I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.

There are charities that will take clothes and food. I know Purple
Heart Veteran takes clothes, and the food bank takes food.

Most of us have suffered in these times, some more than others, but
remember that the most meaningful gifts are those from people who can't
afford them; gifts from the rich aren't really much of a sacrifice.
although you have to admire some of the rich, such as Warren Buffet, who
leave their fortunes to charities.

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food& some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food& clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food& some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food& clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.









Hi,
I heard a single mother needed a computer to work on his courses to
upgrade herself. Since I had a few desktops and laptops I could spare,
I offered a P4 3.3 MHz desktop with a LCD monitor, network card, etc.
She did not want it and said she only wants laptop. So I offered a IBM
Thinkpad T42 laptop. She did not want it either. Reason? it has too
small hard drive and no DVD writer. I don't think people like this are
not in need, they want this and that. Hell with it.

Tony Hwang wrote in
:

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I
can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having
wages frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not
paid, plus giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay,
plus no 401 matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some
extra food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to
provide. My boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have
cash, so they can buy for their children. I have no idea what the
money will go for, drugs maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food& some new clothes to donate.
They said they have plenty of food& clothes, they need cash. This is
no joke, they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they
will accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.









Hi,
I heard a single mother needed a computer to work on his courses to
upgrade herself. Since I had a few desktops and laptops I could spare,
I offered a P4 3.3 MHz desktop with a LCD monitor, network card, etc.
She did not want it and said she only wants laptop. So I offered a IBM
Thinkpad T42 laptop. She did not want it either. Reason? it has too
small hard drive and no DVD writer. I don't think people like this are
not in need, they want this and that. Hell with it.


Maybe something new...in a box...with extended warranty.

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't been
put through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a
family' things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm
fuzzy feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be
right back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.

As to the Red-X folks- 'Stuff' is actually more trouble than it is worth
to them, especially in post-disaster situations. Sorting, de-crapping,
containerizing, and then re-shipping all that stuff costs a fortune.
Same for for food drives. Much more bang for the buck for the
organization and the people they are trying to help, to put together
cash to get new goods and supplies in pallet lots, drop-shipped from the
vendor directly to where it is needed. Around here, the charities do
hold the coat/new toy drives for local distribution, and have a
furniture/household goods lending closet for families that suffer fires,
or abused women setting up new households and such, but they have
strongly de-emphasised 'stuff' donations for other activities.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote in message

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't been put
through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a family'
things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm fuzzy
feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be right
back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.


I prefer to give cash to charities where I know it will be working and doing
some good. Salvation Army is one, and a local nursing home is another. They
have particular projects funded by donations where you can see the results.

The way I have always looked at it, if all my bills are paid and I have
extra money, then I can afford to be giving some away. And that's what I say
anytime someone asks me for money to donate to something. "My bills are not
all paid, so I can't afford to be giving money away."

That's not "Bah Humbug" in my book, it is called being realistic.

Charity begins at home!
(Speaking of this, the U.S. government actually borrows money to give
billions of dollars in financial aid to other countries! This would be like
me taking out a $5,000.00 loan so I could give that money to my neighbor so
they could remodel their home - while at the time I owed hundreds of
thousands of dollars on my credit cards! Totally nuts!)


"casey" wrote in message
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some
extra food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to
provide. My boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have
cash, so they can buy for their children. I have no idea what the money
will go for, drugs maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF??

Oh, I can think of one real obvious reason for this requirement. The
workers donate the cash; the company claims a charitable tax deduction.
It's easier for the company to establish the value of the deduction if
it makes its employees donate cash instead of goods. Not to mention it's
a lot less work to write a check (that hopefully equals or exceeds what
the employees contributed), than collecting and delivering an assortment
of goods.

I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children.

Then I guess their needs and what you have to share are not compatible.
You'll have little difficulty finding someone more than happy to accept
what you can give. And the company can find some of its own cash to give
to the families it picked to help. It, after all, made the rule. (Yes,
it did, because if the charity or family made cash a requirement, the
company could've moved on to one that would accept goods as well as cash.)

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Not all organizations are prepared to handle physical goods. The Red
Cross buys new supplies in bulk at substantial discounts.

Small charities don't run on such mass economies of scale and deal more
on a one-to-one basis. If you approach a local shelter or church, odds
are they'll be very thankful for your donations. For example, a nun at
the church in my neighborhood has a constant list of families needing
specific things. Ask her what people need; she'll tell you. Offer her
something, she'll know who needs it. They dole out out silverware by the
piece because so many families need very basic goods like that. If you
donate a set of flatware, she breaks it up and allots it by the number
of people in the family - a family of four gets four knives, four
spoons, four forks. She has a waiting list for blankets and pillows. Her
big dream is beds. So many people sleep on floors because used
mattresses and futons can't be donated (risk of transmitting vermin),
and face it - new mattresses and futons are fairly expensive donations.
So that need always exceeds the supply.

Bill wrote:

Charity begins at home!
(Speaking of this, the U.S. government actually borrows money to give
billions of dollars in financial aid to other countries! This would be like
me taking out a $5,000.00 loan so I could give that money to my neighbor so
they could remodel their home - while at the time I owed hundreds of
thousands of dollars on my credit cards! Totally nuts!)

That's how we finance our wars, too, yet no one seems to scream very
loudly about it.

In article ,
"casey" wrote:


I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Red Cross always looks for cash unless they have a specific need
like a big apartment fire, etc. Even then they usually offer a list
(need 6x girls clothes) depending on the incident.
Actually it makes sense for the most part. They never really know what
exactly they will need until the nastiness occurs. Then they can go and
get exactly what they need. Otherwise a fairly large chunk of money
would go to warehousing, etc., that could be used more productively
elsewhere.
Check with local food pantries for the food. They are ALL feeling
the pinch. As for clothes, any number of places. We get calls all the
time from VFW, Goodwill is looking for clothes and other stuff, AmVets,
etc. You may have some local places like the Junior League. Check in
with your local churches (who may also run food kitchens that could use
you food) as they usually know who does this kind of stuff. If you want
to stay away from the churches, social workers at your schools or the
local hospitals should be able to help, too.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

On 12/12/2009 20:23, Not@home wrote:
There are charities that will take clothes and food. I know Purple
Heart Veteran takes clothes, and the food bank takes food.

Most of us have suffered in these times, some more than others, but
remember that the most meaningful gifts are those from people who can't
afford them; gifts from the rich aren't really much of a sacrifice.
although you have to admire some of the rich, such as Warren Buffet, who
leave their fortunes to charities.

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some
extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so
they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food& some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food& clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.



I don't care for giant mega charities such as the ones mentioned who are
giant bureaucracies. There are plenty of smaller groups that welcome any
sort of contribution.

On 12/12/2009 20:54, Tony Hwang wrote:
casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some
extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so
they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food& some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food& clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.









Hi,
I heard a single mother needed a computer to work on his courses to
upgrade herself. Since I had a few desktops and laptops I could spare,
I offered a P4 3.3 MHz desktop with a LCD monitor, network card, etc.
She did not want it and said she only wants laptop. So I offered a IBM
Thinkpad T42 laptop. She did not want it either. Reason? it has too
small hard drive and no DVD writer. I don't think people like this are
not in need, they want this and that. Hell with it.

There are people like that but I can tell you from experience there are
folks who are truly happy to get anything. Don't give up because you
encountered someone with an entitlement mentality. Often people who
really need help (medical problems, wife left with little kids after
husband dies etc) are too embarrassed to come forward.

It is also better to work with the local charitable organizations
instead of the mammoth ones.

On 12/13/2009 00:15, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't been put
through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a family'
things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm fuzzy
feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be right
back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.


I prefer to give cash to charities where I know it will be working and doing
some good. Salvation Army is one, and a local nursing home is another. They
have particular projects funded by donations where you can see the results.


Yes, Salvation Army is just one of those groups where you never here
about anyone getting a $20 Million salary (they don't). They are a big
organization but behave as if they were local.

Another interesting charity is Heifer International. It was started by a
farmers. Their mission is to get animals and the proper training to
manage them into the hands of folks who can't afford them (teach a
person to fish...). They are also well rated for good use of donations
with most of the money going to the actual charitable work.

http://www.heifer.org/

I think you mentioned two essential points:
1) In many cases, poor is a lifestyle. Give them a pile of
whatever, and they will be poor again in a couple weeks
2) In the US, many of our "poor" have plenty of cash flow,
they just make bad choices.

I do know a couple families from church who have been in
hard times. The economy is rough, and they are out of work.
Folks like that, I do support. Working, but not quite making
it.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...



I always felt these 'adopt a
family' things were more for the benefit of the donors, to
get a warm
fuzzy feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of
weeks will be
right back where they started. I saw the listings for the
families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested
items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for
basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and
semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money
to actual
charities.

--
aem sends...

I'm with you. There are precious few charities I'll donate
cash. I've got a couple ABVI Goodwill stores near me, and
they take items (and sell in their thrift stores). I've been
very generous with items, I am not using. I try to bring
them only items that are reasonably working. They say that
anything fabric, clothing, towels, sheets and blankets.
Fabric stuff is always needed.

I don't think you are scrooge. I think the welfare system
has changed the nature of being poor, and not for the
better.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"casey"
wrote in message
...


Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF??


I contacted the Red-X.

They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash.
This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.

Not@home wrote:
There are charities that will take clothes and food. I know Purple
Heart Veteran takes clothes, and the food bank takes food.

Most of us have suffered in these times, some more than others, but
remember that the most meaningful gifts are those from people who
can't afford them; gifts from the rich aren't really much of a
sacrifice. although you have to admire some of the rich, such as
Warren Buffet, who leave their fortunes to charities.

casey wrote:

I'll disagree. The worthiness of charity depends on the worth to the person
receiving it, not the motivation, abilities, or sacrifice of the giver.
Further, the poor can't provide as much charity as the more affluent. You're
right about Buffet, but more good is done, and quicker, when the charity is
dispensed during the giver's lifetime. Bill Gates is one such example (but
recently Buffet joined the Gates Foundation).

In the 13th Century, Maimonides ranked 13 kinds of charity. Second from the
top was an anonymous giver providing help to an anonymous recipient. At the
very bottom was a penurious contributor reluctantly, loudly, and publicly
giving a token amount to an embarrassed poor person.

The highest form of charity according to Maimonides? Providing a loan to a
poor person so he could start a business!

Many, many years ago, on PBS, F. Lee Bailey (in his youth) interviewed H.L.
Hunt, a wealthy Texas oil man and Bailey asked the proverbial "are you still
beating your wife" question: "Mr. Hunt, the history of this country is
filled with examples of the wealthy sharing their largess with the public.
One only has to think of the Carnegies and the Fords to see examples of how
they've used their great wealth to help mankind. Why is it you've never seen
fit to share your bounty with the less fortunate?"

Old man Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I use my
money to give people something more important that a pretty picture to look
at in some damned museum. I use my money got give 'em a JOB!"

clipped
I don't care for giant mega charities such as the ones mentioned who are
giant bureaucracies. There are plenty of smaller groups that welcome any
sort of contribution.

Until a giant "megadisaster" comes along?

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Not@home wrote:
There are charities that will take clothes and food. I know Purple
Heart Veteran takes clothes, and the food bank takes food.

Most of us have suffered in these times, some more than others, but
remember that the most meaningful gifts are those from people who
can't afford them; gifts from the rich aren't really much of a
sacrifice. although you have to admire some of the rich, such as
Warren Buffet, who leave their fortunes to charities.

casey wrote:

I'll disagree. The worthiness of charity depends on the worth to the
person receiving it, not the motivation, abilities, or sacrifice of
the giver. Further, the poor can't provide as much charity as the more
affluent. You're right about Buffet, but more good is done, and
quicker, when the charity is dispensed during the giver's lifetime.
Bill Gates is one such example (but recently Buffet joined the Gates
Foundation).

In the 13th Century, Maimonides ranked 13 kinds of charity. Second
from the top was an anonymous giver providing help to an anonymous
recipient. At the very bottom was a penurious contributor reluctantly,
loudly, and publicly giving a token amount to an embarrassed poor
person.

The highest form of charity according to Maimonides? Providing a loan
to a poor person so he could start a business!

The "Teach a man to fish" thing...


Many, many years ago, on PBS, F. Lee Bailey (in his youth) interviewed
H.L. Hunt, a wealthy Texas oil man and Bailey asked the proverbial
"are you still beating your wife" question: "Mr. Hunt, the history of
this country is filled with examples of the wealthy sharing their
largess with the public. One only has to think of the Carnegies and
the Fords to see examples of how they've used their great wealth to
help mankind. Why is it you've never seen fit to share your bounty
with the less fortunate?"

Old man Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I
use my money to give people something more important that a pretty
picture to look at in some damned museum. I use my money got give 'em
a JOB!"

George wrote:
On 12/13/2009 00:15, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they
will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't been
put
through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a family'
things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm fuzzy
feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be right
back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.


I prefer to give cash to charities where I know it will be working and
doing
some good. Salvation Army is one, and a local nursing home is
another. They
have particular projects funded by donations where you can see the
results.


Yes, Salvation Army is just one of those groups where you never here
about anyone getting a $20 Million salary (they don't). They are a big
organization but behave as if they were local.

Another interesting charity is Heifer International. It was started by a
farmers. Their mission is to get animals and the proper training to
manage them into the hands of folks who can't afford them (teach a
person to fish...). They are also well rated for good use of donations
with most of the money going to the actual charitable work.

http://www.heifer.org/

I remember reading about some of the goofy things charitable
organizations have done in Africa. One group donated tractors
but no fuel, oil or spare parts. The villagers used the spark
plugs for earrings and the wiring for necklaces and various
parts of the tractors to decorate their huts. Another group
donated tons of powdered milk. They didn't know that the adults
couldn't digest the stuff so it wound up being used to paint
their homes. One European group sent condoms because of the
high birth rate and the AIDS epidemic. The condoms were used as
balloons because they were too small for their intended purpose.
Here at home I've done work for a small Episcopal church, not
because I was a member who shared their faith but because I liked
the nice people there. This tiny church had a soup kitchen and
would feed anyone who walked through the door. The church would
also give clothing to those in need. Well, crack heads broke in
and stole all the food and the people who received clothing
would not wash it, they would throw it away and come back for
more. I'm afraid I've developed a "Don't Feed The Bears" attitude
as I get older.

TDD

Hell Toupee wrote:
Bill wrote:

Charity begins at home!
(Speaking of this, the U.S. government actually borrows money to give
billions of dollars in financial aid to other countries! This would be
like me taking out a $5,000.00 loan so I could give that money to my
neighbor so they could remodel their home - while at the time I owed
hundreds of thousands of dollars on my credit cards! Totally nuts!)

That's how we finance our wars, too, yet no one seems to scream very
loudly about it.

But we're putting people to work and putting people out of their
misery at the same time. It's a win, win situation.

TDD

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way
organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way
by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture
in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights.
I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay
for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it.
I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United
Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

TDD

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

Naturally I can't find my notes on this right now, but I remember a
rather nasty fight over this where the courts came down and said
specifically that this could not be a requirement of employment or
looked at as part of the process for promotions, etc. IIRC the offending
company ended up owing the people who sued a fairly large amount of
money. Never did hear if the company tried to tie payment to a gift to
the United Way.
At one time, UW had "specific" policies against such thing, in a
don't ask don't tell kind of way.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

The Daring Dufas wrote:
casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having
wages frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not
paid, plus giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay,
plus no 401 matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some
extra food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to
provide. My boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have
cash, so they can buy for their children. I have no idea what the
money will go for, drugs maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate.
They said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is
no joke, they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they
will accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way
organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way
by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture
in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights.
I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay
for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it.
I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United
Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

TDD

Where I work, they bend over backwards in writing saying it is entirely
voluntary, and they don't actually sign people up without a signed slip.
But they sure do try to shame people into donating, with all the usual
peer pressure techniques like publicly passing out the slips, and
keeping running dollar totals for each shop, making a competition out of
it to see who can hit their target first. I do donate, most years, but I
write one check, and designate what charity I want to have the money.
(There are plenty of charities in the book that I regard as left/right
wingnut useless feel-good groups.) But I am not entirely convinced
designating who my donation goes to, means that the worthless ones get
any less. I suspect they tally up the directed donations, and just
subtract that from whatever dollars were designated for that charity in
the first place, so the undesignated donations flow to the politically
correct groups. (Sorta like lotto was supposed to ADD to school
financing, not become one of the standard sources for the money?)

--
aem sends...

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:


it to see who can hit their target first. I do donate, most years, but I
write one check, and designate what charity I want to have the money.
I don't know if they have changed this, but there was a time when
this was a farce. The UW was structured at the time such that they had a
budget of what they planned to give each entity. Say the grant for the
Mental Health Association was supposed to be $100 (to keep it easy from
a math standpoint). That was what the MHA was getting from the UW.
All of my money went to them, but it did NOT increase the UW
allocation. So, if I gave $5.00, the MHA got my $5.00 and $95.00 from
the general pot.



(There are plenty of charities in the book that I regard as left/right
wingnut useless feel-good groups.) But I am not entirely convinced
designating who my donation goes to, means that the worthless ones get
any less. I suspect they tally up the directed donations, and just
subtract that from whatever dollars were designated for that charity in
the first place, so the undesignated donations flow to the politically
correct groups. (Sorta like lotto was supposed to ADD to school
financing, not become one of the standard sources for the money?)


As above, that was the way it was done last time I had a reason
to check, albeit 7-8 years ago now.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

HeyBub wrote:
snip
Many, many years ago, on PBS, F. Lee Bailey (in his youth) interviewed H.L.
Hunt, a wealthy Texas oil man and Bailey asked the proverbial "are you still
beating your wife" question: "Mr. Hunt, the history of this country is
filled with examples of the wealthy sharing their largess with the public.
One only has to think of the Carnegies and the Fords to see examples of how
they've used their great wealth to help mankind. Why is it you've never seen
fit to share your bounty with the less fortunate?"

Old man Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I use my
money to give people something more important that a pretty picture to look
at in some damned museum. I use my money got give 'em a JOB!"

Mr. Hunt answered with a false dichotomy--he could easily have done both.

On 12/13/2009 10:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
George wrote:
On 12/13/2009 00:15, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they
will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't
been put
through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a family'
things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm fuzzy
feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be
right
back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.


I prefer to give cash to charities where I know it will be working
and doing
some good. Salvation Army is one, and a local nursing home is
another. They
have particular projects funded by donations where you can see the
results.


Yes, Salvation Army is just one of those groups where you never here
about anyone getting a $20 Million salary (they don't). They are a big
organization but behave as if they were local.

Another interesting charity is Heifer International. It was started by
a farmers. Their mission is to get animals and the proper training to
manage them into the hands of folks who can't afford them (teach a
person to fish...). They are also well rated for good use of donations
with most of the money going to the actual charitable work.

http://www.heifer.org/

I remember reading about some of the goofy things charitable
organizations have done in Africa. One group donated tractors
but no fuel, oil or spare parts. The villagers used the spark
plugs for earrings and the wiring for necklaces and various
parts of the tractors to decorate their huts. Another group
donated tons of powdered milk. They didn't know that the adults
couldn't digest the stuff so it wound up being used to paint
their homes. One European group sent condoms because of the
high birth rate and the AIDS epidemic. The condoms were used as
balloons because they were too small for their intended purpose.
Here at home I've done work for a small Episcopal church, not
because I was a member who shared their faith but because I liked
the nice people there. This tiny church had a soup kitchen and
would feed anyone who walked through the door. The church would
also give clothing to those in need. Well, crack heads broke in
and stole all the food and the people who received clothing
would not wash it, they would throw it away and come back for
more. I'm afraid I've developed a "Don't Feed The Bears" attitude
as I get older.

TDD


Sure and if you check into the organization I posted you will find that
they don't do what you described.

Life is filled with plenty of reasons to allow us to rationalize why we
shouldn't do something "I saw someone in a car accident on route 5 so I
won't go that way anymore", I went into that store over there five years
ago and had to wait at the checkout a long time so I have never gone
back" and on and on.

Clearly there are folks who have an entitlement mentality but clearly
there are a lot of folks who don't.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
....

As above, that was the way it was done last time I had a reason
to check, albeit 7-8 years ago now.

How else would you propose they do it? Their job is to raise funds for
their member organizations, whichever they are; they're not in the
business of judging one group's merits over another other than in
relative size of needs to provide the services of the organization
itself (having sat on Board in multiple communities at various times
over a rather long time span dating back to the "Community Chest" days...).

If you really want your contribution to make a difference to a
particular organization, do it directly to the organization of choice
outside the UW path. (All, though even there, if they're a member
organization there will be some of the same effect as budgets are based
on including historical abilities of the individual organizations'
fund-raising of their own in setting their UW support.)

--

George wrote:
On 12/13/2009 10:27, The Daring Dufas wrote:
George wrote:
On 12/13/2009 00:15, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
wrote in message

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they
will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.


Yeah, we get that at our office too, though thankfully I haven't
been put
through the wringer like you have. I always felt these 'adopt a
family'
things were more for the benefit of the donors, to get a warm fuzzy
feeling, and less for the donees, who in a couple of weeks will be
right
back where they started. I saw the listings for the families to be
adopted, and judging from the clothes sizes and requested items alone,
they ain't starving or between a rock and hard place for basic
neccessities. Besides, I have my own under-employed and
semi-functional
siblings to play safety net to. I prefer to donate my money to actual
charities.


I prefer to give cash to charities where I know it will be working
and doing
some good. Salvation Army is one, and a local nursing home is
another. They
have particular projects funded by donations where you can see the
results.


Yes, Salvation Army is just one of those groups where you never here
about anyone getting a $20 Million salary (they don't). They are a big
organization but behave as if they were local.

Another interesting charity is Heifer International. It was started by
a farmers. Their mission is to get animals and the proper training to
manage them into the hands of folks who can't afford them (teach a
person to fish...). They are also well rated for good use of donations
with most of the money going to the actual charitable work.

http://www.heifer.org/

I remember reading about some of the goofy things charitable
organizations have done in Africa. One group donated tractors
but no fuel, oil or spare parts. The villagers used the spark
plugs for earrings and the wiring for necklaces and various
parts of the tractors to decorate their huts. Another group
donated tons of powdered milk. They didn't know that the adults
couldn't digest the stuff so it wound up being used to paint
their homes. One European group sent condoms because of the
high birth rate and the AIDS epidemic. The condoms were used as
balloons because they were too small for their intended purpose.
Here at home I've done work for a small Episcopal church, not
because I was a member who shared their faith but because I liked
the nice people there. This tiny church had a soup kitchen and
would feed anyone who walked through the door. The church would
also give clothing to those in need. Well, crack heads broke in
and stole all the food and the people who received clothing
would not wash it, they would throw it away and come back for
more. I'm afraid I've developed a "Don't Feed The Bears" attitude
as I get older.

TDD


Sure and if you check into the organization I posted you will find that
they don't do what you described.

Life is filled with plenty of reasons to allow us to rationalize why we
shouldn't do something "I saw someone in a car accident on route 5 so I
won't go that way anymore", I went into that store over there five years
ago and had to wait at the checkout a long time so I have never gone
back" and on and on.

Clearly there are folks who have an entitlement mentality but clearly
there are a lot of folks who don't.

They appear to be really good folks and that's refreshing into todays
world where there is some sort of scam around every corner. It just
plain hard to sort it all out. We give aid to these third world
countries and it winds up in the bank account of the rulers. It's so
frustrating.

TDD

dpb wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
...

As above, that was the way it was done last time I had a
reason to check, albeit 7-8 years ago now.

How else would you propose they do it? Their job is to raise funds for
their member organizations, whichever they are; they're not in the
business of judging one group's merits over another other than in
relative size of needs to provide the services of the organization
itself (having sat on Board in multiple communities at various times
over a rather long time span dating back to the "Community Chest" days...).

If you really want your contribution to make a difference to a
particular organization, do it directly to the organization of choice
outside the UW path. (All, though even there, if they're a member
organization there will be some of the same effect as budgets are based
on including historical abilities of the individual organizations'
fund-raising of their own in setting their UW support.)

--



Don't large employers match a percentage of contributions to UW? Yeh,
the PR campaign used to bug me, but where I worked it was strong
encouragement, not force. And you could stop contributions at any time.

Have to remember that there are cheaters in any group one can think of,
including clergy and law enforcement. I don't have any problem with the
national orgs paying their CEO what private sector CEO's are paid -
running billion-dollar enterprises isn't for amateurs. What once was
called "service" - medicine, nursing, law enforcement - now demands the
same salaries as other fields. I don't know a physician or a dentist
who isn't a freaking millionaire. Of course, gotta be a millionaire so
every other patient can sue ya' for failing to cure. First $100K goes
for malpractice insurance.

When I volunteered at the Red Cross, the new volunteers that I met were
not the wealthy stock brokers; they were working stiffs who probably
volunteered because they have been a lot closer to disaster than a lot
of wealthier people.

I'd like to see a nationalized health insurance plan that covers
everyone for up to $100K per year. Want more? Buy it. No fancy stuff
like transplants - one time around, fix what's broke if it can. Include
work-related illness/injury unless states opt out. Require agreement
not to sue for malpractice in excess of financial loss. The states that
take up the plan now have businesses that don't have to worry about WC
insurance....come on down and start a small business. Along with all of
that, adopt Canada's system for medical malpractice - one org. and they
don't "settle out of court", which is legalized blackmail.

When I worked in nursing, I could have been prosecuted if a client
developed a bedsore. I had no time to care for clients the way they
should have been cared for, but my employer kept building new nursing
homes.

Raymond J. Johnson, Jr. wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
snip
Many, many years ago, on PBS, F. Lee Bailey (in his youth) interviewed
H.L. Hunt, a wealthy Texas oil man and Bailey asked the proverbial
"are you still beating your wife" question: "Mr. Hunt, the history of
this country is filled with examples of the wealthy sharing their
largess with the public. One only has to think of the Carnegies and
the Fords to see examples of how they've used their great wealth to
help mankind. Why is it you've never seen fit to share your bounty
with the less fortunate?"

Old man Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I
use my money to give people something more important that a pretty
picture to look at in some damned museum. I use my money got give 'em
a JOB!"

Mr. Hunt answered with a false dichotomy--he could easily have done both.

Not to mention the fact that the people he "gave" jobs to EARNED the
freaking money )

The Daring Dufas wrote:

I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way
organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way
by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture
in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights.
I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay
for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it.
I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United
Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

Check with your state's Department of Labor. Most states, if not all,
have a law specifically forbidding that type of extortion, and most of
the laws were passed specifically due to United Way's past practices
of pushing the employer's to harass the workers to give. A lot of
people have long memories about that going on, and once in a while you
still read a story about a workplace that has gone overboard on
pressuring workers to give. In my opinion, the only benefit from
involving one's workplace in one's charitable efforts is to make the
employer look generous, when it's actually the workers who come
through.

I personally prefer to donate direct to the charities of my choice, as
that way they get 100% of my donation.

Hell Toupee wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way
organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way
by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture
in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights.
I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay
for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it.
I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United
Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

Check with your state's Department of Labor. Most states, if not all,
have a law specifically forbidding that type of extortion, and most of
the laws were passed specifically due to United Way's past practices
of pushing the employer's to harass the workers to give. A lot of
people have long memories about that going on, and once in a while you
still read a story about a workplace that has gone overboard on
pressuring workers to give. In my opinion, the only benefit from
involving one's workplace in one's charitable efforts is to make the
employer look generous, when it's actually the workers who come
through.

I personally prefer to donate direct to the charities of my choice, as
that way they get 100% of my donation.

Since it happened 35 years ago, I doubt any government agency would
pay any attention to me. That freekin boss is long dead. *snicker*

TDD

Hell Toupee wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I once worked for a company that participated in this United Way
organization. If all the employees contributed to the United Way
by having money taken out of their pay, the boss got his picture
in the newspaper and all the newsletters along with bragging rights.
I got my paycheck and saw that money had been taken from my pay
for United Way without my consent. I immediately put a stop to it.
I had superiors trying to cajole me into allowing money for United
Way to be taken out of my pay and I refused. Needless to say, I no
longer had good relations with the management and didn't stay with
the company much longer. I later found out that new hires had to
sign a statement allowing money to be deducted from their pay for
this Mafia,...er, charitable organization. This crap has been going
on all over the country in both the government and private sector
for many years.

Check with your state's Department of Labor. Most states, if not all,
have a law specifically forbidding that type of extortion, and most of
the laws were passed specifically due to United Way's past practices
of pushing the employer's to harass the workers to give. A lot of
people have long memories about that going on, and once in a while you
still read a story about a workplace that has gone overboard on
pressuring workers to give. In my opinion, the only benefit from
involving one's workplace in one's charitable efforts is to make the
employer look generous, when it's actually the workers who come
through.

I personally prefer to donate direct to the charities of my choice, as
that way they get 100% of my donation.

On the flip side, some companies match contributions that employees make
to various charities, which is nice. The important thing is that the
employee decides if and to whom to contribute.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article ,
dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
...

As above, that was the way it was done last time I had a reason
to check, albeit 7-8 years ago now.

How else would you propose they do it? Their job is to raise funds for
their member organizations, whichever they are; they're not in the
business of judging one group's merits over another other than in
relative size of needs to provide the services of the organization
itself (having sat on Board in multiple communities at various times
over a rather long time span dating back to the "Community Chest" days...).

I would propose that if they are going to do it that way, they don't
tell me that all of my money will go to the organization. This is
usually in response to "I want to give to X organization". They then
respond that all of your donation will go the organization, w/o
mentioning the fact that no MORE will go. I just don't like to be
purposely mislead (or at least not given ALL the information).


If you really want your contribution to make a difference to a
particular organization, do it directly to the organization of choice
outside the UW path. (All, though even there, if they're a member
organization there will be some of the same effect as budgets are based
on including historical abilities of the individual organizations'
fund-raising of their own in setting their UW support.)

ALthough more recently it has been that they are getting less
money from UW period.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article ,
" wrote:

When I worked in nursing, I could have been prosecuted if a client
developed a bedsore. I had no time to care for clients the way they
should have been cared for, but my employer kept building new nursing
homes.

Actually that was brought about by the way MCaid is figured (since
much of NH's money is from governmental program). They payments were
based on a base year and then an increment from there. It did not take
too long before this increment fell behind reality. If they built new
ones, the baseline was higher and they usually made money for a couple
of years. The same thing happened when a NH was sold, which is why every
5 or so years, one company would sell a home to another. The baseline
was adjusted upwards and they made more money for awhile.
I don't know how it was in your area, but you were actually ahead
as an RN if you quit your job every 5 years, went to another for awhile
and then came back. The starting salaries were based on "market
condition" while the yearly jumps were usually less. Same idea here.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Kurt Ullman wrote:
....
I would propose that if they are going to do it that way, they don't
tell me that all of my money will go to the organization. This is
usually in response to "I want to give to X organization". They then
respond that all of your donation will go the organization, w/o
mentioning the fact that no MORE will go. I just don't like to be
purposely mislead (or at least not given ALL the information).
....
From the other side, I contend it's not misleading. Every board I ever
served on was very conscientious of ensuring that all designated funds
were credited for use where they were designated to go.

But, the UW is, and advertises itself strongly as an advocate for all
member organizations and as such it is quite apparent to anybody that
they raise a pooled pile of dollars that are allocated among all the
member organizations. I don't see how anybody could reasonably expect
that their designating contributions to one organization would be
responsible for lessening benefit to another member organization in the
pool.

OTOH, imagine you were on the local UW board and fulfilling your
fiduciary responsibilities and obligations as a conscientious member of
that Board. How would you propose to solve the quandary of promoting
the interests of your member institutions fairly and simultaneously
satisfy the desires of prospective donors that do have preferences as to
where their contributions are used? (Remember, as a Board member, your
obligation is to support the objectives and policies of the organization
as adopted by the Board even if you, say, voted against accepting a
particular organization as part of the campaign... Like any
non-trivial exercise, there be non-trivial issues to deal with. ).

In an ideal world, perhaps the answer would be for every donor to
designate every dollar donated and thereby take the difficult budgetary
process out of the hands of the local UW board.... The (probably
unintended by most) consequence of that would undoubtedly remove a
significant amount of funding from a number of small and less wellknown
organizations that likely individually would be considered mostly good
if only they were more well known than they are. It might also have the
purpose you might like of some more controversial not getting quite as
much as well (and I certainly can't nor would say I think every member
organization of the UW in the locales where I have served on the board
is one to which I would personally choose to donate individual
contributions, obviously).

All in all, the purposes of the company campaigns is as someone
noted--it promotes contributions from a large class of potential donors
that otherwise in general likely would not contribute at all or at least
much less w/o the payroll deduction. While I'm certainly not above the
somewhat overt use of peer pressure to enhance what I perceive as good
conduct, I (and any Board of which I've been a member) do not ever want
to see it abused by any employer or employing organization. The
"competitions" and "giving thermometers", etc., are widely used by
virtually all charitable/fund-raising organizations and seem to be some
of the more effective tactics in the arsenal.

--

casey wrote:
I have always been a believer, in helping the less fortunate when I can.

This year, I feel like being Scrooge!

Our company usually "adopts" 2 families at Christmas. After having my
company not matching my 401, it was a hit to me. Same with having wages
frozen for 2 years, and having to take 10 days per year not paid, plus
giving up 5 personnel days a year. I'm short 3 weeks pay, plus no 401
matching.

Our "boss" said the families we adopted needs cash. WTF?? I have some extra
food I can share, and a couple of new sweaters I'm willing to provide. My
boss says this is unacceptable. The families need to have cash, so they can
buy for their children. I have no idea what the money will go for, drugs
maybe? Besides, I don't have extra cash.

I contacted the Red-X. Said I have food & some new clothes to donate. They
said they have plenty of food & clothes, they need cash. This is no joke,
they actually told me this!

Helping the less fortunate? Since when have people decide what they will
accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.









I've always been against employees being coerced by their management to
give to charity. After forced early retirement, my employer continues
to solicit me for the United Way. First time, I sent card back and told
them to stuff it - felt good. Last time, I sent it back and told them I
would pledge 5% of any pension increase - Ha Ha

Hi guys, I wrote in a couple of weeks ago about my gas oven dying and
with your help, it works great now, It needed a new igniter, so thanks
so much.

I really want to weigh in on this charity giving thread. In September,
I retired after 20 years as director of my local food pantry. From
experience I would NEVER in a million years give cash to a client,
because you can't control where or on whom it will be spent. Drugs,
alcohol, and cigarettes come to mind. Don't get me wrong, some of my
former clients were salt of the earth, wonderful people, but I found
that the ones that go to every charity and get put on lots of lists for
help are actually taking you for fools.

We used to give out toys too, and one year, when my husband was helping
out at the food pantry, a young woman's car was so full of items from
multiple charities that he couldn't fit anything else in her car, and
she got really ****ed at him. He refused to give her our items and told
her to come in and talk to the "boss" (me). Needless to say, she left
and never returned.

One year a family signed up for 8 turkey baskets from all over town
under different names, so we wouldn't catch on. Each family member had
a different last name, but because I got really friendly with one of
them, I figured it out, but it was too late for that year.

This time of year everyone comes out of the closet to donate to food
pantries and storage becomes a bad problem, where do we store
everything? Sometimes that's why we request cash instead, so we can buy
perishables like eggs, cheese, butter and meats.

I am now in charge of the free clothing area associated with my food
pantry. People get really mad at me when in December, in New Hampshire,
I won't take shorts, bathing suits, or other summer things, I have no
storage. It's not because I don't appreciate your efforts at cleaning
your closets, bagging the stuff, and lugging it over to me, but where
the hell do I put it till summer?? A woman called me every name in the
book when I told her that I couldn't take a pick-up truck full of size 2
clothes. I told her that my average client was probably a size 14 or
larger, she was livid. And don't get me started on the filthy stuff
some people bring in, covered with dog/cat hair, smelling like a dirty
ashtray. We don't have a washing machine, what do I do with that stuff,
I can't put it on the racks and shelves with the clean stuff.

Solution:

Find a LOCAL food pantry, maybe at your place of worship, ask them what
they need, actual canned goods, or cash. If you want, ask them how
their clients are screened for eligibility. We had to follow strict
government guidelines. When you are comfortable with their answers,
give to your heart's content and trust them to do what's right. Most of
the time we get it right and you'd be proud.

Some food pantries use cash to help clients with rent (not us), in which
case the money goes directly to the landlord, not the client.

Give only clean, in season clothing.

I would never give cash directly to a client.

Best tip: If funds are tight for you at Christmas, don't give now at
all. The food pantries are usually chock-a-block full already at this
time of year. Go get a 2010 calendar, flip to April or July or Sept.
and write yourself a note to donate to a local charity. That's when
they are desperately low on food and funds and will flip cartwheels for
you.

I hope you all have a great Holiday Season, whether you are on the
giving or receiving end.

Denise

In article ,
dpb wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
...
I would propose that if they are going to do it that way, they don't
tell me that all of my money will go to the organization. This is
usually in response to "I want to give to X organization". They then
respond that all of your donation will go the organization, w/o
mentioning the fact that no MORE will go. I just don't like to be
purposely mislead (or at least not given ALL the information).
...
From the other side, I contend it's not misleading. Every board I ever
served on was very conscientious of ensuring that all designated funds
were credited for use where they were designated to go.
Never said otherwise. But I also think that they way it was phrased,
especially when it came in response to "I would give to the UW but I
want to give to this group instead" is intentionally misleading at best,
borderline fraudulent at worst.


But, the UW is, and advertises itself strongly as an advocate for all
member organizations and as such it is quite apparent to anybody that
they raise a pooled pile of dollars that are allocated among all the
member organizations. I don't see how anybody could reasonably expect
that their designating contributions to one organization would be
responsible for lessening benefit to another member organization in the
pool.

Why not? Especially in response to the I would give but statement.
THAT is exactly how I worded and that was exactly the response.


OTOH, imagine you were on the local UW board and fulfilling your
fiduciary responsibilities and obligations as a conscientious member of
that Board. How would you propose to solve the quandary of promoting
the interests of your member institutions fairly and simultaneously
satisfy the desires of prospective donors that do have preferences as to
where their contributions are used? (Remember, as a Board member, your
obligation is to support the objectives and policies of the organization
as adopted by the Board even if you, say, voted against accepting a
particular organization as part of the campaign... Like any
non-trivial exercise, there be non-trivial issues to deal with. ).

I would say right off that we can get that money to them, but it
won't be extra. All I ask for is transparency.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

Raymond J. Johnson, Jr. wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
snip
Many, many years ago, on PBS, F. Lee Bailey (in his youth)
interviewed H.L. Hunt, a wealthy Texas oil man and Bailey asked the
proverbial "are you still beating your wife" question: "Mr. Hunt,
the history of this country is filled with examples of the wealthy
sharing their largess with the public. One only has to think of the
Carnegies and the Fords to see examples of how they've used their
great wealth to help mankind. Why is it you've never seen fit to
share your bounty with the less fortunate?" Old man Hunt looked at Bailey
as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I
use my money to give people something more important that a pretty
picture to look at in some damned museum. I use my money got give
'em a JOB!"

Mr. Hunt answered with a false dichotomy--he could easily have done
both.

Yep. At 50% effectiveness each.

Rmember, Hunt brought his lunch to work every day. In a paper bag. In the
SAME paper bag (until it wore out).