Thousands of charity workers earn six-figure salaries

[valo403]

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.

Neither one is an easy task, but the market pays what the market pays. If you want capable people you have to pay them a competitve salary. If you want people who can half ass the job you pay them rates well below market. The fact that you earned that salary doing research has no bearing on the discussion, they are completely different jobs with completely different markets and pay scales. The only common tie is the word cancer.

[Rathji]

Lots of people earn 6 figure salaries?

Thats Useless info.

Compare any non-profit position to the same position for a regular company and you will see that it is almost always way below. My current position is about 30-40% underpaid compared to even the midrange of salaries in my field.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

I doubt the people paid those salaries are acting as individual fund raisers, more likely they're people leading large scale campaigns or overseeing other aspects of the organization. Running a charity isn't as simple as setting up some phones and a PO Box, it's no different, and in some aspects more complicated, than running any other large company.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by valo403

Neither one is an easy task, but the market pays what the market pays. If you want capable people you have to pay them a competitve salary. If you want people who can half ass the job you pay them rates well below market. The fact that you earned that salary doing research has no bearing on the discussion, they are completely different jobs with completely different markets and pay scales. The only common tie is the word cancer.

This is a side bar, but I believe it is a related issue. Recently there has been a lot of press about sliding innovation and research initiatives in Canada and the USA. A lot of this has to do with people jumping ship on R&D (myself included) due to low salaries and moving into financial/law/investing etc. areas. If people want innovation to improve, they need to be willing to pony up some cash to some grass roots research. I think the market assessment for salary R&D work is way to low at the moment.

I hear people bitching about surviving on only $100k/yr in Calgary all the time. Some people need a reality check, including certain not for profit organizations.

[para transit fellow]

It seems that folks are allowed to move the goal posts when it comes to charities. Accountability without the expenses related to a book-keeper and the visit of the auditor. Safety of clients without the cost of a supervisor or any cost of training. Performance data without the costs of the record-keeping or writing the year end report. Fund raising without someone to make the presentations, orchestrate the even or write the fund raising letters. I don't see why the employees of a non-profit should be expected to make substantially less than people across the stret doing the same work. I certainly don't seeing people offering to put in a 35 hr work week for free.

We are told the charity needs to be run more like a busines. but the message is contradictory. In business you don't blink at paying a going rate for good staff. In a charity, you are criticised for paying staff a wage enabling the raising of a family. A business is doing great if a major project yields a 20% profit. A charity is criticised if the fundraising event doesn't have 80% profit.

Lots of folks criticize charities but the funny thing is I don't see a lot of folks willing to work for a non-profit sector. People here say they will offer their time but few will donate a full 8 hour day everyweek (weekdays) as the organization I work for needs 11,000 staff hours/yr to get the frontline job done. Criticism however is plentiful, as is complaining that not enough is being done to help people.

Note: An interesting book (by an extreme point of view) on the obstacles and double standards placed on charities is "uncharitable" by Dan Palloto. I don't agree with everything he says but he offers something to think about.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

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.

I wonder if your donation did not go into a general account, which would then be used for pretty much anything.

I say this from experience. I work at a cancer institute. Volunteered to organize a charity fund raiser for the institute, raising about $50,000, only to find out after the fact all the money went into a general account used to pay for everything from building maintenance, security, utilities, admin etc. I don't think a penny went directly to research or cancer patients.

[comrade]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I wonder if your donation did not go into a general account, which would then be used for pretty much anything.

I say this from experience. I work at a cancer institute. Volunteered to organize a charity fund raiser for the institute, raising about $50,000, only to find out after the fact all the money went into a general account used to pay for everything from building maintenance, security, utilities, admin etc. I don't think a penny went directly to research or cancer patients.

What does that matter? If I were donating I would rather have someone knowledgeable about running a cancer institute allocate my money than do it myself.

Would you rather that each person who donates decides exactly what his money will be spent on? I don't see how that would be anything but extremely inefficient.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I wonder if your donation did not go into a general account, which would then be used for pretty much anything.

I say this from experience. I work at a cancer institute. Volunteered to organize a charity fund raiser for the institute, raising about $50,000, only to find out after the fact all the money went into a general account used to pay for everything from building maintenance, security, utilities, admin etc. I don't think a penny went directly to research or cancer patients.

I don't get why this is an issue, are charities supposed to pay their expenses with some other source of funds?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Lots of people earn 6 figure salaries?

Thats Useless info.

Compare any non-profit position to the same position for a regular company and you will see that it is almost always way below. My current position is about 30-40% underpaid compared to even the midrange of salaries in my field.

Just to follow up on this now that I am not posting from my ipod.

I could write almost the same headline : Thousands of charity workers earn less than minimum wage and still have it be true.

We have many people in our organization who earn income from us that is far less than minimum wage. They are practicum students who are paid an honorarium while they are getting their hours in, so the headline isn't meaningful, but it would be just as meaningful as what they have written there.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I wonder if your donation did not go into a general account, which would then be used for pretty much anything.

I say this from experience. I work at a cancer institute. Volunteered to organize a charity fund raiser for the institute, raising about $50,000, only to find out after the fact all the money went into a general account used to pay for everything from building maintenance, security, utilities, admin etc. I don't think a penny went directly to research or cancer patients.

Maybe true, but it also meant that funds that would have needed to pay admin costs could be directed into research.

Its not like you have a lab that lives in a bubble, sitting in a remote field in the middle of no where with the only costs being directly attributed to research. If you could, then you would have a point, but realistically is that not possible.

[Oil Stain]

The article states that "more then 6000" out of 1 million charity workers earn more then 100,000 per year. That's 0.6%.

Compared to the general population at large?

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...1-0be0a7720185

This article about 2006 census data claims that 6.5% of the general population earned more then 100,000....in 2005.


Conclusion:Whoop-di-doo.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Conclusion:Whoop-di-doo.

Actually, I think it's worse than whoop-di-doo. This was a reporter writing a story that was intended to be shocking, printed by a publisher who wanted people to be shocked while reading his paper, potentially hurting the image of charities across Canada, without convincing me that something wrong was actually happening. I wonder how much value the newspaper received from this article, and how much harm many charities may have because of it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Actually, I think it's worse than whoop-di-doo. This was a reporter writing a story that was intended to be shocking, printed by a publisher who wanted people to be shocked while reading his paper, potentially hurting the image of charities across Canada, without convincing me that something wrong was actually happening. I wonder how much value the newspaper received from this article, and how much harm many charities may have because of it.

Yep, just a quick scroll through the comments on the story shows person after person saying they won't give to charities because of this. Irresponsible and misleading reporting at its finest.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by comrade

What does that matter? If I were donating I would rather have someone knowledgeable about running a cancer institute allocate my money than do it myself.

Would you rather that each person who donates decides exactly what his money will be spent on? I don't see how that would be anything but extremely inefficient.

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.

I've been thinking about your comment and I'm a little confused by the description of your situation.

Were you working for a non-profit as a reasercher or were you working for a for-profit research outfit funded by a non-profit.? because if you are working for a non-profit lab --- wouldn't that indeed make you part of the non-profit sector?

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

I've been thinking about your comment and I'm a little confused by the description of your situation.

Were you working for a non-profit as a reasercher or were you working for a for-profit research outfit funded by a non-profit.? because if you are working for a non-profit lab --- wouldn't that indeed make you part of the non-profit sector?

I'm not really sure what my history has to do with my opinion of many charities. I don't do that research anymore because it was extremely financially taxing and I wasn't getting any younger. I was part of a large collaborative project between universities and research hospitals. We received funding from many places including federal/provincial governments, private pharma companies and not for profit groups. The vast majority of funding we received goes to supplies and equipment and very little goes to salaries.

Regardless, I stand by my claim that many charities need restructuring. If only 10 or 20 cents on the donated dollar moves beyond the charity, something is wrong IMO.

[Northendzone]

The initial optics don't look good; however, I think that the total comp package needs to be taken into consideration. If there are no benefits offered, pension plan or bonus plan then that changes things.

I also think that it is likely important to consider the charities expense ratio, do the have an overly opulent office etc.

As mentioned you need to attract talented people to run charities and those folks don't work for free

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

It seems that folks are allowed to move the goal posts when it comes to charities. Accountability without the expenses related to a book-keeper and the visit of the auditor. Safety of clients without the cost of a supervisor or any cost of training. Performance data without the costs of the record-keeping or writing the year end report. Fund raising without someone to make the presentations, orchestrate the even or write the fund raising letters. I don't see why the employees of a non-profit should be expected to make substantially less than people across the stret doing the same work. I certainly don't seeing people offering to put in a 35 hr work week for free.

We are told the charity needs to be run more like a busines. but the message is contradictory. In business you don't blink at paying a going rate for good staff. In a charity, you are criticised for paying staff a wage enabling the raising of a family. A business is doing great if a major project yields a 20% profit. A charity is criticised if the fundraising event doesn't have 80% profit.

Lots of folks criticize charities but the funny thing is I don't see a lot of folks willing to work for a non-profit sector. People here say they will offer their time but few will donate a full 8 hour day everyweek (weekdays) as the organization I work for needs 11,000 staff hours/yr to get the frontline job done. Criticism however is plentiful, as is complaining that not enough is being done to help people.

Note: An interesting book (by an extreme point of view) on the obstacles and double standards placed on charities is "uncharitable" by Dan Palloto. I don't agree with everything he says but he offers something to think about.

As someone who's spent hundreds of hours over the years as a volunteer, this makes me feel very foolish and like a pawn. I`ve pleaded with people to open their wallets in the name of charity, trying to paint a picture of a dying child or a mother with that illness and the affected family. But really, a majority of the money they give up is only going to the wages of the organizers. I know there's going to be some administration and other associated costs, but when more than half of every dollar is not going to the intended cause, you have to question the integrity of the ``charity``

Charities are viewed differently than other businesses because the customers arent purchasing a product or getting a service. They straight up hand over money with the intention of helping less unfortunate people or to find cures, not to fill the paycheck of an organizer

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Pizza

As someone who's spent hundreds of hours over the years as a volunteer, this makes me feel very foolish and like a pawn. I`ve pleaded with people to open their wallets in the name of charity, trying to paint a picture of a dying child or a mother with that illness and the affected family. But really, a majority of the money they give up is only going to the wages of the organizers. I know there's going to be some administration and other associated costs, but when more than half of every dollar is not going to the intended cause, you have to question the integrity of the ``charity``

Charities are viewed differently than other businesses because the customers arent purchasing a product or getting a service. They straight up hand over money with the intention of helping less unfortunate people or to find cures, not to fill the paycheck of an organizer

Helping the less fortunate doesn't have an administrative cost?

How it is different than any other business? You need to organize people and materials to do as much as you can with limited resources.

Do they not need reception staff to handle paperwork? Actually they need just as much if not more, because often the requirement of funding is providing an accounting of where the money went and providing reports and statistics to funding agencies (United Way, FCSS, etc). This extra cost might be seen as wasteful to you, but how wasteful would it be if it wasnt required?

Do they not need IT staff? Again the answer is the same, they need as much as a similarily sized company. They are dealing with very limited budgets to get things done. Or just because it is a charity, should people be forced to use 996Mhz computers with 512 of RAM? Maybe they can use a 17 inch CRT monitor?

How about management? Is organizing 1000 people easier when it is non-profit? Is it less important to have a properly managed group of people when they are working with money donated from other sources? Is budgeting less important when you need to beg and plead for every nickel?

Life costs money, getting people to do things costs money. If you don't understand that, then fine, don't donate to non-profit organizations or focus your money on the areas you think will help the most, but don't begrudge these organizations for being made up of people who need to be compensated for thier work, unless you want to quit your job and go take their place for a couple years with a 20-40% paycut.

I am sure you would be willing to do that right?

[SeoulFire]

I always ask what percentage goes to admin - if they avoid the question or unable/unwilling to answer I don't give them anything. If the percentage is above my own view of what is acceptable I don't give.

The problem is charities are run by people and many people are run by WIIFM.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

When I did cancer research, after earning my PhD, I made a whopping $35k/yr. This was cutting edge research as well.

Side note........I know you got paid poorly, but thanks for doing the work anyways, it's appreciated.