Charity....As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster

[redhen]

Quote:
I think that you're taking her words out of context... i dont believe she meant it the way that you are thinking. Laura is a very kind giving person with a big heart...

 

[arabianequine]

I would rather not pay the middle man that wage. I would rather it go straight to those in need that is a lot of money not going to charity. IMO not worth the price when we can all give directly ourselves to those in need. Why pay someone to do what we can?

 

[Rozzie]

Quote:
That is fine when it is something we can do on our own. We can go down on the corner and hand out sandwiches to the homeless, sure. Or we can arrange a night or two in a hotel for someone who is broke, maybe, and sleeping out in the cold. (I'm afraid it probably isn't legal for you to convert your outbuildings into a shelter for them, or in most instances our basements. Besides, most of us aren't trained to deal with mental illnesses.)


How many here are able to do anything about researching a cure for cancer of any sort?
How many here are able to do anything about ensuring a safe blood supply for use in hospitals or for use in disasters?
How many here are able to respond to a disaster across the country? Local folks can't really do much when a major disaster strikes. That usually requires help from outside the area / region. It takes organization and advance prep / planning (and money) to have these things ready to roll into place. (Whether we're talking about the Red Cross or other disaster response charities...I don't care which one you pick here.)
How many of us can train folks for jobs, provide homes and employment for the mentally disabled, etc?
I know I can't provide medical care for anyone. I'm simply not trained. I sure can't provide dental care for the impoverished. I don't have the skills / training. Nor do I have access to the equipment or the anesthetics, etc.
I sure can't provide treatment for kids with cancer. No skills for that & I don't have a hospital in my backyard (though there are a few around here. Still, they don't specialize in this type of treatment.)

Most of us can give some clothes or things like that to someone local whose house has burned down. We can help with these types of things. Larger scale stuff is beyond most individuals ability to do on their own and often even locally.

 

[arabianequine]

But all that money paying that ceo can and he/she can't do all that stuff either and still get the premium pay.

 

[Laurajean]

Quote:
Yep, I'm struggling too. I'm disabled, alone, have a mortgage I can barely pay, and if I have to choose between chicken feed or food for myself I get chicken feed. I shop at thrift shops and I have to do fast math before I reach the checkout counter. And I still donate to certain charities that I believe in even when I can't really afford to. Lots of us struggle, that's not my point. You said:

Quote:
I already said I obviously don't support criminals who steal funding, hence making charity recipients suffer, etc. But if they make it legitimately, and if the masses are benefitting from receiving said charity, no, I don't see a problem with it. It's a charity that might not even exist if someone didn't start the charity. It's charity. If someone gets rich doing charitable work, no, I don't mind. Quite honestly I don't care how rich they are or why they're rich as long as they're doing their job. If I suspect that my donations are being misused, (and all charities have funding division disclosures and it's our public right to look at those numbers), it's my duty as a donator to choose NOT to support that charity. But just because the head of a given <legitimately run> charity is rich doesn't make it shameful. That's my opinion, I'm not suggesting how you should feel about it, just saying that it doesn't bother me.

 

[BlacksheepCardigans]

CEOs of nonprofits are paid well because their job is moneymaking. They're the ones who meet with donors, travel everywhere, court the big names, get sponsorships, develop relationships, and so on. Presidents of colleges and universities do the same thing (if you've ever thought that the president of your college was the one setting the educational agenda, think again - 90% of his or her job is just plain getting money). The way you get a good moneymaker is to hire a good one - presidents of charities usually come from the corporate world. They are already taking a huge pay cut to come to the charity. I know a $600,000 salary sounds unimaginable (and it does to me as well) but if you're from Manhattan that's how much you have to make just to have an apartment. Not even a nice one, just slightly above the basement-studio level.

A good CEO will bring in a hundred times, if not a thousand times, his or her salary. It's more than worth it to the organization to pay them well because they pay for themselves over and over.

The Salvation Army is a church denomination, so it works a little differently. Since it's a church denomination that has as a major mission its efforts for the poor, rather than a charity, I don't believe the leadership structure follows the same pattern or should be expected to. In other words, I'm not sure if the salary of the current General has a direct bearing on anything. I do know that the current guy was an active missionary in Africa and Asia for pretty much his entire life before he was made General.

 

[RabbitMage]

Just because something is non-profit doesn't mean their people don't have to get paid. I think that a registered non-profit has to have a Board of Directors, and that board of directors set the salary, at least for the upper levels of management.

I co-chaired a local non-profit for a while (not a paid position, just a little thing) and the amount of work and effort that went into that group was amazing. This was just a regional group, serving our local community, but it wasn't too different from running a small business.

"Non-profit" does not mean "easy". Blacksheep gave just a short summary of the CEO's duties. Within a year, you're looking at weeks away from home, away from your family. If something goes wrong, it's on you. You set the direction of the organization, you manage people at the highest level. It is a hard, thankless, stressful job in a lot of cases. And most of these people could make at least twice as much if they chose to work in the private sector.

Looking at the real figures of their salaries, I don't consider any of that wasteful. I'm sure some people disagree, and that's fine. You can put your money where you like. Just be aware, local does not always mean good. I know a couple of 'local' places here that I wouldn't give a dime to.

 

[welsummerchicks]

I'll be the dissenter who thinks that many people who get paid 300,000 - 400,000 deserve every penny of it, if they can keep that organization profitable. Most of those compensations, you have to read the contract in more detail anyway to understand what really is compensation, what is conditional, what is of variable value.

I'm not sure how anyone earns a million dollars a year - but they are probably working 24/7/365 to get that, as well as doing some pretty stressful stuff and dealing with some very difficult situations.

To top it off, the top position in a charity organization, is as are many executive positions, kind of dangerous. You are exposed to every nut case and fanatic. Someone is always going to hate you, or see you as a target.

Working in the not for profit sector has a whole set of its own problems that would take a book to explain.

I know most of the executives I've met, lead a life very, very few people could tolerate for a day, let alone a month or a year or a career. They do not have 'hours' and they are never, ever 'off duty'. They are never 'out of pocket', and 'vacation' means sitting on a beach taking calls and playing referee just like you do when you're in the office...it also means having your wife and kids very unhappy with you. People who have 9-5 jobs can't even begin to imagine. It is so much worse than any other type of job.

I used to get SO SICK of people with hourly jobs, telling me, 'well just tell them to shove it and come shopping with us tonight, tell them you work 8 hrs and that's it' or 'You are working on the WEEKEND? You're staying 'til it gets done'?? You don't get paid overtime? NO ONE TOLD YOU YOU HAD TO COME IN????' or 'It's YOUR vacation, you tell THEM when you're taking it, they don't tell you!' or if I said I worked some place for five years and all my vacation time accumulated and was lost each year, because I never got to take even one single day off for 5 years...because 'things had to get done' and 'it was my responsibility'.

Someone with that attitude can't even begin to understand what goes on. If some one is good at being an executive, they earn it, every single penny, no matter what they're paid.

Or what you give up as far as family, health, leisure time, etc. The endurance a person has to have...it's pretty incredible. Further, you're very likely to get canned no matter how good a job you do, because at some point someone will get irritated at you, and you'll be out of work for months, years, before you find another job like that. Your income, averaged out over your career, will actually be fairly modest...LOL.

And usually you can't take a lower job, as hiring managers will think you'll just leave when you get another high roller.

 

[mom'sfolly]

I think the executives who run charities are not over paid. My basis for charitable giving is really how much of the money raised is going directly to services rather than to fundraising or administration. I've been solicited by "charities" that spend over 80% of their donations on administration and fund raising; in my opinion these are self funding organizations that exist to provide an income for their workers. I don't give them money. Many of them have very similar names to legitimate charities.

I give to national organizations, but also give to my local food pantry whose services a huge and varied. I like that the money is used locally for hunger relief, help for the elderly, disaster relief, medical care, and other aid. I also know that the goods I donate either go directly to those who need it or go to a store that funnels the money directly back into the food center.

 

[NellaBean]

Large charities have their place.......they are an easy to find, well publicized way for anyone and everyone to donate.

I prefer to help local charities.....by directly giving them what they need. If I did not have time to find a charity, find out what they need and give them the items.....I may just donate money out of convenience. I have, in the past, donated to Best Friends, H-S-US, etc......while I would not do it in the future, those organizations do have a place.....not necessarily one I would prefer to encourage, but everyone wants something different.

The glorious thing about charitable giving is that you can decide who it is given to, how much, when, where, etc. So rather than complaining about how much you hate that huge charity because they don't give enough to actual people....put your money where your mouth is and do your research and then donate locally.