Designating your own place of employment for a charitible donation?!? That is beyond belief.
The whole directed donation thing has been exposed for the bullshit that it is in earlier UW Pit threads. The UW decides their allocations in advance. If I give all of my money to one pot, everyone else gives a tiny fraction more to all of the other ones to make up for it.
Haj
Our command is in the midst of CFC right now. They’re trying to encourage 100% participation by making every pledge form an entry into a raffle for a cruise, among other things. I’ve lost count of how many emails and meetings have been held telling us about this. Then today, a GS-13 was going around “reminding” us to contribute.
I think my pledge form fell into the trash can. Damn the luck.
What about if the very manner of contribution is against tenets of your religion?
I was thinking the same thing. UW helps fund Planned Parenthood. Are Catholics and other members of faiths that do not support abortion supposed to cough up the money anyway?
OP, would your employer compromise if you said something like “blah blah, the American Yada Association is my favorite charity because my beloved uncle died of Yada disease, and so I’d rather my money go there and you can take it outta my check,” etc? That way you’re still “giving” and “being a team player” – you’re just giving money to another charity, not UW.
[sarcasm] I mean, isn’t the giving to a charity part what it’s all about? [/sarcasm]
Either way, keep that voice mail. Is there any way you can put it on tape? What he’s doing has GOT to be illegal.
FCMI actually have a filter on my work e-mail which directs anything with “CFC” in the subject or text to a separate file. In past years, I have gotten “Inbox Full” notices if I take a few days off during CFC season (which I usually do) because of the flood of e-mails announcing (and reminding and reminding and reminding us about) raffles, bake sales, luncheons, and (a new one this year) used book sales which just about every work unit at our office has to raise money for CFC.
You should have sent it up here, I hear we’re a bit short on forms. Yet they’re still encouraging 100%, go figure.
Bit of a Freudian slip? 
When I was just a boot E-2 seaman apprentice, about 2 months aboard my first cutter, the CFC campaign was in full swing. I didn’t donate, mainly because I was a friggin E-2 who was saving up to get married soon. (Know what a E-2 gets paid? Not a whole lot) I was the only one who didn’t give. So, for the next month, the XO (an officer) would publicy chastise me and try to shame me at officers call, in order to get me to donate. At least once I was called to his stateroom for a one on one re: this issue. It became an issue of priciple with me.
Well, the command didn’t get their 100%, and that snot nosed bastard of an officer forever ruined any chance of the CFC ever getting a fucking dime out of me. And I had it easy. Guys in the service will tell ya, that lots of times, liberty was withheld until they gave something. Liberty! (That’s when you go home at the end of the day) That’s a powerful motivator.
CFC time in the service is a real fucking joy. No person in my charge is ever asked more than once if they want to give. Period. That’s it, end o’story.
GrizzRich, you have my sympathies. That was an incredibly shitty thing for the CEO to pull.
:mad:
My thoughts exactly, all three of you. I don’t know why the OP cannot just walk that memo to an attorney and file suit for harassment.
If you give to charity, you should give money to the charity that you think does the most important work. Just giving randomly to a broad umbrella of organizations pretty clearly demonstrates that you weren’t interested in actually doing good (because if you were, you’d spend some time thinking about what would do the most good for your money) but rather looking good, or getting tax benefits.
To protect your bonus, find out which charities that you support receive UW funds only when the money is specified. (There are charities that are not included in the UW distribution program from the general fund, but to which UW will pass along any earmarked donations. This is different than “specifying” one of the charities that are paid from the general fund where your “earmark” is ignored.) In that way, you can get the brass off your back, contribute to a legitimate charity, and actually deplete the UW funds to the extent that they spend time and money writing a check to your designee.
Then forward the voice mail (anonymously) to whomever is your community’s nastiest radio shock jock.
If you could find the work, sure. Most of us are pretty dependant on our current jobs and have a really hard decision to make in cases like this one. 
My company (a municipality) does the UW thing, but no strongarm tactics. My non-contribution will go unnoticed and unremarked. Lucky, lucky me.
As a side note – I’m peripherally involved with an organization called Northwest Harvest, a network of food banks in Washington. NH will not accept donations from United Way because UW requires statistics on both race and demonstration of genuine need for food recipeients. Northwest Harvest is of the opinion that if you are willing to stand in line at a food bank 2 days a week, you probably need the food … :rolleyes:
Because, sadly, it’s a voice-mail and not a printed memo.
Though that makes me wonder: If you still have the message, maybe you can dump it off onto a cassette tape and send it to your local TV news “troubleshooter/investigator” division. I’m sure they’d love to chew on something like this that’s been a source of perpetual aggravation to so many people.
If this happened at my company, I’d return the form with the contribution blank filled out thusly:[ul]$BLOW.ME[/ul]
My company has done those drives.
I refuse to participate. Anyone asks me why, I’ll tell them. Anyone in management who gives me grief about it will be directed to discuss it with my lawyer.
Granted that an E2 doesn’t get paid a lot; however, an E2 with nonmilitary spouse gets paid extra for the mere fact of having said nonmilitary spouse & is eligible for on-base housing.
I’m fairly certain that’s a violation of the UCMJ.
What’s an E2 doing at officer’s call?
I’m fairly certain that such harassment is a violation of the UCMJ.
Well, the CFC isn’t an organization per se & they’re not the ones getting the bucks anyway. The way it works is you indicate on the donation form which of the participating charities you want your donation to go to. The idea is that the Combined Federal Campaign is to limit the request for donations to just that particular time & thus the Servicemember’s not hounded throughout the year by hundreds of different charities.
And that’s just bullshit. For one thing, Liberty can only be curtailed as a disciplinary measure (EMI [Extra Military Instruction]) and the time that would’ve otherwise spent on Liberty must be employed in a task directly related to the disciplinary issue that garnered such curtailment. Denying a Servicemember Liberty unless he parts with a portion of his pay is certainly a violation of the UCMJ because it’s extortion.
That’s the way it worked at every command I served in for my entire military career. & I made it to retirement so I’m guessing that it’s not just a conincidence that I hit commands that didn’t violate the law.
Grizz is evidently a civilian employee of the command and certainly cannot be denied Liberty. He certainly can see either the HR or the boss’s ISIC (Immediate Superior in Command) {or both} and the commanding officer is certainly subject to the UCMJ.
Cervaise: My voicemail provides me the option (which I’ve never used) of forwarding my voicemail messages to another number.
:smack: I’m a :wally sometimes when I really get into the general issues vis a vis military/civilian things.
First: Grizz is obviously talking about a civilian company. So, there’s no ISIC and the boss isn’t subject to the UCMJ. Had this issue been at a military unit and Grizz a civilian, then what I mentioned about the HR & ISIC apply.
Second: For Chandeleur’s story of when he was an E2, the XO obviously has a boss, the CO. “Sir, I do not desire to make a voluntary contribution” should’ve been the end of it. If the XO didn’t let it drop, then Chandeleur’s response should’ve been, “Sir, I believe I’ll discuss it with the CO.” Continue the steps as necessary. Of course, the CO wants his unit to look so wonderful that it’s hit 100% of whatever the issue du jour is; however, the CO certainly doesn’t want to get relieved while an Investigator General’s investigation into his command style (illegal harassment, extortion, illegal denial of Liberty, etc.) is under way.
Been there too, Grizz. It’s humiliating and makes you very angry. I said “fuck it” and found another (happily, much better) job.
Is there anything as sick-making as watching a CEO you know makes millions per year in salary and bonus preening himself because he gave five grand to the widows and orphans (and, incidentally, got photographed handing over the oversized check)?
Bah, humbug!
I was also pressured about giving to United Way through my job and I worked for the government! They had declined to fund an organization that I volunteered for and so I decided that my money could best be put to use elsewhere… Only one year was I personally harassed and humiliated in front of others, but I gave back as much as I got. :D.
How about forwarding a copy of this memo to 1) the newspaper 2) the mayor’s office 3) the governor’s office 4) your state representative’s office 4) any charity that you support that is NOT supported by United Way…well, you get the drift. Don’t forget the American Civil Liberties Union!
And for the CEO to presume to decide how much each person can afford is a total breech of business etiquette! Mumble something about “Marxism” each time you pass his desk.
Hey, I’m a Socialist, but I’m a rebel even more…
Because there’s no such cause of action, unless created by statute. And no legislature that I’m aware of has made harassment related to charitable giving either a criminal violation or a civil wrong.
I’d feel the same way you do. But (as much as I hate to admit it), I don’t think your lawyer would be much help to you.
C’mon. I realize this isn’t GQ, but WAG guesses or claims about what is illegal aren’t helping anyone and could lead to someone damaging his or her career. If someone knew the risk, and took a moral stand anyway, I’d admire that. But no one should be induced to do so based on bad information.
As I said, I’m not a labor lawyer. (Although, FWIW, after my first post in this thread, I walked down the hall and talked to one, and he agrees that any civil claim, constitutional or otherwise, would be extremely unlikely to succeed.) I’m prepared to be convinced that I’m wrong. But speculation isn’t going to do that. There’s some respected posters here, but I think some of you are outside your field.
(I should point out that my comments assume the usual at-will situation. An employment contract, union or otherwise, might change the result if termination may only be made for cause.)
Disclaimer, again.