Strong-armed for charity
by JEANNE FLEMING, PH.D. and LEONARD SCHWARZ
Question: I’m a salesman with a small company whose CEO is on the board of the local United Way. Everyone here is expected to participate in the firm's annual fundraising drive for the agency. I disapprove of some things about the United Way and don't want to contribute. But my co-workers all say I'll be hurting my career if I don't. What should I do?
Answer: Listen to your co-workers. Of course you should also pay heed to your conscience. But if your conscience prohibits you from making a contribution, you need to look for a new job, not commit professional hari-kari at this one.
Not that we endorse the strong-arming you're getting – far from it. While it’s one thing to require employees to be team players, it’s quite another to punish one who fails to contribute to the boss’s favorite charity. That’s wrong no matter how worthy the organization you’re forced to support.
As unethically as your CEO is behaving, though, the abuse of power for the benefit of a charity you dislike is not the sort of conduct you have a moral obligation to challenge. Moreover, there’s no virtue in getting yourself labeled a troublemaker. Indeed, you owe it to yourself and your family to see that you don’t.
There are plenty of firms where charitable donations aren’t mandatory. If you don’t want to contribute to the United Way, try to find a job at one. But in the meantime, toss in twenty bucks and consider it an investment in your future.
Questions? Email Money Magazine’s ethicists – authors of “Isn’t It Their Turn to Pick Up the Check?” (Free Press) – at FlemingandSchwarz@right-thing.net.
UW of America numbers for 2006: Total revenue was $54,321,554. Professional fees and consultants received $9,211,656, 17.0% of revenue. Salaries, pension, and benefits totaled $18,726,963, 34.5% of revenue. This is already 51.5% before and doesn't include several million more dollars in expenses: phone $607K, postage $214K, travel $2.36M. Save your preferred charity 50% and skip the UW.
UW of America CEO Brian Gallagher 2006 compensation: $405,000 base, $55,000 bonus,$6,351 flex credits, $47,500 housing allowance, $7,200 auto allowance. He has about $360K more in UW sponsored plans – this has probably increased since 2006. Anyone here know why someone "earning" $405K base needs allowances for housing, car, etc? Anyone? Total UW salary & wages for 2006: about $16,000,000 Travel was $2,300,000 156 employees earned over $50,000 for 2006.
In most major United Way campaigns you have the opportunity to direct your donation to a specific United Way supported charity. I choose to direct mine in whole to the local chapter of the Red Cross.
I agree with a lot of the other people here. UW 'campaigns' are brutal, with the two companies I've worked with pushing hard for 100% participation, bringing it up in meetings, sending emails, and once even pulling me in for a one-on-one meeting asking what my problem was. Now I give $25 a year, just to keep them off my back.
At my last job, somebody dubbed over the 'Office Linebacker' commercial from 5-6 years ago and applied it to that company's United Way campaign. 'If you don't give to United Way, you are gonna pay!'
I could not disagree more. My company has automated dontations, and you get pulled into meeting after meeting encouraging you to donate. I simply fill out my donation slip with a big, fat zero. I have my own charities, and I will not be bullied into supporting a different one as it takes the money from places that I know need it more. If you are bullied into donating, you will be bullied next year into contributing twice as much. Don't do it. As harsh as it sounds, this is the same reason that I don't buy pies or cookies from the scores of people that are selling for their kids. If you buy once, you are locked in. No thanks.
I, too, worked for AT&T and now retired. The pressure was unbelievable!
Each 2nd level had a quota. Instead
of fighting it, I contributed $2.00
a week. Not contributing wasn't worth the stress. Contribute and move on…
I work for AT&T, and we just went through the whole United Way please donate. It wouldn't have been so bad if they just said the annual drive started, please consider a donation. But we received email upon email from executives. It was mentioned time and time again in team meetings. As I understand it, "C" level managers "volunteered" 10%. It was relentless. I have my own budget for donations and do so to local charities. I shouldn't be pressured from my company. As far as I am concerned, it is a personal matter and shouldn't be part of work.
When has it been acceptable to go against your beliefs to make the boss happy? The company has no business forcing or even knowing how employees donate. Businesses in America use these campaigns as PR stunts. If they really wanted to give, they wouldn't do "matching funds", which force employee participation, but just make the donation. I find it a great invasion of privacy to have my company know to who and how much I donate.
Although I agree with the comments that specified donations can be a good political compromise, in the big picture, they don't work unless everybody does it. When you specify an agency, that agency gets less of a percentage of unspecified donations, so, in total, they end up getting what UW told them they would get in the first place.
Secondly, I always took issue with UW's administrative expenses, which at my local UW is advertised at 9%. If I have a specific agency that I want to donate to, I'd rather they receive 100% of my contribution [instead of] 91%.
I worked at a company where your expected 'fair share' was 1.5% of your salary. So, if you are making $60,000, then that is $900 annually. A bit more than $20. That company was awful to work for. By the comments, mandatory giving and terrible companies go hand in hand, which is pretty twisted when you think about it.
The United Way limits the amounts donated to charities under their umbrella, especially smaller charities. And, yes, I know this for a fact. Look at the UW's 990 and you'll find where much of the money goes. If you want to give, use the UW's list as a guide and give directly to your chosen charity.
The best answer is that most United Way organizations allow donors to direct that their contribution be sent only to a specific UW agency named by the donor. If the questioner wants to be sure she doesn't contribute to certain UW entities (as opposed to not giving to charity at all), that should do the trick.
I consider your advise totally unethical.
I was also once at a company that pushed hard for United Way contributions. If 100% of employees donated, everyone got some cool thing (I don't recall what it was). I, however, have ethical objections to some of the United Way's members and refused. I didn't get fired. But I took a lot of flack until I went to the CEO and told him (I did not ask, make no mistake about it) to put a stop to it. He did. I also didn't get fired. But then, I was a hard worker who was good at my job. Don't ever think that doesn't matter.
Underwriters Laboratories was under the control of United Way handlers as well. I simply tore up the donation form and got the heck out of there within 6 months of taking the job.
The next job I found, I was paid nearly twice as much as at UL. Never looked back.
Many companies under the control of United Way handlers are union companies with a lot of entrenched people who play the seniority card. At UL, the average employee had 18 years of service. AVERAGE. I did myself such a huge favor by getting out of there ASAP. One of my best career moves of all time.
I completely disagree with your advice. One has the freedom to donate as they wish and intimidation to contribute is unethical and unprofessional. I say keep the job, contribute to the charity of your choice and if there is retribution, get a lawyer.
While I agree that "toss[ing] in a twenty" isn't a bad diplomatic idea, it really isn't helpful to the situation.
If the job is great, meaning that management is good, I totally agree with discussing your grievences with the CEO. Just do so respectfully and quietly.
If doing so would hurt your career, management isn't really that good, the twenty may not help, and another job may be in order anyway.
At my first job out of college with a Big 5 consulting firm, the upper management encouraged a 100% United Way donation rate. I said I'd think about it, and probably would have donated, if it weren't for what happened that afternoon.
I, the juniorest of junior consultants, was pulled into a 1-on-1 meeting with a very senior partner, who demanded to know what was wrong with me that I hadn't signed up for the United Way drive. I repeated to him I was going to research the United Way and think it over. He insisted that I give something so we can hit 100% "participation".
My response: "I will not support an organization who solicits funds through this kind of pressure. If you want to 100%, you're going to need to get out your checkbook and make a donation in my honor."
I'll never know whether or not my refusal hurt my career (I survived several rounds of layoffs), but I left that firm voluntarily with my integrity intact.
It is a shameful reality that in today's economy, folks have to be so subversive to ensure that they don't draw the short straw during layoff time. I'm talking, of course, about the coercive tactics of the United Way and the upper management of many local companies.
I look at it this way. The CEO of our local UWay chapter has a compensation package of more than $330k a year. It is unethical and immoral of me to ignore the local food pantries and churches – that literally have no food to give, to those who need it most – in order to help make the Lexus payment of the local UWay CEO.
United Way programs usually allow you to "target" your donation. Let's say for instance that your local United Way supports Planned Parenthood and you disagree with some PP activities. You can usually target other programs to ensure your donation goes 100% to organizations under the UW umbrella you do support. I target mine to childhood reading programs. Others target food banks, domestic violence shelters, the homeless etc. I'm sure there's something one can find to support and feel good about. Doesn't fully take the sting out of a forced donation, but it's the next best thing.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your response here. As an employee, one should feel comfortable going and talking with his/her CEO about their position. If they truly don't agree with or want to support the United Way, talk with the CEO about why that is. [Explain that] you don't disagree with the idea of a charitable contribution – just the company's chosen charity. Then propose a charity you would like to support in place of the United Way and specifically what you'd like to do.
If your CEO is a good one, as long as you're presenting valid points and coming with an alternative solution, he/she shouldn't have any issues with it.
One organization that I worked for also supported the United Way like this. Several people signed up to donate (so it looked like 100% participation) and then cancelled before the donation was actually taken out of their check.
"Toss in twenty bucks?" The United Way has the audacity to tell people what their "expected" contribution is…and most of these organizationally pushed drives are looking for way more than "twenty bucks."
We had the same problem in the military with the Combined Federal Campaign, which is run by the United Way. We found that the best way to sidestep the bosses was to make a contribution by monthly payroll deduction, pass muster with the "leadership," and then quietly cancel the payroll deduction a week or two later.
I disagree very strongly with your advice on coerced charitable contributions. No company leader has the right to require employees to donate anything to any charity. Charitable giving should be an individual right and decision, not a team sport. Your advice only reinforces the abusive and self-serving actions of people who are in positions of power.