Water Refunds - Charities to Gain

Leper

Registered User
Messages
1,995
There has been quite an amount of conversations in the media regarding what to do with Water Refunds being posted this week. Many will look on the refunds as a "not expected" windfall and perhaps some charity could do with the money? Easy-Come-Easy-Go for those who can afford to contribute. Can anybody suggest any charity that will use the money 100% for the charity and not as income for its officers?
 
Hi Leper,

Realistically you are not going to get any of the larger charities to use the money 100% because somewhere along the line there has to be administration costs. I do have a grá for [broken link removed] and they say [broken link removed] is used in a charitable manner but I'm sure someone here will tell me different.
 
Hi Leper,

Realistically you are not going to get any of the larger charities to use the money 100% because somewhere along the line there has to be administration costs. I do have a grá for [broken link removed] and they say [broken link removed] is used in a charitable manner but I'm sure someone here will tell me different.
I am skeptical of the whole charity industry. I'm particularly skeptical of charities which make a virtue of having little of no organisational infrastructure (see the overhead myth). When they publish reports showing their successes and failures and some sort of measures showing the cost/benefit or returns on what they do then they will be credible. Until then saying that 88% of funding is used in a charitable manner is meaningless.
When they publish their failures then the sector can collectively learn from their mistakes. What happens now is that they hide them in order to protect the image of their organisation and so doom others to the same mistakes and create a culture of secrecy and accountability within those organisations.
 
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a charity.

Perhaps you're right. But, in my book charity is charity i.e give willingly to somebody who needs. Over the years, I have put the same question to work colleagues (they being charitable people). Unfortunately, I'm getting the same answer everywhere. Contribute to charity and only a percentage of what is given is received by the needy. I haven't received my water cheque yet, but I know it's on the way to me.

I'll cash it immediately and donate the money immediately via my local priest to some deserving family (I don't need to know who and what amount). I know he won't take a fee and the whole amount will be given to the needy.
 
As far as I'm concerned, organisations like Rehab Group are not charities, whatever they call themselves.
Too many people in these so-called charitites paying themselves salaries they would never earn in the real world.

Its not just the salaries. My elderly parents were recently put in contact with a well known "charity" which delivers meals to the elderly. A cooked meal was delivered in a foil tray for reheating. It was delivered by a volunteer driver. The charity charged €7 for this. This struck me as a little high, so I enquired at the local pub. Oh yes we deliver a midday meal to lots of local elderly people. €6.50. It arrives hot and the delivery driver is a paid employee not a volunteer.
 
A true charity should use voluntary labour,
Okay so if, for example, a charity needed a pilot to deliver emergency aid should they hire a pilot or should a volunteer who was "bleedin' deadly" at the Microsoft Flight Simulator give it a go?
Sometimes the best option is to pay for competent people to do the job better rather than using free labour to do it badly. A well meaning fool can cost the organisation far more than a well paid competent person.
 
Are we putting the pilot in the same category as the €100k director of the charity?
 
Okay so if, for example, a charity needed a pilot to deliver emergency aid should they hire a pilot or should a volunteer who was "bleedin' deadly" at the Microsoft Flight Simulator give it a go?
Sometimes the best option is to pay for competent people to do the job better rather than using free labour to do it badly. A well meaning fool can cost the organisation far more than a well paid competent person.

The pilot in that example is not acting in any kind of charitable capacity, if he is charging market rate. So he can't go around claiming to do charitable work. He does work, which sometimes happens to be contracted to a charity. Ditto for these rich CEOs.

But the pilot isn't the public face of the organisation... he is providing a specific professional service.
 
Last edited:
The pilot in that example is not acting in any kind of charitable capacity, if he is charging market rate. So he can't go around claiming to do charitable work. He does work, which sometimes happens to be contracted to a charity. Ditto for these rich CEOs.

But the pilot isn't the public face of the organisation... he is providing a specific professional service.
If paying a pilot is the best way to get aid to those in need (cheaper and faster) then it is better that the charity pays him rather than using volunteer drivers in trucks.
The same goes for a administrator or a HR Manager or anyone else working in a charity. The best and most cost effective thing to do can often be to pay for a competent person.
the same applies in other walks of life; it's cheaper to pay a qualified person where I work than to employ an apprentice, even if they were not getting paid anything, as the apprentice is unskilled.
The end goal is to deliver goods or services to those who need them. Whatever does that in the most efficient manner is the best option. The bigger the organisation the more important it is that it is run by a core of full time skilled and competent people. That usually means they get paid.
 
If paying a pilot is the best way to get aid to those in need (cheaper and faster) then it is better that the charity pays him rather than using volunteer drivers in trucks.
The same goes for a administrator or a HR Manager or anyone else working in a charity. The best and most cost effective thing to do can often be to pay for a competent person.
the same applies in other walks of life; it's cheaper to pay a qualified person where I work than to employ an apprentice, even if they were not getting paid anything, as the apprentice is unskilled.
The end goal is to deliver goods or services to those who need them. Whatever does that in the most efficient manner is the best option. The bigger the organisation the more important it is that it is run by a core of full time skilled and competent people. That usually means they get paid.

But the accounant, administrator or HR manager pilot has no moral standing if he then turns around and asks you to donate your time money or servives - when they are not. Ditto for a CEO.
 
But the accounant, administrator or HR manager pilot has no moral standing if he then turns around and asks you to donate your time money or servives - when they are not. Ditto for a CEO.
How do you know that those people don't also shake a collection box and give of their time for free in other areas to the charity?
Do the volunteers get paid for their day job?
 
OK! Let's recapitulate. We need pilots to drive planes to deliver whatever. We need truck drivers to deliver. We need van drivers to deliver charitable goods. We need paid people to load the goods. We need paid management to run charities (something I am slow to accept) which is a fact. I can see reason for some paid employees of the organisation.

But, do we need family members of the Charity founder given huge salaries from its funds to source addresses and seal + post envelopes?
 
But, do we need family members of the Charity founder given huge salaries from its funds to source addresses and seal + post envelopes?
No, of course not but have that discussion, not a general one which proposes that there should be no paid staff in charities. Conflating the two issues means that those who engage in bad practices get to hide behind ever paid charity employee.
 
Back
Top