Strike how many, Shadow Minister?

>>Oxfam average income over the last couple of years was about $700m (last financial statement) not $60m as you claim. (Strike one) not exactly SME territory.<<

http://www.oxfam.org.au/about/annual_report/

This is the last published set of financials that I could find.

"Total revenue for the continuing operations of the Group decreased in 2007 by $8,646,724 to $63,387,071."

So, your crack management team oversaw a 12% decline in revenues and still managed to pay itself handsomely. I wonder if their remuneration increased from one year to the next, but I can't be ar5ed to find out for you.

>>The directors (employees factory manager level) in a large manufacturing organisation for which I used to work used to earn about $800k p.a. with bonuses,<<

Just as I thought. You are comparing a large manufacturing organization (of what revenue level, might I ask?) with a small charity.

Further, you fail to factor into the equation the relative complexity of a manufacturer over a charity.

>>I believe I have shown how six executives of an organisation of $700m turnover can easily justify remuneration of $100k.<<

Actually, I believe you have just shot yourself in the foot, but that's just the opinion of a "minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements".

Are you a consultant, by any chance?

Johnny come lately;

With your bickering are you talking about the same thing?

Oxfam
Total Income £290.7m down by 19.8m from previous year

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/reports/report_accounts06_7.pdf

Oxfam Australia $63m
With the discussion of CEO and Australia not mentioned I would assume global.

Pericles,

This is the 11th post in which you have simply re stated your position with no support.

As Dem pointed out, Oxfam is far greater than simply the local branch, and can by no means be called a small charity.

If you read the Oxfam report and see the vast range of operations, not only of revenue collection, but the mobilisation of thousands of people and moving of resources to where they are needed.

Even the local branch manages over 500 people permanently and many more for events. Managers not only control the people, but stocks, financial instruments, trading etc and the senior executive earns less than 130k p.a.

The factory I compared it with has a turnover of about $130m p.a. ,<200 employees, financials and marketing controlled by Head office, and you would have to go down at least 3 levels to find any lower level manager or shift boss earning less than 130k.

So to say that "There's an entire industry of spongers out there, dipping into your pocket to support their lifestyle, all the while dripping platitudes about supporting good works." Is not only fatuous, but shows a small minded ignorance of what the charities do, and what real world salaries are.

No, I am not a consultant per se. However, as a specialist I am called in to review and rework in a "consulting" like fashion, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

I take it that you are the retired mortgage broker.

“We believe that our programme work, spread across the world, gives Oxfam a greater understanding of the main causes of poverty and suffering, and hence we can achieve greater impact.” - Oxfam (GB),

Does that interpret as “we have no excuse for not sufficiently directing our efforts against the main cause of poverty and suffering” in the less-developed world where that mostly resides.

The history of misery since OXFAM established:
1 billion people existed in the less-developed world at the time of OXFAM’s commencement in 1942.
2.5 billion scratched out an existence in less-developed countries thirty two years later, 1994. In that year the UN Population and Development Conference in Cairo identified population pressure, due to women’s lack of women’s education and empowerment, as the basic cause of enduring human misery in the less-developed world.
4.8 billion currently occupy the less-developed world. It is now 2008, 14 years since the underlying driver of poverty and suffering has been publicly identified.

Strangely, those who have the responsibility for directing OXFAM’s projects continue to decline to sufficiently acknowledge the cause.

Oxfam’s fineprint does say that “Gender mainstreaming, or considering gender issues in every aspect of our work, is one of Oxfam’s corporate priorities.” - - “ In order to sustain our programme work on gender, we need to continue to build staff awareness and change attitudes on gender equality issues and have therefore been preparing an internal gender campaign which will be launched in 2007/08.”

Why be so circumspect about this? Maternal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa is close to one in ten; in South Asia one in 20 (against one in 10,000 for more developed countries); and escalating. Programs to minimize such human suffering, and its fundamental cause - excess pregnancies – surely should be maximized. Why does OXFAM and other high-exposure NGOs in the aid business keep so quiet about it; about the need for more action from others also? Their abject silence in public pronouncements do seem to indicate that they enjoy their work more than the human gain which might result from it.

I guess all this dissembling must come naturally to you Shadow Minister.

But I see little point in continuing a discussion with someone who sees nothing wrong in charities-as-businesses.

To me, the idea that people can take any kind of salary out of collections made on street corners is repugnant. And the kind smugness that says "well, it's only what you would expect from a similar job in manufacturing" is the height of self-deception.

Your defence of the management competencies involved comes straight from the consultants' handbook. It reminds me of the Hay system that was so popular in the eighties (and today for all I know) where seniority was determined by the number of people working for you. The result was to provide a manager with an irresistible temptation to recruit as many people as possible, by inventing longer and longer job descriptions.

If you were inclined to examine your own argument - which from current evidence is unlikely - you will notice that it also uses the same self-fulfilling devices. If I can make the task sound sufficiently arduous, I can name my price. The part that you miss, every time, is that it is supposed to be a s0dding charity, not a secure, salaried gravy-train for middle management.

And as for this...

>>I take it that you are the retired mortgage broker<<

I can tell you that you are no closer than your first stab, which was...

>>minor clerk in a gov dept, alien to real world salaries and requirements<<

Here's a suggestion. Bob Savage is the speaker at a lunch meeting of the AICD in a couple of weeks - maybe you'd like me to introduce you, and we can ask his opinion.

Pericles,

12th post with no supporting material.

The two simple points I was making was:

1) With an income of $700m world wide Oxfam can do a significant amount of good. To do this you need dedicated, competent and continuous management that is unlikely to be met solely by volunteers. Otherwise the money donated by hard working citizens will be largely wasted which is in no one's interest.

The point you miss is that it is meant to be a charity that makes a substantial difference, and not a local knitting circle.

2) The salaries of the Oxfam execs are well below market related salaries and if these guys were money grubbers as you suggest, they are in the wrong game.

I have given you ample examples for even the simplest mind to put two and two together.

You cannot make broad brush scurrilous comments against dedicated people and not expect some challenge.