"I do a lot for charidee mate"

3rd September 2013

As usual in the mornings (now I’m back home) I woke this morning to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. (Actually that is not quite true; I was awake before that due to the 5.30am number 7 bus going past the house.) And one of the early items on the programme this morning was the number of refugees fleeing Syria for neighbouring countries.

According to a UNHCR report over 2 million people have left Syria and are in refugee camps in surrounding countries. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23937972

Having lobbied my MP last week to vote against Britain taking military action, and Parliament having done that (though my MP voted in favour) I felt that I should perhaps put my money where my mouth was in a sense, and give a donation to a charity helping these refugees. But which charity?

Ordinarily I would have donated to the Red Cross. But last weekend a friend who works in the charity sector drew my attention to a news report published in the UK in early August. (It had escaped my attention when we were in the USA.) According to the report in the Daily Telegraph the chief executive officers (and other executives) at some of the main charities such as the British Red Cross, Save the Children and Christian Aid, are all earning well over £100,000 a year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/30-charity-chiefs-paid-more-than-100000.html

In the Telegrph report the charities seek to justify their approach by saying that salaries are bench marked:

‘A Save the Children spokesman said: “We pay appropriately competitive wages that are benchmarked regularly against two external salary surveys.
“Last year this was supported by an in-depth external benchmarking report from Towers Watson, an expert remuneration agency.”’

And:

‘A Christian Aid spokesman said: “Christian Aid is mindful of not paying higher salaries than are necessary and/or reasonable.
“The board of trustees has a strict policy that requires us to set salaries at or below the median of other church-based and/or international development agencies.”’

So here we have some seriously flawed logic. Presumably by bench marking against one another these charities are ensuring that pay of their executives remains high. Or are they bench marking against private industry? That’s the usual argument in these instances. “If I worked in private industry I’d be earning much more.” Well clear off to private industry then!

On the basis of that argument I should be earning a great deal more too. But when I entered ministry I saw my total “package” (company car, pension, health care, salary, share options and bonuses) go from close on £60,000 a year (in 2002) to around £22,000 now. That was the price I paid for my calling.

My favourite quote from the press article comes from Janet Convery, ActionAid’s director of communications, who is quoted as saying “Richard Miller’s salary is well below the market rate for a chief executive of a major development charity.”

The article says “Richard Miller, director at ActionAid, saw his pay increase by eight per cent to nearly £89,000 a year, while both revenues and donations fell 11 per cent.”

So basically, he’s being hard done by and is earning a measly £89,000 a year. (Though I admit he is less well paid than other executives.)

Now I accept that running a complex organisation needs people at the top with brains. So to attract such people a decent salary has to be paid. And of course many of these charities are based in London where the cost of living is higher. (It begs the question why they are based in London of course.) Call me old fashioned, call me naïve, but is it asking too much to expect directors of charities to have at least some sense of vocation and calling to the role? And as such not earn more than the Prime Minister, as apparently is the case in some instances.

I am particularly saddened and angered by the salaries of executives at Christian Aid. And I know many people in my churches will be saddened and angered too. The article states that one Christian Aid executive earns £126,000 a year.

One of my churches (St Andrews) still does the traditional Christian Aid week envelope collection. In these days it’s hard work. People can be downright hostile at times when asked for their envelope. Nevertheless it says a lot about our church, and the people in the neighbourhood, that once again St Andrews raised over £1100 for Christian Aid during Christian Aid week. That would buy a lot of meals for those in need or about 3 days salary for the Christian Aid executive quoted in the press article.

Not only do the large salaries for executives at these charities mean that less money is going to those in need, but there is a certain hypocrisy in the way staff lower down the pecking order are treated. For example, earlier this year a young woman came to speak to our youth group about the work of Christian Aid. She was excellent. But she was an unpaid intern.

I will be writing to Christian Aid voicing my concern and expressing a hope that the executives’ salary will be more Christlike. What message does it send for people at a Christian charity to be acting in such a way?

In the meantime who do I give to folks?