As Layoffs Mount, Which Jewish Executives Shared the Pain?
Only a Minority Took Pay Cuts When Employees Lost Their Jobs
By Anthony Weiss
A tide of red ink is coursing through the hallways and balance sheets of Jewish charitable organizations, leaving slashed programs, reduced allocations and large staff layoffs in its wake. But in the current economic and financial meltdown, the suites of top executives have in many cases stood on high ground, beyond the reach of the crimson lapping below.
The Forward surveyed 21 of the largest and most prominent Jewish organizations that have implemented layoffs over the past year in response to the economic downturn. Of those, only nine top executives revealed that they had taken a reduction in their own pay, and only seven were willing to specify how much of a cut they had taken. Another 10 said that they have not taken a pay cut, and three others declined to reply.
There was no consistent pattern to who had and had not taken a pay cut. Those who did, and those who did not, take salary cuts included some of the lowest and highest earners; nor was there any apparent relationship between salary cuts and the number of layoffs.
Rather, based on a series of interviews, the dividing line appeared to be philosophical rather than numerical. Those who did take pay cuts emphasized that they thought it was an important step to show leadership, or, as a number of executives put it, to share the pain.
“I just think it’s fair,” said Barry Shrage, president of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, who took pay cuts and furloughs totaling 7% of his salary, which in 2006-07 was $306,390. “People are looking to those who are supposed to be leaders to do their share.”
Shrage recently laid off nine of his 125 employees — about 7% of his staff — in response to declining revenues and endowment funds.
“It’s not that it made it easier, but I think it would have been a lot harder to accept on the part of the agencies and everybody else if we weren’t doing our share,” Shrage said of the layoffs. “I think people would have been wondering where the leadership is.”
To compile data for this survey, the Forward culled compensation information from federal IRS-990 tax forms, which charities must publish for public inspection. The figures come from 2007, the most recent year broadly available, which documents the 2006–07 tax year. The accompanying data chart includes only base salaries and excludes executive benefit packages, which can be substantial but can vary widely in category and kind, making comparisons difficult.
To download this chart, please click here
The information on employment numbers, layoffs and salary reductions was gathered from the organizations themselves, or, when the organizations declined to provide the information, from published reports. Layoff numbers date to the beginning of June 2008.
(In the interest of full disclosure, the Forward Association, which publishes this newspaper, has laid off one full-time and two part-time employees over the past year, leaving 39 full-time and four part-time staffers. Top earners at the Forward are taking pay cuts of 10% of all earnings in excess of $80,000. In 2007, the Forward’s publisher, Sam Norich, earned $211,046 in base pay.)
In the private sector, executive compensation has become a hot-button political issue, as CEOs have been excoriated for earning eight-figure salaries and more while leading their companies into ruin. Executive salaries at not-for-profits never reached such heights, but with dollars for Jewish causes scarce, they are now an obvious target for scrutiny. They are also readily available in published tax forms, making them one of the most tangible expenses that critics can point to as signs of excess.
Thus, a number of executives described cuts to their own salaries as a way to send a signal to their organizations, and to donors, that they are fully taking part in the pain of the economic downturn.
“We have subscribed to the philosophy that we all have skin in this game,” said William Bernstein, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County. Bernstein, whose donors were hard-hit by the Bernard Madoff scandal, laid off 32 out of 160 staff members and slashed his organization’s operating budget by 25%. He said that he had taken a reduction in his salary, which in 2006–07 was $418,511, but declined to specify the amount. “If the agencies we support had to take significant cuts, if the people who are our recipients were seeing cutbacks in service and our donors themselves were having significant problems in their lives managing their own personal finances, it seemed hard for us, even those of us who had contracts, to feel that we could continue to be compensated at levels that were decided upon pre-recession.”
In other cases, the pay cuts were part of a more targeted financial strategy. The Union for Reform Judaism laid off 60 employees — roughly a quarter of its staff — as part of a restructuring and cost-saving measure. At the same time, the top-paid 10% of staffers took pay cuts of 7% to 10% to help pay for raises to the lowest-earning employees, designed to offset a rise in insurance premiums.
“It’s an ethical issue,” said Rabbi Daniel Freelander, the URJ’s senior vice president and chief operating officer, explaining that the organization decided that the top earners could better afford the cost of higher premiums than the lowest-paid staff.
URJ disclosed its executive salary cuts in percentage terms in response to a Forward query. But as a religious organization, it does not have to publish its financial information and does not disclose the salaries of top executives.
Executive salaries are not, of course, solely at the discretion of the chief executive. Salaries are set by an organization’s board, often in negotiation with the chief executive. But several executives who had taken cuts said they had voluntarily gone to their boards to tell them that they would take salary reductions.
Still, the salaries of a plurality, and perhaps even a majority, of executives have remained intact. A number of executives have taken pay freezes — meaning no raises — but not pay cuts.
Not all executives agreed that it is a good thing for executives to take pay cuts as a way of sending a message.
“I think sometimes people are making those decisions for not the right reason, because it appears to be the right thing to do from a political perspective,” said Howard Rieger, president and CEO of United Jewish Communities, the national umbrella organization of federations. Rieger made $555,000 in the 2006–07 tax year, and also received $150,000 in expenses to offset the high cost of living in New York. His organization has cut 31 staff positions over the past year. Rieger, who moved to New York from Pittsburgh in 2004 to take his job, added that in a competitive marketplace for management talent, not-for-profits needed to weigh the urge to cut salaries for the sake of appearances against the need to pay enough to retain top-flight employees.
A UJC official told the Forward that Rieger, who has taken a salary freeze, was considering taking a pay reduction but had not yet done so. Rieger will step down from his UJC position at the end of August.
The UJA-Federation of New York laid off 12.5% of it staff — 52 employees — March 11, leaving it with a total of 427 staffers. But the senior executives, including executive vice president and CEO John Ruskay, maintained their salaries at the previous year’s level. When the Forward inquired about this, board chair Jerry Levin responded that senior executives “are working harder than ever, due to reduction in force. It would not be appropriate for them to have any sort of salary reduction.”
Ruskay, who earned $419,000 in 2007, declined to comment.
Rieger and Ruskay are not the only high earners who have not taken a pay cut. Yeshiva University’s president, Richard Joel, who earned $676,004 in 2006–07, has taken a pay freeze but no cut, while the school laid off 60 staffers over the past year. Through a university representative, he declined to comment.
Ira Schwartz, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, explained that a recent layoff of five people came as part of a broader, multi-year effort to streamline the federation, rather than in response to the economic downturn. Schwartz, who made $434,000 in 2006–07, has, like all other staff members at his organization, taken a salary freeze but no pay cut.
In other cases, top executives have simply viewed their own salaries as one of many expenses that the organization could consider cutting — and not necessarily the first option.
“We considered all of the approaches and decided that the best way to do it — to leave things as much as possible the way they were before the economic downturn — was this scalpel-like cutting,” said Gideon Aronoff, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Aronoff, who earned $250,000 in 2007, laid off four of his organization’s 70 employees, in addition to implementing various other cuts in expenses.
Aronoff added that salary reductions for himself and other senior managers were “on the table” when the final budget numbers came in, but that the numbers worked out in a way that made salary cuts unnecessary. Aronoff did participate in an organization-wide giveback of four vacation days for all employees.
Some executives said they have found ways other than salary reductions to contribute to their organizations in difficult times. After the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty laid off 21 employees last summer in a round of cuts, senior executives decided to donate money to a fundraising drive started by the board to raise money for the organization. In all, eight staffers contributed a total of around $70,000, and as a result of the effort, the organization was able to rehire 10 of the dismissed employees.
At the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, executive vice president and CEO Steven Schwager likewise pointed to an ongoing fundraising drive among senior staff at the organization, which last year raised $107,000, as an example of the way that he and other top executives give back to JDC. Schwager, who earned $430,258 in 2007, and who laid off 60 employees last summer, did not take a pay cut.
In other cases, layoffs have come amid broader organizational turmoil. The American Jewish Congress saw almost 90% of its endowment wiped out in the Madoff scandal. The organization promptly laid off 12 of its 25 employees. Those doing the layoffs, Marc Stern and Matthew Horn, had been named co-executive directors of the organization just two months prior to the Madoff scandal breaking, while continuing to carry out their previous jobs of general counsel ($130,000) and national policy director ($150,000), respectively, without raises. They did not take pay cuts.
Meanwhile, a few groups implemented broad salary cuts not to set a symbolic example in the face of layoffs, but as a strategy for avoiding layoffs altogether. American Jewish University in Los Angeles implemented salary cuts across the entire staff to avoid having to lay off anyone in response to the economic turmoil.
But Doug Seserman, president and CEO of the Allied Jewish Federation of Colorado, warned against seeing broad salary cuts as a panacea, especially when some layoffs are inevitable. “At times like this, it’s hard enough to lay people off, but the people who are remaining, you’re asking them in many cases to work harder, work longer,” he said. “The last thing I want to do is pay them less for the hard work that they’re doing.” Yet Seserman himself, who laid off nearly a quarter of his federation staff, took a 5% cut in his salary, which had been $279,411 in 2006–07.
Ultimately, executives noted, there is only so much that one can do for morale in a time of financial catastrophe.
“I think for the people who were laid off, nothing helps the pain,” Shrage said. “You have families to feed, and it’s horrible.”
To read this week’s editorial on this subject, click here.
Contact Anthony Weiss at weiss@forward.com
Advertisements
Advertisements
Kudos to Barry Shrage for leading by example, in this difficult time.
Does anyone agree that we have some major chazers here? Makes one really think about where to send donations.
I see no justifiable reason why an NFP CEO like Steve Nasatir should earn nearly half a million a year. How can these people justify this when people are going hungry? Innovative organization are starting for funds but the Federations, which tend not to fund them anyways, are blowing all this money on CEO salaries?
Add the $1 million research for UJC's latest name change and we all ought to be screaming for heads on pikes.
How about all these big-shots go without salary for a year and put the funds toward something more meaningful and useful.
Excellent article! Perhaps we as donors and prospective donors should make note of those insensitive executives and their respective organizations. I certainly will. My future donations will reflect those observations. Perhaps future salaries will be cognizant of these facts.
Kudos to the Forward for doing this. It is good to have an independent Jewish journal indpendent of Federation control.
Check out Charity Navigator's website for a more thorough comparison of executive compensation figures. Salaries aren't the only measure for these leaders - you have to factor perks such as retirement plans and other allowances. Thus, Steve Hoffman's package was worth over $650K (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3931) - for albeitly dated information, which does not factor pay increases he has received since then.
The Forward should republish these figures annually.
Stop giving to organizations which exist for one reason only - to pay executives. Better to give to ones which provide real services to community, like Habad.
If only Chabad could provide spell check. And 10% of 450000 isn't much, pays for about one employee. Non-profits need as many as they can.
don't forget the senior staff at ujc....they haven't taken any salary cuts, either. and plenty of them make over $200,000.
it's disgusting.
It's tough if not impossible to hit up millionaires for big checks when you yourself earn a measly quarter mil. What all of these organizations are about is fund raising; first and foremost always is The Annual Campaign. But that's the only justification I can see for bloated salaries, especially in smaller communities such as Cleveland. I have a suggestion though: executive salaries need to be based on gross fund raising revenues and then capped beyond a certain amount. Boards of Directors of these organizations should take note and help these so-called leaders do the right thing.
It's become the American way to compensate executives on top extremely generously, while the lower level employees in their organizations must face cuts or layoffs. This is true for both the corporations that lose profits and the charitable organizations that have reduced fund raising revenue. Organizations are successful because of the entire organization. If they fail or are unsuccessful it is because of the CEO. Sacrifice should be borne first by the CEO.
I find it a bit deceptive that they don't note which executives have taken freezes directly on the chart. A freeze alone over the past year (and particularly in a city like New York) easily equates to a 3-4% pay cut anyhow. Ergo, since the majority took pay FREEZES, the subtitle is actually false and misleading.
I note that some of you are grumbling against some of these individuals, but consider how few CEO's in all other non-Jewish organisations have taken no pay cut, no freeze, and laid of workers with impunity. Sure, the people on the list might have a salary over half a million. But what kind of a salary, with their experience, would they have commanded outside of the walled garden of the Jewish world? Easily twice or thrice what they earn presently.
I can only assume some of you direct malice and ire toward YU for enabling their president to retain his salary despite "layoffs." Consider this: 60 employees out of 3500 is less than two percent. In a university, that's a normal rate of attrition as you winnow teachers and lower level staff. Yet YU has done incredibly well in terms of fundraising - they have an endowment which, thank God, has not been endangered as severely as other institutions.
Why, then, should Richard Joel be taking a pay cut? For being successful at what he does? For NOT laying off employees commensurate with other institutions? He is already accepting a "freeze" when, I believe, most of the employees at YU will receive their yearly raises. Let's not forget that YU, despite giving enormous sums of charity, is NOT a charitable organization. IT IS A UNIVERSITY. "Through a University representative, declined to comment" - From what I know, the man is monstrously busy, especially now. I wonder if, not giving time to actually craft an appropriate answer, the reporter simply gave up.
I honestly find this article to be deceptive in subtle ways, and that saddens me. While I understand that the majority of the American public is furious with the corporate lifestyle in general, encouraging a lynch-mob against Jewish institutions is definitely NOT the outlet for this anger.
I encourage critical thinking of all you read before you walk away with hatred and malice in your hearts for your brothers.
to isaac:
many, many institutions (law, government, education, etc) have instituted or even mandated salary cuts. and in investment banking, ceos of especially hard hit companies that have laid off many are working for nadda until they are able to right the ship.
while i haven't seen any comments on this board about richard joel, there's no reason why he himself shouldn't personally absorb some of the cuts. the madoff mess that yu got itself into was a direct result of merkin having a conflict of interest...something that yu's president should never have let happen in the first place, and that other jewish institutions, with their due diligence, managed to avoid.
finally--the chart understates the issue and the hypocrisy of the ceos. it gives base salary--and only base salary...from two years ago. clearly those salaries (and the accompanying benefits) are higher today. and if they looked at all of the personnel cuts since 2006-07, THOSE numbers would be much, much higher as well in some cases (like UJC).
to assert that the salaries need to remain high to attract the talent is missing the whole point. the investment banks were cluelessly saying the same thing about the outrageous bonuses they were paying. in both cases--the economy is in shambles...jobs are being cut left and right...the industries as a whole are being reshaped and downsized. there are precious few jobs around...these folks should be grateful they have jobs at all.
jon:
The madoff issue happened. It lead to NO layoffs. The individual in question resigned. And YU is still fine in terms of it's endowment.
So why would he take a paycut?
Merkin was on the board before Joel even came to YU! How could you hold him responsible for what, in the end, wasn't something he could have foreseen? If anything, it should have been the responsibility of the PREVIOUS president, who brought him on to the board without such an evaluation.
"while i haven't seen any comments on this board about richard joel, there's no reason why he himself shouldn't personally absorb some of the cuts." WHAT CUTS? NO ONE WAS LAID OFF DUE TO "THE ECONOMY" @ YU. THAT'S the difference between YU and most of the other institutions mentioned.
While some have been experiencing layoffs, YU hasn't which is my point. "Perhaps we as donors and prospective donors should make note of those insensitive executives and their respective organizations. I certainly will. My future donations will reflect those observations. Perhaps future salaries will be cognizant of these facts."
This is a person who is now feeling encouraged to curtail his charity because this one article irresponsibly misrepresents the circumstances of some institutions in comparison with others. That is wrong. How many other people have read this article, felt the same way, and simply declined to comment?
PS:I'm an economist - you think there are precious few jobs now? do you KNOW what happened in the Great Depression? What we're going through isn't a drop in the bucket of what our parents and grand parents experienced.
I think people are missing the point here. The heads of Jewish organizations have a very important role to play and SHOULD be rewarded handsomely for their efforts on behalf of the community Likewise, charitable organizations depend on the goodwill and generosity of billionaires to write those large checks that keep Federations afloat. The side effect is exposure to crooks like Madoff.
Just like the private sector - leaders need to be paid for performance. If a Federation's CEO is responsible for increasing fundraising by say 10%, he/she should see a similar reward in their compensation. But if through their mismanagement they falter - change needs to happen at the top. Surprisingly, we don't hear about Federations asking their CEOs to step down or replacing underperformers with better talent.
The Forward should be championing pay for performance by continuing to publish these figures annually. Also - it is very important to publish total compensation, not just base salary.
steve:
i totally agree with your comments. that's just it--right now, federations as a whole and ujc in particular are doing a very lousy job. donations are flat and number of donors are going way down. communities are hurting. we wouldn't be having these discussions if times were better...hundreds upon hundreds of jewish communal professionals wouldn't be flooding the market.
no-one is calling for the heads of federation ceos and certainly not for the head of ceo rieger. that is a serious problem--there's no accountability. employees are being laid off left and right (and there are plenty of horror stories), with no reason or rationale--while the ceos somehow walk away.
isaac:
surely the jewish community can do better than corporate america or enron. as jews we should be ashamed of some of our "leaders" who fail some basic ethical tests.
On a side point, I would also like to point out that out of the 22 CEOs listed, there is only one woman.
This is certainly an old boys' club. No wonder their paychecks are top on their list of priorities. It's part of the package.
Elana
www.forseriousjewishwomen.com
Thank you for printing this. As of today, my tzedoka will be given only to my own synagogue and to no other organization. As a professor on a campus with no Hillel (I was told that the organization cannot afford one) I now understand Hillel's problem: Wayne Firestone is paid $275,000 a year.
Until our charitable organizations cease and desist from creating and perpetuating a "wealthy and ruling class," they will not get one cent of my money.
I am sickened that we continually live up to every ugly stereotype of greedy Jews. Our parents did not suffer through centuries of persecution so that we could become the people we are today.
How many people could be helped with the (cumulative) millions of dollars we waste on these schnorrers every year?
sionist köpekleri cakal sürüleri
These salaries are outrageous for a "charitable" organization. I will not give another nickel to any of these organizations. These execs need to be placed on the Jewish Wall of Shame!!!!
Just to clarify. The President of YU and the Board are both culpable in the case of Madoff, because their Corporate Governance policy, if there is one, failed to be followed. This arrangement allowing Merkin to do what he did was a clear conflict of interest in several respects.. If there isn't such a policy, then this "structural" crime is continuing to exist.
Due to the economic downturn, Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel instituted across-the-board salary cuts for all employees (for the second time in recent years). As an employee, I found that they did this is a very moral way:
1) The percentages cut INCREASED with salary. Thus, the heads of the yeshiva took 15% cuts, those who earned less took a 10% cut, lower earners a 5% cut, etc.
2) Employees who earned below a certain threshold took no cut.
3) A new yeshiva head was appointed. He had formerly been an instructor. Although he took on many new administrative responsibilities (in addition to keeping his entire teaching load), he said he could not accept a higher salary when jobs were being cut, and he continues to be paid merely as an instructor.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.