I have to say, and I don’t mean any personal offense to you but I completely despise the attitude you ascribe to your husband. It’s paternalistic bullshit. And making up the ‘missing’ money himself – well, he’s welcome to, but IMO it’s incredibly stupid.
As is his apparent belief that if he doesn’t personally watch and count their charity donations, that his employees aren’t making them at all. The ONLY rational reason I can think of for his behavior is that he’s in some kind of idiotic competition, maybe even of his own making and without anyone else who wants to play. Not likely though, 'cause there’s always a slew of managers around who treat their employees like hairy children.
Does working in our local homless shelter over the holidays count, as well as volunteering at the local battered women’s shelter (and buying them supplies), or creating an entirely new program in his workplace which saves hundreds of animals from being put to sleep each year? What about tutoring underprivledged children (for free) who are struggling in school? Or donating his time and money to other organizations around our community? Or buying Christmas presents for poor children?
But, no. He doesn’t knit. Instead, we buy coats and donate them to various charities which distribute them to the needy.
I suggest you pull out YOUR head and stop making assumptions about people.
jayjay, as I said in my post, United Way is not the only umbrella federation which participates in this program. There are more than a dozen of them. The statistics for each are listed in the book.
Smeghead, I know these people. I’m sure there are a few which are privately giving, but a lot of them say, and I quote, “Fuck 'em” when it comes to charity.
Sure, that’s their choice. It doens’t change the fact that I think they’re jerks.
hajario, and Baker, I can tell you guys have never worked for the state. Kudos are as rare as hen’s teeth. The only time you hear from you higher-ups is generally when something is going wrong. He gets no recognition for his activities. If he doesn’t directly speak to them, most people have no idea he’s involved.
Yes, it does look bad when few people contribute. It makes the place look selfish and uncaring. It’s embarassing, actually. My husband and I give a lot of money and time to many different organizations outside of his workplace, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to resent being asked for a lousy two bucks. Christ Almighty!
Merijeek, every donor’s name is recognized unless the donor specifically asks them not to-- so everyone gets acknowledged for their donations.
Boyo Jim, it’d be kind of stupid to be in a “competition” where no one knows whether you won or not, wouldn’t it? He’s not a competative person. He’s just trying to spare his organization the embassment of having a low collection.
I mean, come on. It’s two freaking dollars! No one should get that worked up and resentful over being asked for less money than you’d pay for a breakfast sandwich even if you are giving elsewhere. 99% of people wouldn’t even miss that money. I guess I just don’t understand the resentment and anger this has generated. My first reaction when asked to donate to charity, especially for such a paltry amount, is to reach for my wallet, not to get pissed about it.
Yes, yes it DOES count? So why is the fact that other people do that not good enough for your husband? Why does he assume that people don’t donate if they don’t do it through work??
I strongly suggest that you and your husband do the same. You didn’t like it at all when I assumed that he only gave through work, right? Well then don’t do the same to others. It’s kind of a no-brainer.
Lissa, I’ve worked at UW-funded agencies, and I am familiar with UW ideas about effective ways to spend money, as well as the sorts of folks that work at the policy-making level of UW agencies.
I will never give the UW a dime, and would advise anyone to spend their charitible money on almost any other (financially accountable) organization, the smaller the less bureaucratic and the less tied to government or corporate concerns the better.
Oh, and your husband is an ass.
"The annual report of the United Way of New York City, perhaps the most candid of the United Ways about accounting, stated that it raised $132.4 million in total contributions last year. Almost 14 percent, or $18.3 million, was used to cover administrative expenses, it said.
But only $91 million of that total was in cash, it said, meaning that on average almost 18 cents of every actual dollar it handled was eaten up by expenses.
The organization deducted an average of 6.9 cents of every dollar for administrative purposes, it said, from $14 million collected from donors who earmarked their gifts for specific charities, a program the United Way calls Donor’s Choice.
That means on average roughly 20 cents of every unrestricted dollar went to cover expenses, which falls within the Better Business Bureau’s guidelines for expenses but is higher than the annual report would lead a donor to believe. "
Some people would rather if ALL of their money went to support their chosen cost, which (again) is their choice and their business.
Wow, you really don’t get it at ALL. People like you have the moral certainty of evangelicals.
Do you recognize the incomparibility of these statements? WHO is looking? WHO is counting? Who is you afraid of being embarassed in front of? Either there is someone watching, or there’s not. If not, then your husband is playing a strange mental game and punishing his employees over his own personal scorecard.
I don’t give a crap how it looks. You’re not paying attention.
Because, for the third time, it’s not the amount, it’s not even that it’s the UW as opposed to some other charity, it’s that I consider charity to be private and over the top guilt trip tactics are inappropriate for the workplace. I am morally and philosophically opposed to it.
I wouldn’t have a problem if there was a donation box in the break room along side the candy bars for band uniforms. I do mind the harrassment from managment trying to pressure me into donating.
For the third time, they do not have to give to the United Way. There are over a dozen umbrella organizations, as well as just plain independant charities. There are over 6,000 different of them, ranging from the big, famous organizations to local soup kitchens-- some of which don’t even go through the umbrellas. (For example, donations to the local battered women’s shelter goes directly to them, not through an intermediary.)
All he was trying to do was to get people to donate to ANY charity. Out of six thousand, anybody ought to be able to find one which they like. Since the financial information is listed, you can tell how much of each dollar goes directly to the cause.
Again, I know these people. (It’s a small community.) Many of them will tell you they don’t do anything for charity.
The fact that most of them wouldn’t even do charity work while they were being paid normal wages says a lot to me. (Again, there were dozens of different activities-- something for everyone, so to speak.)
shrug Well, at least he’s a generous, caring ass.
Well, I guess there is a “scorecard” in a way. The annual booklet lists how much each institution gave, as well as individual donors. But there’s no recognition for the folks who work behind the scenes to help make the drive a success.
My husband was just trying to collect the “minimum” amount-- what other places had collected. He wasn’t trying to “beat” the other instutions, or even necessarily to compete. He just didn’t want his place to stick out as being the lowest collector in the state.
I’m paying attention, it’s just that your hostility and resentment seem a bit out of proportion to the request. Yeah, I getcha, you’re morally opposed to people collecting in the workplace, which, I will admit, I don’t understand. It seems perfectly natural to me, especially in a state-run workplace in which giving back to the community is one of the stated goals.
Lissa, the problem here is that you’re coming across as smugly self-righteous. The attitude that if your husband weren’t there to breathe down their necks they wouldn’t give anything is snotty and superior. The truth is, it’s really none of your husband’s business what they give, who they give to, or even IF they give at all. No one is required to donate anything to anyone, whether they work for a private corporation or a state agency. Your husband’s moral position as The Guy Who Makes Sure People Care is inherently grating to anyone with even a minimum of a sense of privacy about their finances.
Let me repeat the FACTS here…the workplace is for work. You go in, you do your work, you don’t steal too many office supplies, and you get paid every other Thursday. Period. Anything else that happens in the workplace should be voluntary and non-coerced. I don’t want to learn life lessons at work. I don’t want to celebrate birthdays of co-workers at work. I don’t want to have long conversations about my cubicle-mate’s grandchildren at work. I don’t want to go on an Outward-Bound-type team-building exercise at work. And I don’t want someone breathing down my neck about making the company look bad because I want to direct my giving personally and semi-anonymously to the charities of my choice rather than opening my mouth, uttering a mindless “baaaaaah” and following along with all the other corporate zombie sheep.
Except that in this case it’s his job to try to get the employees to donate. Even if he wasn’t such a charity-oriented person, he would still feel obligated to do his assignment well. That’s just the kind of guy he is. In that sense, everyone’s beef should be with the system as a whole, not the guy sent to do the collecting.
His job is somewhat different than just working in an office. His workplace is closely tied with community organizations, and in some cases, some of the community service work is actually compulsory.
His workplace uses a lot of community resources, so its only natural that there would be some repayment. Public perception is also key. His industry gets a lot of bad press. Every little bit of good PR that they can get is essential.
Hey, I’ll admit I can be a self-righteous little prig, but charitable giving is so ingrained in me that the concept that some people would be hostile or resentful when approached for such a small amount is difficult for me to understand. If what was being asked was a large amount, or if the intistution was demanding that employees work for charity on their own time, I could understand the anger, but I wouldn’t even think twice about donating four dollars a month to a charity of my choice, even though I give elsewhere. I can even understand the desire for privacy, but such a small amount will not hurt, and may actually be able to do some good out there.
Actually, if the extent of the collection is saying, “Hey, folks, we’re supporting some charities this year, and if you’d like to help then we’d be very happy,” then i reckon most people would have no problem with it.
But when the collecting involves such overt pressure from people higher up in the company, including (your words) “big speeches about how it is the duty of all employees to give at least something,” then it becomes little more than intimidation.
Finally, you don’t seem to get a few things:
It doesn’t matter if the employees have 6 charities to choose from, or 6,000, or 6 million. If they don’t want to give at work, there should be no pressure to do so.
Much as you might like to believe that everyone can afford a few bucks a month, that is not your call to make. You say that everyone there makes at least $13 an hour. Well, that’s still less than $30,000 a year, and if someone’s trying to support a family on that sort of income, they probably don’t have much left at the end of each month. Hell, there are places in the US where that wouldn’t even cover the rent.
Even if they can afford it, they still have the right to abstain, and it’s completely inappropriate for employers and/or company bosses to put pressure on employees to do this sort of thing.
I worked at a place a few years ago. They sent out an email saying that the company would be having a UW drive and there would be a couple of voluntary meetings which we were free to attend. Everyone got a packet in their mail box and that was that. I didn’t resent it at all.
I sure as hell would resent some guy coming to my desk, interrupting my work to
particularly if they were in a position of authority. I mean what the fuck? He’s proud of these tactics?
A) It’s my fucking money. If the company wants to give money, hey! more power to 'em. But we’ve got a pretty nice deal, me and my employer. I give them work and they give me money. The part where I give them money back so they have a tax write-off and I pay for their publicity wasn’t part of my employement agreement.
B) How dare you/he say that I (as a hypothetical employee) don’t give to charity because I don’t want to give to some charity he approves of at a time he demands?
C) Ever hear the phrase “Money is fungible”? Perhaps you should look it up and learn why people object to giving to a targeted United Way charity. Hint read this
D) Did I mention that it’s my fucking money to give or not as I choose? And it’s also my privacy that you and your husband (were I an employee with the misfortune to work under him) are trying to violate. Once you pay me for my job, it’s none of your business how/if I spend/donate/save it. Which part of that are you having trouble with? Hint. Is your name on the paycheck? Is the money in your purse/wallet? Then it’s not yours!
E) I hope he’s not as smarmily condecending and self-rightous as you’re coming across as …if he and you are this way in real life (which I doubt, I’ve seen you in other threads and you didn’t come across this way at all), someone’s going to respond to one of your “Oh, you can afford to give RIGHT NOW to a charity that WE approve of and if you don’t you just don’t understand the meaning of charity.” lectures with a stapler thrown at your head. (Really…I’ve seen other posts you’ve made and none of them have come across like this one…I’m actually kind of suprised)
And y’know what? That’s ok. It’s their money. It’s their time. It’s their choice. And perhaps they’re lying to you rather than risk hurting your feelings or telling your boss/co-worker “Back the fuck off, asshole. My finances/charity work are none of your business”.
Y’know what I said above about smarm and condesention? Right here. How the fuck dare you presume to know anyone’s personal circumstances? Also, perhaps it’s different where your husband works, but in a normal job (government or otherwise) an hour doing “dozens of different activities” is an hour of work that’ll have to be made up later. Again, perhaps in your husband’s place of employment, there are magical pixies who’ll get the necessary daily tasks done if the workers take a paid hour off, or perhaps your huband’s job is so unimportant that it really doesn’t matter if it gets done or not, but most of us don’t work in those circumstances.
Sure, with other people’s money. Hell, I can be generous with other people’s money and time too.
Then if meeting the “minimum” amount was important to your husband’s mental well being, he could have just paid it all himself without trying to extort it from people who are working under him. If it’s his job to do it, perhaps he could quit and get a job that’s not essentially a “protection” racket. “Heyi! Youse bums work for me. Gimme money for da United Way. Why? Cause, y’know, I’ve been lookin’ at your file and it looks like you’ve got pretty good set o’ evaluations and a pretty clean record. It’d be a…shame…if a bad evaluation wuz ta come along. Like not bein’ a team player or sumthin’”
Even if he’s not saying it, there is an implied threat. He’s taking down names of people who’ve contributed, right? The fact that he’s shaking down individual employees tells me that someone knows who’s given and who hasn’t. I don’t like the idea of being paying protection money to get a good evaluation or promotion.
Y’know, as a taxpayer, I’d be much happier if government workers weren’t given an hour of paid time off to give to charity and instead did the job for which my taxes are paying. If your husband wants to give to charity, let him do it on his time, not mine.
My chapter receives 20-24% of its annual funding through the United Way. The percentage changes from year to year depending on our normal fundraising (from which, I might add, we are blacked out from attempting during the time of year the United Way does its big push).
That pisses me off.
Not that 20-24% of our funding comes from them - that’s a good thing. What pisses me off is that every 75 cents we receive from a guilted employee could be a full dollar were it not for United Way’s money laundering.
Unfortunately, people* don’t give to charities out of the goodness of their hearts.
Please note that I don’t mean you, personally. I’m sure you give a percentage of your weekly paycheck to the organization of your choice.
Tax write-off? This is a state agency. They don’t pay taxes. They’re supported by taxes.
For the fourth time, there were six thousand charities to chose from. He was not endorsing a particular one, only that the employees should give to a charity of their choice.
They did not have to give to United Way.
I never said it was. It’s just amazing how worked up people get about it. Yeah, it’s your money, but it’s a measly four fucking dollars a month! He didn’t want the goddam deeds to their houses. I get that it’s one of those “priciple of the thing” issues, but it’s a principle that doesn’t seem worth all the anger and resentment I’ve seen.
Yeah, it’s annoying, and yeah, it’s a tiny violation of your privacy, but I think the good that it can potentially do far outweighs the negatives. If every state employee gave the two dollars a week that they’re asking for, the results could be amazing.
Well, as I said, he’s thourough. When given a task, he puts all of his effort into it, regardless of what that task might be. Considering how important this particular issue is to him, he does try everything to try to convince people to help out however they can.
I can understand his frustration, because I’m getting a taste of it myself. To me, it seems so minor that the amount of bad reactions I’ve gotten in this thread are astonishing. If asked to do the same at my workplace, I’d sign up without a second thought. It wouldn’t bother me that the institution is trying to reach a goal, because it’s an admirable goal. The poor are those who really benefit from this, and that’s all that matters in the end.
I know these people. We socialize extensively. We discuss finances. None of these people are really hurting for money, at least, not to the point where they’d miss four dollars a month.
I understand: it’s their money, and they can do whatever they want with it. It doesn’t change the fact that their attitude is utterly foriegn to me.
You’ve never worked for the state, have you? Some of the stereotypes about state employees are true (to my manager husband’s eternal frustration.) I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn’t because of backed-up work that they refused to participate.
He’s more generous with his own. While he only asks the employees for two dollars, he contributes far more himself. While he only asks for an hour or so of time that they’re being paid for anyway, he gives his own unpaid free time.
If he’s being an ass, he’s being an ass for a very good cause.
Well, since we ended up paying for a big portion of it, perhaps you’re right. However, it was his job to try to collect from everyone, and so he did it. And a thankless job it was!
They did not have to give to the United Way.
Jesus Christ up a tree! He would never even dream of doing something so nasty and despicable. Good God, all he did was challenge these people by asking them to compare the relative luxury of their lives with those less fortunate and by giving a speech about how important it is to be generous with those who haven’t been as lucky as we are. In no way does this constitute a threat.
Write to your congressman. He doesn’t make the rules.
Question…if the employee in question told him that they have a direct-donation plan set up already with a charity of their choice, would he leave them alone? Or would he continue to exhort them to give more and give publicly so that the company/government department/organization could claim more public relations capital?
Lissa, I’m sure your hubby does a fine job. The fact of the matter, however, is that the tactics employed by corporations involved with the UW not only turn people off of donating to them, they also turn people off from donating PERIOD. So fucking chill, and realize that “Give money to US!” skits are fucking lame, as are organizations that compel companies to guilt people into giving up part of their paychecks. People just don’t like the idea that they are forced or guilted in to giving money to anything - a perfect example of why “compassionate conservatism” is a crock and why the IRS is nearly universally hated.
Kudos are as rare as hen’s teeth. The only time you hear from you higher-ups is generally when something is going wrong. He gets no recognition for his activities. If he doesn’t directly speak to them, most people have no idea he’s involved.