It’s United Way time at work again and one thing I’ve always wondered is, why are companies so aggressive in their employee fundraising drive? My current employer isn’t as bad as some, but at my last job I was called into my boss’s office and I had to explain to him the reasons why I won’t donate to the United Way (which I won’t go into here lest this turn into a Pit thread). They expected 100% participation, my current employer wants 2/3rds.
So, what’s in it for the company? Do they get a tax break or something? Maybe cheap PR, so they can say “we care about the community because our employees donated $x”, while the company doesn’t spend a dime itself?
I worked on a corporate United Way campaign and can tell you that, whatever good those contributions may do in the community, for a comapny it’s a big ego stroke. You have the big company rally, which is supposed to be an employee morale boosting thing, then the giant thermometer showing how close the goal is, and lots of newspaper photos and TV coverage.
Mind you, I’m not accusing anyone of hyporcracy or anything like that. It’s just one big civic endeavor that helps make a company look good while not costing the stockholders very much.
Search for “United Way” in thread titles, in the Pit especially. This subject comes up every year although usually not in such a nice tone. The basic answer is that CEO’s want their companies to look good so they put big pressure on each director, manager etc to round up the most money or have the highest contribution rate. It becomes an internal contest that is high stakes because it shows the big boss that each manager has control over his/her dominion.
I also receive a great deal of pressure to contribute my “fair share” to United Way.
The funny thing is that I work for an agency that receives direct contributions from United Way, meaning when I contribute my monthly fair share, I can designate that it goes back to my agency, which helps pay for my salary, from which they take out my fair share, which then goes to United Way, then comes back to my agency, that pays for my salary, from which they take out…oh never mind, I am getting confused.
Isn’t it a tax write-off as well? If they do a matching thing, the more the worker bees give, the more they give. The more they give, the more they write off. Plus the ego-stroke.
I am pretty sure the company can’t write off donations by employees. They probably can write off the matching funds like you say. However, that is not an economic incentive. It just means that if they donate $1,000,000 they will get a $300,000 or so tax deduction on their taxes.
Full Disclosure: My wife is on the professional staff of the local United Way.
I suspect that there is an element of truth in Shagnasty’s response. I know that when I worked for a local utility company a way back we were told, not asked, that our subordinates would contribute 100%. But I did not see that as the command from on high, rather it was simply another way for one manager to compete with another. Just to give you an idea, it was a sales organization, and everyone wanted to come in with expenses under budget. My manager (or mangler, as we called her) decided to control expenses no matter what. So, as a salesman, I was not allowed to take a customer to a $200 lunch to help close a $6 million deal. Our meetings always revolved around how well she was doing compared to the other managers. Her demand that we be at 100% had nothing at all to do with the CEO (at least directly), United Way or how it would help the company’s PR, the community, or anthing else like that. It was all about her getting ahead. When you have that kind of mentality, even performing a simple good deed feels bad.
I have seen corporations and executives who do make an effort to help the community. I don’t agree with their politics, but think of Ben and Jerry, the ice cream guys. To assume that all corporate executives are hyprocrites or out to stoke ther egos is a little bit in the millionaires wear top hats/droit de siegneur world.
