After three major fraud scandels in the leadership of the United Way how many more chances are we supposed to give these thieving stupid bastards? Millions have been stolen- often over decades. This was done with the knowledge of the various board and employees of the United Way. Hard to miss those private jets, posh homes and contracts with related companies. Only after they got caught did anyone inside ever say anything.
Many charities seem to do just fine without the United Way, and maybe without their massive overhead and overcompensated executives looting the funds intended for the needy maybe more good will be done for those who need it. United Way’s claims of relevance are at best self-serving and not ever been verified.
Also $100,000 is lot of money in the 80’s for a regional office of a charity. If you want to make for-profit money, go work at a company. As we saw with the Aramony case, United Way executies had, and continue to receive plenty of perks on top of the extravagant salaries they received. Of course, that wasn’t enough- not with all those unsupervised dollars just sitting there.
Outside of the fraudulent boiler-room “fire and police” telemarketers, the United Way has been the biggest scam in the charity field for years. They skim plenty off of the top without ever having to show a single positive result themselves. They used charitible money and publicity to buy political influence and lax oversight. Their “executives” recieved for-profit style salary and perks, with the lax non-profit oversight and low personal risks.
They used charity money as their personal piggy bank in broad daylight and nobody within these corrupt organizations ever said anything, and all to often tried to over it up too. But unlike Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and Tyco-- the United Way seems to think they can hide behind the banner of charity to excuse their continued misdeeds and terminal negligence with other organizations charitible donations. And given some of the posts here it seems a few people have actaully bought into that scam.
The only reason the United Way has not been shut down is the political and business connections it has (paid for by you, the unsuspecting donor- thought you were helping the homeless- sucker). Still, you can vote with **your ** wallet-- just say no to these sleazy fuckers. Give to your local charities directly- don’t be fooled again (and again, and again. . . )
I’m asking you to examine how the United Way works in your area. The United Way in DC is different than the United Way in Minneapolis, or Seattle, etc. Examine them. See if fraud reports have turned up there.
I’m asking you not to confuse the overbearing and invasive collection procedures at your company with what the United Way, itself, is trying to accomplish or desires out of its donors.
I’m asking you to give serious thought to the alternatives. In particular, what do you think are the likely outcomes of a massive reduction in donations to the UW?
What happens to the small charities dependent on it for the majority of their funding?
Do you think that worthy charities that operate today because of their relationship to UW will be able to continue to do so? How will they go about getting a similar amount of funding?
Do the current federal and state administrations offer enough avenues of funding to fill in the void should UW crumble?
Are federal, state and local services enough to fill the void in and of themselves?
Sadly, this is one of those times where the system itself is not an ideal one, but there simply isn’t anything better out there, not even anything that could immediately fill the void-- or fill the void within a decade. This, to me, argues strongly in favor of again holding UW accountable and making sure excellent financial oversight is in place. We’re seeing the same issues on the for-profit side-- HMOs are fucked. Liability insurance is ridicuous… need I go on? There are systems in place in many, many arenas that are far from ideal but continue because the alternatives aren’t better.
If you don’t feel comfortable giving, don’t. That’s fine. I hope you will give to charities directly, and that if you’re going to encourage other people to stop their UW donations, you’ll educate them on how to give donations directly to the charities of their choice. From what I have seen, the vast majority of people out there are far too lazy to bother giving money unless someone comes knocking and asks for it.
elf6c, it seems (at least from here) that you think the United Way is one giant conglomerate, where all offices are connected and responsible for all other offices. That’s not the case. The Capital Area UW is entirely seperate from the Minneapolis UW is entirely different from the Bay Area UW ad infinitum.
First off, it’s not a regional office. It’s the head office of an independant charity that is “franchised” across the country. Secondly, it’s not about “wanting to make for-profit money”. It’s about proper compensation for your expertise. Altruism is nice, but it doesn’t compensate for 2 or 3 degrees and more education than your average corporate officer. Thirdly, it’s one thing to refuse to donate to an organization that pays its executives $100k and who are involved in fradulent activities. It’s a completely different one to tell people to refuse to donate to an organization that pays its officers $100k who do not engage in fradulent behavior.
As you can see by the cites provided the CFC and many other organizations have have easily found other organizations to take over for the United Way. The United Way would like people to think they are indispensible, but as the Cites have shown, they are plenty of charitible organizations ready willing and able to step in. Shockingly, they may even actually deliver the funds to charities- not defense counsel and pensions for thieving CEO’s.
The United Way is fond of self-serving statements of how important they are for others, but have been easily replaced by the CFC and others has have the United Way run you campaign is seen as a negative. The United Way has way too much negative baggage and a proven history of major ethical laspes.
The only way you can get your organization to join with others who have already flushed the United Way is to not give to them and join the CFC in selecting a new organization.
I’m really very surprised at some of the coercion that goes on in the workplace that some of you have described. I mean, my company does the United Way thing, and in my particular area, I was asked to be a “champion” and pass out the envelopes, put up the posters, etc. and I declined to do so with no problem. Yes, they do campaign, but there’s no pressure whatsoever. I guess I’m just confused as to what a company or corporation would gain by forcing (blackmailing, really!) their employees to donate. It smacks (and IANAL nor do I play one on TV so I’m not sure) of being illegal, not to mention unethical. So why would they do it?? Can anyone 'splain this to me?
Missy, there’s been a couple stabs at that answer in this thread. My guess is that (a) companies feel the need to compare themselves to other companies in the way of corporate giving - the UW is an easy benchmark by which to measure that, and (b) the UW annually recognizes its top supporters by way of top donations and highest percentage of participation - companies like to be at the top of lists like that.
In the early 1970’s United Way denied a grant to a very worthy organization. I decided that my contributions could go elsewhere. But at the school where I taught, I was given the high pressure treatment to have a portion of my salary deducted as a contribution to UW – a “service” that our school board offered teachers. Since these were public schools, I wonder how legal that was. (I didn’t give in.)
The “divisions” are still controlled to a large extent for the national office (even though they tried to play down that connection after the Aramony disasters). Now that D.C. (the biggest office I believe the articles pointed out-- at least until the CFC canned them) has been caught too, the other United Way offices are now trying to play up their “independence” rather then the national organization aspect they played up before. Sorry, its just spin control to me.
“Altruism is nice, but it doesn’t compensate for 2 or 3 degrees and more education than your average corporate officer” LOL-- CITE? So the United Way officers are “better” and deserve more compensation? Really? I guess all the MBAs and years of education in the corporate world has nothing on the executive training program at the United Way. Gee with all these super-executives you would think they would have such a fraud problem. The executives at Enron thought they were smarter and more entitled to.
You want more compensation, take your risks in the private world. Most to nearly all non-profit positions pay less then the equilivent for-profit position- often by alot. However, the United Way’s sense of entitlement to other charities’ money I guess allowed them to escape that fact. Then again it was the sense of entitlement in the United Way that has lead to decades of fraud in the first place.
There were plenty of divisions in Enron, Worldcom and Tyco that individually did nothing wrong too. Doesn’t seem to have helped them much either.
My comment was not United Way specific. Nor did I say that non-profit officers should be compensated as much as corporate officers. Nor did I even mention a UW executive training program. Nor a “super-executive”.
Entitled to…what? Regardless, this is a non sequitor.
More compensation? Huh? Risks? What the hell are you talking about?
No shit, Sherlock. Direct me to where I said otherwise.
Fine. I’ve never said that the United Way is a guaranteed worthwhile target of your donation dollar. My only contention regarding your initial comments are that it is foolish to completely dismiss an organization based solely on their executive salaries.
As has already been pointed out, the people who are talking about the United Ways’ regional offices as being SOOOO independent used to talk about how great it was that a national organization could pool all those resources for charities. Which is it? Is the United Way united or not?
It sounds a lot like the stuff we got when Worldcom and Enron got caught. Ken Lay and the whole bunch were being extolled as all-seeing visionaries in the business press prior to the scandal, with a firm grasp on their companies’ activities. Then after the scandal they became ridiculously overpaid, hapless signers of documents they knew nothing about.
I’m with the peole woho are hearing the spin doctors at work on the United Way, just like the worked on Enron and Worldcom. Plus, I think when the national headquarters and the largest regional office of the United Way BOTH get caught in ripoffs, a reasonable person might ask of the other offices … are they innocent of these practices, or have they just not been caught at it … yet?
BTW, another charitable collection group to watch is the Shriners. A reporter down in Tampa/St. Pete broke the news a few years ago that their charities were getting just a couple of pennies on the dollar for all their collecting activities. Seems the rest of the money was going to purchase those little cars they drive in parades and for low cost loans to … Shriners.
I’ve also heard that an awful lot of the money the Girl Scouts make on their cookies goes to the national headquarters, and that some of the facilities the Girl Scouts build get used by corporations a lot more than they get used by Girl Scouts.
OTOH, I understand the money collected by the Salvation Army is used very efficiently and well. I’ve always got a few bucks for Santa when I’m out shopping at Christmastime.
No, its that your “points” are not very convincing nor reflective of the actual posts made in the thread.
**My comment was not United Way specific. **
Mine were, as were everyone else’s in the thread.
**Entitled to…what? Regardless, this is a non sequitor **
to full market compensation. Oops, typo.
**More compensation? Huh? Risks? What the hell are you talking about? [and delightfully], No shit, Sherlock. Direct me to where I said otherwise. **
You were stating "Altruism is nice, but it doesn’t compensate for 2 or 3 degrees and more education than your average corporate officer. " And “proper” compensation for your expertise. Remember, I even quoted it for you. I don’t see your issue nor the need for your snippy comment. I thought your quote and my reply were clear enough, and don’t call me “Sherlock”.
“My only contention regarding your initial comments are that it is foolish to completely dismiss an organization based solely on their executive salaries.” Well your wrong. MY comments were about the major fraud issues, please go back and read the OP and all of the extensive Cites I provided detailing the serious long term criminal fraud, misrepresentation, and personal spending issues at the United Way. Another poster raised the 100K issue, then you responded about “proper” compensation and such. Only then did I post a rebuttal.
For me it is foolish to give a cent to a charity which has had such massive and long term problems. Evidently the CFC and many other organizations (along with everyone in this thread but you and one other poster) hardily agrees with me. I have provided extensive Cites to back these points up and to refute some of the “united way is indispensible” points. I am sorry you are tied to this organization, but like Enron the good go down with the bad when the bad run the ship.
elf, it looks like we’ve crossed wires somewhere in this thread. I connected Chimera’s rejection of the UW based solely on the $100k exec. salary to you. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. I was mightily confused, given some of my comments regarding the United Way in this thread (namely “I have no idea why people donate money to an organization like the United Way…”).
I, too, am shocked at some of the workplace tactics used to convince people to donate! :eek:
Well, we do get the “UW Donation Push” every year (and yes, I have $5 deducted from each paycheck) where I work, but we’re also funded by the UW. So it becomes more of a mutual back-scratching thing. We give them a few hundred bucks, they give us a few thousand.
Of course, I realize that as an individual person, whose paycheck should be based only upon the work I was hired to do, I don’t have to give if I don’t want to, but of course the larger implication is that without United Way funding, jobs like mine might not exist.
Also, there are only four of us who work here, so it’s not difficult for us to achieve 100% participation, which gets us a prize!
Truthfully, the “prize” has gotten kinda lame. It used to be a pizza party with the CEO of our local chapter . . . now it’s cheap ice cream and nasty brownies with whatever UW employee(s) they can scrounge up. But hell, it’s still free grub.
Note I said late 80’s, as in roughly 1987, 1988. That was quite a bit more money back then. And why one for each half of a metropolitan area?
I always love the above-below the Executive ranks arguments on Salary. At the Executive rank, it is necessary to pay huge wages to draw top talent. Below that, it is necessary to pay the lowest possible “competitive” wage. Hmm…
