Anyone know how much the worker drones get for their efforts these days?
I got stopped a few times lately and asked to supply them with £10 a month. When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought £5.00 better than a demand to eff off. But no.
I told him that his bosses must be on good money to be so choosy. So how does their remuneration scheme work?

Weatherlawyer wrote:

So how does their remuneration scheme work?

Last time I had one at the door signing up for the RSPCA, the first two
years worth of donations went to the company signing up the donors, then
after that it went to the charity ...

On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:13:38 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Anyone know how much the worker drones get for their efforts these days?
I got stopped a few times lately and asked to supply them with £10 a month. When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought £5.00 better than a demand to eff off. But no.
I told him that his bosses must be on good money to be so choosy. So how does their remuneration scheme work?

the collector gets something like the first year's donations


NT

When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought
£5.00 better than a demand to eff off.

you SPOKE to a chugger !!!!

On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:19:17 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

So how does their remuneration scheme work?

Last time I had one at the door signing up for the RSPCA, the first two
years worth of donations went to the company signing up the donors, then
after that it went to the charity ...

Bloody hell! I was feeling guilty for feeling self satisfied about hitting the get out of charity free card. That is one hell of a lot of dough but even so I doubt the actual canvasser sees much of that. I'm actually beginning to feel angry at the arm wrestling that goes on with the damned beggars these days.

Ever read diary of a supertramp?

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:33:39 +0100, Jim at the Common Riding wrote:

When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought
£5.00 better than a demand to eff off.

you SPOKE to a chugger !!!!

I refuse to give to these large, organised charities any more. They've
become an outright racket IMV.

On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:49:56 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:19:17 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

So how does their remuneration scheme work?

Last time I had one at the door signing up for the RSPCA, the first two
years worth of donations went to the company signing up the donors, then
after that it went to the charity ...

Bloody hell! I was feeling guilty for feeling self satisfied about hitting the get out of charity free card. That is one hell of a lot of dough but even so I doubt the actual canvasser sees much of that. I'm actually beginning to feel angry at the arm wrestling that goes on with the damned beggars these days.

The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done. If only the best of both could be had somehow.

Its not normally 2 years btw.


NT

No, but one of the problems that has put me off charity giving is the way so
many people are on the take. Take Nepal, for example. There are still
officials over their creaming money off the top of all the aid in exchange
for allowing help to be given.

Corruption at Fifa is nothing until you attempt to send money to aid people
abroad. Those people are parasites making money from others suffering in my
view. The lady I used to know, she died, worked for Tear fund in
Afghanistan, and said the factions out there, were all on the take at the
expense of the poor and downtrodden masses.
No wonder you can never help such countries.

As for this country, I find the attitude to legacies very irritating they
will accept houses when you die, as long as there are no strings attached.
They prefer the money, and certainly do not want the hassle of selling
valuable collections unless they are worth over a million due to the admin.

If that was so, how come they can run charity shops?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
wrote in message
...
On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:49:56 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:19:17 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

So how does their remuneration scheme work?

Last time I had one at the door signing up for the RSPCA, the first two
years worth of donations went to the company signing up the donors, then
after that it went to the charity ...

Bloody hell! I was feeling guilty for feeling self satisfied about hitting
the get out of charity free card. That is one hell of a lot of dough but
even so I doubt the actual canvasser sees much of that. I'm actually
beginning to feel angry at the arm wrestling that goes on with the damned
beggars these days.

The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done. If only the best of both could be had somehow.

Its not normally 2 years btw.


NT

In article , Brian-Gaff
wrote:
No, but one of the problems that has put me off charity giving is the way
so many people are on the take. Take Nepal, for example. There are still
officials over their creaming money off the top of all the aid in
exchange for allowing help to be given.

Corruption at Fifa is nothing until you attempt to send money to aid
people abroad. Those people are parasites making money from others
suffering in my view. The lady I used to know, she died, worked for Tear
fund in Afghanistan, and said the factions out there, were all on the
take at the expense of the poor and downtrodden masses. No wonder you
can never help such countries.

As for this country, I find the attitude to legacies very irritating they
will accept houses when you die, as long as there are no strings
attached. They prefer the money, and certainly do not want the hassle of
selling valuable collections unless they are worth over a million due to
the admin.

If that was so, how come they can run charity shops?

Perhaps because they use volunteer labour.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

You only need to tune in to Really at around tea time, and you see these
heart rending please for money by texting, or direct debits etc.
Save the children, Oxfam, Rspca, Sense ( formally deaf blind uk)

The listgoes on.
I think I prefer the angle used by Macmillan etc, where they try to
mobillise people to raise money rather than blackmailing the weak willed by
sob stories.
One thing that seems to be a problem in other countries apart from the
corruption is the poor research. for example, when I was young Blue Peter
used to be involved with projects to bring water and sanitation to
villiages in Africa etc. However many of these schemes have either follen
into disrepair, or were built in the wong places as the pleas are now goign
out to build them again.
Do the people there not look after their gifts, is it the result of all the
stupid wars that displace people, or was the place not correct in the first
instance? A while ago i used to donate to Send a cow, but I saw a program
about what the locals did with the animals and in effect wasted the ongoing
wealth they provided for short term gain.
Before you start providing aid, you need to educate the people about
management, otherwise its a bottomless pit.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:33:39 +0100, Jim at the Common Riding wrote:

When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought
£5.00 better than a demand to eff off.

you SPOKE to a chugger !!!!

I refuse to give to these large, organised charities any more. They've
become an outright racket IMV.

I'm sure you know this, but many charities try to steer clear of these
pitfalls. I am a trustee of a local charity for the blind. We are in a loose
affiliation with the Greater London Fund for the blind, but when we collect,
on their behalf all the money goes to the local organisation. We do have
some part time paid workers, but much of what we do is using volunteers.
The problem we see looming is the way the councils are just farming out
what used to be paid jobs to organisations such as ourselves, in order to
save money. This should not be the way things are done. We are turning the
clock back.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Jim at the Common Riding" wrote in message
...

When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would have thought
£5.00 better than a demand to eff off.

you SPOKE to a chugger !!!!

On 05/06/2015 23:57, wrote:
....
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Brian-Gaff wrote:
I'm sure you know this, but many charities try to steer clear of these
pitfalls. I am a trustee of a local charity for the blind. We are in a
loose affiliation with the Greater London Fund for the blind, but when we
collect, on their behalf all the money goes to the local organisation. We
do have some part time paid workers, but much of what we do is using
volunteers. The problem we see looming is the way the councils are just
farming out what used to be paid jobs to organisations such as
ourselves, in order to save money. This should not be the way things are
done. We are turning the clock back.

and the "in order to save money" is because the central government grants
have been reduced.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

One thing that seems to be a problem in other countries apart from the
corruption is the poor research. for example, when I was young Blue Peter
used to be involved with projects to bring water and sanitation to
villiages in Africa etc. However many of these schemes have either follen
into disrepair, or were built in the wong places as the pleas are now
goign out to build them again.
Do the people there not look after their gifts, is it the result of all
the stupid wars that displace people, or was the place not correct in the
first instance? A while ago i used to donate to Send a cow, but I saw a
program about what the locals did with the animals and in effect wasted
the ongoing wealth they provided for short term gain.
Before you start providing aid, you need to educate the people about
management, otherwise its a bottomless pit.
Brian


don't worry they are all floating to Europe for us to look after ...

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

--
Colin Bignell

Brian-Gaff posted
I'm sure you know this, but many charities try to steer clear of these
pitfalls. I am a trustee of a local charity for the blind. We are in a loose
affiliation with the Greater London Fund for the blind, but when we collect,
on their behalf all the money goes to the local organisation. We do have
some part time paid workers, but much of what we do is using volunteers.
The problem we see looming is the way the councils are just farming out
what used to be paid jobs to organisations such as ourselves, in order to
save money. This should not be the way things are done. We are turning the
clock back.

It depends on what your charity actually does. Just because a charity
does certain things to help a disadvantaged group, doesn't necessarily
mean it should be fully funded out of taxation.

--
Les

In article ,
wrote:
On Friday, 5 June 2015 20:13:38 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Anyone know how much the worker drones get for their efforts these
days? I got stopped a few times lately and asked to supply them with
£10 a month. When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I
would have thought £5.00 better than a demand to eff off. But no. I
told him that his bosses must be on good money to be so choosy. So how
does their remuneration scheme work?

the collector gets something like the first year's donations

If that's true, it's another reason to ignore them.

I'd guessed they were volunteers, so am usually polite.

If they are all just salesmen on commission, explains why they are so
pushy.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Big Les Wade
wrote:
Brian-Gaff posted
I'm sure you know this, but many charities try to steer clear of these
pitfalls. I am a trustee of a local charity for the blind. We are in a
loose affiliation with the Greater London Fund for the blind, but when
we collect, on their behalf all the money goes to the local
organisation. We do have some part time paid workers, but much of what
we do is using volunteers. The problem we see looming is the way the
councils are just farming out what used to be paid jobs to
organisations such as ourselves, in order to save money. This should not
be the way things are done. We are turning the clock back.

It depends on what your charity actually does. Just because a charity
does certain things to help a disadvantaged group, doesn't necessarily
mean it should be fully funded out of taxation.

You've got that the wrong way round. Charities are now having to do work
that used to funded out of taxation.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 06/06/2015 11:04, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

There are two ways of looking at that though. People often feel uneasy
when not all the money collected goes to the charity. However the better
fund raising companies will be able to take what is donated, and spend
it on bigger higher profile events and promotions, that in turn drag in
far more money than the sum raised in the first place. Of that they will
take a sizeable cut of the profits.

So you may end up with a situation where you could have 100% of
donations (say £5k), or let the fund raisers speculate with the money,
and say generate £20k - of which they take £10k and you take £10K.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:43:30 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable.

less money = less work.


NT

Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:32 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

anything can be done on a small scale with volunteers. Scale it up 100x and you don't get the volunteers.


NT

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Big Les Wade
wrote:
Brian-Gaff posted
I'm sure you know this, but many charities try to steer clear of these
pitfalls. I am a trustee of a local charity for the blind. We are in a
loose affiliation with the Greater London Fund for the blind, but when
we collect, on their behalf all the money goes to the local
organisation. We do have some part time paid workers, but much of what
we do is using volunteers. The problem we see looming is the way the
councils are just farming out what used to be paid jobs to
organisations such as ourselves, in order to save money. This should not
be the way things are done. We are turning the clock back.

It depends on what your charity actually does. Just because a charity
does certain things to help a disadvantaged group, doesn't necessarily
mean it should be fully funded out of taxation.

You've got that the wrong way round. Charities are now having to do work
that used to funded out of taxation.

and more to the point, rightly ought to be (funded out of taxation)

tim

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:

I refuse to give to these large, organised charities any more. They've
become an outright racket IMV.

+1

I do give spasmodically to charities such as Oxfam and Wateraid, as
being well established charities via whom I can reasonably expect some
of my money to be channelled to the projects that they say they carry
out.

I refuse point blank to be stopped by chuggers, refuse ALL callers at
the door, bin all circulars without opening them, and also try to refuse
"Gift Aid" wherever it's attempted to be harvested (*every* bugger is at
it now!), on the principle that I pay my taxes to support my country's
infrastructure, not to be siphoned off by the clever t**ts who advise
and/or run commercial charities.

Most of my charity giving these days goes to the local hospice, or
similar local charities in towns that I visit.

John

On 06/06/2015 13:35, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:32 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

anything can be done on a small scale with volunteers. Scale it up 100x and you don't get the volunteers.

The RNLI is the seventh largest charity in the UK.


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/06/2015 13:33, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:43:30 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable.

less money = less work.

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.
The collection companies are only legally required to hand over 10% of
what they take to the charities.


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/06/2015 13:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 06/06/2015 11:04, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good
work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

There are two ways of looking at that though. People often feel uneasy
when not all the money collected goes to the charity. However the better
fund raising companies will be able to take what is donated, and spend
it on bigger higher profile events and promotions, that in turn drag in
far more money than the sum raised in the first place. Of that they will
take a sizeable cut of the profits.

Why can't the fund raising manager of the charity do the same?

So you may end up with a situation where you could have 100% of
donations (say £5k), or let the fund raisers speculate with the money,
and say generate £20k - of which they take £10k and you take £10K.

Except that they are only legally bound to pass on £2k of that £20k.

The main advantage of the collection companies is that they guarantee
the charity a minimum income, which makes budgeting much easier.

--
Colin Bignell

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:14:11 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:35, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:32 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

anything can be done on a small scale with volunteers. Scale it up 100x and you don't get the volunteers.

The RNLI is the seventh largest charity in the UK.

And all UK charities is far larger than just the 7th.

In the end its really down to the potential donor to fund out what they're funding, and decide accordingly.


NT

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:16:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:33, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:43:30 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable.

less money = less work.

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

The collection companies are only legally required to hand over 10% of
what they take to the charities.

They're legally obliged to hand over whatever their contract with the charity says. It usually amounts to far more than 10%.


NT

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:31:03 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:12, John Rumm wrote:
On 06/06/2015 11:04, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good
work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

There are two ways of looking at that though. People often feel uneasy
when not all the money collected goes to the charity. However the better
fund raising companies will be able to take what is donated, and spend
it on bigger higher profile events and promotions, that in turn drag in
far more money than the sum raised in the first place. Of that they will
take a sizeable cut of the profits.

Why can't the fund raising manager of the charity do the same?

If they're in a position to do so, they do. Many aren't. Its not exactly a trivial task to get collecting teams out.

So you may end up with a situation where you could have 100% of
donations (say £5k), or let the fund raisers speculate with the money,
and say generate £20k - of which they take £10k and you take £10K..

Except that they are only legally bound to pass on £2k of that £20k.

usually untrue.

The main advantage of the collection companies is that they guarantee
the charity a minimum income, which makes budgeting much easier.


NT

On 06/06/15 15:16, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.
The collection companies are only legally required to hand over 10% of
what they take to the charities.



That should be absolutely outlawed. In fact all chugging should be.

It's got beyond saturation - my walk between Charing X station and Drury
lane will typically, no matter what route I take, pass:

1) About 2-3 dozen tramps (as in actually sitting on the pavement) -
about 1/3 -1/2 are winos actively engaged in drinking;

2) 5+ Big Issue vendors some of who really try to get in your face;

3) 5-10 chuggers under the banner of 2-3 charities;

4) 0-5 volunteer charity collectors with tins or buckets - usually
military related

5) 4-10 people trying to shove crap in my face, mostly the JWs.

I'm not a mean person but it just ****ed me off having people
metaphorically poking me every day. I ignore the lot and occasionally
give a quid or two to a tramp who's not obviously drinking.

I usually give a few quid to anyone in 4) as they turn up about twice a
week at the station and are often students doing a drive for some
medical charity.

If you lost 2,3 and 5 I'd be a lot better disposed to the rest.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:42:00 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

Indeed.

If the charities could easily raise more money, why aren't they doing it?

On 06/06/2015 15:44, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:31:03 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:12, John Rumm wrote:
....
So you may end up with a situation where you could have 100% of
donations (say £5k), or let the fund raisers speculate with the money,
and say generate £20k - of which they take £10k and you take £10K.

Except that they are only legally bound to pass on £2k of that £20k.

usually untrue.

When does the law, rather than any commercial contract they may enter
into with a charity, require them to give more, or perhaps you mean less?


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/06/2015 15:52, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:42:00 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

Indeed.

If the charities could easily raise more money, why aren't they doing it?


I never suggested it was easy, but, as I mentioned in another post, the
main advantage of the collection companies is that they guarantee the
charities a minimum income, which makes budgeting much simpler.

--
Colin Bignell

On 06/06/2015 15:42, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:16:15 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:33, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 10:43:30 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work done...

That is debatable.

less money = less work.

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

The collection companies are only legally required to hand over 10% of
what they take to the charities.

They're legally obliged to hand over whatever their contract with the charity says.

They can be sued for breach of contract if they fail to do so, which is
not quite the same as being bound by statute.

It usually amounts to far more than 10%.

It may do if the charity has enough clout to negotiate a contract that
gives better than the legal minimum. However, the fund raisers for small
charities that I have spoken to have never been able to get offered
better than the legal minimum.

You seem remarkably ready to defend the collection companies. Do you
work for one?

--
Colin Bignell

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...


Big Issue vendors some of who really try to get in your face;

When did selling the Big Issue become a career choice?

--
Adam

On 06/06/2015 15:39, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:14:11 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:35, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:32 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

anything can be done on a small scale with volunteers. Scale it up 100x and you don't get the volunteers.

The RNLI is the seventh largest charity in the UK.

And all UK charities is far larger than just the 7th.

Your claim was that you couldn't get volunteers except when working on a
small scale. Were that true then it should affect the RNLI, but it doesn't.


--
Colin Bignell

In message , Jonno
writes
Weatherlawyer scribbled


Anyone know how much the worker drones get for their efforts these days?
I got stopped a few times lately and asked to supply them with £10 a
month. When I suggested a fiver a month he turned me down. I would
have thought £5.00 better than a demand to eff off. But no.
I told him that his bosses must be on good money to be so choosy. So
how does their remuneration scheme work?


I've had charity clothing collection bags delivered here for years. How
much do the charities receive from those? How many are legit?


On top of how many are legit, how many of the bags for charity x are
collected on behalf of charity x, rather than by a group doing the
rounds and stealing the bags before the official collectors pick them
up.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 06/06/2015 15:39, wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 15:14:11 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 13:35, nt wrote:
On Saturday, 6 June 2015 11:04:32 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/06/2015 10:47, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 05/06/2015 23:57, nt wrote:
...
The flipside is that without all that there would be far less good
work
done...

That is debatable. Have you ever seen them collecting for the RNLI?


I haven't, but the RNLI do have flag days.


Indeed, but the collectors are RNLI volunteers and supporters, not
employees of professional collecting companies. All the money donated
goes straight to the RNLI.

anything can be done on a small scale with volunteers. Scale it up 100x
and you don't get the volunteers.

The RNLI is the seventh largest charity in the UK.

And all UK charities is far larger than just the 7th.

Your claim was that you couldn't get volunteers except when working on a
small scale. Were that true then it should affect the RNLI, but it
doesn't.

And the Salvos have always done well on a large scale using volunteers.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 07:42:00 -0700, tabbypurr wrote:

The debatable bit is whether the charities actually get more money by
employing collection companies or by doing the collections themselves.

That's not hard to answer

Indeed.

If the charities could easily raise more money, why aren't they doing it?

Because some of them dont have the same ready access to volunteers.