Just been mugged by a polar bear

[d000hg]

Why is it wrong a charity is run like a business? Or that full-time workers get paid?

A business is run to make money, and hires people to do that... the difference is a charity gives its profits away... it still needs to run on good business principles to maximise that profit.

[northernladuk]

My hats are all safely stored in my hat drawer.

[PAH]

Perhaps PAH had a after she left.

Too traumatised. I've been emotionally raped.

If I don't see her in town over the festive period and get her to at least buy me a drink as compensation I'll have to take drastic action and cancel the direct debit, once the soft toy has arrived.

[TimberWolf]

They will never leave you alone now that they know where you live.

[PAH]

They will never leave you alone now that they know where you live.

If she comes back again she'll be getting a severe

I've now got an excuse of "already sponsoring a polar bear so your charity can FOAD" for the next beggar.

They'd get more custom if they had a collection bucket than try to sign people up. Maybe they're not allowed to do that anymore, unless they're unofficial beggars like the carol singers.

[wim121]

Or the sort of ****er who sees a pair of gloves tucked into the top of a shopping bag under a table and nabs them. Pure evil.

Did someone do that to you?

If they did, that is completely out of order and common theft. I feel common theft against individuals is far more henious than that against a company. It is evil, especially if like some of my friends and family, you suffer from circulation disorders especially, as it can make it not just uncomfortable but hazardous to your health.

God, I hate thieving scumbags! Hope you break their wrists if you're lucky enough to catch them.

Why is it wrong a charity is run like a business? Or that full-time workers get paid?

Because those assume that donations out of goodwill go directly to the cause. I couldn't knowingly take money donated out of the kindness of others hearts, as a payment to myself. Those that can, need to check their moral compass because it is devoid of magnetism, morality, honour or values. As Martin Luther King said "Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?". I don't believe that ethos should be amended to "What are you doing for others, so long as you feel fully recompensed or praised for doing so?". Many people see the ethos in a charity is that those doing the work, do so out of goodwill, not a business opportunity.

In my naive youth (well less naive than many people), I volunteered my time at a charity shop and met other volunteers that worked there full time (cancer research UK) and was sickened by the majority of what I witnessed. The manager of the shop made more than the local department shop managers made (came to find this is the norm, which is just wrong) and he couldn't be bothered. He rarely did any work or stayed there very long. In that situation, a lower paid management job would be more appropriate, if even needed which often isn't the case, as many volunteers I worked with often had professional backgrounds. Only one or two volunteers I worked with out of a dozen or more, had any kind of integrity or humanity.

Even if we treat it like a business model, how can one earn more of a wage through a charity than a legitimate business yet do less work, not make the same effort expected elsewhere and not adhere to standards or targets like department store managers do mainly to entice custom and ensure fair trade?

Most of the fellow volunteers were just as bad. Anything good that came in the donations room, that they liked the look of, they took. They didn't even pay for the stuff, just stole it, right in front of the manager. I found, It was a common practice to take what you pleased within reason and happens across the board in many other charity shops.

A business is run to make money, and hires people to do that... the difference is a charity gives its profits away... it still needs to run on good business principles to maximise that profit.

People are under no illusion with a business, they pay a market rate they deem to be of good value for items.

People may overpay or buy substandard items through a charity under the ignorant guise that doing so, helps the cause to a more significant amount than in reality.

What you described is still a business. A charity is defined by the charity commissioner as being an organisation run to benefit a cause, not individuals. Many businesses run to make money and give some of their profits away to charity/causes, often as a tax avoidance mechanism.

The problem is, even government legislation outlines charities as businesses with the cause as a minor concern. The legal minimum in many jurisdictions is just 2% of all revenue, others, advisory limits are set. A site called charitable giving, suggests many mainstream charities give 70% or 80% to the cause after costs, however even at this accountable level through outside auditing, that figure may be higher than one would like. However this is official audits and doesn't scratch the surface on the rampant corruption within the industry. Also this figure doesn't take in to account charities that work abroad and have to bribe themselves in to countries, or places where donations fund a sheiks new palace and doesn't help the cause at all.

You can still run on good business principles without incurring costs or minimising those costs, for example:
- One should volunteer their time to raise funds. They should not do so because they are financially rewarded for doing so.
- Management of local stores can be acquired at the very least for the market rate, not +10% of the market rate of other management jobs in the area. There are many people volunteering for free with management experience or willing to further their experience if allowed. Such a model would mean that only a regional manager would be needed. Across 250 shops for instance, we would see a saving of £6.25m at least, just in wage costs alone that is directly siphoned out of donations. Further cuts could be made.
- There is no need for a charity that gets above half a million in revenue each year to pay for in house accounting to the levels some do. Again, some versed in accounting are prepared to help the cause and in this case, all accounts are audited by an external auditor and the audit submitted to the charities commissioner.
- Those volunteering should be checked for a moral ethos and stealing not tolerated. Corruption has no place within a charity.
- There are plenty of free avenues open to organisations seeking promotion even in the mass media, instead of paying millions for it.
- There shouldn't be any room for lies or mistruths within charities ethos's either through ignorance or deliberately. For example, with some diseases, contrary to popular opinion, funding in to medical research isn't required as much as change to policies and the overhaul of pharmaceutical groups. However the myth that mass funding is needed to reach a goal is damaging when that isn't the over-riding issue. Most of the time, bureaucracy is the real killer. This is what needs challenging, more than piles of money in some cases.
- Some costs such as IT infrastructure may be unavoidable, but it is surprising how many overheads can be cut by working with these companies and giving them positive PR through channels you have obtained at no expense, yet great endeavour.








PS: If someone is going to leave me bad rep, at least don't be retarded and make it accurate. Displaying the truth, opinion or personal experience is not trolling. Sorry it doesn't fit in with your rose tinted fantasy world and instead is the reality of the world around us.

Come on son, you can come up with better insults if you really try.

[wim121]

They'd get more custom if they had a collection bucket than try to sign people up. Maybe they're not allowed to do that anymore, unless they're unofficial beggars like the carol singers.

They may get more people donating, but not likely to get more donations.

If they sign up someone with an OK cash flow on a DD for £2 p/m, then even if that individual gets a bit overdrawn one month, they think "oh I'll be better off next month" or "oh it's only £2". Even if the person finds they can't afford £2 per month, many won't be bothered to cancel the DD at their bank or feel pretty lousy calling up to tell the charity they wont be donating anymore.

So they get solid donations, every month of every year to put in their troughs like the greedy little pigs they are. I hope all those charity workers choke to death on the goodwill money they siphon away.

People have such an issue with a banker, within a bailed out bank, receiving a bonus for their hard work. Yet they don't have any qualms with someone "volunteering" to raise donations yet getting bonuses for everyone they sign up. But the bankers are symbolised to pigs eating out of troughs? Very strange.

[d000hg]

Come on son, you can come up with better insults if you really try.

[wim121]

I didn't mean that literally. Havent got a kid.

It was a meme/internet reference .... Look up videos from a black american guy on youtube ...

[PAH]

they don't have any qualms with someone "volunteering" to raise donations yet getting bonuses for everyone they sign up

That's one of the reasons I went through with it. If they get commission like other sales people for signing people up to deals then they still get the commission if the person cancels the deal soon after.

So once the cuddly toy arrives in the new year I'll be cancelling the direct debit via my online banking with no need to contact the charity and get another guilt trip from them.

Just doing my bit to help the wildlife by cutting back on meddling do-gooders.