Is $120,000-plus too much for a charity worker salary?

Darcy J,
for $115,000.00 you could send some one to college who would normally not be able to go to college to learn your skills with a 10 year contract to follow at a much lower rate of pay, after 2 years of college an 10 years of work at a lower rate sy maybe 40 or 50 grand the charity would save a ton of money and also give someone a opertunity that they would be greatfull for. your decrease in salary hold no sympathy here.

I've been working for a for a non-profit organization for more than 1 year, and there's one thing that is shocking: The for-profit companies targetting the non-profit organizations as their core business. And believe me, their prices have nothing "charitable"...

Wow, this is my last post, no way to spend my week off.

Lynda, you know not of what you speak. A 4 year university degree is pretty easy to find in the job market...it's the 15+ years of experience and my CA that dictates my salary. I knew nothing after I left UBC...

Your plan sounds great for soviet style administration...who is going to teach these new graduates on the job? The degree is about 10% of it, at most.

And Lynda, your plan gives you a bookkeeper at the end, and I pay mine $44,000/yr.

I really wish the world was as easy to navigate as some in these comments make out. I'm sorry, but the ignorance is impossible to deny...

Well Darcy, it appears YOU are the ignorant one.
If you can't afford to "work" at a charity by volunteering, than please go and find a better job that would suit your needs better. In the meantime, I agree fully with Lynda here. That salary you are making could be put to much better use, used for the people you claim to be working for in this charity.

While CRA regulations state that 20% on admin is the MAX a charity can spend - it's often not the case. Most fundraising companies charge a minimum of 30% on fundraising they do on behalf of a charity. Many charities will 'max out' to the 20%. All a charity has to do is inform the CRA in writing that they will exceed the 'max' - and that they will try to improve in order to get the 'OK'. REmember - charity LAW is sketchy in Canada, there are guidelines that have been arrived at through court cases.

This is NOT a new scenario - The Lords of Pover (The Business of International Development) by Hancock goes back almost exactly to this day in 1985 in his research on this (the book was the result of what he saw through his journalism work during the 'Live Aid' Era) - and things haven't changed.

People NEED to start researching where there donor dollars are going and make educated choices on where they put their donations. If that were to happen, the wasters would soon disappear.

We are Not Canucks, we are Canadians.

Nawww... I like Canucks !!

As another CA, I have to side with Darcy here. If you are not a professional then you know not of what you speak.

Hey Rick, would you have been willing to go to jail if something went wrong like a CEO of a chairity might ? I sit on as a director on 2 boards for charities and I sure as hell would not if I was not paid. If there is a scandal or an investigation my name gets dragged through the mud. If there is theft or some other breach of duty of care I could risk going to jail. I am not going to put myself on the line for free.

Additionally as a professional if I could otherwise be making $250+ an hour doing what I normally do why would I work for free on something just as complex ?

Lydia, the fallacy in your logic is that once the person you paid and trained sees that they can make a lot more for the same amount of work in the private sector for the same responsibility they will leave and you have to replace them all over again.

I don't know why you people think someone who picks up the trash, or fixes a car, or something like that is qualified to give advice on what someone who has real responsibility should be paid.

As usual, most of the posters here are the jealous "Waa he has more than I do" type that make people who DO have the skills to make a difference avoid putting them to use where they could be of the most benefit.

Here is a question for some of you:

Would you let a random person off the street manage your retirement, and your finances, as well as all the major decisions you have to make such as buying a house, getting married, having children, medical treatment etc ?

The answer from every single one of you would be "NO". You would find someone quailified to make the decisions. A banker or accountant for your finances, a doctor for you medical care, a contractor and/or a building inspector and a realtor for a house.

I love how everyone says they would do the job for less than the guy doing it. Yes, you might very well do so, but you lack the proper skills and he/she does not and THAT is why they are being paid what they are.

A CEO of a charity doesn't just sit around and make calls asking for money. He has to coordinate people, and for a national or even tougher still an international charity that means a huge amount of time spent figuring out where resources are best used. These people have to forcast demand for services (from disaster, recession or what ever other pursuit the charity is working with) They have to balance budgets, address staffing and be knowledgeable of the laws and regulations governing their charity, again not just locally. Laws for the same charity can be different over territorial lines.

Withholding your donations is not going to hurt people like Darcy or myself. We will get paid no matter where we take our talents. By depriving a charity of donations, and the skills of people like us because you disagree with the pay, you are only hurting those who need it the most....the people that these charities support.

People get paid the big bucks to make the big decisions. The views expressed here show that almost none of you are able to see the big picture beyond the salary and THAT is why you make the salary you do, and those of us with the skills to see the big picture and make the big decisions get paid what we do.

Chazz: I think the real problem here is that people, like myself, view charity as "something that is given to those in dire need, those that are destitute." That means food or clothing, for example. I think in many people's opinion, you don't need a degree for that. That is the argument here.
As for you asking would you get a random person to manage your finances or your health. My answer is "yes, i would" and "I do." No, I am not in debt and I research myself for the health of my family. We are all quite healthy.
I also think you mentioned about the regulations of charities and you make this sound difficult to follow. I think they should be regulated much better and yes, I've researched this.
I do understand that you work and you might feel underappreciated. Just realize that even if you did this work for free, those that you were helping, if they were destitute, would greatly appreciate it, and isn't a smile and a "thanks" enough from them?

Many of the regulations are complex, and as I pointed out usually pay is commensurate with the level of experience and responsibility involved. Regardless of your research, you cannot regulate everything. More regulation just means more complex usually as you have to keep apprised of any regulatory changes, (or potential ones) and you open yourself up to litigation if you are wrong. If I can be sued because of the response of the charity that I head (a la the response to Katrina) then I am going to want to be compensated to take on that risk. Saying you don’t need a degree to do the simple things like handing out food and clothing misinterprets the entire article. These people are not the front line people; they are the ones making the organizational decisions. If you would rather decide if your family should have surgery based on what you read on Wikipedia or WebMD the only people you hurt are your family. If the guy managing the Salvation Army doesn’t take a long term look at the organizational requirements and they cannot sustain their endeavours that affects a lot more people. Managing something the Salvation Army, or the Heart and Stroke Fund is requires the same level of knowledge and experiences that managing GM or Bombardier does. People seem to want to equate their jobs with the jobs of people who are paid a lot more and I suppose at the base level that is basic human reasoning, even more so nowadays where everyone is told they are a little snowflake who is special and equal to everyone else. The fact is the mechanic fixing your car has no unknowns; if the engine fails there are a variety of things it might be, none of which are impacted by the future or other unknowns. If the economy tanks, or the garage where he works lays people off, that has no bearing on what he does to fix the engine. The same can be said for most peoples’ jobs, yet they somehow believe that what they do is equivalent to a senior manager, or they could do the job better.

It's alway a case of follow the money and altering the numbers that keeps them in business.

Way out of line salary, charity should begin at home first where it is most needed.