Big charities are big business, and they would argue that, to get the money in and meet their charitable objectives, they need high performers who require appropriate levels of reward. I don't entirely buy this - there are lots of people out there for whom the job that they do is more important than a massive salary - but, substantial though they are, the salaries that you quote above would be modest for the CEO of a commercial company with an equivalent turnover.
For some years, I was a Trustee and Non-Executive Director (unpaid
) of a small charity that provided training and education for the Publishing Industry. The salaries paid to the two senior members of staff were extremely modest and it always amazed me that, when we were trying to recruit replacements into these roles, we were always able to find high-calibre candidates in spite of the money on offer.
However, I'm under no illusions about the extent to which some charities spend money on fancy salaries and other fripperies;
for example, the RNLI came under a lot of flak some years back, for building a lavish new Headquarters in Poole. As a keen sailor, I am always glad that if I get into trouble at sea there will be a dedicated and unpaid volunteer lifeboat crew who are prepared to put to sea whatever the weather, to save my sorry ass: I'm not so enthusiastic about the fact that their (paid) bosses are ensconced in luxury back on dry land.
But what if the RNLI didn't exist, or collapsed in chaos because of a lack of leadership and fundraising? People who work for charities still need to pay a mortgage, feed their kids and have an occasional holiday. It's all quite difficult.
Big charities are big business, and they would argue that, to get the money in and meet their charitable objectives, they need high performers who require appropriate levels of reward. I don't entirely buy this - there are lots of people out there for whom the job that they do is more important than a massive salary - but, substantial though they are, the salaries that you quote above would be modest for the CEO of a commercial company with an equivalent turnover.