Despite having already explained this 4 or 5 times, I’ll do it again. Most NGO workers are part time / casual workers earning an hourly wage… Only a few are salaried. I don’t know how to explain it any simpler.
If you don’t believe it, show it to be untrue. I’m sure you’re better at auditing than the auditors who do the job every year. If you can prove there’s creative accounting, the IRS will love you.
It’s on the one of the graphics or reports on their website.
Last time I looked, volunteering didn’t mean getting paid for every hour you worked.
No actually, that’s not my task. You’re the one who doesn’t believe the official audited figures not me.
Once again, read what I said. I didn’t say NGO’s were better managed. I said that among NGO’s, the WWF is one of the more efficient ones. That’s ALL I said. Here’s my original reply just to refresh your memory.
Well, my goodness, who would have imagined that the debate would have come around to such a twirling display of definitions regarding salaried vs. unsalaried workers and how this relates to volunteers. Your definition is gibberish. You are clutching at straws and you know it.
YOUR original post was that WWF is an exemplar because it spends only 9% on administrative fees. I tend to scoff at NGOs. BUT when we examine the official OFFICIAL web site of the same, we see a very large increase in costs that are NOT accounted for under administrative expenses. Why would the IRS care? This should be about people like you who THINK that these organizations are living up to their CLAIMS to be so wonderful. YET clearly programs include a large part of the rent and salaries paid or how else can we account for them? And lest you start, I worked on this PERSONALLY and I know the tricks hence my amazing ability to smell them out. Wow!
So the OFFICIAL site of WWF claims 725 workers with 300 some in the US. It does not matter how many are UNSALARIED or VOLUNTEER (hahah) because it does not factor into WWF’s claims of how much it spends on administration. I have laughed at these claims and I laugh at the lefties who continue to think of NGOs as some kind of sainted privileged group that is doing good but BUT I know that their CEOs and country leaders and such are all in it for the money but so happy to know that they are doing so for a good cause… haahahahahahaha
Summary:
There is no way that WWF has only 9% in administrative costs.
Whether there are volunteers or your wonderment of “nonsalaried” workers is irrelevant. The official site does NOT include them.
Lefties like those of the religious persuasion continue to prance about a great deal on faith-based merits. The irony that you do not see this makes you a very LIKELY candidate to believe in global warming and I BELIEVE (hahahahaah) very much that you do. Get it? The joke is on YOU!
FS, seeing as you still don’t seem to understand the difference between salary (a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a monthly basis but often expressed as an annual sum) and wage (payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis ), and continue to try and equate it with volunteering, there’s really not much point in continuing this. Most people learn the difference in about grade 7 but I guess you were asleep that day.
AND AGAIN for those who cannot read, it does not matter how many volunteers or nonsalaried or other workers you have because WWF did NOT count them in its 9% administrative assessment.
Not back to me at all because I’m done with this. You are still going on about volunteers even though I’ve repeatedly said I’m not referring to volunteers, so this is my last post on the subject.
You said the WWF site had information as to volunteers. I couldn’t find it. I asked you to produce it. You have not. I therefore question the claim that 5,000 volunteers work for WWF.
Second, you were the one who submitted WWF as an example of an NGO that did “good” because its administrative costs were kept to 9%. I have showed that this is clearly not possible and that it is using creative accounting to put a lot of this under Programs (expense).
Third, I have repeatedly pointed out that the discussion is not affected by however you choose to call these workers whether volunteers, nonsalaried or other because WWF on its OFFICIAL site lists only those who are apparently salaried and this is the key element in determining the 9% administrative cost.
You can run off like a crybaby if you want but we all know that you have not demonstrated anything that you set out to prove. Rather than concede gracefully, you attempt to obfuscate by repeatedly discussing definitions of categories that are NOT relevant to the determination of the 9% administrative category that again was important only because you believed that it showed NGOs to be responsible policy actors.
You have failed across the board to prove your point.
Finally, regardless of your much vaunted (self) involvement in NGOs in Australia, I KNOW how they really work. This is precisely why it did not take me long to find the weakness in your argument. Now, English teaching in Taiwan can be a noble profession and don’t let people demean it and don’t sell yourself short BUT I know what I am talking about and you CLEARLY do not. Let it go. Be a good role model to your kindergarteners. Hello Chewy? Are you out there? I am channeling you and for VERY GOOD reason.
and for all those well-meaning souls out there who are sacrificing their lives along the lines suggested by CF Images, well, well, well, average salary paid for those working in professions dealing with climate change?
$88,000! $88,000? Sound like a sacrifice to you or a scam?
Why should I believe that you know how they work? You seem to doubt me, so why should I believe you? Don’t bother answering that because I’m not at all interested.
And FWIW, I own a business that’s not in the slightest bit related to English teaching and I’m not an English teacher.
Oh really? Well, let’s see. I have been told that I don’t understand things… and that this is all about my insisting on volunteers (it isn’t) or the confusion of what is a nonsalaried worker.
AGAIN. The CHIEF point of this whole discussion is that CF Images raised the point of NGOs like WWF being exemplary in maintaining administrative costs to 9%. I have shown convincingly that this could not possibly be the case. THIS was and remains the MAIN issue.
Whether nonsalaried or volunteer, it is not important because the nonpaid workers are NOT factored by WWF into its overall assessment of how its administrative costs to total are calculated. The fact that CF Images keeps going back to definitions of what is a volunteer (but I was NEVER talking about those is his refrain) or nonsalaried is IRRELEVANT to the MAIN point here.
So what do you think his motivation is? and what do you think that my motivation is? and would you suggest that we all need to engage in some large kumbayah hug or something to get past this with us agreeing “to split the difference?” But what would that be exactly? My admission that the issue of nonsalaried or volunteer workers has any kind of bearing while CF Images goes … yeah well WWF could be more efficient in its spend? Hell no. This is about an organization that claims 9% as administrative expense or in some cases it claims 4%. This is dishonest. How exactly should we split the difference so that both sides “feel good about themselves?” CF Images is WRONG and the WWF is NOT an examplar based on the figures provided.
What is my motivation then? to disabuse foolish and earnest types from thinking that just because an organization puts a panda bear on the front of its annual report (or a polar bear) it is not sufficient stamp of enlightenment to stop asking the tough questions. Oh, if only Bush had invaded Iraq with a panda force, the idiotic left would no doubt have been screaming against any Iraqi bullets that nipped any ears of any of the precious cute cuddly little beasts especially since we have all seen the latest animated movie where incredibly!!! pandas sing, talk, dance and have feelings JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.
Okay. WWF EMPLOYS 5,000 staff so these are NOT volunteers. But it does NOT say how many are “nonsalaried” in the parlance so beloved of CF Images. So, how does this factor into its $9 million in administrative costs IF these expenses are NOT coming out of program expenses? We have 80% of WWF workers by admission of its OWN web site getting at least $50,000. What gives? Is this an error? Ultimately the MAIN point remains that NGO workers are NOT underpaid; they are NOT enlightened being sacrificing for the common good as in many cases they make far more than the average private-sector, non-NGO worker, AND ultimately what do or have they achieved? except sing along with me you all know the words: empowered people and raised awareness. Bullshit!
IN 50 years, these are the top 7 accomplishments of an organization that has a reported income of a quarter of a billion dollars every year. REALLY? These are the seven that it chooses to highlight to prove its value add? Really?
You lost the argument when you started disparaging the other poster’s supposed profession as an English teacher as if that was relevant, but you then made a complete idiot of yourself as he is actually a photographer!
Gosh really? one can lose an argument because one “engages in name calling?” One can lose an argument because the facts are no longer important; only the motivation is? Gosh… you mean like he is really a photographer? kinda sorta like his signature which explains all? I would NEVER have seen that coming! Thanks for explaining.
Summary: Fred loses this argument because he called someone an English teacher. Whooooooo …
Absolutely shameless. Marketing of useless consumer products in the supposed aim of a noble idea, while pandering to populist posturing over pandas and polar bears to generate income to fund $70,000 plus average salaries and $470,000 for the CEO, while claiming to care? How exactly does flooding the world with stuffed animals help to save the polar bear?
[quote]With your adoption you will receive a plush polar bear (7") and matching tote (9-1/2" W x 6-3/4" D x 15-3/4" H). Reusable tote is made from 30-50% recycled material. Adoption kit also includes an adoption certificate, polar bear photo and brochure.
Help WWF’s global conservation efforts.
Select Monthly Gift Amount:
Gift amount is required.
$20 $15 $10 $8* $5 Other * Making a monthly donation of at least $8 entitles you to a free gift[/quote]
Au contraire. Not a commie conspiracy in the least but a strangely capitalist market-oriented approach that would seem to put paid to the “selfless” “anti-market” “anticonsumerist” message that the bien pensant sell the rest of us. Therein lies the irony but… I am not surprised that you of all people failed to get that… by the way, have you already bought one? and have you proudly framed your adoption certificate? Ah… you have, haven’t you? and who would have seen that coming… certainly not I!
.