For a $2.5 billion company? What are they supposed to make? $100k? Geez

^^ was my point

get what you pay for in leadership of a company of that size

Edit: was $2,974,000,000 last year. 30,000 employees

That's very nice of you.

I'd say find a local church that is headed that way and give them the money. That's your best chance at the money actually helping folks in need.

If that was a Fortune 500 company, that CEO would be making 10x that, easy.

So, what you're saying is that the British are wrong. Sounds about right.

X2.

Pretty good link for most all charities.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

I had a great uncle who was a island hopping Marine and he swears they were charging for coffee and donuts when they got to a rest station after getting off Iwo Jima. After hearing him gripe for 40 years I've never given them a dime.

Things are going great on the page. Getting a lot of bids. I've also had a few other donate some items to be auctioned off. I wanted to let anyone know if they are interested in donating an item to be auctioned off let me know. Thanks

You might give Operation BBQ Relief a look. They're in Houston right now serving hot meals to families and first responders. They served over 300,000 meals in 13 days last year in Louisiana. They're all volunteers and I don't think anyone is paid a salary. www.operationbbqrelief.org

This is why most of us don't think the CEO of Charities should be making crazy salaries.

The relationship between the American Red Cross and the federal government is unique. We are an independent entity that is organized and exists as a nonprofit, tax-exempt, charitable institution pursuant to a charter granted to us by the United States Congress.

CEO's of regular companies have to show a profit while jumping thru the loop of Gov't regulations. Those people deserve the big pay checks. They earn money for stock holders and pay salaries.
Its different when the Red Cross gets tax breaks and only survives on donations. People give to help others in need, not to make the CEO a fat cat.

This was who I was going to recommend as well. I've donated many times to these guys (and gals). It all started 12 years ago when Katrina hit NO. A group of part time pit masters pooled their resources and it just took off from there. Anyone who is hungry is not turned away. And it is some of the best Q you have ever put in your mouth.

You couldn't pay me 7 figures to run a blood bank, I don't give a frak if it's a charity, regulations are the same. The accreditation paperwork would make me swallow a hollow point.

In 2004 I lost my house in Hurricane Ivan. When the dust settled the Red Cross was quickly the first on the scene with ice, water, and food. By the time the others showed up, we were good.

It's a free country, you can say what you want about the Red Cross, but my son was a volunteer for them when the tornado went through Tuscaloosa. For what they (Red Cross and its volunteers) could do, they did a damn good job for the community, their efforts began IMMEDIATELY after the tornado left the area.

Before you call anyone ignorant consider this.

The Salvation Army typically spends 82% of donations on aid. But during disasters, it draws from its budget so it can direct 100% at relief efforts.

ProPublica have been examining the Red Crosse's flawed efforts to provide disaster services in two of the last major hurricanes to hit the United States. The charity's own documents suggest it put the appearance of serving victims ahead of actually helping them.
In this case, the problem with the number stems from its own tax documents. In recent years, fundraising expenses have been as high as 26 percent compared with what people donated. That doesn't even include management and overhead. Instead of 91 percent of people's money going to services, the real number could be in the 70s, or lower.