RNLI amended constitution

deep denial

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Messages
509
Location
Southampton
Visit site
Have just received notice of the RNLI AGM to be held in May. The main item is a change to the Institution's constitution. In view of the heat sometimes generated on this forum by the perceived activities of the RNLI I thought there might be interest in the main claus to be changed, as follows:
'Delete Article 3 and substitute "The object of the Institution shall be to save lives at sea and on inland waters. In order to achieve that object, the powers of the Institution shalll without limitation (my italics) include the following:
3.1 to promote safety and provide relief from disaster at sea etc etc

The main change in that section seems to be the 'without limitation'. Am I being over sensitive to wonder if this might presage increasingly hectoring tone or aggressive stance about safety issues?
 

Ubergeekian

New member
Joined
23 Jun 2004
Messages
9,904
Location
Me: Castle Douglas, SW Scotland. Boats: Kirkcudbri
www.drmegaphone.com
Have just received notice of the RNLI AGM to be held in May. The main item is a change to the Institution's constitution. In view of the heat sometimes generated on this forum by the perceived activities of the RNLI I thought there might be interest in the main claus to be changed, as follows:
'Delete Article 3 and substitute "The object of the Institution shall be to save lives at sea and on inland waters. In order to achieve that object, the powers of the Institution shalll without limitation (my italics) include the following:
3.1 to promote safety and provide relief from disaster at sea etc etc

The main change in that section seems to be the 'without limitation'. Am I being over sensitive to wonder if this might presage increasingly hectoring tone or aggressive stance about safety issues?

Sounds as if they are looking for carte blanche to spend money on expensive PR campaigns. I wonder who earns more, a PR manager or a lifeboat mechanic?
 

Bilgediver

Well-known member
Joined
6 Jun 2001
Messages
8,108
Location
Scotland
Visit site
The main change in that section seems to be the 'without limitation'. Am I being over sensitive to wonder if this might presage increasingly hectoring tone or aggressive stance about safety issues?


Only a problem if they are authorised to take over from the Coastguard ...:D:D

Surely they are limited by constraints outside their control at present???
 

haydude

New member
Joined
7 Apr 2009
Messages
1,756
Visit site
I was astonished to learn that the RNLI pays their managers hundreds of thousands pounds a year. Isn't it supposed to be a charity organization?

As a contributor I am angry that my contributions are even partially used to pay fat-cats salaries and PR managers!
 

KenMcCulloch

New member
Joined
22 Apr 2007
Messages
2,786
Location
Edinburgh, Scotland
Visit site
I was astonished to learn that the RNLI pays their managers hundreds of thousands pounds a year. Isn't it supposed to be a charity organization?

As a contributor I am angry that my contributions are even partially used to pay fat-cats salaries and PR managers!

I'm sure the same argument is used as we so often hear regarding (for example) banks. 'It's a competitive market and to recruit and retain the talent we have to pay competitive salaries'. More seriously aren't chief executives' salaries in most organisations related to the size/turnover of the organisation?
 

Twister_Ken

Well-known member
Joined
31 May 2001
Messages
27,585
Location
'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
Visit site
I was astonished to learn that the RNLI pays their managers hundreds of thousands pounds a year. Isn't it supposed to be a charity organization?

As a contributor I am angry that my contributions are even partially used to pay fat-cats salaries and PR managers!

The bigger charities all have professional, paid staff. The level of pay, though, is another matter, especially as many of RNLI brass also have HM Services pensions to live off.

http://www.rnli.org.uk/who_we_are/rnli_people/key_rnli_staff

Can't argue that the organisation is good at what it does, raising money and saving lives.

It's new found fondness for proselytising water safety, offshore, inshore, inland and inbath seems to me to show that it is raising more money than saving lives at sea needs, so it is - to use a marketing expression - seeking to extend its brand.
 

Bobc

Well-known member
Joined
20 Jan 2011
Messages
9,995
Visit site
Charities are simply "non-profit" organisations. It doesn't mean that everyone works for nothing. It's easy to make any business non-profit-making (or loss-making) just by paying everyone more. However with an organisation the size of the RNLI, you need professional management in-charge, and they won't work for beer alone.
 

haydude

New member
Joined
7 Apr 2009
Messages
1,756
Visit site
I'm sure the same argument is used as we so often hear regarding (for example) banks. 'It's a competitive market and to recruit and retain the talent we have to pay competitive salaries'. More seriously aren't chief executives' salaries in most organisations related to the size/turnover of the organisation?

We have been played this "talent" story so many times, but if these were really talented people would we have had to save their banks from bankrupcy? I say, cut their pays and if they want to go, let them go ruin someone else's finances!!

Look, I have been working in corporate organizations all my working life, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that most of those at the top are not talented individuals but rather well connected mediocre people. You may see some talents only in recent companies with high rate growth. RNLI is not one of them.

RNLI does not even require hard to find talents to run, but rather dedication from the talented volounteers. The high salaries paid to RNLI managers are unjustified.
 

Doghousekeeper

New member
Joined
27 Feb 2009
Messages
347
Visit site
It's new found fondness for proselytising water safety, offshore, inshore, inland and inbath seems to me to show that it is raising more money than saving lives at sea needs, so it is - to use a marketing expression - seeking to extend its brand.

Hardly new-found. They have been promoting safety at sea since they started - best part of 200 years. Look around fishing harbours, many have barometers and old weather instruments provided by the RNLI in ages past to help seamen decide if it was safe to go out.

There had been a steady rise in lifeboat callouts for years. Since the increased attention to the promotion of safety messages, that does seem to have been brought back a little. What is wrong with the application of a "Prevention is Better than Cure" message? Speaking for myself, I'm happy for them to spend a proportion of their money in helping to avoid the need for lifeboats to launch - it's just another means of saving lives at sea, and that is at the heart of what they do, isn't it?
 

haydude

New member
Joined
7 Apr 2009
Messages
1,756
Visit site
Charities are simply "non-profit" organisations. It doesn't mean that everyone works for nothing. It's easy to make any business non-profit-making (or loss-making) just by paying everyone more. However with an organisation the size of the RNLI, you need professional management in-charge, and they won't work for beer alone.

Perhaps it is cultural, but I believe it is immoral for a "charity" to pay more than expenses or a symbolic contribute to those who work for them. All work should be volounteer work. Otherwise they are not "charities".

That is why when I moved to the UK I could not understand how many "charities" there were. I thought: - there must be a lot of "wealthy" people who can afford doing all this "volounteer" work. -

That is because the word "charity" is based on the Christian concept of "unconditional giving with love".

The difference with my country is that in the UK charities are run like businesses, with the only difference being that they do not post profits and hence do not pay dividends to shareholders or owners.

Rather than "Charities" they should be named just for what they are "Non-Profit Organizations" although I can assure you the fat-cats do profit from them, a lot.

Very, very dodgy!
 
Last edited:

longjohnsilver

Well-known member
Joined
30 May 2001
Messages
18,841
Visit site
Looking at the last RNLI accounts, year end Dec 2009, there were 60 employees paid £60K+, of whom 8 were on £100K+ out of a total workforce of 1544. That doesn't seem unreasonable but I guess some would disagree.
Equally as interesting is the fact that £10M was paid by the RNLI into their pension scheme which works out to be an average of £6476 per employee, no doubt the majority are less than average but the highest earners will no doubt be well in excess of this figure.
 

Searush

New member
Joined
14 Oct 2006
Messages
26,779
Location
- up to my neck in it.
back2bikes.org.uk
Haydude,

Thanks for passing on your personal misconceptions & predjudices, but they have little bearing on reality do they? :rolleyes:

There are volunteer crew members & volunteer fundraisers whose commitment is much less than full time, and it allows them to hold down ful-time paid jobs. But full-time mechanics, administrators, managers etc have to be paid. As you noted yourself, you wouldn't work for nothing would you, so why do you expect them to?

I am happy to keep paying my subscription to the RNLI & I also hope that I continue to not need their attentions. You may do as your conscience permits.
 

rotrax

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2010
Messages
15,620
Location
South Oxon and Littlehampton.
Visit site
Perhaps it is cultural, but I believe it is immoral for a "charity" to pay more than expenses or a symbolic contribute to those who work for them. All work should be volounteer work. Otherwise they are not "charities".

That is why when I moved to the UK I could not understand how many "charities" there were. I thought: - there must be a lot of "wealthy" people who can afford doing all this "volounteer" work. -

That is because the word "charity" is based on the Christian concept of "unconditional giving with love".

The difference with my country is that in the UK charities are run like businesses, with the only difference being that they do not post profits and hence do not pay dividends to shareholders or owners.

Rather than "Charities" they should be named just for what they are "Non-Profit Organizations" although I can assure you the fat-cats do profit from them, a lot.

Very, very dodgy!

Hi, Please dont make judgements untill you understand why UK charities operate the way they do. Its all to do with complying with strict rules to be eligible for charitable status. If a charity falls short of what is required its charitable status can be-and often is-removed. The other thing you must take on board is that once over a certain size profesional admin becomes a neccesity. There are some very dubious American independant churches among the many that are of great importance to many US citizens. I will not comment on them as I only know the little I have seen during my short visits there. My wife acts as a part time financial administrator for a charity. The highly qualified people who deal directly with the clients do not have the skills to interface with the tax office and to handle VAT issues.She is paid a small hourly rate plus expenses.This hardly compensates for the lost free time, but she wants to help where she can,and so does what is required every quarter. She could work for nothing, but the finance director maintains that paid staff are more likely to do the job on time and to a higher standard than volounteers.There is history in the organisation to support this. Every case will differ and must be judged on its merits. I wonder what the top person at Oxfam gets? Thats a pretty big charity eh!
 

Greenwichman

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2004
Messages
311
Location
Tollesbury
Visit site
You gets what you pays for?

We have been played this "talent" story so many times, but if these were really talented people would we have had to save their banks from bankrupcy? I say, cut their pays and if they want to go, let them go ruin someone else's finances!!

Look, I have been working in corporate organizations all my working life, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that most of those at the top are not talented individuals but rather well connected mediocre people. You may see some talents only in recent companies with high rate growth. RNLI is not one of them.

RNLI does not even require hard to find talents to run, but rather dedication from the talented volounteers. The high salaries paid to RNLI managers are unjustified.


Hey, Dude, if it's so easy to get these jobs how come you never got one?

Fact is, it takes real talent to lead, manage and be accountable for large organisations. Charities aren't easier to run because they aren't 'proper businesses'; in reality they ARE businesses, and often more complex, with more than just profit to make - there is more than one 'bottom line' to operate (ie a financial bottom line as well as an 'added value' bottom line).

I know, because I have spent the last dozen years in various roles in the third sector as a Chief Exec and in some roles as an (unpaid) Board Member;, and - no - as a full time (salaried) CEO I am not overpaid for the nine-day weeks I put in to get value for money for those who donate and earn for the charities I lead.

Maybe you've suffered cr*p leaders in your sector (in which case I sympathise, there are too many of them about), but please don't puke us all up into one trough, so to speak.

The RNLI is a fabulous charity, the envy of the world, with not one penny from the state (other than in terms of Gift Aid and other fair tax benefits). The CEO - who I know personally - went through a massive competition to get his job (as we all have to do to run major bodies).

The Board that selected him is unremunerated; if you were on that Board, responsible in fiduciary terms for what goes on, you'd search for and pay for the best too. It's the right way both to run a high-performing organisation and to stay out of jail for transgressing laws on such matters as tax, HR, H&S etc etc. Compliance is an essential part of day to day housekeeping; you can't have a great lifeboat service run by a slack-alice or a johnny-com-lately.

The fashion recently to denigrate anyone who has succeeded in reaching the top of their professional life is a corrosive influence; the politics of envy. Time to re-balance the perspective.

Now, if you want a really good rant, I'll join you on the subject of bl**dy bankers; now there's a sector that is led by some truly overpaid peeps!!!!!

:)
 
Top