Disdain at the Lifeboats Collection Tin

[Chrusty 1]

Richard,
I wish to thank you, Laura and all the hardworking staff at IPC for providing us with such a marvellous tin pot little forum.

A1

Well in the real world, that is just what it is. The UN it aint. What do you think? That these forums matter a damn in the greater scheme of things??

If you do, you are sadly deluded.

 

[AndrewB]

I am at a total loss as to why some seem to think that what they have to say on some tin pot little forum is going to be taken any real notice of by anybody. Not just the RNLI, but anybody.

RNLI management staff have in the past responded to comments here, so we must be on their radar.

But lifeboat funding/management threads occur so often, are often lengthy and vitriolic, and just regurgitate the same old points. So it's no wonder they don't any more.

 

[haydude]

I hope in the interest of consistency you intend to refuse their help even when your life and those of your crew are in imminent danger?

Most get soft when the above "morality card" is played.

However it is also a morality issue that a charity like the RNLI waste so much money in excesses and salaries for executive fat cats!

It is unquestionable that the RNLI are effective at collecting cash, in this case they should extend the scope of their charity by funding other charities that might provide an equally valuable service but do not have the same fortunes.

I have contributed to the RNLI but then I have stopped when I have learnt about the salaries they pay to themselves and I have promised to myself that I will contribute again only when their salaries will be more aligned with mine. If I will ever get rescued I will provide only personal rewards to the volunteers' crew.

 

[maxi77]

Most get soft when the above "morality card" is played.

However it is also a morality issue that a charity like the RNLI waste so much money in excesses and salaries for executive fat cats!

It is unquestionable that the RNLI are effective at collecting cash, in this case they should extend the scope of their charity by funding other charities that might provide an equally valuable service but do not have the same fortunes.

I have contributed to the RNLI but then I have stopped when I have learnt about the salaries they pay to themselves and I have promised to myself that I will contribute again only when their salaries will be more aligned with mine. If I will ever get rescued I will provide only personal rewards to the volunteers' crew.

I think it may be better for most of us if they continue to pay themselves propely for the work they do rather than hire in low paid staff who one suspects will not do as well and as a result their lifesaving effectiveness will fall

 

[Sybarite]

Bastid!!!!!..............I am on a fast day!!!!..sob.......snivel

That explains a lot.


I am too - but I remain very sweet-tempered..

 

[Sybarite]

I think it may be better for most of us if they continue to pay themselves propely for the work they do rather than hire in low paid staff who one suspects will not do as well and as a result their lifesaving effectiveness will fall

It just brings home to me how lucky we are in France. That people can run the same type of organisation on a totally volunteer basis. The French must be more public-spirited...

 

[sighmoon]

I hope in the interest of consistency you intend to refuse their help even when your life and those of your crew are in imminent danger?

I hope, in the interests of consistency, if help is offered from one of the 60 or so independent lifeboat stations around the UK, you'll turn them down and wait for the one you subscribe to?

I actually think the RNLI do a very good job. I also think they are adequately funded. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The vitriol some on here pour on those who think their charitable donations ought to go elsewhere is distasteful. It looks like some people think of it like RAC membership, rather than giving for others, which is the meaning of charity. Even if you follow that reasoning, yes, any of us may need rescuing at sea at some point, but we may also benefit from one of the many health support / research charities. You can't possibly cover them all, but if the time comes, you may be glad that charities beside your favourites receive donations.

 

[Bru]

It just brings home to me how lucky we are in France. That people can run the same type of organisation on a totally volunteer basis. The French must be more public-spirited...

Except that this isn't actually true is it?

According to the SNSM web site, there are 70 employees

Also according to the SNSM web site income comes from the following sources ...

30% Public Generosity (their phrase)
29% Public Subsidy
23% Other Products (?)
18% Private Partnerships

So income from the state is almost the same as income from the generous French public. Hmmm

 

[jordanbasset]

It just brings home to me how lucky we are in France. That people can run the same type of organisation on a totally volunteer basis. The French must be more public-spirited...

And that is precisely the problem, because they do not have the paid expertise in fundraising and managing they have to rely on Government subsidies which are paid for out of general taxation. Perhaps if they did professionalise the management and fundraising side, no criticism of the life boat volunteer crews, as it is similar to the RNLI in that respect. What is more they have to make do where as the RNLI believe their volunteer crews deserve the best equipment.

 

[Shorn100]

Most get soft when the above "morality card" is played.

However it is also a morality issue that a charity like the RNLI waste so much money in excesses and salaries for executive fat cats!

It is unquestionable that the RNLI are effective at collecting cash, in this case they should extend the scope of their charity by funding other charities that might provide an equally valuable service but do not have the same fortunes.

I have contributed to the RNLI but then I have stopped when I have learnt about the salaries they pay to themselves and I have promised to myself that I will contribute again only when their salaries will be more aligned with mine. If I will ever get rescued I will provide only personal rewards to the volunteers' crew.

Can 't see the logic of not giving to a charity just because it has staff paid more than you.

I presume therefore you don't give to Cancer Research where the CEO gets between £210,000 and £220,000 and has 160 staff earning over £60,000.

And I guess you don't buy a poppy from the British Legion either since their CEO is on between £130,000 and £140,000.

Or the NSPCC since their CEO is on something between £150,000 and £160,000 with another 35 staff on salaries over £60,000.

Or Age UK (Help the Aged) since it has two staff on between £170,000 and £180,000.

And with such priciples, I'm sure you don't bank with any of the main banks since their executives are being paid £millions. Or buy anything from any of the main supermarkets since their CEO's are on huge salaries.

In fact, don't go to the your GP either since he/she is getting paid a salary of £105,000.

Without our support these large charities, who all do so much good will fail. They need good governance and that means people with the right skills and knowledge.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And do we really want the RNLI, or any of the other charities, run by monkeys.

Shorn

 

[haydude]

I think it may be better for most of us if they continue to pay themselves propely for the work they do rather than hire in low paid staff who one suspects will not do as well and as a result their lifesaving effectiveness will fall

Rubbish! Better paid does not necessarily mean better quality. You seam to be influenced by David Cameron's logic who wants to defend the excesses of his bankers' friends that we would all do much better without!

It is also offensive to the thousands of volunteers who actually COME TO YOUR RESCUE and that following your criteria should be classed as "stupid" or "incompetent".

It is really challenging my moral beliefs to come to terms with the fact that a CHARITY pays six figures salaries to executives. Morally a charity is a non-profit organization. A six figure salary provides plenty of spare income (=profit) and I see it as taking advantage of volunteers and donors to reward the personal greed of a few individuals.

I am sure that these "executives" are there more because of WHO they know than "WHAT" they know or their charitable spirit.

 

[maxi77]

Rubbish! Better paid does not necessarily mean better quality. You seam to be influenced by David Cameron's logic who wants to defend the excesses of his bankers' friends that we would all do much better without!

It is also offensive to the thousands of volunteers who actually COME TO YOUR RESCUE and that following your criteria should be classed as "stupid" or "incompetent".

It is really challenging my moral beliefs to come to terms with the fact that a CHARITY pays six figures salaries to executives. Morally a charity is a non-profit organization. A six figure salary provides plenty of spare income (=profit) and I see it as taking advantage of volunteers and donors to reward the personal greed of a few individuals.

Clearly we will differ on this as I do feel that buying appropriate skills for the managment of a charity is not just acceptable but is sensible. Most of those who do those jobs in charities could earn far more in commecial positions but give up that to work for charities.

I certainly would not call any one stupid or incompetance because of their income, the reality of life is we all end up in different slots in life, that's just the way it is. I never earned as much as these guys but do not grudge then their salary.

Also I would suggest that implying those salaries are in sme way similar to bankers bonuses is offensive

 

[Shorn100]

I am sure that these "executives" are there more because of WHO they know than "WHAT" they know or their charitable spirit.

How can you posibly say that? You do not have any idea what their skills, their motivation or why they were appointed by the charitys' trustees. Or are you now implying that charity trustees only appoint their mates.

However, since I'm sure it takes the same management skills to run a PLC as it does a large Charity and that the salaries of executives in PLCs are usually considerably higher than those paid to charity CEOs then we can surmise that perhaps they are not the greedy, mean-spirited people that you think they are.

I think your motivation not to give to any large charity is down to envy rather than looking at the needs of running a multi-million £ organisation.

Shorn

 

[Babylon]

All this because I still have the 15p change from the chippie.

Maybe I should send it to the RNLI direct, together with a copy of this thread and the other recent ones.

Anyway - one last piece of mischief - this is my local independent lifeboat: http://www.hamblelifeboat.co.uk/

"Since 1968, Hamble Lifeboat has been saving lives off the Hampshire coast. Local residents, fishermen and boating enthusiasts, concerned at the mounting tally of accidents and deaths in the River Hamble and neighbouring waters, called for a lifeboat to be based there. With the RNLI unable to help, the community established its own independent lifeboat and crew. The lifeboat has since attended thousands of emergencies on the water, assisted many thousands of people to safety and saved hundreds of lives.

They now need to raise £500,000 for a new lifeboat station, as the old one is a completely clapped-out, cramped old shed with no crew facilities and no-where near meeting basic H&S requirements, etc, etc.

You can 'buy a brick' for £20 (or more than one if you're feeling generous) and have your name inscribed on the plaque.

Or - Hamble/Solent boaters take note! - you can consider switching your regular donation from the RNLI to the Hamble Inshore Lifeboat, at least until funds for the new building have been fully-raised.

 

[AMCD300]

I hope in the interest of consistency you intend to refuse their help even when your life and those of your crew are in imminent danger?

+1

Maybe people like that are hoping the RSPCA will come to their rescue...

 

[chinita]

Oddly, well perhaps not as I am a Scot, I never put money in collecting tins

http://www.stamps-auction.com/scotland-old-postcard-aberdeen-flag-day-collection-day-for-sale-27674



Oldie but goodie

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Clearly we will differ on this as I do feel that buying appropriate skills for the managment of a charity is not just acceptable but is sensible. Most of those who do those jobs in charities could earn far more in commecial positions but give up that to work for charities.

I certainly would not call any one stupid or incompetance because of their income, the reality of life is we all end up in different slots in life, that's just the way it is. I never earned as much as these guys but do not grudge then their salary.

Also I would suggest that implying those salaries are in sme way similar to bankers bonuses is offensive

M'mmm? There may well be highly skilled retired managers/executives from former employment who would serve for far less than the present highly paid executives as part of the volunteer ethos, but cannot so be appointed because it would upset the present salary arrangements and the whole balance of wages.
This is a common problem in companies with a lengthy history, which without restructuring, "go to the wall". I have delivered to the now sub-let factories of long gone West Midlands engineering companies and seen the foreman's office still there, as if in timewalk! It's why, when there is a takeover, economies can always be made by "restructuring".
Perhaps if the RNLI became seriously short of cash it would concentrate the mind to increase efficiency, but , in the meantime, I guess the empire will continue to expand!

 

[ribrunt]

Some perspective.

There is a review by management in the RNLI of doing things more efficiently, it's a LEAN project and has actually resulted in redundancies and restructuring across HQ and broader.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=rnil+redundancy

There are senior volunteer "HQ" positions, typically part-time. I think one such role is in the area of corporate engagement but would have to confirm.

I'm a crew member. I'm glad we have professional, paid management to run an organisation with effectively ~5,000 staff (full/part time & volunteer) across about 260 locations (stations & offices). Just sayin.

For those of you who continue to support the RNLI with all its strengths and weaknesses - (and I know those from the inside better than many commentators) - thank you.

For those of you who make uninformed, unsubstantiated and inaccurate sweeping generalisations - I'll still come and get you too when you need it.

Cheers

RR.

 

[maxi77]

M'mmm? There may well be highly skilled retired managers/executives from former employment who would serve for far less than the present highly paid executives as part of the volunteer ethos, but cannot so be appointed because it would upset the present salary arrangements and the whole balance of wages.
This is a common problem in companies with a lengthy history, which without restructuring, "go to the wall". I have delivered to the now sub-let factories of long gone West Midlands engineering companies and seen the foreman's office still there, as if in timewalk! It's why, when there is a takeover, economies can always be made by "restructuring".
Perhaps if the RNLI became seriously short of cash it would concentrate the mind to increase efficiency, but , in the meantime, I guess the empire will continue to expand!

So you do not believe the journeyman is worth his hire.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It is also offensive to the thousands of volunteers who actually COME TO YOUR RESCUE and that following your criteria should be classed as "stupid" or "incompetent"..

What nonsense! Despite all your moral indignation there are thousands of volunteers in the RNLI who continue doing their bit...whether on the boats, fund raising or anything else.....they are clearly not offended otherwise they would have voted with their feet long ago.

It is really challenging my moral beliefs to come to terms with the fact that a CHARITY pays six figures salaries to executives. Morally a charity is a non-profit organization. A six figure salary provides plenty of spare income (=profit) and I see it as taking advantage of volunteers and donors to reward the personal greed of a few individuals.
.

More moral outrage. How much do you think the CEO of RNLI should be paid? How would you recruit somebody of sufficient calibre to do the job?

You are not living in the real world.