So , as I thought , the union Unite has a cheek to criticise charity CEOs.These are the facts.
The joint General Secretaries of Unite have a remuneration package of £ 308, 374 ! That is £122,108 for Mr Woodley and £186,626 for Mr Simpson.
As I don't know of any charity that has 2 CEOs I think it is interesting that Unite pay such rich rewards at the top . But to be clear , Unite is a professional third sector body and I believe in professional pay for a professional job . Unite is a large and complex organisation . But I'm afraid if you choose to attack charities in this gross way expect retaliation .
On the index that Unite have devised for the Guardian story, Unite are paying their CEOs 26 times the salary of a member on the minimum wage!
And to be clear , if an excessive city culture is pervading charities could Messrs Woodley and Simpson tell us which charity CEO gets a bonus , or share options , or private health care , or chauffeurs or a top pension scheme etc etc . There are none .
So pack it in guys. I'm sure you earn your salaries and are worth every penny . Do not attack my members for doing the same.
So you're defending a charity CEO pay package of £391,000 per annum, plus pension (which in the same period was topped up by a further £36k), i.e. the main offender quoted in their release? This £391,000 apparently included a £111,000 bonus for this charity CEO (see http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6506407).
Given that UNITE seemed to make it clear that they were only attacking excessive rewards rather than the VERY modest average/typical rewards for a CEO I'm surprised you didn't join them in their displeasure (and surprised you don't actually know that bonuses, decent pension schemes and private health care exist for some charity CEO's).
Or are you just seeing if this slagging-off contest can be won by who shouts loudest rather than by the principles of the arguments themselves?
I actually think this has more to do with which organisations should be called charities and which shouldn't - take out these organisations (such as housing orgs, some 'cultural' orgs etc) which surely shouldn't be charities anyway, and you're left with the top salaries for real charity CEO's at much, much lower levels.
I do not accept they are "excessive2 .It is an absurd popoint . i will not ever argue we do not need to pay professional levels of salry . And i strongly resent the attack on a " city " culture" in the sector . The CEOs in acevo on salaries of over 100k are freat leaders running nig and complex businesses . Are we supposed to assume only rich peiople can run charities . retired business mne or people from the armed services on their public sector pension? Its what used to happen . We now pay professionaly .And I happen to know that5 some of those attacked took pay cuts to join us .Indeed 38% of acevo m,ebers took a cut in salary form their public and private sector careers to join us . This ill adviced puritan hair shirt attitude depresses salaries for all and hinders career development . Later today I will blog an article by Pesh Framjee which sums all this up .
And the liberty of the union in doing this is breathtaking . If they can argue their top guys should be paid professionaly , which I support , then dont attack us.
Post a Comment