9th October 2008, 12:09 PM
sorry to start this one off and then disappear, been busy.
red earth said:
"Indeed, I'm not having a go at companies that are charities, honestly. What I would say, which is what has already been said, is that such mems and arts were written before the PPGs even existed and so it is questionable how easily they can be applied. Also the notion that a company operating out of 'Borsetshire' for the benefit of Borsetshire can tweak its mems and arts to then include anywhere else seems a bit cheeky. The point still remains - aim A is education, and yet this arguably in some cases takes a back seat to serious commerce."
I agree, I'm not saying they aren't properly and technically charities, just that it seems an anachronism that could possibly distort the market if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.
Not all charitable units have actually changed their geographical areas in their remit, but some still work outside their stated areas ocasionally, but cannot set up offices there. I imagine they are absolutely allowed to under some wording or other, but the trustees won't let them push it on a permanent basis as they don't want to change/dilute, their purpose.
re charity shops, these often get cheaper rents and rates, as councils prefer charity shops to empty shops in town centres, and many shops do object as the use of volunteers and the proportion of 'free' stock does distort competition. But at least in archaeology we don't have units using volunteers to undercut competitors anymore eh! Many large (non-arch) charities are very aggressive, and some will say their size means they have to be, as BAJR Host said on a previous topic, you have to feed the beast. Small charities often complain of the grip of the big few on the 'giving' market, but maybe they should be swallowed up or their 'niche' is unnecessary. My partner once worked for a major charity, who then took on a govt. contract to run outreach services, it caused huge problems internally as the employees wanted to do things for the 'clients', but the charity had to fulfil their contract with the Home Office. The charity said 'better we do it as we care, rather than <insert security company name here>, who don't'care, it all ended up with the charity side being subsumed to the commercial side, although they did still did a lot of work and lobbying. It changed the ethos of the charity, and a lot of people left. I suppose its all about a balance.
re a unit set up as an educational charity not having to invest in educating its staff, well maybe they don't have to, but it would be nice, no-one else is going to, and if they don't, how do those staff educate the public?
red earth said:
"Indeed, I'm not having a go at companies that are charities, honestly. What I would say, which is what has already been said, is that such mems and arts were written before the PPGs even existed and so it is questionable how easily they can be applied. Also the notion that a company operating out of 'Borsetshire' for the benefit of Borsetshire can tweak its mems and arts to then include anywhere else seems a bit cheeky. The point still remains - aim A is education, and yet this arguably in some cases takes a back seat to serious commerce."
I agree, I'm not saying they aren't properly and technically charities, just that it seems an anachronism that could possibly distort the market if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.
Not all charitable units have actually changed their geographical areas in their remit, but some still work outside their stated areas ocasionally, but cannot set up offices there. I imagine they are absolutely allowed to under some wording or other, but the trustees won't let them push it on a permanent basis as they don't want to change/dilute, their purpose.
re charity shops, these often get cheaper rents and rates, as councils prefer charity shops to empty shops in town centres, and many shops do object as the use of volunteers and the proportion of 'free' stock does distort competition. But at least in archaeology we don't have units using volunteers to undercut competitors anymore eh! Many large (non-arch) charities are very aggressive, and some will say their size means they have to be, as BAJR Host said on a previous topic, you have to feed the beast. Small charities often complain of the grip of the big few on the 'giving' market, but maybe they should be swallowed up or their 'niche' is unnecessary. My partner once worked for a major charity, who then took on a govt. contract to run outreach services, it caused huge problems internally as the employees wanted to do things for the 'clients', but the charity had to fulfil their contract with the Home Office. The charity said 'better we do it as we care, rather than <insert security company name here>, who don't'care, it all ended up with the charity side being subsumed to the commercial side, although they did still did a lot of work and lobbying. It changed the ethos of the charity, and a lot of people left. I suppose its all about a balance.
re a unit set up as an educational charity not having to invest in educating its staff, well maybe they don't have to, but it would be nice, no-one else is going to, and if they don't, how do those staff educate the public?