5th September 2008, 07:04 PM
'Logically, shouldn't it also be the case that charities, which (as already discussed in other threads) potentially have several advantages over their non-charitable competitors, such as discount software and in some cases undoubtedly discounted rent etc, produce the highest 'profits' and therefore pay the highest wages.'
The charity unit that I worked for certainly didn't have a discounted rent as it was never part of a county council or university - it was always independent. It may have got some discount software but this would have been a tiny fraction of expenditure anyway. As manager there the charitable status was actually a bit of a pain as it meant having to rejig costings re. VAT every time the client was also potentially non-VAT registered. I recall numerous debates at senior management level regarding whther or not it would be much easier simply to lose the charitable status.
'I do have the slight suspicion that such organisations inevitably have considerably more managers, support staff, and other posts such as outreach, that hoover up the excess, leaving the site staff in the same position they would be anywhere else'.
Possibly, but aren't we concerned that outreach takes place, and that we therefore have to generate the money in some way to cover it? Not all clients like to see this expressed explicitly.
'Having no directors doesn't automatically mean that the money isn't going into someone's pocket, and having directors doesn't mean that they are taking more than a fair share and depriving others.'
I fully agree with the second part of this. However the first part is wrong - for the units that are charities the money cannot go into anyone's pocket unless the trustees agree it, and this is more likely to be in the form of a wage increase across the board rather then a bonus to senior staff.
Beamo
The charity unit that I worked for certainly didn't have a discounted rent as it was never part of a county council or university - it was always independent. It may have got some discount software but this would have been a tiny fraction of expenditure anyway. As manager there the charitable status was actually a bit of a pain as it meant having to rejig costings re. VAT every time the client was also potentially non-VAT registered. I recall numerous debates at senior management level regarding whther or not it would be much easier simply to lose the charitable status.
'I do have the slight suspicion that such organisations inevitably have considerably more managers, support staff, and other posts such as outreach, that hoover up the excess, leaving the site staff in the same position they would be anywhere else'.
Possibly, but aren't we concerned that outreach takes place, and that we therefore have to generate the money in some way to cover it? Not all clients like to see this expressed explicitly.
'Having no directors doesn't automatically mean that the money isn't going into someone's pocket, and having directors doesn't mean that they are taking more than a fair share and depriving others.'
I fully agree with the second part of this. However the first part is wrong - for the units that are charities the money cannot go into anyone's pocket unless the trustees agree it, and this is more likely to be in the form of a wage increase across the board rather then a bonus to senior staff.
Beamo