"Pay It Forward" -- Nice Gesture or Stupid Stunt?

[Steve MB]

From the CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/17/bank.gift.ap/index.html):

FARGO, North Dakota (AP) -- A bank is giving its full-time employees $1,000 each and part-time employees $500 each. There's one condition -- use it for people in need.

State Bank & Trust Chief Operating Officer Michael Solberg said each full-time employee will receive $1,000 and each part-time employee will receive $500, as part of a $502,000 "Pay it Forward" initiative.

"We're going to really see some huge impact on our community," Solberg said.

Employees were told not to use the money for themselves, their families or families of other bank employees. The bank asked each employee to document the good deed with a video camera. The deadline is June 30....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

As an employee, I'd be irritated by it, not because I would ratehr keep the money (of course I would), but because I don't need the pain in the ass of having to go and videotape myself donating it smewhere. If the bank wants to donate money to charity, that's fine, but involving the employees like this is just a stunt.

Incidentally, if the employees have to give all the money away anyway, then why give the full and part time employees different amounts?

Oh, and if this was done in lieu of a Christmas bonus, I'd be pissed.

[silenus]

I don't like the "video documentation" part of it at all. Much better to just appoint a committee of employees to make anonymous donations to selected people/charities. This smacks more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By the way, if I had to pick a cause, I'd pick medical marijuana.

[sandra_nz]

Have they supplied each employee with a video camera?!

[the PC apeman]

I like the idea personally but I accept that it's not for everyone. I just sent a $50 kiva.org (http://kiva.org) gift certificate to a friend for Christmas. I know she'll be as pleased to receive it as I would be. But no one else on my list is getting that kind of gift because they wouldn't feel the same way.

From the article:In previous years, the Fargo-based bank has taken 5 percent of the company earnings and divided it up at holiday time among employees.It does seem here to be in lieu of a traditionally given profit sharing scheme so I agree the forced march sucks. It'd be better if the bank divided up it charitable giving budget instead.

[tonedef]

lol what a load of crap. I would pocket the cash or tell them todo there won charity.
OR i would claim that me at the pub is a good enought charity!

[Bearflag70]

Just get your brother to dress up as some homeless dude...

[Wee Bairn]

If its not a solely a publicity stunt, how did CNN get wind of it?

[Lord Ashtar]

I would've just said that I donated the money to The Human Fund.

[Leaffan]

Good publicity for the bank.

Good for the community.

Helps people.

Makes employees feel good.

Get over it.

[John Mace]

I'd make a donation to The Human Fund.

[Anne Neville]

I'd say giving them the money to do it is borderline.

Asking them to videotape it, though- stupid stunt.

[Lord Ashtar]

I'd make a donation to The Human Fund.
I beat you by six minutes. :D

[John Mace]

I beat you by six minutes. :D
Damn. I didn't read all the posts before I wrote that.

[Siege]

I'd have two problems with that. First, I don't own a video camera, nor do I have any desire to own one. (Yes, I could borrow one.) Second, I believe it's tacky and somewhat sinful to draw attention to one's charitable giving. I actually take this so seriously that when I participate in one of those "Buy a Shamrock to Help [whatever]" campaigns, I don't put my name on it. To me, the purpose of giving to charity is to help others, not draw attention to myself or show off how unselfish I am.

If the company wants to do something to increase its charitable donations by using its employees, why not have a food or clothing drive, instead? That way, people can donate according to what they're willing and able to do.

Also, to a part-time employee, $500 could make a real difference in the budget. If money's tight, the temptation to use a month's rent to pay the rent or groceries or buy a few more presents for the kids could be rather great. After all, being forced to give $500 away when you're eating ramen noodles and using coupons can seem a bit rough. I suspect that's why the bank wants video-taped evidence, but it still seems a bit rough on the employees.

[ArizonaTeach]

Have they thought about donations to The Human Fund of Rio?

[Anne Neville]

The requirement for a video might make some of the employees distribute the money in ways that make better video but don't do as much good. If I were given $1000 to give to charity, I would go online, research some causes and charities, and then donate online to them. That might do a lot of good, but it's going to be a snoozer of a video. It would be tempting to instead do something that will make for more interesting video like get the money in cash and give it out to homeless people, even if that's probably not going to do as much good for the community as something like making an online donation to the county food bank.

[simster]

Wonder who gets the tax writeoff for 'charitable contributions'....

Stunt - perhaps with good intentions - possibly even with (some) good results - but a stunt none the less.

[DanBlather]

By the way, if I had to pick a cause, I'd pick medical marijuana.Oh, like Duuude, is today the 32nd of June? I, like, think we have to do something by today. Oh man, Sponge Bob totally punkd, that shark. Any Oreos left?

[dalej42]

I'd be annoyed. Does any of the money go to causes I disagree with? I don't want to know that Jane in accounting is giving her money away to an anti-abortion group. I don't want to know that Jim in sales gave his away to an ultra conservative church.

[tomndebb]

I have a quibble with the thread title*: the bank's actions do not exemplify "paying it forward." "Pay it forward" is an attitude of responding to kindness by demonstrating kindness to a person from whom you did not receivce the kindness.

An example would be the guy in the sports car who stopped on a mountain road alongside my family's station wagon in 1963 and offered to get us water for our overheated engine. When he returned, he apologized for taking so long, but he had stopped to help a lady change her flat tire. When my dad offered to pay him for his time, trouble, or gas, he waved off the money telling Dad to help out someone else as repayment, noting that he was already a couple of good deeds in the hole for the week for nice things done for him.

The bank's gesture is a "nice" stunt, but it is not "paying forward."


* I realize that the title came from the several news reports circulating about the bank, but it is still inaccurate.

[lalenin]

If it was reported as income and I am paying taxes on it I am going to spend it however I like.

[hotflungwok]

Bumfights: Christmas Edition
Sponsored by: State Bank & Trust

This does seem to be a pretty crappy thing to do to the employees.

[Loach]

I would be pissed. For one I don't want to be part of any news story so you can cram the camera. Banks do not tend to pay well except at the higher end of the corporate ladder. Seems like they used to give Christmas bonuses. If I was expecting a Christmas bonus to help buy presents for my kids I would be furious. And I wouldn't work for that company for very long.

Besides this is just something that Oprah did about a year ago.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

This is bullshit.

I am a big fan of the idea of "Pay it forward" because I feel that it starts a chain-reaction of good. Sort of like karma working the way it should. For example. yesterday I got a tip for fixing a computer. That night I ordered in, and gave an extra-big tip to the delivery boy. And I am still ahead, because I still have money left.

This is just horseshit. It's worse than saying, "blah blah has been donated in your name to the Human Fund" because it's actually making you do the work with money that isn't even yours. The video proof is just insulting. I would refuse to do it, personally.

[Doug Bowe]

Why couldn't I document the good deed with a receipt from, say, The Salvation Army or the Humane Society?

What does the bank want with the video tape?

[amarinth]

With the "you have to videotape yourself doing it" rule - stupid, crass, tacky stunt.

If they had just said "instead of direct corporate giving, we're trusting our employees to give money to worthy causes and giving them the means to do so" and used the funds that the company usually uses for corporate giving, that would have been kind of cool.

But in lieu of normally given Christmas bonuses? That kind of sucks.

[Duckster]

So what are the details to this whole plan?

I mean, is the $1,000/$500 listed as income on each employee's W2? If so, the employee earns a tax liability that is only (partially) offset by a tax deduction if they can provide the charitable contribution was made. And with charitable deductions requiring paperwork (receipts) above certain limits, it appears the ultimate tax liability is pawned off by the company on its unsuspecting employees.

For me, it's similar to the "... for every bottle cap you send us, we'll donate 50 cents to the XYZ charity, up to $1 million ..." The company gets the tax writeoff, more profits because consumers buy more of the product just to send in the bottle caps (at their expense!) and we're all made to feel good about it. Send your own fifty cents to the charity and take your own tax deduction.

After all, no good deed goes unpunished! :)



And as already mentioned, whose video camera, especially if the employee doesn't own one?

[susan]

You can get a life membership in NAMBLA for $1000.

[Anne Neville]

You can get a life membership in NAMBLA for $1000.

Oh, man, now I know what I'd do if my employer pulled a publicity stunt this lame (and I already had another job lined up somewhere else)...

[XaMcQ]

I don't see anything wrong with this program, provided it is strictly voluntary. Otherwise it is forcing the employees to participate in a PR scheme on their own time.

[Oredigger77]

I'd donate my money as a merit based cash scholarship to underprivileged college students. If you happen to be wondering what that is, it would be tips to strippers who do a good enough job. :D If you want to help what I'd like to become a full time career please support the Candi Summers Foundation.


It doesn't exist yet but I'll take early donations, I'm just working on some legal issues

[Kalhoun]

I have a quibble with the thread title*: the bank's actions do not exemplify "paying it forward." "Pay it forward" is an attitude of responding to kindness by demonstrating kindness to a person from whom you did not receivce the kindness.

An example would be the guy in the sports car who stopped on a mountain road alongside my family's station wagon in 1963 and offered to get us water for our overheated engine. When he returned, he apologized for taking so long, but he had stopped to help a lady change her flat tire. When my dad offered to pay him for his time, trouble, or gas, he waved off the money telling Dad to help out someone else as repayment, noting that he was already a couple of good deeds in the hole for the week for nice things done for him.

The bank's gesture is a "nice" stunt, but it is not "paying forward."


* I realize that the title came from the several news reports circulating about the bank, but it is still inaccurate.
I think it can be considered "paying it forward" because someone did something nice for you. It may be a loose definition of the term, but it works for these purposes.

I don't have a problem with it. I don't care how others spend their charitable dollars as long as they don't give me a hard time about mine.

As far as the video tape goes, it wasn't required, but I can see how viewing others' charities might give people better ideas on how to spend their donation money...maybe next year. I also think seeing others do it can be contagious...and there's nothing wrong with that.

[hajario]

From the very first sentence, which is quoted in the OP, you can see that this is a voluntary program. They will give the employee the money on the condition that they donate it. If they don't want to donate, they don't take the money. Nothing is said about the tax consequences but I assume that they will get bank money to be used, not a check in their name. Also, the name "Pay It Forward" is what the bank is calling the program, inaccurate though it may be.

Anyway, to answer the OP, I think that it is both a nice gesture as well as a stupid stunt. It is, however, just the kind of thing that a lot of employees would go gaga over. I sure as hell wouldn't participate but a lot of my co-workers would love to do so. Meh. It's no different than the Holiday Party. It's good for morale for some and a neutral for those of us who don't give a crap.

[Harborwolf]

And as already mentioned, whose video camera, especially if the employee doesn't own one?That's why I'd start the "Buy the employees a video camera" fund....starting with myself......so I could video tape myself making the donation. Yeah that's the ticket.

[begbert2]

From the very first sentence, which is quoted in the OP, you can see that this is a voluntary program. They will give the employee the money on the condition that they donate it. If they don't want to donate, they don't take the money.I admit curiousity; what part of the sentences quoted in the OP sounded optional to you? Was it the part where they say "is giving" as opposed to "is offering"?

When they say "each full-time employee will receive $1,000 and each part-time employee will receive $500,", how does that usage of the word "will" differ from "Trespassers will be prosecuted"? Does that imply that prosecution can be dismissed at the discretion of the trespasser?

I'm sure it is optional, but how does one infer that from the quoted text?

That's why I'd start the "Buy the employees a video camera" fund....starting with myself......so I could video tape myself making the donation. Yeah that's the ticket.But how do you videotape yourself buying the camera, if you didn't have a camera until you bought it?

[Suse]

I looked at some of the comments under the story and two people who claimed to be employees of the bank posted that the money they were to use charitably was in addition to their normal bonus, and also that the bank had given each of them a video camera to tape the donation and then to keep for their own use.

That makes the story a bit more palatable, but I think that people in Fargo will be seeing lots of these taped donations on the bank's commercials over the next few years. Big savings in advertising.

[Triskadecamus]

     I would decline.

     I don't feel that the act described would be charity, and agree entirely with Seige that celebrating charity is bad for you. I also doubt that the bank would be willing to actually pay it forward, and just give things to folks who no one will ever hear about.

     Social engineering by tax deduction is political way to make wealthy interests support the needs of the society. Charity that gets you a tax deduction is commerce, not charity. Not bad, really, nor even bad policy, but not the same spiritual object as true charity. You have to not tell anyone. It's an important element of charity. If you do it for the good feeling, or the good reputation, or the public honors, then those are what you get from it. Making the world better happens when you be the thing you want the world to become.

Tris

[hajario]

I admit curiousity; what part of the sentences quoted in the OP sounded optional to you? Was it the part where they say "is giving" as opposed to "is offering"

It was actually the second sentence that let me to believe that it was optional so I overstated it slightly. The first sentence says that it is giving them the money. The second one says that it has conditions. Don't do the condition and you decline the money.

[DiosaBellissima]

So, they got their regular bonuses, free video cameras, AND they got to make a nice donation to an organization of their choosing.

Gee golly! That big money grubbing bank sure is run by meanies!

Sure, NO business will do anything that doesn't at least somewhat benefit them. So yeah, in that regard I'm sure it's a bit of a stunt, but I'd argue that the ends justify the means. Not only is it a good way for the bank to make their annual donations, but it is also a great way for them to allow the employees to be part of the charitable aspect of the bank.

[Madd Maxx]

What you do is find a poor stripper...

[Maeglin]

It's a great way to "reengineer" the corporate philanthropy department. Give everyone one grand, fire three people who spend all day reading grants. Perfect.

[Contrapuntal]

So, they got their regular bonuses, free video cameras ... Where do you see that?

[asterion]

You can get a life membership in NAMBLA for $1000.
But what if you don't look like Marlon Brando?

[DiosaBellissima]

Where do you see that?

Suse's post 38:

I looked at some of the comments under the story and two people who claimed to be employees of the bank posted that the money they were to use charitably was in addition to their normal bonus, and also that the bank had given each of them a video camera to tape the donation and then to keep for their own use.

[jsgoddess]

I would love this. I would be able to put $1000 into the cashbox of a couple of local charities and make their day.

Recording myself with a video camera? Embarrassing, but I'd do it if I had to to get the money.

I'm constantly wishing I had more to give one rescue organization.

[tonedef]

I wonder how the bank would feel if you filmed your self buying booze for homeless people? Thats still a charitable act.

[Justin Credible]

I actually take this so seriously that when I participate in one of those "Buy a Shamrock to Help [whatever]" campaigns, I don't put my name on it.

hmm..I usually write "Turd Ferguson" on those.

I love the idea of paying things forward, but this does seem like chiefly a publicity stunt. But since it does help a lot of people, its one that I can live with.

[ParentalAdvisory]

But, what if you the "people in need" are in your family?

[Johanna]

But, what if you the "people in need" are in your family?
"Charity begins at home"

[DiosaBellissima]

But, what if you the "people in need" are in your family?

Well, for one: you're already getting your regular bonus and a free video camera- both very nice gifts from any employer.

Secondly, if your family is so truly in need, donate to the organization that helps you out. Do you frequent the soup kitchen? Give back to them so they can help you and your family more. Do you frequent one of those places that gives suits to poor people? Great. Take this opportunity to say thank you in a way you never would have before.

But quite seriously: I doubt most bank employees (even the part time ones) that are getting Christmas bonuses and video cameras are the main soup kitchen demographic.

[ParentalAdvisory]

But quite seriously: I doubt most bank employees (even the part time ones) that are getting Christmas bonuses and video cameras are the main soup kitchen demographic.

One may be a well off bank employee with their immediate family needs already taken care of (your spouse and kids). I'm talking about maybe a sister/brother, cousin/uncle or your mother/father that has fallen on hard times and could use the money directly.

[What the .... ?!?!]

I don't have any problem with it other than the videotaping "requirement"

For those of you who don't like it at all.......how does this compare to the public school community service hours to graduate requirements that are common?

[hajario]

But, what if you the "people in need" are in your family?

From the OP: "Employees were told not to use the money for themselves, their families or families of other bank employees. "

[nofelix]

Having seen similar ideas before, I'm guessing that the bank will take all the video footage and use it as promotional material. It's not just for proof that you've spent the money charitably. They'll get some editing guy to knit all the shots of happy kids & homeless people together with a nice message about the bank.

So... given that this has the potential to be a very powerful ad campaign, maybe those dollars (1000 x number of employees) are being very well spent. Compared to paying an advertising agency to produce something this might be cheaper, and more 'authentic' - the PR holy grail. Plus the increase to staff morale.

All that still doesn't make charity a bad thing to do - at worst I think you can say this is one of the better ideas of how to combine publicity with charity. But it's easy to see how they can profit from the scheme.

[Contrapuntal]

For those of you who don't like it at all.......how does this compare to the public school community service hours to graduate requirements that are common?It doesn't compare at all. Work and school are two different things. Work is voluntary. School is required. Although graduation isn't.

When you work you are paid for services rendered. ASFAIK, requiring someone to work without recompense is illegal.

Can you link to a couple of schools that have such requirements?

[What the .... ?!?!]

It doesn't compare at all. Work and school are two different things. Work is voluntary. School is required. Although graduation isn't.

When you work you are paid for services rendered. ASFAIK, requiring someone to work without recompense is illegal.

Can you link to a couple of schools that have such requirements?

Excellent point! I assume you're suggesting that requiring that of students whose choices (and that of their parents) are pretty much limited is much more onerous than requiring that of employees who are free to take their job skills anywhere they want.

Here's a link to the Chicago Public Schools' community service requirement. (http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/605.3.pdf)

[sqweels]

I'd make a donation to The Human Fund.

As a Festivus gift, right?