Monthly income turns to charity greed
Posted by: mermaid
22nd Oct 2009 11:50pm
This was met with much distaste amongst the large pool of volunteers, who questioned why? The manager shared the same view and set off to identify the need vs greed syndrome and this is what we learned.......
more than $210 billion of institutionalised ''charity'' is now part of Australia's society and is embedded in the economy rather than being an optional extra. Old-fashioned charity is just $9 billion, 4 per cent of the total or less than 3 per cent if we acknowledge governments' financial support to charities.
There are approximately 10,400 charities in Australia with almost 12,000 outlets or branches.
120,000 staff are employees vs tens of thousands of volunteers; this figure does not include volunteers who work for schools, clubs and associations. Total wages are about $3.9 billion.
Salvation Army (eastern and southern divisions only) revenue approx $650 million, smaller average less than $800,000 per year (a extraordinary figure).
Compare these figures to an average business employing staff, with a revenue of $3.8 million - or approx five times the average charity.
Reality is charities are a business and these figures are Australian, given the number of charity organisations in Australia also exist worldwide the math just does not add up.
When presenting these figures to senior management, the manager was told rising inflation restricted the charity from performing.
The result, the manager and 3/4's of the pooled volunteers left and within 2 years the charity have employed 4 managers. The days of charity truly have gone!
What are your thoughts?
sherri
- 22nd Nov 2011 02:12pm
Are they - owned by the churches I mean...or are they owned by Christians who are associated with the named churches?
I know that the original Gloria Jeans was owned by a Christian - an american who used some of the profits philanthropically. Gloria Jeans is franchised, and I have no idea if Hillsong owns one of the Australian franchises or not.
It is true that Sanitarium does have associations with the SDA, and that this does give them a tax break...but (while not intending to support Sanitarium and the like) - these organisations don't pretend to be anything other than commercial enterprises (although Sanitarium has always had an agenda around community health long before it was fashionable) - they are 'true to purpose'.
The debate about charities seems to be about the difference between their stated purpose (charitable good works, christian charity, etc...whatever) and their apparent purpose (profits, self perpetuation etc) that shows itself in 'target sales' etc.
I think that discussion about whether or not churches should own businesses is another (though interesting) issue. (jury is out on that one as far as I am concerned - can see points both ways)
Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.
