OT... Giving to the less fortunate

[The Daring Dufas]

I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights. I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it. I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going on all over the country in both the government and private sector for many years.

TDD

[aemeijers]

Where I work, they bend over backwards in writing saying it is entirely voluntary, and they don't actually sign people up without a signed slip. But they sure do try to shame people into donating, with all the usual peer pressure techniques like publicly passing out the slips, and keeping running dollar totals for each shop, making a competition out of it to see who can hit their target first. I do donate, most years, but I write one check, and designate what charity I want to have the money. (There are plenty of charities in the book that I regard as left/right wingnut useless feel-good groups.) But I am not entirely convinced designating who my donation goes to, means that the worthless ones get any less. I suspect they tally up the directed donations, and just subtract that from whatever dollars were designated for that charity in the first place, so the undesignated donations flow to the politically correct groups. (Sorta like lotto was supposed to ADD to school financing, not become one of the standard sources for the money?)

-- aem sends...

[Kurt Ullman]

I don't know if they have changed this, but there was a time when this was a farce. The UW was structured at the time such that they had a budget of what they planned to give each entity. Say the grant for the Mental Health Association was supposed to be $100 (to keep it easy from a math standpoint). That was what the MHA was getting from the UW. All of my money went to them, but it did NOT increase the UW allocation. So, if I gave $5.00, the MHA got my $5.00 and $95.00 from the general pot.

As above, that was the way it was done last time I had a reason to check, albeit 7-8 years ago now.

[Raymond J. Johnson, Jr.]

Mr. Hunt answered with a false dichotomy--he could easily have done both.

[George]

Sure and if you check into the organization I posted you will find that they don't do what you described.

Life is filled with plenty of reasons to allow us to rationalize why we shouldn't do something "I saw someone in a car accident on route 5 so I won't go that way anymore", I went into that store over there five years ago and had to wait at the checkout a long time so I have never gone back" and on and on.

Clearly there are folks who have an entitlement mentality but clearly there are a lot of folks who don't.

[dpb]

Kurt Ullman wrote: ...

How else would you propose they do it? Their job is to raise funds for their member organizations, whichever they are; they're not in the business of judging one group's merits over another other than in relative size of needs to provide the services of the organization itself (having sat on Board in multiple communities at various times over a rather long time span dating back to the "Community Chest" days...).

If you really want your contribution to make a difference to a particular organization, do it directly to the organization of choice outside the UW path. (All, though even there, if they're a member organization there will be some of the same effect as budgets are based on including historical abilities of the individual organizations' fund-raising of their own in setting their UW support.)

[The Daring Dufas]

They appear to be really good folks and that's refreshing into todays world where there is some sort of scam around every corner. It just plain hard to sort it all out. We give aid to these third world countries and it winds up in the bank account of the rulers. It's so frustrating.

TDD

[norminn]

Don't large employers match a percentage of contributions to UW? Yeh, the PR campaign used to bug me, but where I worked it was strong encouragement, not force. And you could stop contributions at any time.

Have to remember that there are cheaters in any group one can think of, including clergy and law enforcement. I don't have any problem with the national orgs paying their CEO what private sector CEO's are paid - running billion-dollar enterprises isn't for amateurs. What once was called "service" - medicine, nursing, law enforcement - now demands the same salaries as other fields. I don't know a physician or a dentist who isn't a freaking millionaire. Of course, gotta be a millionaire so every other patient can sue ya' for failing to cure. First $100K goes for malpractice insurance.

When I volunteered at the Red Cross, the new volunteers that I met were not the wealthy stock brokers; they were working stiffs who probably volunteered because they have been a lot closer to disaster than a lot of wealthier people.

I'd like to see a nationalized health insurance plan that covers everyone for up to $100K per year. Want more? Buy it. No fancy stuff like transplants - one time around, fix what's broke if it can. Include work-related illness/injury unless states opt out. Require agreement not to sue for malpractice in excess of financial loss. The states that take up the plan now have businesses that don't have to worry about WC insurance....come on down and start a small business. Along with all of that, adopt Canada's system for medical malpractice - one org. and they don't "settle out of court", which is legalized blackmail.

When I worked in nursing, I could have been prosecuted if a client developed a bedsore. I had no time to care for clients the way they should have been cared for, but my employer kept building new nursing homes.

[norminn]

Not to mention the fact that the people he "gave" jobs to EARNED the freaking money :o)

[Hell Toupee]

Check with your state's Department of Labor. Most states, if not all, have a law specifically forbidding that type of extortion, and most of the laws were passed specifically due to United Way's past practices of pushing the employer's to harass the workers to give. A lot of people have long memories about that going on, and once in a while you still read a story about a workplace that has gone overboard on pressuring workers to give. In my opinion, the only benefit from involving one's workplace in one's charitable efforts is to make the employer look generous, when it's actually the workers who come through.

I personally prefer to donate direct to the charities of my choice, as that way they get 100% of my donation.

[The Daring Dufas]

Since it happened 35 years ago, I doubt any government agency would pay any attention to me. That freekin boss is long dead. *snicker*

TDD

[Nate Nagel]

On the flip side, some companies match contributions that employees make to various charities, which is nice. The important thing is that the employee decides if and to whom to contribute.

nate

[Kurt Ullman]

I would propose that if they are going to do it that way, they don't tell me that all of my money will go to the organization. This is usually in response to "I want to give to X organization". They then respond that all of your donation will go the organization, w/o mentioning the fact that no MORE will go. I just don't like to be purposely mislead (or at least not given ALL the information).

ALthough more recently it has been that they are getting less money from UW period.

[Kurt Ullman]

Actually that was brought about by the way MCaid is figured (since much of NH's money is from governmental program). They payments were based on a base year and then an increment from there. It did not take too long before this increment fell behind reality. If they built new ones, the baseline was higher and they usually made money for a couple of years. The same thing happened when a NH was sold, which is why every

5 or so years, one company would sell a home to another. The baseline was adjusted upwards and they made more money for awhile. I don't know how it was in your area, but you were actually ahead as an RN if you quit your job every 5 years, went to another for awhile and then came back. The starting salaries were based on "market condition" while the yearly jumps were usually less. Same idea here.

[Frank]

I've always been against employees being coerced by their management to give to charity. After forced early retirement, my employer continues to solicit me for the United Way. First time, I sent card back and told them to stuff it - felt good. Last time, I sent it back and told them I would pledge 5% of any pension increase - Ha Ha ;)

[Denise in NH]

Hi guys, I wrote in a couple of weeks ago about my gas oven dying and with your help, it works great now, It needed a new igniter, so thanks so much.

I really want to weigh in on this charity giving thread. In September, I retired after 20 years as director of my local food pantry. From experience I would NEVER in a million years give cash to a client, because you can't control where or on whom it will be spent. Drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes come to mind. Don't get me wrong, some of my former clients were salt of the earth, wonderful people, but I found that the ones that go to every charity and get put on lots of lists for help are actually taking you for fools.

We used to give out toys too, and one year, when my husband was helping out at the food pantry, a young woman's car was so full of items from multiple charities that he couldn't fit anything else in her car, and she got really pissed at him. He refused to give her our items and told her to come in and talk to the "boss" (me). Needless to say, she left and never returned.

One year a family signed up for 8 turkey baskets from all over town under different names, so we wouldn't catch on. Each family member had a different last name, but because I got really friendly with one of them, I figured it out, but it was too late for that year.

This time of year everyone comes out of the closet to donate to food pantries and storage becomes a bad problem, where do we store everything? Sometimes that's why we request cash instead, so we can buy perishables like eggs, cheese, butter and meats.

I am now in charge of the free clothing area associated with my food pantry. People get really mad at me when in December, in New Hampshire, I won't take shorts, bathing suits, or other summer things, I have no storage. It's not because I don't appreciate your efforts at cleaning your closets, bagging the stuff, and lugging it over to me, but where the hell do I put it till summer?? A woman called me every name in the book when I told her that I couldn't take a pick-up truck full of size 2 clothes. I told her that my average client was probably a size 14 or larger, she was livid. And don't get me started on the filthy stuff some people bring in, covered with dog/cat hair, smelling like a dirty ashtray. We don't have a washing machine, what do I do with that stuff, I can't put it on the racks and shelves with the clean stuff.

Solution:

Find a LOCAL food pantry, maybe at your place of worship, ask them what they need, actual canned goods, or cash. If you want, ask them how their clients are screened for eligibility. We had to follow strict government guidelines. When you are comfortable with their answers, give to your heart's content and trust them to do what's right. Most of the time we get it right and you'd be proud.

Some food pantries use cash to help clients with rent (not us), in which case the money goes directly to the landlord, not the client.

Give only clean, in season clothing.

I would never give cash directly to a client.

Best tip: If funds are tight for you at Christmas, don't give now at all. The food pantries are usually chock-a-block full already at this time of year. Go get a 2010 calendar, flip to April or July or Sept. and write yourself a note to donate to a local charity. That's when they are desperately low on food and funds and will flip cartwheels for you.

I hope you all have a great Holiday Season, whether you are on the giving or receiving end.

Denise

[Kurt Ullman]

Never said otherwise. But I also think that they way it was phrased, especially when it came in response to "I would give to the UW but I want to give to this group instead" is intentionally misleading at best, borderline fraudulent at worst.

Why not? Especially in response to the I would give but statement. THAT is exactly how I worded and that was exactly the response.

I would say right off that we can get that money to them, but it won't be extra. All I ask for is transparency.

[HeyBub]

Yep. At 50% effectiveness each.

Rmember, Hunt brought his lunch to work every day. In a paper bag. In the SAME paper bag (until it wore out).

[HeyBub]

Yep. The folks relocated from Katrina to Houston tried to resume their lifestyle. Fortunately, they killed each other off with great regularity. Those that didn't managed to run into a new obstacle: The men in blue. "Whatcha means I can't be moseyin' thru my 'hood with a malt and a toke?"

On the other hand, those that relocated to Billings or Fort Wayne or Wichita had new experiences too: "You mean all I gots to do is stand here and make Slurpies? And I gets PAID for it? Damn! Thaz cool, man!"

[dpb]

How, pray tell -- they would credit your contribution to the charity of choice in its entirety. What they do w/ other contributions is, fundamentally, none of your business to put it bluntly... :)

I don't see how you can interpret that that way other than by having a beef against UW given the following statement of fact. That you included a "but" doesn't change their mission nor obligations nor does their using other donations than yours violate any trust or implied promise about what would happen to your particular contribution amount were it to be made so-designated.

Where precisely do you think there's any implication of "extra" somehow implied? All the UW says is your particular contribution won't go someplace besides where you designate it should help. Again, you can't expect to control somebody else's choice(s).

And, there is complete transparency--you're entitled to and can get a full accounting of every dollar simply for the asking from any UW local (just as w/ _any_ 501(c) organization).

I have to say I think you're making an argument here to justify that you only want an organization to support specific others with which you are fully in agreement so you create the strawman to justify that attitude.

--