h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Red Cross - managing director
158,000 euros (GBP about 104,000 / US$ 191,000)
Hart foundation - medical director
170,000 euros (GBP 112,000 / US$ 250,000)

Red Cross says their managing director gets this amount, because it is heavy duty job. I believe that. a second reason is that they would not be able to get director, because they would rather work in business.

may be directors should be honored to be asked to work for a charity and only ask for the work related expensenses.

sadly we now we now where our money goes!

Oh, but here it is very well known that the red cross makes huge profits with everything people give them as donations, I don't give them clothes, nor a single drop of my precious blood ( it's 0 negative, so could help everybody , no matter which bloodgroup (s)he belongs to)

but...but the red cross is not a financial institute, wich makes money with shares!

they should help people, not by improving their directors income!

Perhaps it varies from country to country, here they sell the good clothes to make money, and they don't spend the whole on charity- guess how they can pay their directors..

I still think it is wrong....the money should go to needy!


in case of heart foundation to reseach to cure heart diseases.

i agree pheloxi .there are too many people picking up huge amounts sitting on charity boards and i bet half of them at least are just vanity titles to give good face to the media

the directors do good work and work hard, but I would rather get my travel expenses and bit for other reprensitive items.

For me it depends on what they bring to the 'table'. If they double the income and reach more needy folk then they deserve it because they are improving the effectiveness of the charity. If they add little to what was already being done then they don't deserve it.

Directorship is a strange job. Some are only required to work a few days a year for the group whilst others are more than a full time employee.

Governments should create a new law requiring any director paid over a set level to devote say 10 days a year to charitable organisations. How successful they are should equate to whether or not they can be 'considered' for honours like the MBE, OBE in the UK (Does the Netherlands have similar honours, pheloxi?).

Any unsuccessful directors should have their leaving package reduce along the same lines when they leave public companies.

we have a Royal Honanorary System, but not that means you get diretorships or parlemant seats in our "First Room", they are elected thru the provincial "parlement" who is vote by the people.

we also have ex-minister who become minister of state. but that is more adviser role. some ex-ministers are asked for important jobs in charities or companies or sports connected fubctions.

Our ex-Prime Minister Kok recently accepted job at Shell / Royal Dutch Oil, I think.

Oh no!

I think there is a lot of corruption and waste in charity

The top salaries are generally too high.

As the other poster said ;
It is worth a lot to bring in large sums of money and assets to distribute for the needy.

Some people are worth their weight in gold, so to speak. It all comes down to the contacts, bookkeepers , grant writers and benefactors you have close at hand. Most agencies require a lot of volunteer staff too which magnifies the high salary at the top.

Thing is Abbi, if we (society) really valued charity work the directors would follow the grass roots volunteers example and seek little or no reward. The prestige of a job well done on a part-time basis would be enough.

You are right of course.
My closest friend works for a charity and she is at the hands on level. She is a registered nurse so she could make 4 times as much but prefers to help those whom are forgotten or fall through the cracks.

One position above her it is 100,000 pay job and the top one is higher than that. They are the social fund raisers which get them the contacts to keep the place going they never *deal with clients*.
She gets real fed up with some social butterflies not willing to get their hands dirty so to speak or even cannot look the people they help in the eyeHeaven forbid they have to touch them

It's worse having the ones at the top that do not need the pay at all! It is quite embarrassing to my friend to have a new office with Brazilian Rosewood and heavy Brass all over it while trying to get money for food or heat or medical care.

The main contributor remodeled the office like her husbands luxary lawyers office. The cost for all the pretties were staggering. She had fun doing it and she donated the building. (Pure tax write off)

She could have done so much more *charity* by making the building comfy, safe, and casual and given the rest to the deperate programs. It is a tootal tax write off either way!

A more resonable living wage for the work she does (not the higher salary of a nurse) would be good and ensure she could stay working at what she loves. It is a scrifice for a professional to do this at a low wage, not many are willing. Most like her are single and they need to be able ot live modestly.

Abbi that is axactly what I mean....

I wish there was law that every overspending of luxery should give the spend amount plus 10% to a charity.

And it's not just charity. they spent a few million doing the chief justices rooms in westminster. Plain effective rooms and a fubding of teachers,nurses or any social infrastructure would be a better example.

Fair enough, I too want to earn as much as I can but not at the expense of others. It's one of the reasons I never used to put in for promotions. Why do they have Jags when Rovers would do? Greed and image. They spend millions risking troops lives abroad but if the money had been spent on social infrastructure (without linking it to oil, minerals et al) there would be less reason to fight. when you have nothing but opression, disease and starvation its a damn sight easier to take up arms.

"when you have nothing but opression, disease and starvation its a damn sight easier to take up arms."

Comfy people have no need to.
Not to meantion they often wear blinders

lastest news

the Mananing Director of the "HeartFoundation" was fired, because he did not want earn less. he did not want to listen to many "striking" volunteers who go by doors to collect donations.

"he Mananing Director of the "HeartFoundation" was fired"

Where was this, Pheloxi?

in the Netherlands....