Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

123578

Comments

  • #122
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Your numbers, not mine.

    Replacing one employee with dozens of employees at 50% of the cost - would indeed, cost a lot more in aggregate. Yes. That wouldn't be a smart move at all.
    He's saying that's what happens when you split up a big organisation into smaller ones, it's basically unavoidable.

    It's about duplication of effort. In a big organisation you may have two people who manage purchasing for the entire organisation. This is everything from paying the gas bills to ordering in new computers.

    If you split that organisation into five small ones, you can probably have one purchasing manager at each location, but you've still just replaced two people with five. And they are now paying higher prices on their purchases, because they make smaller purchases.

    That's not to say that all charities should aspire to become huge global megabusinesses. But if a charity aspires to do big things, like fighting the spread polio in Africa, then it needs to be a big charity. Three people in an office in Ballybofey have very limited ability to help a million people who've been displaced by a major natural disaster.

    Yep, they can partner up with other small charities around the world, but then you need someone to co-ordinate that effort. And before you know it, you've got a big charity with a CEO at the top.


  • #123
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    blackwhite wrote: »
    That's exactly what you've advocated - taking a national organisation and splitting it into dozens of small organisations.

    'Splitting' implies that someone is sitting down and deciding to break up one company into dozens of small organizations. I'm not advocating that.

    If large charities truly need high paid CEOs to be effective, and they depend on donations from relatively poor people (less than 90k), then they would have to downsize. It would encourage people to start new charities, sure.

    Or maybe, some CEO would decide to split their charity up into smaller ones. Up to them. But I'm not advocating any action against the charities that already exist.

    I also didn't make any statement about how much money the people running the charity should make.

    So, it seems unfair to say, 'Well, dozens of people making half of what the current CEO makes would cost more'. Cause, I'm not advocating that.


  • #124
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    Acounts as of 2012. There's a lot of spare cash there for some reason
    http://www.simon.ie/Portals/1/Accounts/SCI%202012%20Accounts%20web%20.pdf


  • #125
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,361 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    UCDVet wrote: »
    If large charities truly need high paid CEOs to be effective, and they depend on donations from relatively poor people (less than 90k), then they would have to downsize. It would encourage people to start new charities, sure.

    But can you not at least acknowledge that there is a possibility that one large organisation with a well paid CEO is simply a better fit for some tasks than multiple small ones?


  • #126
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,339 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    UCDVet wrote: »
    'Splitting' implies that someone is sitting down and deciding to break up one company into dozens of small organizations. I'm not advocating that.

    You've repeatedly advocated replacing large organisations with many more, smaller, local organisations. It has the same impact as "splitting" - smaller individual overhead bases, but in aggregate more.
    The final impact is that less money from donations will make it to the recipients of the charity.

    UCDVet wrote: »
    If large charities truly need high paid CEOs to be effective, and they depend on donations from relatively poor people (less than 90k), then they would have to downsize. It would encourage people to start new charities, sure.

    Why should they automatically have to downsize? To be honest, if you are truly incapable of comprehending why a charity might need to be of a significant size to make any sort of impact, or why a larger charity can result in a more efficient use of funds, then that's really a problem coming from your own lack of perspective.
    UCDVet wrote: »
    Or maybe, some CEO would decide to split their charity up into smaller ones. Up to them. But I'm not advocating any action against the charities that already exist.

    You are advocating not giving them any money until they cut their CEO's pay. Purely because you don't understand why they might need a good CEO.
    UCDVet wrote: »
    I also didn't make any statement about how much money the people running the charity should make.
    You did. You've stated, repeatedly, that the CEO of the charity should make less than you.
    UCDVet wrote: »
    So, it seems unfair to say, 'Well, dozens of people making half of what the current CEO makes would cost more'. Cause, I'm not advocating that.

    Why is it unfair? You've suggested that having the same service delivered by dozens of localised organisations would eliminate the need for a highly-paid CEO. Moving from a nationwide service to localised organisations would mean that additional people are needed in each local organisation, so it's a perfectly fair conclusion to draw.
    Just because you fail to grasp the consequences of your own suggestion, doesn't mean it's "unfair" for someone to point it out to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Bitchslap

    Applauds

    And that right there, people, is how a debate is won.


  • #128
    Soft Falling Rain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭Soft Falling Rain


    UCDVet wrote: »
    That's the general idea. I'm not saying they don't care about the cause. Maybe they do. I'm saying, in this example, the CEO feels he needs 93k. He could get 92k and that would be 1k more to the charity; but he doesn't do that. 93k is the minimum he needs. So, following the lead of the CEO, who is probably far wiser about business and financial matters, I can only assume that I also need 93k.

    As soon as earn above 93k, I'll consider donating. Just like this CEO.

    I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't extend this to elected government officials. It's similar, yes, but not quite the same. The difference is, (and almost everyone would agree) we *need* a government. We benefit from having one and we want it to be efficient.

    Charities aren't quite the same. If it takes a highly skilled CEO to manage the 40 locations in 14 countries that Enable Ireland has, and we need to pay 150k to that CEO....well, the alternative would be.....lots of smaller charities. Run by CEOs who know less about business and who care more about the cause.

    And I'm okay with that. I think it would be better that way.
    You don't benefit from or need charity. Many do. In the case of Simon, if you've noticed the weather outside your window over the last few nights, it's been pretty appalling. I'd happily have their CEO on 93k overseeing services to protect people on the streets over any government official who is supposedly representing me but doing fcuk all in reality.

    I find your post quite astounding tbh. It almost sounds like you've a chip on your shoulder over this guy making more money than you. It suggests that you think there's not much to running a charity and you'd be wrong.


  • #129
    Rachiee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 880 ✭✭✭Rachiee


    Ok so going rate for CEO of small company private sector you are looking at 101,000. But as companies scale and with bonuses you could be looking at 199000.
    So how bout hit the Middle (its one of the biggest charities in Ireland) so comparable in private sector you'd be looking at 150000 minimum.

    So look at it as if CEO Dublin Simon earns 150,000 per year.Donates 57,000 back to the charity so they can afford two extra front line staff. Does that sound better.


  • #130
    foxy farmer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,194 ✭✭✭foxy farmer


    The big charities today are being run as business ventures. If they have a CEO they are probably using modern management structure with a whole host of roles. Board of directors, chairperson, vice chairperson treasurer, accountants, PR, Recruitment, etc etc. Payroll becomes a big thing then.
    Dont forget this modern business practice in charity has brought us Angela Kerins and co in Rehab, CRC Board and St Vincents. It seems that having a large management structure looks more professional and you closer to the state begging bowl.
    Bring on the Charity Regulator and a whole lot of transparency. Charity has become very far removed from the ideal it once was.


  • #131
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Sheep Lover wrote: »
    Everyone who works for a charity should live off a meagre existence of rooting in bins for food and sucking moss off rocks for sustenance, to set an example to the rest of us.
    Beggars can't be choosers :)


  • #133
    Soft Falling Rain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭Soft Falling Rain


    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.
    How bout you spend one night in one of their emergency hostels and come back and tell us more about the low skilled work they do.


  • #134
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    yosser hughes wrote: »
    Acounts as of 2012. There's a lot of spare cash there for some reason
    http://www.simon.ie/Portals/1/Accounts/SCI%202012%20Accounts%20web%20.pdf

    How do you know it's spare cash?


  • #135
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Grand Moff Tarkin


    It will be a very cold day in hell before I hand money over to a single charity in this country. What I always do is pass my old clothes and bedding into the Simon Community as that is charity I can see in action on the streets of my home city.


  • #136
    NotCominBack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭NotCominBack


    How the hell do you come up with a figure of 93,338?

    Interviewer: Ok sir, we are willing to offer you the position of CEO - what salary would you like?
    Sir: Well 130k would be acceptable all things considered.
    Interveiewer: well we couldnt possibly pay that much, how about 80k?
    Sir: sure my current position is paying 100k
    Intevriewer: well hows about 85k then, there are many many benefits, free food, and shelters to avail of.
    Sir: Na, hows about 100k, and you can keep your food and shelter
    Interviewer: Ok Sir, I think I have a figure we can both agree on - hows about 93,338?
    Sir: Thats a nice round number, I'll take the job
    Interviewer: Welcome aboard Sir, just one other thing - we are going to plaster your salary all over the Internet


  • #137
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    NotCominBack wrote: »
    How the hell do you come up with a figure of 93,338?

    Interviewer: Ok sir, we are willing to offer you the position of CEO - what salary would you like?
    Sir: Well 130k would be acceptable all things considered.
    Interveiewer: well we couldnt possibly pay that much, how about 80k?
    Sir: sure my current position is paying 100k
    Intevriewer: well hows about 85k then, there are many many benefits, free food, and shelters to avail of.
    Sir: Na, hows about 100k, and you can keep your food and shelter
    Interviewer: Ok Sir, I think I have a figure we can both agree on - hows about 93,338?
    Sir: Thats a nice round number, I'll take the job
    Interviewer: Welcome aboard Sir, just one other thing - we are going to plaster your salary all over the Internet

    Call me stupid but is there a point to this post?


  • #138
    Cantremember
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,305 ✭✭✭Cantremember


    Soft Falling Rain wrote: »
    How bout you spend one night in one of their emergency hostels and come back and tell us more about the low skilled work they do.

    There is no "us" in that post just you. Why don't you tell me as you seem to know? Is it comparable to heart surgery? Hip surgery? Psychiatry? Doorman? Bus driver? What is it? And what does the CEO do? Now I'm not saying that looking after homeless people isn't valuable work, I'm asking what special skills are needed.


  • #139
    NotCominBack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭NotCominBack


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Call me stupid but is there a point to this post?

    Ok stupid...


  • #140
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    Valetta wrote: »
    How do you know it's spare cash?

    I can read.


  • #141
    Soft Falling Rain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭Soft Falling Rain


    Cantremember wrote: »
    There is no "us" in that post just you. Why don't you tell me as you seem to know? Is it comparable to heart surgery? Hip surgery? Psychiatry? Doorman? Bus driver? What is it? And what does the CEO do? Now I'm not saying that looking after homeless people isn't valuable work, I'm asking what special skills are needed.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Qualitymark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,824 ✭✭✭Qualitymark


    When I give money to charity, I give it so that it will feed the hungry or help the sick or instruct the ignorant or clothe the naked. I don't give it to buy a Merc or a perk.

    Or rather, when I used to give money to charity. I was signed up by a chugger a few years ago for an Irish charity and promptly started getting glossy four-colour brochures in the post asking for more. I know what it costs to print these. And the CEO (CEO???) was earning over €100,000.

    Only charity I'll give to now is Peter McVerry, who uses it to house and help homeless kids, get them into jobs and set them right on the good path. A decent guy.

    Otherwise, I'll buy a Happy Meal for people begging on the streets now and then, and stop for a chat.

    Ireland is becoming an unequal country, where TDs "earning" a total of €234,000 (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/tds-claim-an-average-of-147000-in-this-dails-lifetime-30746609.html) think that the "squeezed middle" is €70,000, and where your work is valued by the money you can grab for it, not by the results you achieve.

    Raging inequality is very, very bad for a society. It's good to have a little, but disastrous to have a lot.


  • #143
    Valetta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Valetta


    yosser hughes wrote: »
    I can read.

    Obviously not, as nowhere in the accounts does it mention spare cash.


  • #144
    yosser hughes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭yosser hughes


    Valetta wrote: »
    Obviously not, as nowhere in the accounts does it mention spare cash.

    Right so. :)


  • #145
    Sofia Whispering Mullet
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sofia Whispering Mullet


    Macavity. wrote: »
    Meh, I'm not really concerned with the "Oh, but he makes over xxxxxxxx amount for the company.....". To me, if they are earning over the average wage I'm not going to donate to their charity.

    Yeah I hate when charities get more money resulting in helping more people


  • #146
    T-K-O
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,309 ✭✭✭T-K-O


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Yeah I hate when charities get more money resulting in helping more people

    Maybe that's the problem. They get too big and corruption soon follows


  • #147
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,796 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Love to see the reactions on here when a charity not willing/allowed to pay for good management fell apart due to amateur management.

    "Wouldn't donate to them, bunch of bloody amateurs."


  • #148
    stateofflux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭stateofflux


    Given the size of the Organisation and the responsibilities, that salary is not over the top. and this guy is active full time engaged in every facet of the Organisation. unlike other greedy overpaid f*cks in the likes of Rehab etc


  • #149
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Qualitymark wrote: »
    When I give money to charity, I give it so that it will feed the hungry or help the sick or instruct the ignorant or clothe the naked. I don't give it to buy a Merc or a perk.

    Or rather, when I used to give money to charity. I was signed up by a chugger a few years ago for an Irish charity and promptly started getting glossy four-colour brochures in the post asking for more. I know what it costs to print these. And the CEO (CEO???) was earning over €100,000.

    Only charity I'll give to now is Peter McVerry, who uses it to house and help homeless kids, get them into jobs and set them right on the good path. A decent guy.

    Otherwise, I'll buy a Happy Meal for people begging on the streets now and then, and stop for a chat.

    Ireland is becoming an unequal country, where TDs "earning" a total of €234,000 (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/tds-claim-an-average-of-147000-in-this-dails-lifetime-30746609.html) think that the "squeezed middle" is €70,000, and where your work is valued by the money you can grab for it, not by the results you achieve.

    Raging inequality is very, very bad for a society. It's good to have a little, but disastrous to have a lot.


    And uses it to pay their CEO €96k.


  • #150
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    osarusan wrote: »
    Love to see the reactions on here when a charity not willing/allowed to pay for good management fell apart due to amateur management.

    "Wouldn't donate to them, bunch of bloody amateurs."

    Rehab paid top dollar for 'good' management and look where that led. I heard the Frank Flannery fella on Today FM (Matt Cooper) last night - got €400k for consultancy work for Rehab - after he retired from the company - and he was chairman for something like 25 years. Nice work if you can get it. The golden circle at work - I use the word work loosely.


Advertisement