[Godwin]And just how did the SS do this? It was an Einsatzgruppen according to this old story. People pretty far removed from Himmler[/Godwin]
If you want to defend the UW, defend the UW, but don’t start by trying to nitpick and poke holes in other peoples’ life experience.
Agree about UW, but the “high value of land” thing caught my attention. We own 5 acres of ‘high value land’. I would love to ‘sell off a couple of acres’, as we are getting up there in age, and no longer wish to take care of that much acreage. Unfortunately, there are zoning laws in place which prevent subdividing. Might be the case with the guy you’re talking about.
Except Himmler is on record for ordering the Holocaust, and the Einsatzgruppen were under his orders.
UW is on recored for saying “dont do this” and the employees at the companies dont work for UW. Other that that- your godwinized comparison is spot on.
And I didnt question yours, since I know companies do this- but for any cause, not just the UW. For the Food bank, or Breast cancer or whatever. Sure it doesnt happen for individual losses, since the company isnt competing with others.
Like I said, I was the UW coord for my floor, and the UW rep not only didnt say anything like that, she specifically said it was against their rules.
Of course UW knows it happens, and they are happy to get the $. But they dont like the bad PR.
I don’t always agree with Dr. Deth on these boards, but I think he’s been very consistent and quite correct in this thread. It took a while for him to get around to the point, but eventually he crystalized the argument: Don’t blame UW for strong-arm tactics perpetrated by your employer.
As he and a couple others have noted above, UW takes less than half the allowed* percentage of the donations in order to fund its operations.
Over the decades, March of Dimes and other “Donation Aggregators” have been similarly criticized for their executives’ salaries and the breakdowns of their operating costs. Nevertheless, the undeniable fact is that they redistribute a greater percentage of the donations to other chartities which they have vetted and which have met their requirements.
The alternative is to
A) Donate nothing to any charity. Believe it or not, though, there really are people in this world who are altruistic and/or want to help others – even strangers – who are in need.
B) Donate directly to one or more charities. The problem, though, is that there are a lot of “Charity” organizations out there that really do spend more on themselves than on their charitable efforts. They exist only to prey upon those who have a genuine desire to help. [And after every big disaster, the American Red Cross warns people about scam agencies that are claiming to act on their behalf.]
How does the average guy satisfy his altruistic urge and donate to a truly worthy cause?
Spend hours (days?) researching 501©3 organizations, investigating their tax returns, balance sheets, causes, and personnel before choosing one or two that best fit your causes and criteria. Then send personal checks (cash and CC#s would be risky) directly to them.
Conduct searches for charities using CharityWatch and similar websites and resources to see which get the best ratings on the criteria you find important. Send personal checks to them.
Give directly (or indirectly – “at the office”) to charity aggregators like March of Dimes and United Way and similar organizations, trusting that they have criteria that their beneficiaries must meet and those criteria agree with your sensibilities. Send your donations to them.
My mother was enthusiastic about household pets and dogs in particular. Even when her income was limited, she made a point of donating to charities with domestic pet themes like “California Humane Authority” and “Petwatch USA” and she felt good about herself and her deeds. What irritated me and my siblings most wasn’t just that we discovered the organizations were sending less than 10% of their aggregations to animal shelters, but that she continued to donate to them even after we showed her how fraudulent they were. And when the Shelter Society said, “We got your name from Petwatch USA” she would blithely donate to them, as well, happily ignoring the fact that she was being thoroughly scammed. Damn the Humane Society for allowing fraudsters to exploit my mother’s desire to help unfortunate pets!
–G!
*Note that there are no legal regulations on these percentages taken for “Operating Expenses” and such. There are merely guidelines and suggestions from BBB, CharityWatch and similar organizations. UW happens to be well below the average “Operating Percentage” that these watchdog groups consider palatable.
The problem with using the overhead ratio of aggregator groups is that they’re only one of the levels of overhead. Whoever the UW gives to also has their own overhead. Of course, overhead isn’t necessarily bad either - if the organization wasn’t spending things on being an organization, the organization wouldn’t exist to be able to funnel the 50-80% of the money they collect to those in need. If it wasn’t for the UW putting in the work to ask for money from effectively everyone, the charities they support would not have the funding that they get. If you go ahead after being bugged by the UW to give to the charities that you support the most, then you can feel smug about not giving to them. Or, I suppose, if you need the money just as much as those being helped, which is somewhat unlikely if you’re being pressured about it at your place of employment (though I feel for hourly wage slaves, you at least are fit enough to be earning money, unlike some people).
Of course, the best way to give to charity, any charity, is by donating appreciated securities. You don’t recognize the gain on the appreciation, but can claim a charitable deduction for the full value. This also lets you bunch deductions easier so that you can actually get a tax benefit for most of them, something that’s increasingly rare now the standard deduction is higher.
I’ve never experienced a manager coming and talking to me for any other charity campaign except UW. I’m not saying of course that it never happens anywhere, but that has not been my experience. My experience is that it has been limited to UW, and only UW. So to me, the common factor, is UW.
Anyway, it is fine. I’m not saying people shouldn’t contribute to UW if they want to. They’re a legitimate charity and do good work. But I feel they are a little but complicit it in what happens in the workplace during their campaigns. I don’t think it can just be waved it off by saying that they tell people not to do it. Because this feels more like a wink wink nudge nudge thing to me.
In any case, I choose to contribute directly to charities of my choice because I believe in their mission.
Back in the 90s I worked at a place that did United Way and we got the “we want 100% participation” speech from the managers, along with some “hey there, we noticed you haven’t contributed, you want to contribute right?” and just a touch of “I’m just going to put everybody down for a deduction, is that OK, if that isn’t OK, well, come and talk to me about it.”
The place I’m at now, for a few years we’d get an email once a year that everybody would ignore, and that was the end of it, and we haven’t even gotten one of those emails in a while. Thank goodness.
I agree with you. DrDeth has indeed been consistent, and I absolutely get where he’s coming from (although I must say he’s overreacting a bit when he uses language like “spreading hate”).
That said, I disagree that UW doesn’t deserve some blame for the strongarm tactics used by participating employers.
The stories of being, if not “forced,” pressured very hard to give, even intimidated a bit, by employers, are so common as to be ubiquitous, and go back so far, that UW cannot be unaware of the tactics used to raise money in their name.
So I believe they share some of the blame.
This isn’t something I feel all that strongly about – after all, I didn’t start this thread – but I do believe it’s true.
Oh sure, like i said "…*.the UW rep not only didnt say anything like that, she specifically said it was against their rules.
Of course UW knows it happens, and they are happy to get the $. But they dont like the bad PR."*
What should they do? Refuse to accept the ? They already tell employers not to do it. They dont like the bad PR. They do like the .
YES! That is exactly what everybody is saying! If you know these things are going on and you take the money anyway, that makes you complicit. If you want your hands clean, you don’t take the money.
Did anybody think to ask her what enforcement mechanisms they had in place to uphold those rules, or how to trigger such mechanisms?
Over the past few years, the UW campaign at my work has changed tone several times:
My main reason for not contributing to the local United Way is that some of their member agencies don’t interest me as charitable organizations.
Back in the day, when I worked for a college, the United Way was very important to management. We weren’t unionized, but management got into these little pissing contests with each other, and it was a matter of bragging rights to get the most people to sign up. Significant pressure was applied to get employees to contribute.
The more I looked at UW and where their money went, the more disenchanted I became. Nor was I an enthusiastic supporter of the “charities” they fronted. It finally became easy to say “no”.
Technically, there was no coercion and you were free to reject the opportunity. But, as a practical matter, they leaned on you and used lots of manipulation to get you to enroll in the payroll deduction. There was almost a religious fervor about it. It was all very weird. And repulsive.
Wow, using scare quotes on “charities” as if they aren’t all completely vetted and legit- which is pretty much any charity that is a “nonprofit organizations that have a US
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status or international charities that meet 501(c)(3) Equivalency Determination Requirements”.
UW funds Planned parenthood, American Cancer Society, Heart Assoc., Red Cross, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Arthritis Foundation, Easter Seals, Girl Scouts, …
https://helpingpeople.org/agencies-we-fund/
It would be hard to find a legit charity they dont fund. you can pick the charity you like, you know.
And give to that charity directly saving UW’s cut. Why do you have so much invested in this hill?
Because we here, at the SDMB are on a quest to reduce ignorance.
Now, if you say: “I’d rather donate directly to Planned parenthood, and I do.” then great, that is a good reason to bypass UW. But UW makes it easier, so that more people donate more. In the end Planned parenthood gets more $.
But if you say you hate the UW as they come around with a iron pipe and threaten to break your kneecaps- then that’s being ignorant.
If you say you hate the UW as they “get a tax write off for the money donated by their employees”- then that’s being ignorant.
If you say you hate the UW as they " the United Way gave them a “kickback” percentage of the money given" - then that’s being ignorant.
If you say you hate the UW as they “keep almost 3/4 of all the money given to them “to cover organizational costs”” then that’s being ignorant.
So, I am fighting ignorance. OK?
One part of why participation may be highly encourage may be due to UW’s billing practices.
Now, when you donate, that money is taken from your check on payday, you never see it. But that doesn’t mean that UW gets a check every payroll. They may only get checks every month, or every three months, or even just a couple times a year.
That is time that the company is holding on to your donation. They are holding it interest free, and they are using it against their own debts.
I have a couple of employees on garnishment, and the fact that I don’t have to send in their garnishments until a week after payroll gives me that money for an extra week. It’s not much and not long, but it still saves me a bit in interest on loans.
Holding onto hundreds of employee’s donations for a month or more can add up to some real money.
That said, I don’t know how UW invoices program participants, but I seriously doubt that it gets paid at the same time as payroll, as that is the case for pretty much nobody.
True, but that never happens. Enough people just give to the general fund so that it’s not an issue. So they can and do do that.
So, we’re all stupid ignoramuses who know know nothing at all about UW and you’re here to set us straight. Got it. Thing is, when did anyone say any of your last four points? Your straw is showing.