earns her salary by ensuring that the public still want to contribute to the organisation, regardless of whether people who need the services benefit or not.

Providing the services at local level and how each branch of the organisation is managed is generally done at local level, and the CEO might make a flying visit every so often to motivate the staff, ie - provide leadership by reminding them of the reason the organisation exists, as opposed to having them thinking they’re essentially working for nothing while the CEO is being paid €100k

Okay. If that were the case, the BoM should be charged with gross incompetence. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

Alun

Big Gerry wrote: »

I wonder if there is any "charity" in Ireland that is a legitimate charity ?

As an example close to my heart, all Mountain Rescue teams in Ireland are registered charities. I can't imagine anyone having an issue with that, can you?

One eyed Jack

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. If that were the case, the BoM should be charged with gross incompetence. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

Gross incompetence for what? They aren’t grossly incompetent. They’re using the same justification that has been used throughout this thread that they believe the salary of their CEO is justified given the funding that the organisation receives and the work that they do.

It’s just my own view, that I would classify a charity organisation as being an organisation of unpaid volunteers providing their time and services for a cause they’re passionate about which is dependent upon the good will of the public to provide funding. An organisation which operates like a badly run business which is dependent upon the good will of the public for funding while paying its CEO €100k, is something else entirely.

Darc19

PCeeeee wrote: »

What percentage of people in Ireland make that kind of money or above it was the question I asked myself when you posted.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eaads/earningsanalysisusingadministrativedatasources2018/distribution/

That kind of wage puts you in the 97th percentile for salaries (2018 data admittedly), it would seem that as easy as you think it is to make that only 3 people in an hundred in Ireland manage to do it.

Sinn Fein TDs are probably over that when you take the very generous expenses into account.

And that excludes the pension plan.

And all they do is whine whine whine

Professor Moriarty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Gross incompetence for what? They aren’t grossly incompetent. They’re using the same justification that has been used throughout this thread that they believe the salary of their CEO is justified given the funding that the organisation receives and the work that they do.

It’s just my own view, that I would classify a charity organisation as being an organisation of unpaid volunteers providing their time and services for a cause they’re passionate about which is dependent upon the good will of the public to provide funding. An organisation which operates like a badly run business which is dependent upon the good will of the public for funding while paying its CEO €100k, is something else entirely.

Yes, but they aren't unpaid volunteers. 200 employees and 13 centres. That needs serious management skills. Anyway, we can agree that this is a service that should be provided by the HSE which would have obviated the need for Pieta House in the first place.

Buddy Bubs

Top 6 earners in my company is over 500k per annum too and we don't have 13 million turnover. And I'll tell ya one thing, we get far more value out of the high earners than the lower earners.