Charity direct debits (1 Viewer)

[Deleted member 5849]

I would feel uncomfortable taking that much salary from people's donations. Surely you should work hard for the cause you believe in, generate good returns and be happy with a decent salary, say capped at £100k.

I'd feel comfortable if I felt I was actively contributing towards the charity raising the profile of an issue more than they would without me, and/or raising more money than they would without me.

(I don't work for a charity btw!!)

 

---

[tommydazzle]

I'd feel comfortable if I felt I was actively contributing towards the charity raising the profile of an issue more than they would without me, and/or raising more money than they would without me.

(I don't work for a charity btw!!)

But you could still do this for less money.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But you could still do this for less money.

Just about all of us could do our jobs for less money. I'm not sure that's really an argument to be made.

It's also a dangerous slope, generally, to undervalue a position. It either holds worth... or it doesn't, and the organisation you're employed by shouldn't really be an issue in that case.

 

[tommydazzle]

This is a fairly standard argument but problem is it’s not disprovable. Making it a faith based argument rather than a scientific one. You can’t ever prove what someone’s motivations were. For every example I might find that shows true altruism, you can posit a hypothetical that means it was really egotistical.

Matt Ridley is an evolutionary biologist and in that book he attempts to show how altruism may have arisen via kin selection, tit for tat cooperation and reciprocal altruism especially in primates. It gives a compelling scientific account of the beginnings of morality without the need of sky fairies and humans as special beings.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I'd have thought any charitable act gives some positive feeling for the person doing it, even if couched in terms of assuaging guilt. The thing to look at more is a wider context, surely? If it's done just so that person can, in other areas of their life, feel a bit better about being a little bit racist, or beating their wife and children, then that charitable act doesn't alter the fact that they're a bit of a bastard. Jimmy Saville's a fine example of that!

Likewise, if it means just thinking you've done your bit, and not looking at underlying issues as to why groups / animals etc need charitable help, probably doesn't help solve things in the long run.

But... pragmatically *somebody* has to help out, in the system we're in, so *somebody* has to be touched to help others less fortunate than themselves.

 

[tommydazzle]

Just about all of us could do our jobs for less money. I'm not sure that's really an argument to be made.

It's also a dangerous slope, generally, to undervalue a position. It either holds worth... or it doesn't, and the organisation you're employed by shouldn't really be an issue in that case.

Surely there's always a case to be made about what constitutes 'reasonable' especially when we are considering charitable donations. Would you donate to a charity where the chief exec was on a million pounds a year? Is it just money that makes for a great chief exec? Not sure I agree with your implications regarding 'worth' and 'undervalue'.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Surely there's always a case to be made about what constitutes 'reasonable' especially when we are considering charitable donations. Would you donate to a charity where the chief exec was on a million pounds a year? Is it just money that makes for a great chief exec? Not sure I agree with your implications regarding 'worth' and 'undervalue'.

Generally (not always) charity jobs are pitched at less than you could earn in the private sector.

So, arguably, you're already donating a part of your salary to your own charity.

Looking at the numbers in isolation doesn't necessarily mean that people are money grabbing bastards. Better they're capable and help out a charity than earn more elsewhere, and then donate that portion back to said charity, surely?

 

[tommydazzle]

Generally (not always) charity jobs are pitched at less than you could earn in the private sector.

So, arguably, you're already donating a part of your salary to your own charity.

Looking at the numbers in isolation doesn't necessarily mean that people are money grabbing bastards. Better they're capable and help out a charity than earn more elsewhere, and then donate that portion back to said charity, surely?

Yes and surely this is the whole point. A job working for a charity is a special case (I would hope) and attracts a special kind of person motivated by more than just a top salary. Charities need to maximise and squeeze every penny donated not try to match top salaries in the private sector.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yes and surely this is the whole point. A job working for a charity is a special case (I would hope) and attracts a special kind of person motivated by more than just a top salary. Charities need to maximise and squeeze every penny donated not try to match top salaries in the private sector.

But, generally they do. £250k may be entirely appropriate. Throwing out the numbers in isolation doesn't look at the work they've done in their job, or their capability within it. It might not, of course, they may be an inept muppet, but the salary in itself isn't a reason to dismiss it as an overpriced waste.

You still need to reward people for doing a good job, and I'm not sure why they should be denied the spare capital to be able to donate to charity themselves, when their time is used to further the cause of where they work.

But I suspect we're at the stage now where we'll both head into repetitive circles

 

[tommydazzle]

But, generally they do. £250k may be entirely appropriate. Throwing out the numbers in isolation doesn't look at the work they've done in their job, or their capability within it. It might not, of course, they may be an inept muppet, but the salary in itself isn't a reason to dismiss it as an overpriced waste.

You still need to reward people for doing a good job, and I'm not sure why they should be denied the spare capital to be able to donate to charity themselves, when their time is used to further the cause of where they work.

But I suspect we're at the stage now where we'll both head into repetitive circles

Agreed!

 

[Grappa]

The decline of philanthropy and the 'market value' remuneration argument for ceos at charities are concomitant with and, imo, indicative of the overall devaluation of the concept of altruism. Altruism and well-remunerated management positions within charities and NGOs are contradictory. I've worked with outreach organisations who have done good work up and until leaders from profit-orientated organisations are brought in. The first step is always to lower the wages of the frontline staff. Then comes quantitative measuring of outcomes. The clients with the easiest issues to address are focused on and targeted for engagement, over those whose problems are far more complex (and expensive to treat) but qualitatively far cheaper for society as a whole to be treated satisfactorily long-term..
My area was dual-diagnosis, those with mental health and substance misuse issues. Multi-agency cooperation work with which we were achieving success rates far higher than any other comparative organisations. This was in Camden. Profit-oriented CEO comes in and funding was slashed. Supported accommodation for those with straight forward mental health issues and secure forensic units (where the local authorities are happy to splash the cash) get prioritised. Those CEOs are all about the bottom line. The more money you make is the measure of success. Societally, it's a different story.
Bit drunk, nearly 2am in Cambodia right now so my argument may not be particularly coherent but I hope the overall point I am trying to make is clear. Profit-focused 'leaders' are the wrong people to lead social services.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I read a book many years ago called 'the origins of virtue' by Matt Ridley (who later became the c**t who fucked up Northern Rock, but that's by the by). It's all about whether or not there is such a thing as 'true altruism'. He argued, convincingly enough for me, that there isn't. There is always something in return; fame, publicity, birthday honours, 'heaven', kudos etc etc.
The only way to prove Ridley not 100% correct is for me to say I give nothing to anyone or anything ever, and never will.

Yeah I agree with that probably, the giving really is a form of gratification for what you've got or just pursuing an interest, e.g. I like dogs but don't have one so give to a dog charity