Union calls for curbs on executive pay
A culture of excessive pay is seeping into the remuneration packages of charity bosses and should be curbed, England’s largest union has warned.
Unite, which has 60,000 members in the not for profit sector, said it was concerned that some chief executives are earning more than the prime minister’s annual salary of £197,000.
It highlighted the pay of Anchor Trust’s chief executive John Belcher, who picked up a package totalling £391,000 in 2008/09. Inside Housing revealed exclusively last week that Mr Belcher has resigned from his post.
But Unite said his pay package came as ‘many of his employees, running homes for the elderly, are living on wages just above the national minimum wage’.
It added that the £231,000 package paid to Riverside Housing Group’s highest paid director was another example of ‘excess’.
Unite is calling for charities to look closely at the rates of pay of all their employees and to iron out inequalities.
In a release it said it is concerned that the growing pay inequalities are a symptom of a ‘greed culture’ across the economy, and would like a high pay commission to be set up to ‘tackle this trend, which is leading to fissures in society’.
Rachael Maskell, Unite national officer - not for profit sector, said: ‘It is quite clear that the insidious City culture of excessive pay is seeping into the packages of some not for profit sector chief executives.
‘This is to be deplored as it corrupts the ethos of the voluntary sector and is an insult to those, often on average incomes, who donate to charity. I think the general public will be shocked by the scale of the packages that some executives are being awarded. This sector is losing its sense of what real value is.
‘It has also contributed to great and unfair disparities between the pay of the chief executives and top directors, and other members of staff, as this is being replicated across other sectors of society.’
She added: ‘Flat pay increases of a set amount should be introduced, instead of percentage rises, as this would reduce pay disparities, which is hitting, in particular, women, disabled people, ethnic minorities and part-time workers.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
DavidJ | 09/11/2009 1:35 pm
Hypocrisy at its best.
Excerpt from Unites financial statement Y/E 2008
Derek Simpson - Joint General Secretary Salary 97,027
Pension contributions 26,779
Other benefits 62,820 = £186,626
Tony Woodley - Joint General Secretary Salary 93,815
Pension contributions 16,347
Other benefits 11,946 = £122,108
Nice work guys!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
karen | 09/11/2009 3:02 pm
Do what I say - not what I do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 09/11/2009 3:38 pm
Well, some people do not seem know how to use their maths. For me there is a huge difference between £180,000 and £390,000 to Mr Belcher... By the way my view is that no one in the public sector should earn more than the prime minister andthe sooner that is applied the better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 09/11/2009 4:10 pm
Left wing, fat cat, champagne socialists must hate themselves...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oli | 09/11/2009 5:00 pm
The Prime Minister's salary isn't that good a comparator, because his real earnings come after he leaves office, e.g. Tony Blair Associates.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sancho | 09/11/2009 5:05 pm
Above £150k it's all gravy...
I think the point was made about John Belcher before that Anchor are a not-for-profit organisation and that's why he was getting paid so much?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oli | 10/11/2009 8:38 am
Personally, I think there should be a cap on salaries. Preferably set at a level just above whatever I'm earning at the time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sancho | 10/11/2009 9:41 am
I meant not a not-for-profit organisation.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 10/11/2009 3:05 pm
"Oli | Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:00 GMT...
The Prime Minister's salary isn't that good a comparator, because his real earnings come after he leaves office, e.g. Tony Blair Associates."... ""
I disagree... I think it is a good comparator. A Prime Minister can't last even a year, while a chief executive is safely esconced in his money churning postiton for most of the cases for an entire life-career... And when that ends a Chief Exectuive pension is not too bad either... And a chief executive can live on that pension, according to current life expenctancy, up to 110 years... And while a voter can kick out a Prime Minister at the next election for not earning his/her salary, tenants have no alternatives than keeping on financing their chief executives salaries and pensions however rubbish the services provided.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment