|
Do you give to charity?
I just found out Natuurmonumenten (Nature Monuments) has three directors that together earn €479,000 a year 
I'm supporting them for €8 a month, meaning almost 5000 people have to support them year round, like I do, just to pay these ridiculous salaries.
Just to put that into perspective, the average salary of the working population in the Netherlands is €36,900.
These directors make more than four times the average salary (the highest earner is close to five)!
So while people are volunteering and gifting for their cause they make four to five times the salary of those who do the gifting.
I get that these people have to earn a living to eat, but with "just" €80,000 they have a very good salary as well and it would leave €239,000 extra for THEIR charity.
That's almost 10,000 of the €25 donations they're asking now to restore the moorland.
It seems my gift is supporting rich CEO's rather than the cause I signed up for.
I might stop giving altogether and start a "charity" myself 
Too bad most CEOs of "charity" make this kind of money.
There seem to be only a handful of CEOs who make below €100,000 (in the Netherlands)...
But at least they don't all have THREE CEOs making such money
|
|
|
|
|
"But if we don't pay them that much, we won't attract the right calibre of people to the role".
We need a :bullshit: smiley.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I think plenty of those average earners are very well suited for the job and they'd be happy with €60,000 becoming €80,000 when they get more experience.
Of course I wouldn't because I'm not about to take a salary cut 
I'm thinking of quitting, but there's not really an alternative either.
They're still doing good work DESPITE (and not thanks) to those CEO salaries.
So the people who want to restore nature are forced to first pay those salaries or give nothing at all 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I think plenty of those average earners ...
And I'd agree with you. But those who decide the salaries are either those who receive them, or are "influenced" by them - just like politicians in the UK (who give the same explanation when they give "ten times the rate of inflation" salary increases to themselves while freezing wages for police, firemen, nurses, ...)
To be honest, if people who give money to the charity don't quit and explain exactly why, the salaries will just keep on going up, and proportion of donations that goes to the actual "work" of the charity will go down.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't remember who or what it was, but some dude, I believe CEO of a hospital, did a very lousy job and almost made the hospital go bankrupt.
Got about 2 million as a "thanks" when he left
Why is it that the honest hard working employee doesn't see that kind of money in a lifetime, but some CEO gets it FOR MESSING UP!?
I don't have a problem with Amazon, Shell or Philips earning these kinds of salaries, they're clearly for profit organizations (although it's just sad that the richest person on earth is mistreating and underpaying his staff).
But it's just plain wrong when it's charity or a hospital (or any government organization).
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: But it's just plain wrong when it's charity or a hospital (or any government organization).
A modern hospital is very clearly a for-profit organization.
Start asking for prices there and charity will look like a real charity again, even if their salaries would double.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
How do they make profits with such CEO salaries though? 
Anyway, trying to be that kind of CEO (the kind that earns a lot, not the kind that messes up, treats his employees like sh*t or rips off his customers).
If you can't beat them, join them 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: (although it's just sad that the richest person on earth is mistreating and underpaying his staff).
How do you think he got that rich first?
And afterwars is the vice circle... the more they have, the more they want.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you have a point there...
Although I'm not sure all those billionaires do it.
Working for Google or Microsoft is supposed to be nice.
Of course they rip off their customers instead.
I mean, someone has to pay the price.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that GM's CEO was made to resign his position after the 2008 crash, and took a few tens of millions as a bonus. Certainly not for a job well done, as GM at the time had asked for a handout from governments (US and Canada) to keep itself afloat[*].
Frankly I'm rather ambivalent whether a private company (or a publicly traded one) rewards its CEO with a ton of cash. But when you bring in taxpayers money - this is where I strongly object.
[*] Some are rather quick to point out that the money was repaid. The loan was repaid. The multi-billion dollar investment was not, and nobody's expecting the governments to ever get any of that money back. Somebody else can dig out the exact figures. They're out there.
|
|
|
|
|
It's grabbers giving money to grabbers and the tax payer has to pay up 
|
|
|
|
|
but it shouldn't be about whether the organization is for-profit or not. Compensation should be related to (and less than) the value one brings to the organization. That's kind of the definition of "earning".
If CEO brings $1000000 in value, good on him/her, deserves a big salary.
Likewise, if janitor brings huge value, perhaps janitor should be more well-compensated than CEO.
Of course, value's hard to measure. The point is, a title doesn't necessarily mean that person brings more or less value than an employee with "other title".
I know, rainbows and unicorns...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Griff's written a lot of correct things over time, but this is one of most accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
It is very common to set up a charity to make a very-good living...
I do a lot, but prefer to give it personally, and in cases I give it by 3rd party I do a very serious check about the money flow...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Giving personally to nature would count as pollution I think 
It's just really difficult, if not impossible, to set up actions that these organizations can set up.
|
|
|
|
|
The governance of charities is a worldwide problem. Corruption, inflated salaries, and other problems are well known. This is why I try to donate to causes where:
- The person(s) managing the charity are known to me, either personally or by reputation
- These persons do not get a salary for managing the charity
This means that I give to small charities, who actually give most of their income to the poor who are their raison d'etre. If this means that I don't support the "Save The Planet" type charities, so be it. I'm quite sure the planet is quite capable of saving itself without my help.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so much "save the planet" as "save my direct environment" (which happen to collide a bit) 
I've stopped giving to the poor in Africa altogether for a couple of reasons, our gifts destroy the local economy, corrupt governments get the most of it, we're destroying the incentive for them to do something about it themselves.
At least that's what I keep hearing.
I'm currently giving to children cancer research as well.
Their CEO makes a very good living as well.
All in all, it's not easy doing the right thing
Best of all is to get out their and do some actual work.
But that means I'd have to leave the house, so no thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I'm quite sure the planet is quite capable of saving itself without my help.
We will not be very happy when it does.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, beautifully made! 
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
I don't give to charity, the same as I don't give money to people asking in front of the churches, traffic lights and so on...
But... if someone comes to me and asks me for food because he/she is hungry, I will allow him/her to order some food and pay for it or buy some food in a store and hand it over.
I have given a lot of clothes too, but they guy getting it was the one travelling to the places and giving it personally to the people in need.
In conclusion... I have no problem in helping others, but after seeing a lot of sh1t or "being fooled", I don't give money anymore.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I find it curious that so many charities are run by people who can't be bothered to donate their own time for the cause.
This is a topic that has annoyed me for quite a while. I used to be a musician and pursued it professionally for a time. I and my band were often asked to play for benefit shows and we were almost always expected to donate all of our time and effort to it. In other words, play for free and pay our own way for everything. Yet, at these events I would see every other vendor of services getting paid for their work. It used to really annoy me and finally I said enough, I get paid or I don't play.
Over the years my cynicism has realized that charity is yet another industry that many people take advantage of for their own advancement. Now I nearly always decline to participate through charitable organizations.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
For musicians it's even worse.
People somehow think musicians do it for the love and don't need payment.
There was this big theater in the Netherlands that had a free (or cheap, can't remember) Sunday concert.
The musicians weren't paid since, as the theater reasoned, playing there was a good opportunity for the musicians to get their name out there.
Except pretty much everybody has the same reasoning and musicians just can't pay their bills.
Meanwhile, the clubs where they play make all the money.
Some musicians told everyone not to play anymore, but there's always some people who are willing to do it for free, so I believe that didn't work out well.
|
|
|
|
|
A friend told me an amusing story. When he is called and asked how much his band charges to play he says, "call up a plumber and ask how much it would cost to have four plumbers for four hours on a Saturday night. That's how much we will play for." Sometimes he feels generous and charges the rate for just two or three guys, but not often. He doesn't play very much any more because everyone expects him to play for little to nothing.
There is a flip side to this and I have heard it from several guys. That is, all of these hobbyists who play for very little money make things very challenging for professional musicians. The counterpoint to that is the professionals should thank all the hobbyists for buying so much equipment because if they didn't guitars and amps would cost at least three or four times as much because far fewer companies would be around to make them. They rarely have a reasonable response to that other than agreement.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
modified 24-Sep-19 10:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: call up a plumber and ask how much it would cost to have four plumbers for four hours on a Saturday night. That's how much we will play for.
Ain't that the truth though! 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
