Thousands of charity workers earn six-figure salaries

[Byrns]

I guess I'm not surprised. I'm not against people earning a fair wage, but I think if you're working for a charity you shouldn't expect top dollar.

The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation paid its 156 full-time workers and 30 part-timers nearly $13 million last year, Canada Revenue Agency records show.
All of the foundation's top earners made more than $120,000 last year -- and three of them made between $200,000 and $249,999.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

[CaptainCrunch]

I've become really specific in terms of my annual donation budget because of stuff like that. When over half of the donations go to administrative salaries there's a real problem.

When my aunt died of cancer earlier this year I made a direct donation to the Tom Baker Cancer center in her name.

[You Need a Thneed]

I'm sure there are many people that are working for charities that make too much money, but the Headline is a little misleading. It not just charities, but all non-profits. There's good reasons for some non-profits to have high priced talent.

[valo403]

If that's the market rate for people of their ability why shouldn't they get paid that? Running a charity isn't an easy task, particularly one of that size. If people are being paid wages that don't match their talent or performance then sure, it's an issue. But just because it's a charity doesn't mean you get people who are competent at their jobs on the cheap.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

If that's the market rate for people of their ability why shouldn't they get paid that? Running a charity isn't an easy task, particularly one of that size. If people are being paid wages that don't match their talent or performance then sure, it's an issue. But just because it's a charity doesn't mean you get people who are competent at their jobs on the cheap.

Agreed 100%, but the one thing I have a problem with is when you run into someone who works for a charity they act like they are gods gift to earth because they are working for a chairty and helping people out. You WORK for a charity for a great salary. Now shut up and stop acting like you're better than everyone.

[Table 5]

I'm guessing higher salaries draw better talent, which in the end make up the difference and then some. Just imagine the people working here if they topped out at 50k. Some of the charities are massive and need just as strong leadership as a for-profit corporation.

At the end of the day I'm much more ok with this than your typical investment banker making his millions and screwing us all.

[The Yen Man]

Its a trade off if you're a non profit organization. Do you pay top dollar to attract top rated talent, or do you pay less and get by with second rate management? I would argue that an inefficiently run charity can potentially bleed more unneccessary money than paying top level talent to manage it properly.

[CaptainCrunch]

I have no trouble with people making a good living at it. But its the percentage of the donations that go to admin, marketing and salaries as oppossed to the actual sharp side of the charity that Grinds my Gears.

[chemgear]

The union of hard working charity/non profit employees is pleased with their reasonable compensation.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm guessing higher salaries draw better talent, which in the end make up the difference and then some. Just imagine the people working here if they topped out at 50k. Some of the charities are massive and need just as strong leadership as a for-profit corporation.

At the end of the day I'm much more ok with this than your typical investment banker making his millions and screwing us all.

The majority of that income is in the form of performance based bonuses. I'd rather have the bankers being paid than even more money going to the parent company.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no trouble with people making a good living at it. But its the percentage of the donations that go to admin, marketing and salaries as oppossed to the actual sharp side of the charity that Grinds my Gears.

I thought that in Canada there was a cap on Admin fees in order to be considered non-profit. Something like 20%.

[CaptainCrunch]

There is a cap, however I'm talking about the overall combination of admin marketing and salaries.

I would need to look it up, but there was an article not to long ago I think about the Canadian Cancer Society and how 75 cents of every dollar goes to the above.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by valo403

The majority of that income is in the form of performance based bonuses. I'd rather have the bankers being paid than even more money going to the parent company.

How they shuffle and distribute their money around is not that relevant, when I think the last few years have shown that whole industry is rotten to the core. At the end of the day, a Cancer Foundation is at least working towards a positive contribution to society....I really can't say the same about the financial industry anymore.

[WilsonFourTwo]

It would be useful for people to look at a site like this.

http://www.charityvillage.com/cvnet/career_centre.aspx

Not all of the jobs post salaries, but a number of them do. I've been watching the site (and similar ones) closely for while, and can tell you this for sure - most of the management jobs (organization, delivery of services, direction of staff) come with salaries in the 50-65k range. Entry level positions (contact management, fund development, etc) are in the 35-40k range.

In my experience, this would be ~2/3 of the wage paid in the private sector. I would really like my next career to be public-service oriented, but I would (VERY) likely have to take at 20-30k pay cut to do so.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I have no trouble with people making a good living at it. But its the percentage of the donations that go to admin, marketing and salaries as oppossed to the actual sharp side of the charity that Grinds my Gears.

This is exactly it. If the higher salaries really are attracting more talent, then that talent should be foccussed in increasing the actual amount going to the charity, which is not always the case.

The problem is as long as people in the company are getting paid, there is no incentive to fire the high paid management that is screwing up. There needs to be more government scruitiny towards charities, including minimum percentages of donations that actual end up in the final hands of the appropriate recipients.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I thought that in Canada there was a cap on Admin fees in order to be considered non-profit. Something like 20%.

Not a chance that 80 cents on every dollar ends up in the hands of the people who need it.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by valo403

If that's the market rate for people of their ability why shouldn't they get paid that? Running a charity isn't an easy task, particularly one of that size. If people are being paid wages that don't match their talent or performance then sure, it's an issue. But just because it's a charity doesn't mean you get people who are competent at their jobs on the cheap.

You know what isn't an easy task? Trying to cure cancer! This is ridiculous when the people doing the groundbreaking research earn a fraction of pay that non-profits rake in. When I did cancer research, after earning my PhD, I made a whopping $35k/yr. This was cutting edge research as well. A lot of these non-profits need serious restructuring in my opinion.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

You know what isn't an easy task? Trying to cure cancer! This is ridiculous when the people doing the groundbreaking research earn a fraction of pay that non-profits rake in. When I did cancer research, after earning my PhD, I made a whopping $35k/yr. This was cutting edge research as well. A lot of these non-profits need serious restructuring in my opinion.

There is a reason I don't donate to any charities. I'd rather volunteer my time to make a difference. Charities are no different than drug companies.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is exactly it. If the higher salaries really are attracting more talent, then that talent should be foccussed in increasing the actual amount going to the charity, which is not always the case.

The problem is as long as people in the company are getting paid, there is no incentive to fire the high paid management that is screwing up. There needs to be more government scruitiny towards charities, including minimum percentages of donations that actual end up in the final hands of the appropriate recipients.

If you have individual fund raisers making $150,000 then they'd better be generating a million and a half dollars in donations to cover their salaries.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

There is a reason I don't donate to any charities. I'd rather volunteer my time to make a difference. Charities are no different than drug companies.

I always tell people to donate directly to cancer research institutions such as the Tom Baker in Calgary or the Cross Cancer Institute in Edmonton.