Solitary chicken - need advice

[Chortle Chook]

Last Sunday I spent a happy day collecting pennies for a small greyhound rescue charity. The sun came out, people were generous and all was going swimmingly till towards the end of the day another collector bounced by and said "We are being graced by an appearance from the CIO" Along came this young woman with no dog but with a baby on her arm. It transpired that she is on maternity leave - paid for by the charity. She also lives in a very well to do area. She did no collecting at all but passed round her baby (who was several months old) and then left. I suddenly realised that the money pensioners and children had been putting in my tin (about £80) would not be going to rescue greyhounds at all but would be sunk in this career person's maternity leave. I feel this is very wrong. Am I alone? I didn't say anything at the time as the collection day had been organised by a friend of mine who, when not helping rescue dogs, works very long hours for the NHS and I didn't want to embarrass her. What do others think?

[Grandmashazzie]

I think that when you look at a lot of charities they are run like a business. Staff are entitled to same as all workers. My friend works for a large children's charity.It just so happened that a manager was over from England when they were going out for Christmas dinner. They naturally invited her. At the end of the evening she paid for her meal and asked for a receipt so she could claim it back I never give to this charity. Some charities are extremely wealthy and I suppose they need to pay well to get top people and reinvest money etc etc. I would rather give box of food etc to local rescue centre via Jollyes than someone collecting.

[Chortle Chook]

It's not even a big charity. Also many of the people putting the money in the tin were elderly and even a little boy gave quite a bit of his pocket money. I'd put a lot of mine in too. I felt like taking the money out of my tin and saying I would go and buy some dog food with it to donate to the poor dogs. I feel I was very naïve and now wonder which charities I can support. Everyone else seemed to think it was OK as 'it is a legal requirement' but I felt that the woman in question should have either waved her 'right' (as she is clearly wealthy) or should not have gone for the post in the first place (she has worked there for only 2 years) or the charity should have employed an older lady. I suspect that she is aiming to climb a career ladder by going from this small charity to a top post in something like Dogs Trust then the RSPCA and I don't think she has any interest at all in hounds. I keep thinking is it me but just can't help but feel so disillusioned

[Bramble]

I think Grandmashazzie is right, Charities as employers are under exactly the same duties as any other commercial employer in terms of employees' rights - it does grate with me a little but I can see the problem for the charity. I toyed with the idea of working for a charity many years ago and the thing that stopped me was feeling uncomfortable that volunteers would be out fundraising to (in part) fund my salary. That said, most people NEED to work, most can't afford to volunteer instead of working at least part time and if charities didn't pay a salary they would, largely, have no staff. It is difficult and I do have issues with charities who employ people in some roles, but like you, as someone who volunteers (also for a greyhound charity) I would feel a bit embarrassed doing volunteer fundraising when others were being paid to be there.

[Egluntyne]

Yep, if she is an employee, then her rights are enshrined in law, and quite rightly so.

[merlina]

I completely agree with the OP

 

Many years ago I turned down a very highly paid (vs what I was earning at the time anyway!) job with the RSPCA for similar reasons. And had a lot of angst for years after about whether I'd done the right thing. (both for me and for them).

 

The woman has a right to the legal minimum maternity pay from the charity which (I think, I have never owned a business), the charity can get back from the Government. I certainly don't think charities should be paying above the minimum.

 

Overall, I think charities are in a difficult position here. They want to employ 'proper/professional' staff and give them decent conditions, but too many seem to have lost sight of the 'every business expense is money out of the mouths of kittens' mantra that we used to have on all our notices when I ran a charity (a small one manned entirely by volunteers).

 

Personally, I think charities should do more to employ people who are really dedicated to to aims of the charity - there are enough out there. And should make the most of older/semi-retired folk who will do a top-level job for less than top rates of pay.

 

It certainly does make me and many others very wary of giving cash to certain, perhaps most, organisations

[Chortle Chook]

Personally, I think charities should do more to employ people who are really dedicated to to aims of the charity - there are enough out there. And should make the most of older/semi-retired folk who will do a top-level job for less than top rates of pay.

 

It certainly does make me and many others very wary of giving cash to certain, perhaps most, organisations

That is so what I think and I will be a lot more wary in future about which charities I support.

[Olly]

Most charities are run like businesses, and given the size of the income of the largest charities they need to be. There are always admin costs, and once a charity starts to employ staff then they need to comply with employment regulation like anyone else. I think it's dangerous to make assumptions about people ('she lives in a well-to-do area so she doesn't need the money') and if the charity deliberately selected an older employee they'd be in breach of discrimination rules.

 

The idea that people who work for charities are doing it for altruistic reasons doesn't stack up these days - they are an employment sector like any other, and if they want to attract the best people they need to pay for them. At least this lady cared enough to come along even though she was on leave, she didn't have to be there. If she's the CEO then her job is not usually shaking a tin - that's what volunteers are asked to help with - she is probably working to secure government grants and/or donations from large corporations or trusts. Small charities may manage on collections and volunteers but if they want to raise a decent amount of funds, they need to employ people for PR, fundraising and admin. Why not see if you can get hold of the charity's last accounts - they should be freely available, probably on the Charity Commission website- and see how much they spend on admin, before you decide to ditch them? I've been involved as a trustee in both sorts of charity, ones with paid employees and ones without. On the whole the paid one ran more smoothly and was more effective at delivering charitable benefits, in my experience.

[Chortle Chook]

I have checked now and the charity in question has 3 paid employees, one of whom is on more than the statutory maternity leave. I think that even in this selfish age it is not strictly true that anyone who is any good at anything won't do it for altruistic reasons and will only give of themselves for career progression and / or money.

[Egluntyne]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that you understand the legal aspects of this situation. If she is an employee, then her position regarding maternity leave is protected in law. She is as entitled to take as much or as little as she wishes, within the legal limits, just as an NHS employee, teacher or railway worker would be.

 

She can take up to 52 weeks, but will only be paid for 39 weeks if I remember correctly, and not at her full rate.

[Lydia]

Totally agree with Olly and Egluntyne. I worked for a national charity for 7 years as a paid employee. We had lots of really good volunteers who worked alongside the paid workers. However, people volunteer for very different reasons and often, their skills were not able to fit with what was needed.

 

The employee who came along during her maternity leave was possibly between a rock and a hard place. She could have stayed away, as would have been her right, but could have been accused of not caring about her fundraisers and volunteers. However, she showed her face, perhaps to show willing and solidarity. Kudos to her if that was the case. In my experience, most charity employees go far beyond the call of duty in what they do, far more so than I've encountered in the private sector.

 

Believe me, it's a tightrope. My charity took out bonds to enter people into the London Marathon. This cost the charity £5k per year per runner, regardless of whether they actually ran or not (and we had to take out a minimum of 5 years). Runners expected welcome events in hotels in London, branded clothing, showers and facilities at the beginning and end and the expenses. None of which is unreasonable, but it costs, and only the really big charities can afford that kind of care.

 

My point is someone who only comes in once a week (as most volunteers do) cannot organise such event or any fundraising without help from people who are paid to be there. And paid employees are entitled to exactly the same employment rights as those in any other sector.

[chickencam]

I agree that initially it looks bad, but charities need to pay for people who have the skills to deal with the business side of things. Running even a small charity takes a lot of skill and organisation. I was treasurer of a small playgroup with charity status, for two years. I did this on a purely voluntary basis and reported back to a managing director who didn't get paid either, he had a figure head role because his day job was top management and he had set up the charity. Myself and the rest of the committee of parents worked long hours and had to grapple with running a business that had paid employees like a play leader and other play assistants. We couldn't have run it purely with volunteers. I had to learn all about the working time directive that came in just after I took the role along with submitting forms and payment for national insurance and PAYE for the play leader who was the only employee who earned enough to pay tax.I had to learn double entry book keeping, submit our accounts to an accountant annually and give a verbal and written report to the rest of the committee at each AGM. This was without helping with fund raising events, and dealing with regular and emergency maintenance of the building we used. I learnt a lot through this role and now work as an cashier for a firm of lawyers. I accept that charities have admin costs. All businesses have overheads this is an often unseen side to business, employees can't understand why they can't have a pay rise because they can't see how much it costs just to open the doors each day, charities are no different.

[Chortle Chook]

Excellent explanation chickencam

[The Dogmother]

I completely understand that they need to be run like businesses; that's the law, and there to protect employees.

 

If you feel badly about it, then either support a smaller charity which is staffed by volunteers, or donate items like dog food, coats and leads. You could always help out by taking dogs for walks for them, or having a foster dog in your home. They desperately need actual physical help.

 

I always support Lurcher Link, partly because one of my dogs came through them, but because it is run by hard working volunteers, and I know them well. I do homechecks for them, and take along supplies to their events.