There was a report
out yesterday by Oxfam that claimed the wealthiest 1% in the world, will soon
own more than the rest of the world's population. The charity's research showed that the share of the world's wealth
owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year, on current
trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the
world's wealth by 2016.
Oxfam's executive director Winnie Byanyima, said
she would use the charity's high-profile to demand urgent action to narrow the
gap between rich and poor. "It is
time our leaders took on the powerful vested interests that stand in the way of
a fairer and more prosperous world. Business as usual for the elite isn't a
cost-free option; failure to tackle inequality will set the fight against
poverty back decades. The poor are hurt twice by rising inequality, they get a
smaller share of the economic pie and because extreme inequality hurts growth,
there is less pie to be shared around," she added.
Now none of us can really disagree with this
sentiment, but don’t forget this report was based on the world population, not the UK - so most of us are part of that “rich”
1%. What got me more was the hypocrisy from Oxfam’s director who goes on about
the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer whilst being paid a huge
six figure salary herself. This led me to do a bit of research myself on some
of the other large charity director’s salaries. This revealed that most of them
are getting paid rather handsomely.
Just How Much?
My
bit of internet research revealed the following, most of which are figures from
2013:
In 2013, Sir Nick Young, the chief executive
of the British Red Cross, saw his pay jump by 12% to £184,000 since 2010,
despite a 1% fall in the charity’s donations and a 3% fall in revenues.
Another in the same pay bracket is Justin
Forsyth, UK Chief Executive of Save the Children; Mr Forsyth received £163,000 in
2012, just less than Anabel Hoult, its chief operating officer, who was paid
£168,653. However Save the Children is paying
its top employee a massive £234,000 a year! This individual is believed to be International
Chief Executive Jasmine Whitbread; she is among 20 employees earning more than
£100,000 at the charity’s international body. And there’s another nine that are
on six-figure salaries at the charity’s UK arm. Interesting that these huge pay
packets are considerably more than the £142,500 a year paid to David Cameron,
whose wife Samantha is an ambassador for Save the Children.
The top paid executive at
Christian Aid was Loretta Minghella, a former chief executive of the Financial
Services Compensation Scheme, who was paid £126,072 in 2013. The NSPCC has one employee on over £160,000
and over 40 on over £60,000 p.a. Cancer Research UK spends £130m on
wages and has 154 exec's on between £60k and £230,000 per annum.
All of this is surpassed by the salary of the
highest paid employee at Marie Stopes International, who earns more than
£290,000 a year. A second employee at the birth control charity is paid more
than £200,000 and in total 11 people are on six-figure salaries.
In their annual accounts, charities are not
required to detail by name how much their top executives are paid, and many
express the sums in bands, disguising the true figures. Can they really justify
these obscene amounts of money, when they are
really just selling an easy product - human kindness?
I’ve now stopped giving
money to Cancer Research. I feel it's a good cause but I'm not giving my hard
earned money to a boardroom full of executives on high salaries.
It’s Just Not On!
To me, you think charity and
you think retired ladies in charity shops, you think volunteers rattling their
collecting tins, vocation, and compassion. You don’t think mega-salaries!
The Save The Children salaries
are particularly galling. They are the reason why the price of goods sold in
charity shops has risen so significantly. After all, the nationwide network of
charity shops has to sell an awful lot of second-hand clothes simply to raise
enough money to pay a £234,000 salary. Makes you wonder how much is left for
those in need, probably just a few crumbs.
I watched an advert for Save
the Children asking people to sign up to give £2 a month - I thought about doing
that, but I think I'm better giving food to a local food bank than putting
money into that overpaid woman's pocket. She, and all those overpaid charity
executives, should be ashamed of themselves. This is also the
"charity" which decided that 25% of UK children live in poverty.
And I don't think that the
other charities are any better. They've all got their snouts in the trough! It's
a racket, when there are so many overseas and home charities struggling with
people who volunteer, giving their time for nothing to help children and
orphans. I don’t know how these exec’s sleep at night. Daytime TV is one
endless parade of deserving causes all asking for "just" £2 a week to
save a child, a cat or a donkey. After seeing these salaries, I don't feel so
bad about ignoring their TV appeals and to the tins shaken in my face at Asda.
In my mind the whole charity apparatus stinks. First of all, isn’t charity
supposed to begin at home? Err, uh, nope. Charity goes as far away as
possible, while our needy and homeless go without. A freezing cold beggar
in winter cannot walk into a UK high street charity shop and be given a warm
coat, hat and gloves, or a blanket. In
this country, charity has become a racket, because British people are quite
literally generous to a fault.
A CEO in the commercial industry needs to
sell something. Bank CEOs also need to justify their existence and even if the banking
industry is run by high risk sociopaths that repeatedly betray us, capitalism
will make sure that their day will come (so far it is government intervention
that has protected them). Charities on the other hand, provide no product. A
charity operates solely to benefit others in need with no real return to the doner.
People
give money because they believe that their money is going towards a good cause.
So when charities say "£3 buys a kid
a blanket" the assumption is that their money will buy blankets, not
that it'll fund the lavish lifestyle of a CEO or high ranking workers in these
charities. And if this is the case, they need to be upfront about it. After
yesterday’s report, I looked but couldn't find the CEO's earning in Oxfam's
financial statement.
Our
"Third Sector" - these major charity organisations, is very closely aligned to the Public
Sector. These two sectors seem to work very closely
together, there’s often a revolving door in terms of staffing, particularly senior managerial staff,
between the two. They use the same firms of PR consultants, management consultants,
law firms and accountancy firms
etc. You’ll find the same culture in both sectors - a culture of big salaries at the top, a bonus culture
and gold plated pensions for the "senior management".
And of course the endless junkets. Oh and don't forget the same culture of cronyism in terms of
awarding fat mega bucks contracts to
their chums in said PR industry, management consultancy industry and corporate law firms etc, no doubt with
kick backs and all sorts of inducements
coming back their way for doling out these fat contracts. Another thing that bugs me is they invest is the
alcohol and tobacco industries, products which kill people. They are hypocrites
and sadly, should he avoided.
Salaries Should Be Comparable With
Industry?
Seems to me there is no such
thing as a charity – it’s simply another name for a business. The argument the charities give back about
high salaries is that they need to provide salaries competitive with industry. Well
I suppose most charities are just businesses,
there to rake in funds, their overheads can easily use well over half the money
they collect. Doesn’t mean its right though does it? "We establish remuneration to attract the best talent",
is what they say – so the same excuse as the bankers and the councils then.
Don’t
forget, these charity businesses also get tax breaks, so in a way; we are
already paying for them. Why should they have preferable treatment as a business
entity, if they are in the making money game just the same as any other CEO
from industry is? These high positions have
prestige too; they’re given access to politicians and the like: they’re an
elite in themselves.
When we talk of what charity CEOs could earn
in industry, shouldn’t we also compare what unpaid volunteers could earn in
paid work? Also when we talk of thousands reporting to the CEO, the job would still
get done without a CEO. He or she might well work with a board to develop
strategy but they’re not needed for day to day operations any more than a
council chief’s presence is needed to repair a pothole.
In any event there must be many rich
philanthropist executives that would give their skills free of charge. Bill
Gates might be an example. I don’t think he pays himself for work he does for
his foundation. Maybe the answer is that charities should be trusts that are headed
up by retired exec’s who do the work out of the goodness of their heart.
Putting something back into society as a thank you for the high salaries they
received during their career.
I am not going to give these
parasites a penny until their fat cat salaries go to zero. If they are rich (which
they are) they can afford to give their time for free. Otherwise leave it to
others with the vocation and the desire to help.
Solutions
Simple solution. If the remuneration package is over a prescribed
limit set by the government then the charity loses its registered charity
status and all the tax benefits that registered charity receive.
Any "charity" that receives any taxpayer money
should have to publish how much they pay their staff, from the top down. Once
they start paying their top people huge salaries they should lose their
charitable status, and start paying the dues that any other business has to.
Charity work should come out of duty. It should be run by humble people that
should be put on a pedestal for the fabulous work they are doing. Not just a
way for CEO to take home extortionate wages.
What About Me and You?
I’ve come to the conclusion
that large charities, with the exception of the RNLI and the Air Ambulances,
are not worthy of my support. I find it truly unbelievable that a charity
should pay such amounts as we’ve seen. Even more disgraceful is that these
directors should accept it!
Not only are senior
employees grossly over-remunerated, but some charities are far too political.
Others receive far too much cash from HMG and the EU, but still continually ask
for donations from us lot. Most of these large charities adopt aggressive fund
raising techniques - they see it as being "professional", but for me
it is very off putting. I also object to being asked for my
bank details by a bunch of scruffy yobs in
the high street and feel that expensive television and billboard advertising soon
swallows my contribution.
I will
now only give to local causes where it is clear that collectors are genuine
volunteers and where the committees are made of
up truly local volunteers.
For the rest of you, it’s down to your own
conscience. As long as you’re happy that less than 5% of the money you give to
Christian Aid or Save the Children actually goes to the needy then carry on
donating. The majority of money goes elsewhere within the charity; it’s a
racket to suck in gullible people.
Remember if hundreds of thousands of gullible
people pay two pounds a month, just two pounds a month then these parasites can
continue to live the good life. Next time you are asked to contribute ask how
much their Chief Executive takes for no added value.
No comments:
Post a Comment