• shane@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    You’re asking people working for the non-profit to accept lower pay of tens of thousands of dollars? So basically because someone doesn’t make a personal sacrifice of a significant fraction of their salary you’re not willing to help at all?

    I don’t like or accept this logic.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Now I wonder, because both 999k and 100k are six figure sums, and one of them I find much more reasonable than the other.

      But yeah, running a non-profit often takes money instead of earning you money, and if they have spare money to pay salary to the CEO, maybe they’re all right

      • bobgobbler@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That’s not what being a non profit means… they are allowed to make a “profit,” and pay for their liabilities. They just must reinvest them back into the business.

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I’m not sure that not having anyone on salary is part of that deal. Or if you were referring to the part where I said about salary being negative, that’s from experience, a couple of directors of a non-profit I know had to donate their salary and add on top of it when times were rough (in that organisation it was pretty often). Large non-profits probably don’t have that issue