EVE General Discussion

True, that's possible. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

If proven guilty though, the player should be keel-hauled. (That's where they put a rope on you, drag you underwater across the rough barnacles stuck on the hull of the ship, then back up on deck. It's a traditional and probably pretty effective behavior modification technique.)

I didn't realise that people who work for charities are obliged to be paid less than the market rate for their skills. You live and learn.

Or perhaps you are mixing things up and confusing the fact that charities raise and administer charitable donations with the idea that people working for these organisations should also provide their own services as a charitable donation.

Woah don't get your knickers in a twist son.

All I'm saying is I didn't think there was that much profit to be made in charity. Is it morally right that the top dogs get paid so much? I don't care, I'd do the same in their position no doubt.

$2 is really positif , i think its less , but good point.

The same issues are present in just about every house of worship in the history of man.

There is a big difference between profit and runnign cost. You are mixing the high exec pay check with profit. Those are not teh same. For the red cross to amke a profit like your stupid post says, there would have to be money left on the table after everybody working for the red cross got paid AND the expenditure for food and other stuff were paid for.

Yeah sure, but let's face it, a lot of charities spend a considerable amount of donation funding on "admin", leaving the guys at the top happily rolling around in cash. Since that's donations, and people expect their donations to go to the cause, not to the collectors of the fund, it's reasonable to expect a charity runner to not end up with a huge paycheck.

Then add on to that that the lower end staff are often volunteers...

Well I suppose some people might not, but surely the person at the top of a charity, above all else, should be charitable. If everyone below them is willing to work for free, and our income comes from people giving up their time, resources and money, then the very least they could do is live in modest comfort.

I accept that it might seem rather unpalatable but it does actually make sense. The people at the very top of charities aren't the managers but the trustees and they do tend to give their time for free. They then have to make decisions about who to hire and how much pay to offer in order to best achieve their goals and they may very well think that paying a high salary to get the guys they want will have bigger knock on benefits in terms of the charity achieving their stated goals than would paying less and selecting either from the pool of people who are less able or from the much smaller pool of very talented people who are willing to accept much less than the market value for their skills (perhaps vanishingly small given the actual choices that charities do in fact make). The manager of a charity need not really have a single charitable bone in his body so long as he is able to deliver the end results.

To be fair we don't know anything about these people, they could possibly be making their fortune elsewhere and then go to these meetings for no pay etc. It's easy to jump to conclusions when you see them all pull up in their luxury cars.