OT... Giving to the less fortunate
casey
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.
Not@home
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,
Tony Hwang
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
Red Green
news:HPXUm.42662$kY2....@newsfe01.iad:
Maybe something new...in a box...with extended warranty.
aemeijers
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...
Ed Pawlowski
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> 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.
Bill
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
Hell Toupee
> 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.
Hell Toupee
> 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.
Kurt Ullman
"casey" <no...@here.org> 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"
George
giant bureaucracies. There are plenty of smaller groups that welcome any
sort of contribution.
George
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.
George
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.
Stormin Mormon
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" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message
news:TcGdnThJTNMD9bnW...@giganews.com...
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...
Stormin Mormon
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" <no...@here.org>
wrote in message
news:hg1d8g$8c5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
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
HeyBub
> 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!"
nor...@earthlink.net
> 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?
Red Green
news:u6KdnXOgt9j7aLnW...@earthlink.com:
> 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...
The Daring Dufas
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
The Daring Dufas
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
The Daring Dufas
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
Kurt Ullman
The Daring Dufas <the-dari...@peckerhead.net> 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.
aemeijers
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...
Kurt Ullman
aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> 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.
Raymond J. Johnson, Jr.
<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.
George
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.
dpb
...
> 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.)
--
The Daring Dufas
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
nor...@earthlink.net
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.
nor...@earthlink.net
Not to mention the fact that the people he "gave" jobs to EARNED the
freaking money :o)
Hell Toupee
> 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.
The Daring Dufas
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
Kurt Ullman
dpb <no...@non.net> 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.
Nate Nagel
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
Kurt Ullman
"nor...@earthlink.net" <nor...@earthlink.net> 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.
dpb
...
> 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.
--
Frank
> 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!
>
> accept as gifts? Bah Humbug, I don't need this crap.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 ;)
Denise in NH
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 pissed 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
Kurt Ullman
dpb <no...@non.net> 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.
HeyBub
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).
HeyBub
> 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
Yep. The folks relocated from Katrina to Houston tried to resume their
lifestyle. Fortunately, they killed each other off with great regularity.
Those that didn't managed to run into a new obstacle: The men in blue.
"Whatcha means I can't be moseyin' thru my 'hood with a malt and a toke?"
On the other hand, those that relocated to Billings or Fort Wayne or Wichita
had new experiences too: "You mean all I gots to do is stand here and make
Slurpies? And I gets PAID for it? Damn! Thaz cool, man!"
dpb
> In article <hg39iv$gtt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
...
>> 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.
How, pray tell -- they would credit your contribution to the charity of
choice in its entirety. What they do w/ other contributions is,
fundamentally, none of your business to put it bluntly... :)
>> 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.
I don't see how you can interpret that that way other than by having a
beef against UW given the following statement of fact. That you
included a "but" doesn't change their mission nor obligations nor does
their using other donations than yours violate any trust or implied
promise about what would happen to your particular contribution amount
were it to be made so-designated.
>
>> 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.
Where precisely do you think there's any implication of "extra" somehow
implied? All the UW says is your particular contribution won't go
someplace besides where you designate it should help. Again, you can't
expect to control somebody else's choice(s).
And, there is complete transparency--you're entitled to and can get a
full accounting of every dollar simply for the asking from any UW local
(just as w/ _any_ 501(c) organization).
I have to say I think you're making an argument here to justify that you
only want an organization to support specific others with which you are
fully in agreement so you create the strawman to justify that attitude.
--
HeyBub
>
> 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 $5,000.00 loan so I could give that money to
> my neighbor so they could remodel their home - while at the time I
> owed hundreds of thousands of dollars on my credit cards! Totally
> nuts!)
>
Sort of. We don't give anybody "cash." We give them trading credits that
they can use to buy U.S. goods, often specific goods. They get the "aid" and
domestic companies get the money.
HeyBub
>
> Where I work, they bend over backwards in writing saying it is
> entirely voluntary, and they don't actually sign people up without a
> signed slip. But they sure do try to shame people into donating, with
> all the usual peer pressure techniques like publicly passing out the
> slips, and keeping running dollar totals for each shop, making a
> competition out of it to see who can hit their target first. I do
> donate, most years, but I write one check, and designate what charity
> I want to have the money. (There are plenty of charities in the book
> that I regard as left/right wingnut useless feel-good groups.) But I
> am not entirely convinced designating who my donation goes to, means
> that the worthless ones get any less. I suspect they tally up the
> directed donations, and just subtract that from whatever dollars were
> designated for that charity in the first place, so the undesignated
> donations flow to the politically correct groups. (Sorta like lotto
> was supposed to ADD to school financing, not become one of the
> standard sources for the money?)
Sounds kinda like "Card Check."
Ed Pawlowski
"Raymond J. Johnson, Jr." <ra...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> Old man Hunt looked at Bailey as if Bailey had just eaten a bug. "I use
>> my money to give people something more important that a pretty picture to
>> look at in some damned museum. I use my money got give 'em a JOB!"
>
> Mr. Hunt answered with a false dichotomy--he could easily have done both.
You've audited his books?
aemeijers
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <hg39iv$gtt$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> Where precisely do you think there's any implication of "extra" somehow
> implied? All the UW says is your particular contribution won't go
> someplace besides where you designate it should help. Again, you can't
> expect to control somebody else's choice(s).
>
> And, there is complete transparency--you're entitled to and can get a
> full accounting of every dollar simply for the asking from any UW local
> (just as w/ _any_ 501(c) organization).
>
> I have to say I think you're making an argument here to justify that you
> only want an organization to support specific others with which you are
> fully in agreement so you create the strawman to justify that attitude.
>
> --
1 question I never got an answer to, over the years- What would happen
if some group got MORE in designated donations, than the overall split
that was penciled in for them? Would they still get it all?
I realize it is rather unlikely, but I am curious.
--
aem sends...
dpb
...
> 1 question I never got an answer to, over the years- What would happen
> if some group got MORE in designated donations, than the overall split
> that was penciled in for them? Would they still get it all?
Certainly w/ any Board with which I have been associated, yes. (Not to
mention of all the rules/regulations it would violate to do otherwise...)
> I realize it is rather unlikely, but I am curious.
Extremely highly unlikely ime. I've never seen any campaign in which
the designated total comprised more than few percent of the overall
total raised.
The only way I would ever see that eventuality coming to pass would be a
single large donation directed for a small organization but it would be
more likely such a gift would be made directly ime.
--
real1
wrote:
[snip]
>The "Teach a man to fish" thing...
"Teach him religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish."
[snip]
Stormin Mormon
going door to door telling everyone about it.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"real1" <re...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:6muai5ls5sdbmtbod...@4ax.com...
Stormin Mormon
exactly correct. I think that many people (and nearly all
adults) have a story of outrage, when it comes to charity
and poor people. Here is the one that comes to my mind.
I was seated at the round table, my small church
congregation was having the leaders conference, before
services started. The phone rang, and Mark went to answer.
It was for Gwen, the Relief Society president. She came
back, fuming, and really obviously upset.
What happened was that one of the welfare women in the
branch had called. Told (not asked) Gwen that she, Gwen,
needed to come over to her house to write a welfare food
order. Gwen replied that welfare lady lived only a couple
blocks from the chpael, and she could walk over. They would
write the order and discuss the needs after services. As
church was about to start in a few minutes. The welfare lady
cranked up the heat, and started yelling, and insisting.
Aparently it had to be done before services, or during
services (taking Gwen away from church ) because welfare
lady was leaving in a litle while to take the boys on the
city busy to see the Ice Follies (paid admission, you
realize), and she woudl not be home after church.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Denise in NH" <Deni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29129-4B2...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
nor...@earthlink.net
> Thank you, for the voice of experience and wisdom. You are
> exactly correct. I think that many people (and nearly all
> adults) have a story of outrage, when it comes to charity
> and poor people. Here is the one that comes to my mind.
>
> I was seated at the round table, my small church
> congregation was having the leaders conference, before
> services started. The phone rang, and Mark went to answer.
> It was for Gwen, the Relief Society president. She came
> back, fuming, and really obviously upset.
>
> What happened was that one of the welfare women in the
> branch had called. Told (not asked) Gwen that she, Gwen,
> needed to come over to her house to write a welfare food
> order. Gwen replied that welfare lady lived only a couple
> blocks from the chpael, and she could walk over. They would
> write the order and discuss the needs after services. As
> church was about to start in a few minutes. The welfare lady
> cranked up the heat, and started yelling, and insisting.
> Aparently it had to be done before services, or during
> services (taking Gwen away from church ) because welfare
> lady was leaving in a litle while to take the boys on the
> city busy to see the Ice Follies (paid admission, you
> realize), and she woudl not be home after church.
>
It's easy to forget that there are good reasons for people being "on
welfare"....mental illness is a major one. Half the folks in nursing
homes (probably a lot more) are "on welfare". It's become immoral to be
out of funds, but lots in that category have had accidents or illnesses,
sometimes multiple major events in one family and were every bit as
responsible as those with bank accounts.
Most of the really irritating/demanding people whom I got to know well
as a nurse had good reasons for their ill temper...one who comes to mind
was an elderly woman whose only son had committed suicide. Some folks
deal with tragedy well, but some events are difficult to ponder. Almost
all of the "difficult" people that I know have had much more "difficult"
lives than I have had.
Jim Elbrecht
>Thank you, for the voice of experience and wisdom. You are
>exactly correct. I think that many people (and nearly all
>adults) have a story of outrage, when it comes to charity
>and poor people.
I think that is the biggest problem with churchians such as yourself.
[you have proven over and over on this forum that you neither a large
or small 'C' Christian].
When I give something to someone I give it of my own free will and I
do so because it makes me feel good to do it. If I get a thanks, I
feel good about the thanks, but it has nothing to do with how I feel
about giving.
The Jews have a system of 'levels' of giving. I don't remember the
details, per se, but it goes something like;
1- you know who is receiving your gift & they know you gave it.
2- you know who is getting it- but they don't know the benefactor
3- neither know who is givng/getting
I think there are some more-
The top of the heap was when you were able to give anonymously to
someone and they didn't even know they were receiving charity.
I think they nailed it. [ I'm not Jewish- I'm agnostic]
If you don't want to give- then don't. But all you holier-than-thou
hypocrites that keep going on about how the poor don't appreciate how
wonderful you are can kiss my ass on a busy street corner.
Jim
HeyBub
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you, for the voice of experience and wisdom. You are
>> exactly correct. I think that many people (and nearly all
>> adults) have a story of outrage, when it comes to charity
>> and poor people.
>
> I think that is the biggest problem with churchians such as yourself.
> [you have proven over and over on this forum that you neither a large
> or small 'C' Christian].
>
> When I give something to someone I give it of my own free will and I
> do so because it makes me feel good to do it. If I get a thanks, I
> feel good about the thanks, but it has nothing to do with how I feel
> about giving.
>
> The Jews have a system of 'levels' of giving. I don't remember the
> details, per se, but it goes something like;
> 1- you know who is receiving your gift & they know you gave it.
> 2- you know who is getting it- but they don't know the benefactor
> 3- neither know who is givng/getting
> I think there are some more-
> The top of the heap was when you were able to give anonymously to
> someone and they didn't even know they were receiving charity.
>
> I think they nailed it. [ I'm not Jewish- I'm agnostic]
>
Actually there are (classically) thirteen levels of charity, but you've
described the essence.
It's a bit different from what most (Christians) understand charity to be.
In the Christian tradition, charity imposes a "duty" on the part of the
giver. In the Jewish tradition, charity is a "right" claimed by the poor*.
Both have the same effect of transferring resources from the more affluent
to the less fortunate, but the difference has significant effects.
Consider the church or synagogue itself: In both instances, the institution
is in the position of depending on the donations of the membership. In the
Christian church, the offering plate is passed in each service and there is
continued emphasis on the duty of the parishioners to "tithe." In the
synagogue, membership is (usually) based on your tax return and dues are
assessed to each family unit. If you don't pay your dues, you don't get in
(at least for the holidays). It's that simple.
This dichotomy carries over into westerm legal theory also: Every "right" a
person is guaranteed by law imposes a "duty" on someone else. If, for
example, I have a right to government-funded health care (or anything else),
you have a duty to provide it.
In practice, it comes down to who nags you: The church or the schnorrer**.
--------
* This "right" is taken, principally, from the admonition to not reap the
corners of your field so the poor may glean therefrom.
** Schnorrer: Yiddish for 'begger' or 'sponger.' By Jewish law, you are not
allowed to refuse a hand-out.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<nor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gNSdnUObJd97y7vW...@earthlink.com...
Stormin Mormon
your cheerful attitude on life, you must be interesting at
family gatherings.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Jim Elbrecht" <elbr...@email.com> wrote in message
news:jbrci5hurpq8njbo1...@4ax.com...
BobR
I am certain that you never have looked at yourself in the mirror or
you wouldn't make such a comment.
BobR
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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had a similar experience with United Way when I was in the Air Force
in 1966. The base commander and top brass decided to make names for
themselves and get some other benefits from United Way by forcing
everyone on base to contribute. They even decided how much we would
contribute which ended up with the enlisted giving about 10x as much
as the officers based on pay. The MINIMUM we could give was $50 which
was the equal of 1 months pay for new enlisted personnel. Somehow
word got back to some Congressmen and that practice was ended but not
before I swore that United Way would never see another dime from me
and they haven't even though a couple of companies I have worked for
didn't like it.
Cheri
news:b039cd46-ea6e-4c58-9e22-
I had a similar experience with United Way when I was in the Air Force
in 1966. The base commander and top brass decided to make names for
themselves and get some other benefits from United Way by forcing
everyone on base to contribute. They even decided how much we would
contribute which ended up with the enlisted giving about 10x as much
as the officers based on pay. The MINIMUM we could give was $50 which
was the equal of 1 months pay for new enlisted personnel. Somehow
word got back to some Congressmen and that practice was ended but not
before I swore that United Way would never see another dime from me
and they haven't even though a couple of companies I have worked for
didn't like it.
=============
I'm not big on *forced* charity of any kind. What the government takes is
bad enough.
Cheri
nor...@earthlink.net
> Thanks, that's a gentle reminder to be more understanding.
>
I didn't mean my post to make excuses for bad behavior, but it sometimes
helps to get to know a person better. And some folks are nasty just for
the pleasure of being nasty :o)
BobR
wrote:
I have known a few people like that but most seemed to be using it as
a self-defense against getting too close to people and getting hurt.
Gary H
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Teach a man religion, and he'll spend the rest of his life
>going door to door telling everyone about it.
Recently, I saw a bumper sticker saying "If you love Jesus, Tell
Someone", I felt it should be "If you Love Jesus, SHUT UP". That's
because of the THOUSANDS of people who won't ("holy verbal diarrhea").
Stormin Mormon
I do try to tread lightly, and not be too gosh awful pushy.
Except on Usenet!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Gary H" <ga...@notspammable.invalid> wrote in message
news:35cgi556pguuf4103...@4ax.com...
Wayne Boatwright
> 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.
I guess the expression, "beggars can't be choosers", is no longer in the
English vocabulary.
Fuck 'em!
I can barely meet my bills and may be facing bankruptcy by the middle of
2010 if things don't improve.
I have things I could give to those who might need them, but they want to
choose and pick.
As far as I'm concerned, charity begins at MY home!
--
~~ If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it. ~~
~~ A mind is a terrible thing to lose. ~~
**********************************************************
Wayne Boatwright
The Daring Dufas
> Wayne Boatwright <waynebo...@arizona.usa.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CE9EA93D98ABwa...@69.16.185.250:
> people on a certain street. One man had a sign he'd work for food. She
> went in the store and bought him a sandwich. When she gave it to him, the
> guy promptly threw it in the trash bin. A few other homeless people jumped
> at the bin for the food.
>
> The new thing now, is for somebody to approach you at a gas station and ask
> for money. The fake reason they give is their car broke down up the
> street. A woman asked me for $5. When I told her No, she kept standing
> there and again I told her No, this time very strongly. What was going
> thru my mind, is she going to attack me. Well, I still was pumping gas so
> it crossed my mind to spray her with the gasoline if she tried to jump me.
> Luckily she walked away and asked everyone else at the station.
You can always have some fun with them by acting crazy. I've had urban
campers approach me while I was walking down a sidewalk and when they
start talking, I will cock my head like a dog listening to its master,
do the crazy eyes bit and start screaming "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" while
walking toward with my arms and fingers outstretched like I'm going
to touch them. Walking stiff legged can enhance the effect and the
behavior can often send them running. There are lots of other things
I do to them to amuse myself.
TDD
Doug Miller
>You can always have some fun with them by acting crazy. I've had urban
>campers approach me while I was walking down a sidewalk and when they
>start talking, I will cock my head like a dog listening to its master,
>do the crazy eyes bit and start screaming "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" while
>walking toward with my arms and fingers outstretched like I'm going
>to touch them. Walking stiff legged can enhance the effect and the
>behavior can often send them running. There are lots of other things
>I do to them to amuse myself.
I worked closely with a deaf man for nearly fifteen years, back in the 80s and
90s, and got pretty good at sign language -- good enough that I can do a
convincing imitation of being deaf. I'm a little out of practice now, so if I
ever encounter a panhandler who actually knows ASL, he'll know I'm faking, but
it's worked every time so far. They give up quickly and walk on to the next
mark.
The first time I tried this, I told my deaf friend about it the next day. He
laughed his ass off.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"The Daring Dufas" <the-dari...@peckerhead.net> wrote
in message news:hgsjsa$7qd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Stormin Mormon
language. Spanish, not so useful. Too many folks know
Spanish. Russian or Czech is good. I wonder if that works on
other panhandlers like traffic cops?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:hgt257$de5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
BobR
> Wayne Boatwright <wayneboatwri...@arizona.usa.com> wrote innews:Xns9CE9EA93D98ABwa...@69.16.185.250:
> people on a certain street. One man had a sign he'd work for food. She
> went in the store and bought him a sandwich. When she gave it to him, the
> guy promptly threw it in the trash bin. A few other homeless people jumped
> at the bin for the food.
>
> The new thing now, is for somebody to approach you at a gas station and ask
> for money. The fake reason they give is their car broke down up the
> street. A woman asked me for $5. When I told her No, she kept standing
> there and again I told her No, this time very strongly. What was going
> thru my mind, is she going to attack me. Well, I still was pumping gas so
> it crossed my mind to spray her with the gasoline if she tried to jump me.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing new about that around the Dallas Tx area, its been going on
for years and in most cases is not a woman who approaches you. On
several occasions I have been approached by more than one person at a
time. I just tell them sorry but I don't carry cash and I don't.
The Daring Dufas
That's another one of the things I will do to them and of course they
will wander off mumbling about crazy deaf people. Of course, I don't
know sign language and if I encountered a genuine deaf person, they
would think I was signing in a foreign language. *snicker*
TDD
The Daring Dufas
> It's also fun, if you are fluent in French or some other
> language. Spanish, not so useful. Too many folks know
> Spanish. Russian or Czech is good. I wonder if that works on
> other panhandlers like traffic cops?
>
Imagine how Sid Caesar could confuse them? He's good at making
up languages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg7UFTTgj4w
TDD