Equal Pay for Equal Work
Once again, a letter to the editor says it best (they should start paying those guys):
“I would never defend the multimillion-dollar salaries of corporate CEO's, and no one needs $400,000 to live comfortably. But the issue is much broader than that. Across the country, nonprofits and foundations seriously underpay their staff at all levels, and the result is deeply detrimental to the level of social impact those organizations achieve” (Kramer, Why Foundation CEO's Deserve to Be Well Paid).
Certainly foundation board executives aren’t asking for seconds of gruel (“Please, sir, may I have some more?”), but their compensation is generally moderate compared to members of corporate boards. Trying to tie a legal cap on the salary of nonprofit foundation executives while letting their corporate cousins run rampant denotes a ‘less than’ status that does nothing good for the legitimacy of nonprofit management. I further agree with Mark Kramer in that, “Taking a vow of poverty shouldn't be required to work constructively for the betterment of society.”
Kramer (and myself) would admit that there are the stories of excess and embarrassing abuses. “Paying millions to part-time trustees of small foundations is egregious and illegal. But surely we can tell the difference between coming closer to market-rate wages throughout the sector and the unmitigated greed of a few bad apples.” Since the compensation is public information, can’t we rely on the power of societal chagrin to help reign in wannabe-Steve-Jobs (who, while a public corporate executive, and not constrained by regulation of nonprofit foundations, has been tongue-lased by the media for his nine–digit yearly compensation)?
If appeals for equality between foundations doesn’t work for you, what about quality of foundations? Bryson and Schulz’s Board Debate argues that reasonable compensation is required to appeal to higher quality candidates, particularly those with strong technical, professional or subject matter expertise.
I’ll leave the group with Bryson and Schulz’s closing remarks:
“Both trusts and for-profit boards have a history of paying their trustees. Since the obligations and responsibilities are similar for foundation boards, why shouldn't they be paid the same for the same work?"
“I would never defend the multimillion-dollar salaries of corporate CEO's, and no one needs $400,000 to live comfortably. But the issue is much broader than that. Across the country, nonprofits and foundations seriously underpay their staff at all levels, and the result is deeply detrimental to the level of social impact those organizations achieve” (Kramer, Why Foundation CEO's Deserve to Be Well Paid).
Certainly foundation board executives aren’t asking for seconds of gruel (“Please, sir, may I have some more?”), but their compensation is generally moderate compared to members of corporate boards. Trying to tie a legal cap on the salary of nonprofit foundation executives while letting their corporate cousins run rampant denotes a ‘less than’ status that does nothing good for the legitimacy of nonprofit management. I further agree with Mark Kramer in that, “Taking a vow of poverty shouldn't be required to work constructively for the betterment of society.”
Kramer (and myself) would admit that there are the stories of excess and embarrassing abuses. “Paying millions to part-time trustees of small foundations is egregious and illegal. But surely we can tell the difference between coming closer to market-rate wages throughout the sector and the unmitigated greed of a few bad apples.” Since the compensation is public information, can’t we rely on the power of societal chagrin to help reign in wannabe-Steve-Jobs (who, while a public corporate executive, and not constrained by regulation of nonprofit foundations, has been tongue-lased by the media for his nine–digit yearly compensation)?
If appeals for equality between foundations doesn’t work for you, what about quality of foundations? Bryson and Schulz’s Board Debate argues that reasonable compensation is required to appeal to higher quality candidates, particularly those with strong technical, professional or subject matter expertise.
I’ll leave the group with Bryson and Schulz’s closing remarks:
“Both trusts and for-profit boards have a history of paying their trustees. Since the obligations and responsibilities are similar for foundation boards, why shouldn't they be paid the same for the same work?"
posted by Anonymous @ 11:51 PM
1 Comments:
At 2:38 PM, October 02, 2006,
austin said…
"Both trusts and for-profit boards have a history of paying their trustees. Since the obligations and responsibilities are similar for foundation boards, why shouldn't they be paid the same for the same work?"
Why shouldn't they paid? Board members are not the people responsible for the day-to-day operation of the organization, they are there for guidance and expertise in some circumstances. A foundations nature is to be given resources from people with no payback required in order to help other people in the near/immediate future. A foundation board member is providing a resource tot he foundation with no expectation of payback.
Why should they be paid? Culture has changed, and big business is enormous. If a person can obtain a nine-figure salary, why not get it? Given the choice of two boards to serve on, one being a foundation working for a cause I support 100% that offers little to no compensation, or a public company that I agree 75% with their practices that offers a six-figure compensation, I'll take the money. So to thrive in a competitive environment of attracting board members, compensation is needed.
Post a Comment
<< Home