I’m really surprised by how much animosity there is out there towards the Red Cross. I never heard so much negative stuff about ARC until after Katrina hit. I really would like to hear why so many people have a beef with the Red Cross, I’m more than a little puzzled by the attitude.
Here are some threads where the anti-Red Cross feeling shows up:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6543895
I’ve seen the Red Cross in action after a devastating tornado. I have nothing but praise for these folks. I suspect that many of those who complain the loudest know nothing about the Red Cross except the half-lies and B.S. that they’ve read on messageboards.
If I had any beef, I would certainly share some with the Red Cross. But it probably would go bad before reaching the affected area.
I have heard people I know express reservations about the ARC, but they could never tell me anything more than “feelings”, and express the opinion that they wished there were other choices.
There are other choices for donations, by the way. However, very few of them have the infrastructure or experience that the ARC has in dealing with disasters. Most local fund raisers are raising money to give to ARC. Other nearly-nameless fund raisers may simply be fly-by-night groups that simply buy a bunch of blankets and bread with the money, and drop the supplies off at a shelter or refugee center.
Nonetheless, I suspect that this country needs a major overhaul in how to deal with disasters of the magnitude of Hurrican Katrina, if only to make sure that effective aid is distributed effectively. The ARC is not perfect, but neither is Homeland Security, the Salvation Army, the local police forces, or the National Guard. What we really need is a central control of disaster relief that knows how to use ALL resources available, regardless of whether the organization is a local charity (like homeless shelters and soup kitchens, who specialize in basic needs), an NPO (like ARC, who provide communications along with clothing, food, and shelter allowances), or a government agency (who can provide safety and long-term insurance needs).
We’ve been volunteering at a Red Cross shelter for victims of Katrina. I also have nothing but the highest praise for the compassion, caring, organization, and dedication of the agency and the volunteers who flew in from all around the country to help. The Red Cross will be our charity of choice from this day forward.
From what I’ve always heard, it was about selling cigarettes to soldiers instead of giving them away or something like that. All it takes is one incident, true or not, to trigger the Super Patriot Alarm System and make an organization a permanent Enemy of the State.
My personal beef: The first time I was able to give blood and there was an oppurtunity I did. That was 9/9/01. A couple weeks later I received a nice little thank you letter from the Red Cross and an additional thing saying that since I was a type O+ my blood was l33t and they could use more of it. Flatter me, please.
Jump ahead a few years and a few more blood donations. The Red Cross had sent me a letter. I assumed that it was another “Thank you and keep giving” note, but instead it was a “You have hepatitis B” note. “What?” I have never had a blood transfusion in my life nor have I ever done an IV drug. At that point I was still a virigin and all my past engagements were virigins. I called up the Red Cross confused as hell and explained all this. “Don’t worry,” said the nice lady on the line. “There have been a lot of false positives lately. Wait a couple days.”
So I waited. Sure enough another note came from the Red Cross saying that I didn’t have hepatitis. No apology for scaring the bejesus out of me. It continued telling me that despite the fact that I didn’t have hepatitis they couldn’t accept any other donations from me. I understand that that is CYA, let’s not get sued stuff, but its so irratating. I enjoyed giving blood and knowing how useful it was. Now whenever there’s a blood drive and somebody says, “Hey, Wolfian! Let’s give blood!” I have to tell this story. Trust me: I ain’t getting dates out of it.
I also dislike their refusal to take blood from out homosexuals. As a hetrosexual I could give two sh*ts whose blood saves my life. Besides, haven’t hetrosexuals caught up with homosexuals in the AIDS race? What’s next: African Americans on the average have higher rates of AIDS so no more Black blood.
They do great work, really, but little stuff like that leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Well, it wasn’t cigarettes for my grandfathers & great uncles, it was donuts & coffee. After getting off of the hospital boat home from Iwo Jima. Or maybe to Iwo. I wasn’t a good listener. Doesn’t matter, Grandad & Uncle Bud hated 'em, that’s good enough for me.
Actually, I won’t give to the Red Cross because I checked on the percentage of my donation that would go to administration. For me, it’s unacceptably high. Look it up. If that’s acceptable to you, write the check. If it isn’t, do a little research, and find one that is.
For me, an atheist, the Salvation Army is a reasonable alternative. They preach, but they have** very** low admin cost, plus they’re semi non-pushy about the religious stuff.
YMMV. It’s your money, you decide if it’s a good buy or not.
Even before looking at the threads referenced in the OP I had a feeling the problem was ignorance; I was right. Some people just don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
I heard one guy on the radio last week telling people not to donate money to the ARC because of what happened with 9/11, when it turned out that some of the money donated afterwards was being used for other disasters. And that’s true, the ARC made a few mistakes after 9/11. But what kills me is that radio guy was completely ignorant of what happened next: within months, the ARC had admitted its mistake and made policy changes as a result. So that the same thing would never happen again (I was a volunteer special events coordinator with the ARC in early 2002, so I saw the press releases and heard the talk in local ARC offices). Now, when you tell the Red Cross where you want your money to go, that’s where it goes.
It makes me angry to hear misinformation about the ARC, but, when it comes down to it, as long as people are donating money somewhere I don’t really care which organization they use. I just happen to think that the ARC is the best choice.
Oy. Yes, the concern is about HIV, but the other prohibitions related to HIV apply just as equally to heterosexuals as homosexuals (and you know that it’s just homosexual men, right?). From the ARC website:
[QUOTE]
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
You are at risk for getting infected if you:[ul][li]have ever used needles to take drugs, steroids, or anything not prescribed by your doctor[/li][li]are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977[/li][li]have ever taken money, drugs or other payment for sex since 1977[/li][li]have had sexual contact in the past 12 months with anyone described above[/li][li]received clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia[/li][li]were born in, or lived in, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria, since 1977.[/li][li]since 1977, received a blood transfusion or medical treatment with a blood product in any of these countries, or[/li][li]had sex with anyone who, since 1977, was born in or lived in any of these countries.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Look, I’m not allowed to give blood because I lived in England from '83-85. Yes, they think I might have contracted Mad Cow disease 20 years ago. Frustrating? Of course. Especially in light of tragedies like 9/11 and Katrina, when they could use all the blood they can get. But I do understand the reasoning: could you imagine the backlash if even one person was unnecessarily exposed to hep, HIV, or vCJD? Blood donations would drop off dramatically, and people would start refusing transfusions.
You say “I understand that that is CYA, let’s not get sued stuff,” but I don’t think that you really do understand: of course legal liability is part of it, but there could also be irreparable damage done to the public’s trust in blood products – trust that is sometimes shaky to begin with.
MadPansy64: I have no beef with you. You’re entitled to think that the ARC’s admin costs are too high. It’s poor information that irks me, not people making an informed decision (even if it’s one I disagree with ;)).
1959, Arkansas River flooding in Tulas Oklahoma. The little truck with the big red cross came around to those of us fighting the river, and we had been doing the sand bag thing for about 20 hrs straight and **WANTED TO SELL US COFFEE!!! ** Personal experience.
June 8, 1974, I was digging my out of my demolished home and those little red cross trucks came around again. Coffee, 50¢ for an itty bitty paper cup. Personal experience.
Takes 5 years to build a rep, take 5 seconds to destroy it.
I should give them another chance? Like the system does for me… right?
Not MB mumbo jumbo, it happend to me.
Why do I dislike the Red Cross? This is why:
My Uncle Bob was a POW in Japan for 3.5 years and was in the Bataan Death Marches. He was so thin when he came home his own mother (who was sent a telegram from the govt. telling her he was dead) didn’t even recognize him :eek: . He gets off the train and sees a table set up with coffee and doughnuts. Being that he is tired, very thin, and in uniform, he takes a cup of coffee and a doughnut from the table. At this point the Red Cross worker informs him that the coffee and doughnut will cost him 25 cents (keep in mind, this is 1945). My uncle proceeded to throw the coffee and doughnut back down on the table, tell the worker what she can do with the food and drink, walked over the Salvation Army table and gets the coffee and doughnut for free.
IMHO, a supposedly charitable organization asking a soldier who was obviously a POW to pay for his refreshments after a long journey is just plain wrong.
Yes, what they did in WWII was bad, but this isn’t WWII. AFAIK, they no longer have this practice. (If I am wrong, someone correct me, please.)
But to demonize an entire organization for what it did 60 years ago? Especially when no one who was worknig for the Red Cross then is there now? And the policies are completly different? Gee, I guess you must hate Germany and every German alive, cause after all, some of them were Nazi’s during WWII. :rolleyes:
Me too, it seems a lot of the beefs are about coffee, donuts and cigarettes. And this stuff was a problem over 40 years ago. It’s like hating Germany today because of Hitler.
My feelings exactly. I don’t doubt the Red Cross does good work, but when I donate money, I don’t want it going to an overpriced CEO. I worked for one of the world’s largest charities and saw the horrible misuse of funds and felt sick to my stomach when some little old lady on a fixed income would send in her check for $4.00.
If you do donate to a large charity, write on the check “for food only” or “for medicine only” or “for clothing only” etc. They are legally obliged to use that money only for what you write on the check. They cannot use it for rent, office supplies, salaries. Any money that comes in that is not earmarked can be spent at the discretion of the charity.
I hate to be one of these annoying “cite” people, but this sounds a bit urban-legendish, so…cite?
If I do share my beef with the Red Cross, can I write “For Free Distribution Only” in grease pencil on the package of ground chuck?
We got millions of dollars in donations and I know our Chief Financial Officer was a stickler for regulations. She, and the man who was her predecessor, insisted that any checks with a notation of how the money was to be spent made sure those checks were diverted to that sub-account within the charity. So at the end of the year, if X amount of dollars was spent on “food”, they had to include every single check that stated that on the check. If the numbers did not add up, funds had to be diverted to make up for any discrepancy. The same was if someone wrote “not for administrative use”.
The CFO hated when checks were specified as such, but grudgingly applied them to that category and they claimed compliance with such notations was a federal regulation for all charities.
Mind you, I was a paid employee, and we did have mighty fine offices and a large staff - and some of our donors freely gave money for the lease, the office supplies and salaries. Non-Profits are not cheap, despite the name.
GusNSpot said it happened to him 30 years ago.
My German family sticks together and we take a while to forgive, let alone forget a wrong (especially when someone in the family has been wronged in such a grievous manner). We’re just that way.
OK, another more recent example, then:
My cousin’s husband Mike (who is large) flies quite a bit on business. While waiting for a flight, Mike saw a guy who was just as large, if not larger. They got to talking about how uncomfortable the seats are. At this point, the other guy (who was traveling on Red Cross business) bragged that the RC buys him two seats so he can be comfortable. The guy was flying FIRST CLASS. In addition to that, the guy was bringing his dog (not a service animal) along simply because he wanted to travel with his dog. The RC paid for the 2 First Class seats, plus the animal in the cargo hold.
This is where my money would go?
IMHO, the RC should have bought one COACH ticket. If the guy wanted to be comfy, they he should have bought the other seat and the First Class upgrade himself. He also should have paid to fly his dog. What the RC (a religious organization) did was just encourage that guy’s gluttony (which is a sin, btw).
The red Cross is in no way a religious organization.
Bad Blood: Crisis in the American Red Cross (Hardcover)
It seems like the Red Cross did not do as good a job as other blood banks in protecting the safety of the blood supply. It has been a few years since I read this book (published 1996), but it seemed to be a well reasoned and well researched book. Red Cross resisted additional testing of blood, dragged feet on reforms for short-sighted and self-interested reasons as I recall. Red Cross blood record keeping/tracking also had significant flaws. Other non-profit blood banks did better. Red Cross also had monopolist attitude about its right to be the only player in non-profit blood banking. I believe Red Cross tried to drive other banks out of the market.
The immediate Post 9/11 fund raising, where the Red Cross was slow to come out and admit that they could not (and did not plan to) spend the directed donations as directed, also gave the organization a black eye. If they had been quick to make it clear that they wanted to use the donations for other disaster relief efforts, they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble, but I think they were greedy and ran misleading appeals until others began to question their plans and approach.
Still… I give blood regularly (they call me every 8 weeks on the dot), and I’m giving a substantial donation thru my company (100% match) for Katrina relief. They won’t have the 9/11 problem of not enough places to spend the directed money for this disaster.
