Dr Barnardos - a bit misleading?

Just been looking at the website for Dr Barnardos charity where I'm about to take some items.

"100% of the profits made from the sale of goods will help the U.K.'s most vulnerable and disadvantaged children".

Rather naively this initially came across that whatever they made from my donated goods went to a good cause.

It then occurred to me if 100% of what they sold them for benefited those children, where did the money come from to pay the CEO (around £190,000), 4 employees on more than £100,000 and 38 on more than £38,000?

It wouldn't create the same feel good factor, but wouldn't it be more open and accurate to say that 100% of any REMAINING profits AFTER paying out all overheads, including some very high salaries, actually benefited those children.

It then occurred to me if 100% of what they sold them for benefited those children, where did the money come from to pay the CEO (around £190,000), 4 employees on more than £100,000 and 38 on more than £38,000?

It wouldn't create the same feel good factor, but wouldn't it be more open and accurate to say that 100% of any REMAINING profits AFTER paying out all overheads, including some very high salaries, actually benefited those children.

You are perfectly entitled to take the items to another charity shop, or just take them to the tip.

If the amount the CEO gets bothers you, Google for the charity with the lowest paid CEO, he/she may not be as good as a higher paid CEO, that is how our capitalist system works.

You are perfectly entitled to take the items to another charity shop, or just take them to the tip.

If the amount the CEO gets bothers you, Google for the charity with the lowest paid CEO, he/she may not be as good as a higher paid CEO, that is how our capitalist system works.

Extortionate salaries are no guarantee of quality. I would have thought the financial crisis was proof of that. In fact the proof is all around us, if it were needed. CEOs get whatever they can get away with. They award themselves extortionate salaries because they can.

However I now vote with my feet. I no longer support any of the big charities, and never will again until executive pay is brought under control.

I give instead to the smaller, local charities who work very hard to make every penny count.

Extortionate salaries are no guarantee of quality. I would have thought the financial crisis was proof of that. In fact the proof is all around us, if it were needed. CEOs get whatever they can get away with. They award themselves extortionate salaries because they can.

That is life, I get paid 'whatever I can get away with'. If I look for another job, higher pay will be a factor.

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-chief-executives-paid-on-average-one-third-less-than-other-sectors.html

---------- Post added 21-07-2018 at 13:11 ----------

Just been looking at the website for Dr Barnardos charity where I'm about to take some items.

The amount in £s spent on chief exec's pay for every £1,000 of income, £0.67

That is low pay compared to other charities!!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

That is life, I get paid 'whatever I can get away with'. If I look for another job, higher pay will be a factor.

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/charity-chief-executives-paid-on-average-one-third-less-than-other-sectors.html

 

---------- Post added 21-07-2018 at 13:11 ----------

 

 

The amount in £s spent on chief exec's pay for every £1,000 of income, £0.67

 

That is low pay compared to other charities!!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

I assume you will get what you're given, you won't decide your own renumeration.

Everyone decides their own renumeration Anna.

You accept a job offer and wage terms or not.

If you feel you are being undervalued, you say so and make an offer of what you would be prepared to accept. If an employer wants you enough they will pay it.

Its how job interviews work.

Everyone decides their own renumeration Anna.

 

You accept a job offer and wage terms or not.

 

If you feel you are being undervalued, you say so and make an offer of what you would be prepared to accept. If an employer wants you enough they will pay it.

 

Its how job interviews work.

A very disingenuous reply if I may say so. Some people do not have the luxury of choice as you very well know, unless they want to live on the street.

A very disingenuous reply if I may say so. Some people do not have the luxury of choice as you very well know, unless they want to live on the street.

A disingenuous reply to a very disingenuous statement from you.

What makes you think that a former chief executive or director or manager who has lost their job and ends up with debts round their neck has any more choice to be picky about their salary than some so called "poor" person on a low income.

Personal circumstances dont come into your statement.

The point was very simple. We ALL accept what renumeration we are prepared to receive for our work the day we sign on the dotted line with an employer.

Those of us who have little responsibility and/or enough rainy day income tide us by and/or skills/qualifications/assets in demand can CHOOSE to be a little more selective of a job we pick and if we are so bold, set out a figure to a prospective employer of we would expect to receive for a role.

That freedom can apply to ANY sort of job not, as you mistakenly assume, just high level ones.

For those of us chiefs OR shop floor who need the money, have debts, have responsibilities we can quite obviously be far less picky or even sometimes be forced into accepting a figure what we deem beneath us. That circumstance also can apply to BOTH higher or lower earners.

Why are you always so blinded by one side? You never look at a bigger picture and desprately try any attempt to continually bash the perceived rich.

A disingenuous reply to a very disingenuous statement from you.

 

What makes you think that a former chief executive or director or manager who has lost their job and ends up with debts round their neck has any more choice to be picky about their salary than some so called "poor" person on a low income.

 

Personal circumstances dont come into your statement.

 

The point was very simple. We ALL accept what renumeration we are prepared to receive for our work the day we sign on the dotted line with an employer.

 

Those of us who have little responsibility and/or enough rainy day income tide us by and/or skills/qualifications/assets in demand can CHOOSE to be a little more selective of a job we pick and if we are so bold, set out a figure to a prospective employer of we would expect to receive for a role.

 

That freedom can apply to ANY sort of job not, as you mistakenly assume, just high level ones.

 

For those of us chiefs OR shop floor who need the money, have debts, have responsibilities we can quite obviously be far less picky or even sometimes be forced into accepting a figure what we deem beneath us. That circumstance also can apply to BOTH higher or lower earners.

 

Why are you always so blinded by one side? You never look at a bigger picture and desprately try any attempt to continually bash the perceived rich.

The perceived rich?

Oh please... A CEO on upwards of £190,000 is rich when compared with the average salary of £23,000 Pardon me if I don't feel sorry for him if he can't afford the school fees, and an extra holiday in the Seychelles.

When a charity can afford to pay him/her such an amount, they can manage without the contribution from my meagre income, and I will give it to those who use the contributions for what was intended, the benefit of those in need.

[/b]

 

The perceived rich?

 

Oh please... A CEO on upwards of £190,000 is rich when compared with the average salary of £23,000 Pardon me if I don't feel sorry for him if he can't afford the school fees, and an extra holiday in the Seychelles.

 

When a charity can afford to pay him/her such an amount, they can manage without the contribution from my meagre income, and I will give it to those who use the contributions for what was intended, the benefit of those in need.

Wow, talk about inverse snobbery. Once again, ignore the details of the post , ignore the bigger picture and just beat that old drum.

Prey tell, how much exactly do you think should be paid to a chief executive of a national organisation which has over 8000 employees and a £301million budget???

How does the charity sector CEOs - which by recent survey stats show the majority of receiving less than £100k a year - compare with CEOs in other simiar sized organisations eh?? How do those CEOs renumerations and responsibilities compare to those all those thousands of executive level civil servants or NHS clinical leaders or Health Trust Managers, those Chief Consultants or even them down to earth working class salt of the earth unionised dahling tube drivers??

Equal pay levels for equal types of jobs the masses scream *cough*, except if you are some suited type deemed to earn a higher than average wage then it doesn't count. In that case you are tarred as just some greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.

Oh one final though for you. 43% of that £190k is whipped away in tax and national insurance payments to the public purse compared to just 17% of the lower earner.

Better not all be dragged down had we.

Wow, talk about inverse snobbery. Once again, ignore the details of the post , ignore the bigger picture and just beat that old drum.

 

Prey tell, how much exactly do you think should be paid to a chief executive of a national organisation which has over 8000 employees and a £301million budget???

 

How does the charity sector CEOs - which by recent survey stats show the majority of receiving less than £100k a year - compare with CEOs in other simiar sized organisations eh?? How do those CEOs renumerations and responsibilities compare to those all those thousands of executive level civil servants or NHS clinical leaders or Health Trust Managers, those Chief Consultants or even them down to earth working class salt of the earth unionised dahling tube drivers??

 

Equal pay levels for equal types of jobs the masses scream *cough*, except if you are some suited type deemed to earn a higher than average wage then it doesn't count. In that case you are tarred as just some greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.

 

Oh one final though for you. 43% of that £190k is whipped away in tax and national insurance payments to the public purse compared to just 17% of the lower earner.

 

Better not all be dragged down had we.

Definitely less than the Prime Minister of the country.

Got it in one. 'A greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.'

These Neo-liberal types will bring down the country in the end, just as they brought down the banks.

Definitely less than the Prime Minister of the country.

 

Got it in one. 'A greedy scumbag corporate monster who doesn't deserve it.'

These Neo-liberal types will bring down the country in the end, just as they brought down the banks.

There is a room full of wind bags earning 3x the average salary who could bring down the entire country.

There is one huge useless lump of lard earning a salary just behind said prime minister whose inaction and weakness could do more damage to this country than anything the bankers did.

There are currently three trade union chiefs all earning more than the PM and dozens more earning + £100k despite them supposedly representing those downtrodden workers.

There are thousands of civil servants, quango chiefs and layers of government organisation management and even GPs who earn more than the PM or are on six figure salaries.

Wonder if you have the same level of bile against them. On and on and on and on you keep beating that drum....