I was planning to donate the couple bucks I had left over from the year to the charity called “San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance”, I was doing a background check on CharityNavigator and they gave the charity full ratings so it seemed good.
Then I stumbled upon the salary section. What the fuck? I earn <20k a year and was planning to contribute to someone’s million dollar salary? WHAT.
While not ideal, I would like to note that the charity has a revenue of 392 M$. Spending 1-2% on salaries of top exec is not that bad if it prevents them from misusing the funds. A lot of the time, the alternative to high salaries for people in power is those people giving in to corruption since the risk/benefit encourages it. Just look at politics for an example.
That being said, wtf is chief philanthropy officer?!
What you are describing is blackmail.
“Pay us exorbitant salaries or we’ll be forced to embezzle the funds”
It’s also human nature for the kind of sociopath executive positions attract.
So we should just accept that and pay them off rather than putting in mechanisms to prevent that and hiring people who are motivated by something other than the payout?
It might seem like we have no choice but we do, collectively, hold the power of the purse here. And I think this post is a great example of that.
You are not necessarily paying of the same people. Even most honest/righteous people like to be paid well. So the charity willing to pay them get those and the charities that don’t pay well risk getting the kind of people who don’t mind embezzling.
Last time I checked prison was the real alternative.
For the little people.
Would be nice if that worked. If you embezzle the money smartly, e.g. giving lucrative contracts to friends consultancy firm, there is pretty much no way to prove it.
I am not an exec, so no it is not. It is just statement of fact.
What is “it” in your comment?
What I am describing is not blackmail. It is the same as saying that leaving unguarded food next to starving people encourages theft of said food. That is not blackmail. I am saying anything beyond that. I am not commenting on morality of the situation or what the right thing to do is. Just pointing out a fact.
It amazes me that somehow all that makes sense in your brain. Interesting.
Sorry, do I need to handhold you through it? Are you unable to figure out what the definition of blackmail is? “If you don’t bring an umbrella, you will get wet since it is supposed to rain.” is not blackmail. Unless you are 10, I am very concerned that you can’t comprehend this.
What’s not comprehensible here is your argument. I’d suggest you consider how you might learn to be a better communicator.
Good bye.
These greedy cunts are probably 1% of the workforce though. How much is actually spent on salaries?
Stop defending them
How much would you prefer they made? Do you think the world would be a better place if they shut down their charity businesses?
Idk anything about them, so it is not my intention to defend anyone. I am just pointing out that having bad execs (whether incompetent, careless or outright embezzlers) is far worse than paying 1-2%. As far as I know, no one has came up with a better reusable way to get good execs than paying them a lot. I have no idea if these execs in particular are good.
Chief Philanthropy Officer probably heads their fundraising team. Aka sales
That’s exactly what they do. They also usually act as a liason between their mega donors to ensure the money is spent in the way it’s ear marked for. Mega donors usually donate conditionally, basically a type of private grant.
Thanks for the extra info.
That makes sense, thanks for the info.