How Much Should Charity Bosses Get Paid?
Discussion
I used to support Cancer Research until I read that they’re paying the CEO I over £200K. Not so much for head of a large organisation but I think charities should pay less than commercial organisations.
On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Why do you think they should be paid less? Do you know if £200k is market rate for a CEO of a £500m organisation or not?
Seems 87p in every £1 is spent on research...
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-orga...
Seems 87p in every £1 is spent on research...
https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-orga...
Salary has to be competitive to the industry standard. I would alsk expect there to be little in the way of bonuses etc as all profits should be going to the charity work/research so maybe the staff should be paid slightly more to start with to compensate for no bonus scheme like the commercisl side would pay.
I know nothing about CRUK but off the top of my head I imagine the CEO is responsible for:
Research
Exploring new techniques, developing existing processes, reviewing what others have done.
Fundraising
Overseeing campaigns, building corporate partnerships and sponsorship, maintaining a substantial free workforce (volunteers).
Public Affairs
Lobbying the UK government and devolved administrations. Maintaining a working relationship with the Department of Health and NHS bodies.
Marketing and PR
Supporting the fundraising activities and maintaining the organisation’s profile and aims.
Partnerships
With worldwide research bodies, universities, big pharma and emerging technologies.
Core Services
Legal, finance, HR, facilities (IT and buildings).
If they can run all that successfully they are likely to be a very talented person. No one is under any obligation to give them anything.
Research
Exploring new techniques, developing existing processes, reviewing what others have done.
Fundraising
Overseeing campaigns, building corporate partnerships and sponsorship, maintaining a substantial free workforce (volunteers).
Public Affairs
Lobbying the UK government and devolved administrations. Maintaining a working relationship with the Department of Health and NHS bodies.
Marketing and PR
Supporting the fundraising activities and maintaining the organisation’s profile and aims.
Partnerships
With worldwide research bodies, universities, big pharma and emerging technologies.
Core Services
Legal, finance, HR, facilities (IT and buildings).
If they can run all that successfully they are likely to be a very talented person. No one is under any obligation to give them anything.
Edited by WilsonWilson on Tuesday 11th January 20:16
50k - so a bit more than the many post doctoral researchers they employ/fund but quite a bit less than their world leading scientists and clinicians in cancer research. Do you want to scale their salaries as well and deliver the best science outcomes? Wonder how that would work out for value for money.
LosingGrip said:
What if paying them £150k brings in an extra £200k a year?
Or they could hire me for £40k and get nothing in return.
Could be a lot more. Recruit an experienced CEO from a top firm, for £500K a year, and he might raise £10m for the charity with all his contacts in the City. Why is that worse than paying someone £50K a year who doesn't know anyone and raises nothing. Or they could hire me for £40k and get nothing in return.
bad company said:
I used to support Cancer Research until I read that they’re paying the CEO I over £200K. Not so much for head of a large organisation but I think charities should pay less than commercial organisations.
On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
You’re delusional, getting that kind of talent for £200k is a steal and many charities know their CEOs could earn far more elsewhere. On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
As a comparison, CEOs like Richard Howson of Carillion were taking home £50k a month whilst the company raced towards oblivion....
bad company said:
I used to support Cancer Research until I read that they’re paying the CEO I over £200K. Not so much for head of a large organisation but I think charities should pay less than commercial organisations.
I don't know what you happen to do for a living, but why don't you go and do it for a charity for 25% of the going rate. Or is it just other people who should make the sacrifice. So a CEO of a highflying firm with a turnover of £500m pays himself millions and he’s lauded on PH as worth it with long hours, total commitment, responsible for thousands of employees and huge responsibilities of driving the business forward and increasing income.
A CEO of a charity with an income of £500m who pays himself only £200k and he’s derided on PH as overpaid despite long hours, total commitment, responsible for thousands of employees and has huge responsibilities of driving the charity forward and increasing donations.
I mean, seriously?
For f
ks sake, by running the charity on a commercial basis means donations increase which means further research that may one day save your fking life.
Get a grip.
A CEO of a charity with an income of £500m who pays himself only £200k and he’s derided on PH as overpaid despite long hours, total commitment, responsible for thousands of employees and has huge responsibilities of driving the charity forward and increasing donations.
I mean, seriously?
For f
ks sake, by running the charity on a commercial basis means donations increase which means further research that may one day save your fking life.Get a grip.
bad company said:
I used to support Cancer Research until I read that they’re paying the CEO I over £200K. Not so much for head of a large organisation but I think charities should pay less than commercial organisations.
On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
You stopped supporting a cancer charity because of your own insecurities about salary - What a nice chap you are.On the thread below several disagree so I thought I’d start a new one.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I think they should pay him more, he seems to be doing a great job.
The CEO of the Canal & River Trust makes more than that of Cancer Research yet they raise a piffling amount by comparison.
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-20...
As I implied when you raised this on the other thread, I respectfully think you’re mistaken here and if you have genuinely stopped donating to CR because of this should perhaps reconsider that position. Given the responsibility and the sums involved it’s incredible value for money for the sector.
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-20...
As I implied when you raised this on the other thread, I respectfully think you’re mistaken here and if you have genuinely stopped donating to CR because of this should perhaps reconsider that position. Given the responsibility and the sums involved it’s incredible value for money for the sector.
On a similarly daft thread, someone posted this TED talk on the way we look at charity fund-raising. It's a really watchable 20 mins and raises some thought-provoking points.
I think the arguments outlined answer the OP's question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM&ab...
I think the arguments outlined answer the OP's question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM&ab...
£200k seems quite low. I think most university vice chancellors get paid up to two or three times that.
I worked for a charity for a few years. Recruiting and keeping people was a problem. Lots of people - including myself - took a role at a significant discount to market rate because they supported the aims of the charity but there aren’t that many people who can afford to do that.
You miss all the perks of working for private organisations too - I think I drank more wine by myself at the accountancy Xmas parties than they put out for tables of 12 at the charity Xmas bash. Of course that is right because donations shouldn’t be spent on such things but it made working there less fun.
The low pay and civil service type culture also attracted more than its fair share of the work shy and unable who wouldn’t have survived in private industry where getting fired is a possibility.
I worked for a charity for a few years. Recruiting and keeping people was a problem. Lots of people - including myself - took a role at a significant discount to market rate because they supported the aims of the charity but there aren’t that many people who can afford to do that.
You miss all the perks of working for private organisations too - I think I drank more wine by myself at the accountancy Xmas parties than they put out for tables of 12 at the charity Xmas bash. Of course that is right because donations shouldn’t be spent on such things but it made working there less fun.
The low pay and civil service type culture also attracted more than its fair share of the work shy and unable who wouldn’t have survived in private industry where getting fired is a possibility.
I worked at Barnardo's in the mid 90s at a time when revenue from various sources, not just fundraising, was increasing to a level that required a level of expertise to manage that was beyond the traditional levels of capacity amongst the senior management old-guard. They - and most of the other 'big 10' realised that they needed to attract a much higher calibre management team and that meant paying commercial rates for their services.
This was met with a lot of opposition, mainly from the blue-rinse rank-and file regional fundraiser groups yet within no time at all, revenue increased, the proportion spent on the cause (what might be called 'profit' in a commercial context) increased considerably. They and other charities became more efficient and far better at their intended purpose.
Cancer Research provides a vital service. Its charitable status means that it is shrouded from government policy and support which can ebb and flow - the very reason that it and many like it retain independence from government funding. Were these types of charities commercial, they would be FTSE 100 companies. Whilst all we see is the fun-runs, the coffee mornings, the sponsored treks up Everest, the money all that all makes funds a brilliantly innovative, progressive, effective concern that we all ultimately benefit from at some stage in our lives. To make it so requires the most expert of managerial expertise. It must compete for that expertise with those FTSE 100 companies willing to pay the big bucks for the right people - or pay sufficient amounts to keep the right people.
£200k is nothing for a person of the calibre needed. It could be argued that they need to pay more, not less.
There are many valid reasons why someone may choose not to support or donate to a charity. How much the boss earns should never be one of them.
This was met with a lot of opposition, mainly from the blue-rinse rank-and file regional fundraiser groups yet within no time at all, revenue increased, the proportion spent on the cause (what might be called 'profit' in a commercial context) increased considerably. They and other charities became more efficient and far better at their intended purpose.
Cancer Research provides a vital service. Its charitable status means that it is shrouded from government policy and support which can ebb and flow - the very reason that it and many like it retain independence from government funding. Were these types of charities commercial, they would be FTSE 100 companies. Whilst all we see is the fun-runs, the coffee mornings, the sponsored treks up Everest, the money all that all makes funds a brilliantly innovative, progressive, effective concern that we all ultimately benefit from at some stage in our lives. To make it so requires the most expert of managerial expertise. It must compete for that expertise with those FTSE 100 companies willing to pay the big bucks for the right people - or pay sufficient amounts to keep the right people.
£200k is nothing for a person of the calibre needed. It could be argued that they need to pay more, not less.
There are many valid reasons why someone may choose not to support or donate to a charity. How much the boss earns should never be one of them.
Mr Spoon said:
Folk, this is PH you do realise we've all be earning more than this and £200k is pittance
What on earth are we chirping about???
Side note, remember wot on earth the kids programme?
Yes! Spelled Watt though. I loved that programme, and I had a hat the same as his when I was young What on earth are we chirping about???
Side note, remember wot on earth the kids programme?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff