wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Why should anyone who works for an non profit arts organization, no matter how big, earn more than the president of the united states? Also, Why is it assumed that very wealthy donors will only give to organizations with equally sophisticated and wealthy people at the top - it's a form of elitism and maintaining a tight lock on the upper crust status quo.

Anna

Oh Ed and Anton, you beat me to it. I should just pull the plug on WNYC entirely, but we like getting the weather in the mornings.

Voter from Brooklyn. This article is about non-profit jobs, which are in the same camp as public sector. It is you who is mixing apples and oranges by seeing equivalence between the private sector and non-for-profit sectors.

The heads of the BBC, OXFAM, Director of the British Museum are directly comparable with the heads of The Met, Lincoln Center etc.

My addition of the state sector jobs illustrates that you can find highly skilled people at those wages - even more so when the status of the job is high (that means more to most people than a lot of cash) I realise they are in a different sector, but last time I looked, they live in the same world.

I have no problem with people earning a lot of money - in an uncorrupted free market. The heads of these organisations in NY are being paid way over the norm, internationally, there are few good ways of proving that they earn this money, and they are paying themselves from donations, not profits. Moreover, if you look at the turnover of these institutions & compare with private sector companies, I'll think you'll find they are being paid a far higher rate (relative to the financial size of the organisation). For example, the Lincoln centre, is paying over 1% of their turnover to the boss - that seems extremely generous to me when compared with private sector organistions.

The bottom line is that there are large amounts of donated cash washing around those institutions, and it is just too easy, in today's greed is good culture, for the exec's to tap that cash & produce a few cliches to justify it.

Dominic from NY,
Those are almost all public sector jobs or positions with state owned companies… It’s pitting private sector against public… apples to oranges. One is a religious organization with billions if not trillions in global holdings and what is in effect a king living an ultra-lavish lifestyle.
Private practice lawyers arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court get paid more than the Justices. Married public sector 20 year NYC teachers could potentially make half of what the most powerful person on the planet does; a neurosurgeon probably makes more. Someone who plays with balls for a living, reads a teleprompter or picks the right series of numbers makes several times more than the president. Who actually earns their salary in your opinion, yourself excluded?

Cynthia from LI,
Wrongly or rightly the US has opted for a meritocracy over… I guess fascism would be the best antipode. Comments seem to suppose executive level jobs are all cakewalks. Let’s be honest here, if you mess up as director of a multi-million dollar not-for-profit it has greater consequences than visiting services staff. No one sues visiting services staff, trashes them on blogs, drags them in front of congress or perp-walks them in front of the media, they just get fired. The only way to satisfy some of the commenters above would be if executives were volunteers or working for a dollar a year like Bloomberg, and they’d still get criticized for being a “rich executive” who’s able to volunteer their time and not just another staff member.

US President $400,000

OXFAM CEO (around $160,0000 - charity turnover around $370 million)

The Pope (Nil -but payment in kind is, I guess a few hundred thousand)

BBC Director - $1 million, annual turnover $7 billion.

Director of the British Museum - $190,000.

Supreme Court Judge - $210,000

Top Level General/Admiral - $180,000

Listen "Voter from Brooklyn", no one is saying these people shouldn't be well compensated for their time. However, when there is such a gross disparity between the Executive salary and the next level of staff, let alone the entry-level, there's a problem.

Furthermore, who is to say the millionaire director will do a better job than someone who is willing to work for 100K? What makes you think these compensation packages are based on talent anyway? Non-profits aren't immune to the same nepotism that is so pervasive in the rest of society.

Peter from NYC area and Nick from Brooklyn,

Are you equating the education, skill sets, hours, and necessary commitment to an organization of visitor services or bookstore staff to that of a director? What do you think is fair compensation, or should executive level labor be one of love or charity when working for a not-for-profit?

What is it worth to you to have the world’s top singers/orchestras/conductors perform in NYC? What is it worth to you to see exhibitions of an artist’s or a movements works assembled from dozens of museums and private collections worldwide? What are improvements in infrastructure worth to you? Apparently little to nothing.

If all salaries were public (public and private sector), I’m sure nearly everyone would think everyone is overpaid… that is, except for themselves.

I second that Marisa - These jobs are peaches; the institutions have a lot of pulling power, and they should use it, for example by getting candidates to competitively bid for the top jobs (including salary). Saying that you would only do the job for a whole heap of money rather suggests that you heart is not really in it.

I am very disappointed that no resistance to these high salaries was put forward. This isn't Fox, Come on WNYC! I know of heads of publishing houses, hospitals, international charities, politicians, whose jobs are every bit as complicated (I'd guess a lot more complicated)than those mentioned on this program, managing bigger budgets, doing more essential work,& often for profit...who earn much less.

This is nothing short of institutionalised cultural corruption of a similar strain living on Wall Street.

KP from NJ,
There’s another, but less popular way to look at it. If a director, president, or CEO generates through fundraising tens or hundreds of millions for a not-for-profit or brings blockbuster performances, exhibits, or what have you to an organization, should they not be compensated?
When someone is directly responsible (not for running the day to day as you imply doctors do--which many argue are over compensated mind you) for the financial health of a not-for-profit , is that not something of value more than the ticket takers, gift shop managers, or art handlers?

Very tragic that Charleston - home of Spoleto and an island-like cultural center of the South, canceled their 2010 symphony series. I had not heard that and had to do some quick web surfing to see what was up! This is sad.

Thanks to one caller for mentioning staff morale. I was on strike at MoMA several years ago now. One of the issues was the museum refused to pay more than $17,000 to visitor services and bookstore staff. Meanwhile, the museum was amid an $800 million capital campaign drive. I don't know director Glenn Lowry's salary at the time, but it must have been in the neighborhood of $1 million, if it is $2 million now. He, someone at the meeting reported, had the gall to tell management and staff that had crossed the picket line, at an "all-staff" meeting," that his son could live on $17,000 a year. Gee, it's probably a little easier if your father is making a million or more...

The attitude from trustees and top administration at art museums toward the staff—many with advanced degrees and many of whom put in long hours to meet exhibition deadlines—is that you are working at one of the top institutions in the world, what do you need a real paycheck to live on for? Somehow this doesn't seem to apply to the top tier of staff.

I regret not to have tuned in earlier than I did to add a kind of "Physician heal thyself" comment. Laura Walker, head of WNYC, earns just shy of half a million dollars per year. After many years of annually subscribing and paying well above the minimum, I have stopped. I do not want to subsidize what I consider an unconscionable amount while lower staffers earn much less or even get laid off. Sorry WNYC is not Kmart.

These people have some of the most extraordinarily fulfilling--and yes, frustrating and challenging--jobs in the world. But most people in the arts would give their eyeteeth and possibly their first born to have them. No one who is dedicated to the arts should earn that much when their underlings, who are ALSO critical to the success of the company, don't earn nearly that much. I am shocked to hear you all be apologists for these talented people. Yes they are talented, but the job should be it's own reward.

A mediocre 2nd baseman has a much shorter career than the Director of a major arts organization.

Regarding Peter Gelb's salary "cut" ... it's actually more like a 30% increase. The Met's 990 Form for 2006 shows a salary for Gelb of $1,000,002. He got a 50% increase over that in the subsequent year. It would be great if this could be reported in the press, rather than just covering any minor decrease in that huge some that Gelb accepted, presumably as window dressing.

Both guests seem to be apologists for the executives and their high salaries - suggesting that the complexity of the executive's work explains the enormous compensation. No job is complex enough to deserve millions of dollars annually.

It seem the board of directors at many of these organizations are comprised of very people in the for-profit sector with even more over-blown salaries, bonuses, and misconceptions about what constitutes reasonable pay.

Seriously. Your guest makes it sound like 300K-500K is a pittance. We're talking about non-profits here!

Arts funding is a small part of most gov/ corporate groups.. for example 1% for the arts.

My question is: If we all agree that relatively small amounts of money are put aside for the arts and that their are much larger budgets (ridiculously larger) for things such as prisons. Then why to the govs/corps always look at these small budgets first as a posed to looking for "real savings" else where?

I'm a doctor, I have a "different skill" set that does not return millions per year. This is all part of the wall street problem - that we now outsize and overcompensate the folks at the top and ignore those of us who actually do the work...

The having to keep salaries high in order to remain competitive doesn't wash. It's not the same as Wall Street. People don't go into the Arts to earn high salaries.

The fact is no one NEEDS to make millions of dollars a year.

Is WNYC a nonprofit arts institution? It is at minimum a nonprofit cultural institution. I was aghast when I found out that the compensation package for WNYC's president, Laura Walker, received a compensation package that topped out at $500,000, as per a 2008 IRS filing. I did not renew my 12 year old WNYC membership during the February pledge drive, as is my usual habit.