Moorings at 3 locks

[bassplayer]

 

 

I dont see many volunteers working 70 hour weeks though. Do you?

 

 

MtB

I doubt many executives 'work' 70 hour weeks either...well except your friend...

[Tuscan]

When the recession hit a few years ago from a recruitment perspective (my field) their was only one growth area that was headhunting into the NGO arena many senior executives at that time made that jump including our new CEO. It wasn't necessarily a chosen career move for many.

[BlueStringPudding]

 

 

I dont see many volunteers working 70 hour weeks though. Do you?

 

 

MtB

Nope. And volunteers are essential to the third sector. But they come and go as they please and work long or short hours, regularly or irregularly as they please. Last year I worked over 250 hours unpaid overtime for the charity I work for. I don't get paid for that. I don't get time off for it. I did it because my organisation needed my level of experience and expertise for a much more intense period than the charity could pay me for.

 

I don't know a single third sector CEO who works less than 60 hours a week. Some get £35k and some a lot more. Calculate their hourly wage then reduce it by all the unpaid over time they put in. This isn't a job you clock in and out for and get your over time paid. You stop working and the charity stops working. They've worked their way up to their position through years of long hours and commitment and ensuring the organisations they've worked in have become sustainable and able to benefit more people because of their commitment and skills. We're not talking about unskilled or semi skilled or ad hoc working here.

I worked with 98 volunteers in my last job. Thirty something in my current job. They make the work of my charities benefit far more people than it could without them. But despite their vital role, I've never met one volunteer (other than my Boards of Trustees) with anywhere near the level or breadth of skills and experience needed to run a whole charity. If your Richard Parry's of the world get it wrong then the waterways close forever before the end of the current three year business plan and thousands become homeless, many more thousands of people lose their boating recreation, and millions of pounds of business are lost. But no, let's give the job to well meaning volunteers instead.

 

Try reading a few charity sector job descriptions on Guardian Jobs Online, bassplayer, and have a think about the people you know who don't need to pay to keep a roof over their families' heads and meets the job spec and have a spare 60-70 hours a week they're prepared to give up from their family life and social life for their professional commitments. And then give me their number because I'll happily take some time off.

I doubt many executives 'work' 70 hour weeks either...well except your friend...

How many have you asked?

 

A friend of mine is director of fundraising (or some such job title) for a charity. He gets paid 1% of the net funds he raises (after staffing, advertising and all other costs are knocked off). He seems to be on about £100k a year now. Is that fair, or not, considering the charity had an income of about £1m a year before he joined them, and now thanks to his effort and imagination its now £10m five years after he started fund raising for them?

 

If not why should be bother? He works his goolies off to keep the funds flowing in.

 

MtB

Brilliant example. And absolutely typical of the third sector.

[BlueStringPudding]

So do volunteers and low paid staff...How come you see very few volunteer for executive positions? Maybe executives do work a lot harder than the rest of us...

Lots of people work very hard in lots of different roles in lots of different types of organisations. The only person singling out any one type of person is you.

[bassplayer]

Nope. And volunteers are essential to the third sector. But they come and go as they please and work long or short hours, regularly or irregularly as they please. Last year I worked over 250 hours unpaid overtime for the charity I work for. I don't get paid for that. I don't get time off for it. I did it because my organisation needed my level of experience and expertise for a much more intense period than the charity could pay me for.

I don't know a single third sector CEO who works less than 60 hours a week. Some get £35k and some a lot more. Calculate their hourly wage then reduce it by all the unpaid over time they put in. This isn't a job you clock in and out for and get your over time paid. You stop working and the charity stops working. They've worked their way up to their position through years of long hours and commitment and ensuring the organisations they've worked in have become sustainable and able to benefit more people because of their commitment and skills. We're not talking about unskilled or semi skilled or ad hoc working here.

I worked with 98 volunteers in my last job. Thirty something in my current job. They make the work of my charities benefit far more people than it could without them. But despite their vital role, I've never met one volunteer (other than my Boards of Trustees) with anywhere near the level or breadth of skills and experience needed to run a whole charity. If your Richard Parry's of the world get it wrong then the waterways close forever before the end of the current three year business plan and thousands become homeless, many more thousands of people lose their boating recreation, and millions of pounds of business are lost. But no, let's give the job to well meaning volunteers instead.

Try reading a few charity sector job descriptions on Guardian Jobs Online, bassplayer, and have a think about the people you know who don't need to pay to keep a roof over their families' heads and meets the job spec and have a spare 60-70 hours a week they're prepared to give up from their family life and social life for their professional commitments. And then give me their number because I'll happily take some time off.

 

How many have you asked?

 

Brilliant example. And absolutely typical of the third sector.

Seems your conscience is clear....good for you...

[BlueStringPudding]

It's not about conscience, so don't be so antagonistic. It's about the real world of senior executive responsibility in the third sector. Of which I have several years of experience and know numerous others living it too... and you don't. Your comments and naivety evidence that.

 

You said you wanted the most senior roles in charities taken by volunteers and I pointed out that they already are.

 

You then decided you want the executive roles in charities taken by volunteers and I've told you where to find the job descriptions and to let me know which volunteers you know meet the criteria and ability to commit more time than most people do in their day job. And you've failed to answer that question

 

It's easy to talk about what you want when it's not based on the real world.

[bassplayer]

It's not about conscience....

I

Isn't it? Maybe that's the problem with this 'real world' you speak of....

[Catrin]

Isn't it? Maybe that's the problem with this 'real world' you speak of....

You've had good replies from MtB and BSP. BSP has explained the need for reasonable salaries, and has also said that she puts in many unpaid hours for the charity that she works for. You are now just retreating to meaningless statements, you haven't come back with a valid answer, nor have I seen any kind of retraction or apology.

 

So, tell us how would you fund the specialist knowledge and experience required by charities these day? There are not enough of the leisured classes and fit pensioners to deal with these things, so what should happen?

 

Do you do any volunteering in your 'real world'?

 

Francis Maude

[jenlyn]

I think one thing needs to be brought back to reality here.

The trust is not a charity like oxfam, save the children etc etc.

So a bit pointless comparing it as such.

 

Bassplayer, Mathew Symonds is non executive. I personally believe his salary as a "boating liason officer" could be saved, and put to better use. I don't feel his position is warranted. Hence my statement regarding job preservation.

[Barry]

Nope. And volunteers are essential to the third sector. But they come and go as they please and work long or short hours, regularly or irregularly as they please. Last year I worked over 250 hours unpaid overtime for the charity I work for. I don't get paid for that. I don't get time off for it. I did it because my organisation needed my level of experience and expertise for a much more intense period than the charity could pay me for.

 

I don't know a single third sector CEO who works less than 60 hours a week. Some get £35k and some a lot more. Calculate their hourly wage then reduce it by all the unpaid over time they put in. This isn't a job you clock in and out for and get your over time paid. You stop working and the charity stops working. They've worked their way up to their position through years of long hours and commitment and ensuring the organisations they've worked in have become sustainable and able to benefit more people because of their commitment and skills. We're not talking about unskilled or semi skilled or ad hoc working here.

I worked with 98 volunteers in my last job. Thirty something in my current job. They make the work of my charities benefit far more people than it could without them. But despite their vital role, I've never met one volunteer (other than my Boards of Trustees) with anywhere near the level or breadth of skills and experience needed to run a whole charity. If your Richard Parry's of the world get it wrong then the waterways close forever before the end of the current three year business plan and thousands become homeless, many more thousands of people lose their boating recreation, and millions of pounds of business are lost. But no, let's give the job to well meaning volunteers instead.

 

Try reading a few charity sector job descriptions on Guardian Jobs Online, bassplayer, and have a think about the people you know who don't need to pay to keep a roof over their families' heads and meets the job spec and have a spare 60-70 hours a week they're prepared to give up from their family life and social life for their professional commitments. And then give me their number because I'll happily take some time off.

 

Interesting and illuminating reply BSP

Edited September 17, 2014 by Bazza2

[Wanted]

Spent my life working in the third sector, have worked more than I've earned, quite often loose my annual leave that I haven't taken by the end of April, am going on holiday this week for the first time in two years and still have just about earned enough not to need the services that we are offering those we aim to help.

 

Bassplayer, you have an opinion, but it isn't based on fact.

If you feel that a CEO of a charity that, in our case employs 300 people, safeguards the finances and is ultimately responsible for thousands of children's safety and development doesn't deserve a decent pay packet the you essentially condemn those that are being helped to a less reasonable life. Unless of course you would do the job, as Mike says for 70 hours a week for nowt?

[MtB]

Nope. And volunteers are essential to the third sector. But they come and go as they please and work long or short hours, regularly or irregularly as they please. Last year I worked over 250 hours unpaid overtime for the charity I work for. I don't get paid for that. I don't get time off for it. I did it because my organisation needed my level of experience and expertise for a much more intense period than the charity could pay me for.

 

I don't know a single third sector CEO who works less than 60 hours a week. Some get £35k and some a lot more. Calculate their hourly wage then reduce it by all the unpaid over time they put in. This isn't a job you clock in and out for and get your over time paid. You stop working and the charity stops working. They've worked their way up to their position through years of long hours and commitment and ensuring the organisations they've worked in have become sustainable and able to benefit more people because of their commitment and skills. We're not talking about unskilled or semi skilled or ad hoc working here.

I worked with 98 volunteers in my last job. Thirty something in my current job. They make the work of my charities benefit far more people than it could without them. But despite their vital role, I've never met one volunteer (other than my Boards of Trustees) with anywhere near the level or breadth of skills and experience needed to run a whole charity. If your Richard Parry's of the world get it wrong then the waterways close forever before the end of the current three year business plan and thousands become homeless, many more thousands of people lose their boating recreation, and millions of pounds of business are lost. But no, let's give the job to well meaning volunteers instead.

 

Try reading a few charity sector job descriptions on Guardian Jobs Online, bassplayer, and have a think about the people you know who don't need to pay to keep a roof over their families' heads and meets the job spec and have a spare 60-70 hours a week they're prepared to give up from their family life and social life for their professional commitments. And then give me their number because I'll happily take some time off.

 

How many have you asked?

 

Brilliant example. And absolutely typical of the third sector.

 

 

Excellent post BSP.

 

I also forgot to mention when my mate joined them on his 1% deal and started working his 70 hour weeks, his initial remuneration was 1% of their current £1m a year income.

 

He lives and breathes that charity. Whenever I see him, convo turns to charity internal politics within minutes!

 

MtB

[bassplayer]

You've had good replies from MtB and BSP. BSP has explained the need for reasonable salaries, and has also said that she puts in many unpaid hours for the charity that she works for. You are now just retreating to meaningless statements, you haven't come back with a valid answer, nor have I seen any kind of retraction or apology.

 

So, tell us how would you fund the specialist knowledge and experience required by charities these day? There are not enough of the leisured classes and fit pensioners to deal with these things, so what should happen?

 

Do you do any volunteering in your 'real world'?

 

What am I supposed to be apologising for? Isn't this just a debate? Forum = exchange of views. I apologise if I've made anyone feel uncomfortable with my views.

 

Executives working for charities/trusts have a choice of utilising their skills for reasonable, or even, no pay. They aren't forced to take what I believe to be unreasonable salaries (in some cases). Ok, maybe their lifestyles dictate a higher salary but that is their choice.

 

I'm sure that if the 'leisured classes' and pensioners were targeted for some of these roles (rather than throw money at the problem using 'business' networks) you'd find some volunteer executives. After all, we seem to be able to find volunteers for nearly every other kind of role.

 

...and the answer to your last question is yes....

[bassplayer]

I think one thing needs to be brought back to reality here.

The trust is not a charity like oxfam, save the children etc etc.

So a bit pointless comparing it as such.

Bassplayer, Mathew Symonds is non executive. I personally believe his salary as a "boating liason officer" could be saved, and put to better use. I don't feel his position is warranted. Hence my statement regarding job preservation.

...consider me shot down in flames...maybe this is one cage I shouldn't have shook!

[jenlyn]

...consider me shot down in flames...maybe this is one cage I shouldn't have shook!

I don't consider you have been shot down in flames. You just have views that others disagree with.

 

In truth, I question some of the salaries charity's have to fork out. I do remember a time when it was not necessary.

Then of course, the government took a bigger responsibility, but that is probably worthy of another thread.

[bassplayer]

Spent my life working in the third sector, have worked more than I've earned, quite often loose my annual leave that I haven't taken by the end of April, am going on holiday this week for the first time in two years and still have just about earned enough not to need the services that we are offering those we aim to help.

Bassplayer, you have an opinion, but it isn't based on fact.

If you feel that a CEO of a charity that, in our case employs 300 people, safeguards the finances and is ultimately responsible for thousands of children's safety and development doesn't deserve a decent pay packet the you essentially condemn those that are being helped to a less reasonable life. Unless of course you would do the job, as Mike says for 70 hours a week for nowt?

To be honest, I've learnt something from this discussion. In particular, whist I've been moralising, it dawned on me that maybe more good comes out of being an executive for a charity/trust than working for some other sectors. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh...sorry....

[Catrin]

Sorry I haven't replied, I've been out all day.

What am I supposed to be apologising for? Isn't this just a debate? Forum = exchange of views. I apologise if I've made anyone feel uncomfortable with my views.

Yes, agreed, this is a debate. However, when someone makes a point you normally reply with a counter point, or say that it has made you think, and you may have shifted a bit in your opinion. Your vague statements don't constitute debate.

 

To be honest, I've learnt something from this discussion. In particular, whist I've been moralising, it dawned on me that maybe more good comes out of being an executive for a charity/trust than working for some other sectors. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh...sorry....

See.

Like that.

[bassplayer]

Sorry I haven't replied, I've been out all day.

Yes, agreed, this is a debate. However, when someone makes a point you normally reply with a counter point, or say that it has made you think, and you may have shifted a bit in your opinion. Your vague statements don't constitute debate.

 

See.

Like that.

..out of curiosity, did you read all my comments on this thread, or just the one you thought was vague?

[Wanted]

To be honest, I've learnt something from this discussion. In particular, whist I've been moralising, it dawned on me that maybe more good comes out of being an executive for a charity/trust than working for some other sectors. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh...sorry....

[bassplayer]

[BlueStringPudding]

To be honest, I've learnt something from this discussion. In particular, whist I've been moralising, it dawned on me that maybe more good comes out of being an executive for a charity/trust than working for some other sectors. Perhaps I have been a bit harsh...sorry....

[bassplayer]

[junior]

Do I feel a group hug coming on?

[Mrs Trackman]

Been meaning to add a point to this thread since saw the comment about CRT officials not working hard but impressed by the discussion I have seen on the subject. Just wanted to add that my observation is that Richard Parry has worked solidly since in post. I have no idea what hours he works but he has been at so many meetings and seemingly immersed himself in all things waterways, taking part in the BCN challenge being an example. He has found out a lot about the waterways in a short time.

[jenlyn]

Been meaning to add a point to this thread since saw the comment about CRT officials not working hard but impressed by the discussion I have seen on the subject. Just wanted to add that my observation is that Richard Parry has worked solidly since in post. I have no idea what hours he works but he has been at so many meetings and seemingly immersed himself in all things waterways, taking part in the BCN challenge being an example. He has found out a lot about the waterways in a short time.

Yes, absolutely, credit where it's due. His PR is phenomenal.

There are a few cracks appearing though, and not just on the coping stones..