Hey, if you're starving today and living on 3 grains of rice, it's going to be even worse in 50 years time because you'll still have 3 grains of rice, and it will be 2 degrees hotter!
Ah. Actually Mr Peasant, you won't be alive in 50 years time as you will have starved to death by the time I go skiing next winter. Oh well.
Here is a quote from Mr Hewett:
And the sad reality is the most vulnerable people will be lucky to get even a fraction of this amount, with rich countries likely to divert cash from existing aid commitments.Let's check out Oxfam's latest annual report, shall we? Let's look at the salary table for the top executives on page 44.
Base salary band - Number
$130,000–$139,999 - 5
$140,000–$149,999 - 1
$180,000–$189,999 - 1
The ratio between the highest and lowest paid permanent staff member in Australia (including superannuation) as at 30 June 2008 was 4.57:1 (Executive Director at $185,130;Category 7 staff member at $40,504).The Executive Director on $185,130 a year would be the same Andrew Hewett that put his name to this article.
Give me a bucket. I want to vomit.
I left this comment at the SMH. Doubt they will publish it:
Oops, my bad. Andrew Hewett is on a salary package of $185,130 from Oxfam.
I love it when the well paid charity fat cats tell the rest of us that we need to tighten our belts and make sacrifices.
OH, but they'll assure that these people earn their money...
Thanks for the info, Boy.
Charity is good and always should be done ...a little good act that we can do.
Which is why my money goes to those that don't pay enormous executive salaries. My charity stretches as far as possible, without it being hoovered up by overpaid blow ins.
You are an idiot. I doubt you will publish this comment.
Why wouldn't I publish your comment? You offer no analysis or counterpoints to what I have written. Who is the idiot now?
Boy on a Bike, why do you and others believe that people working in the philanthropic sector should be paid less to run what are equally complex businesses to most corporate companies?
I work in a corporate company and I donate a lot of money to Oxfam. I really dont think $185,000 is that high for an Executive Director, if they are able to run the business effectively and deliver aid to those who need it.
It is important that charities are run by competent people, who therefore deserve to be paid accordingly.
Just because he earns more money than you probably do doesnt mean he's morally bankrupt...
Ab, have a read of these posts:
I give to the St Vincent de Paul Society and Palms. Both do a lot of good work without paying their management teams much at all.
Is Robert Tickner really worth nearly half a million at the Red Cross?
It's nice that you donate a lot of money to Oxfam. I hope it is your money, and not that of your shareholders. You might want to ask Oxfam how much actually makes it to the poor and needy, and how much gets siphoned off by the beauracrats and chair polishers in head office.
By the way Ab, Oxfam has a turnover of only $58 million. That doesn't make it a particularly large operation. And how hard is it to give away money?
I'd prefer that they were run by people who lived by the definition of charity:
"Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity".
So have you seen the 2009 Oxfam Annual Report?
Andrew Hewitt is now pulling $194,881. It also states "During 2008-2009, salaries for the Executive Director and all directors were frozen due to the global financial crisis." What? frozen for a day? I don't know anyone else who has had such an increase from $93,420 (2004), while in the same postion at the same... er charity. On such a paltry income, I only hope he takes advantage of his FBT exempt salary sacrifice perks. I can't believe that I was so stupid to donate without checking where it all goes. It's all there on the web!
Post a Comment