Conference 7.286::digital

    There won't be any data entry of my response as it went directly into
    the recycling bin as it has for years. My family gives generously
    directly to charities and cuts out the UW middleman. I agree that
    it is a waste of time and effort for us to support this activity
    at this time. One area you failed to mention in overhead is the
    applications developers who support the UW. Yes there is an application
    that runs out of Maynard and costs a pretty penny to support.
    
    This all may have been well and good in the mid 80's when we were
    fat and happy but surely not now.
    
    Jim C.
    

    Re: .1 - Ditto, to everything.  
    

   re .0 >>I'm not suggesting that United Way is in any way unworthy.
       
       Ok I'll suggest it. As evidence by the widely circulated scandel
       in recent years. I always thought the way UW solicites DEC was
       sleezy. I never return my donation envelope, it goes right in the
       w-file. UW has ruined a good thing. They won't be with DEC much
       longer.
        

    
    I have to say that I never checked the "yes" box on the card. Why?  A
    lot of it had to do with the way that the issue was stressed by the
    building's "chairperson" or whatever - he went around one year and
    gently coerced people to sign, almost embarassing them to sign.
    
    I realize that this is not a reflection on the United Way as a whole,
    nor on Digital, but it seemed as if the ways that the United Way helps
    the community could be stressed more.
    
    Java

 Solicitations and Distribution of Literature         Effective: 17-MAY-82  
                                                      Section: 6.19         

                                                        Screen  1 of 1

 It is Digital's policy that all employees are not to solicit other
 employees for any purpose during working time.  Working time does
 not include break time or meal time.  Digital employees are not
 permitted to distribute literature of any kind and at any time in
 working areas.

 Persons who are not employees of the Company are prohibited from
 distributing literature of any kind or soliciting employees for any
 purpose at any time on Company property.
 

    RE .5 So how does United Way get away with it. Seems like a clear
    violation of DEC policy. This is what I don't like about these high
    and mighty organizations. They deem themselves privilages, beyond what
    others have. I'd call the UW national office right now and tell them as 
    of this very minute our (DEC) relationship with UW is severed....
    period.

RE:                   <<< Note 2162.0 by RTL::LINDQUIST >>>

>    Here's a delta:idea, use the same vtx system from the
>    disability sign-up for the United Way.

     A very similar idea is already being examined.

                                      Greg

RE: .6

Section 6.19 of PP&P applies only to solicitation of employees by other 
employees.  It does not apply to solicitation activities that have the 
company's sanctioning and approval, such as the annual United Way drive.

--PSW

    anyone that still gives to the UW is a fool in my book!  Doesn't any
    body listen/watch news any more?  They were in one of the biggest
    scandles ever and now if one looks at the UW listing: most of it is set
    up so that the money goes to a UW chaired activity and not directly to
    the place one would like the money to go to.  UW skims off the top so
    frequently that hardly none of what is donanted reaches the intended.
    UW is just one of those wishy-washy ways of allowing for people to
    donate to a cause who are too lazy to find out where their place/ass'n
    of choice is located and how to donate to it.
    
    I give directly to my charity of choice(s).
    
    Reg.                                         

           Besides the agencies that are supported which I do not care to
           support (ie- Planned Parenthood), I too, do not like the
           "subtle pressure" put on by the people pushing the UW.  
           I mean, two months full of piddling stuff like golf putting to
           earn a few bucks, during employee work hours to boot... gimme
           a break!  Why not just limit it to an input to VTX, PERIOD?!
           
           I think it has to be a VERY political thing for the managers
           to look good during this thing.  I'm sure the pressure goes up
           as you move up the ranks, too.  My $.02.
           
           Steve

    
    
    	I worked at a site where the annual United Way was promoted so
    	vigorously (mostly by personnel types) as to be a complete
    	turnoff. Things like bake sales, bingo games, scavenger hunts,
    	ad naseum, all to solicit additional donations, were constantly
    	being held. Made me wonder how these folks found the time to do
    	their regular jobs. I couldn't 'just ignore it' since messages
    	were broadcast to the plant-wide employee distribution list; at
    	least half a dozen messages most days.
    
    	This plus the fact that William Aramony (head of the United Way)
    	got a compensation package worth more than $700,000 ( yes, folks,
    	that's SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) last year, plus many state
    	chairpersons make in excess of $100,000 make me wonder how DEC
    	can continue to support this organization.
    
    	John

    Sometime ago,  'Rolling Stone' magazine carried out an imaginary
    interview with Bart Simpson.  It was pretty funny. At one point,
    Bart asks the Stone reporter, "Wanna see what's in my pockets ?",
    and the reporter says sure. Bart pulls out piles of 10 and 20 dollar
    bills -- must be around 100 to 200 bucks there.

    Bart explains: "I am collecting for Under-privileged Kids, and this
    is my 30% cut. The United Way takes 40%. Call me a saint, man!"

    re: .11
    
    > (mostly by personnel types)
    > Made me wonder how these folds found the time to do
    > their regular jobs.
    
    From my observations, I have never been able to figure out what `their
    regular jobs' are.
    
    tgc

    re.4  Absolutely no form of coercion is acceptable in raising money
          for United Way. 
    
    re. 11  > I worked at a site where the annual United Way was promoted so
            > vigorously (moslty by personnel types)
    
            In most sites, not all, personnel is responsible for the
            overall United Way Campaign. Some sites do more, but the events
            you talk about (bake sales, bingo games, scavenger hunts) I
            would guess were not done by "mostly personnel types" because
            there simply aren't enough people in site personnels' to carry
            out this type of effort. Usually what happens is a UW team is
            formed (non personnel types) to carry out these type of events.
    
            I'm not sure where you got the salary information about William
            Aramony and I don't have the exact figures, but I can tell you
            if your quoting the Washington Post article its bad
            information. 
    
      re.9  United Way of America does not raise or allocate money.
            Individuals in communities across the country voluntary give to
            local United Ways in their home towns.  The budget for the
            national service center primarily comes from dues paid by the
            local UW organizations.
    
     re.12 (and others) United Way has one of the best cost-efficiency
                        records of any major charity. Last year, 85-90%
                        of donated dollars went directly to fund human
                        care programs and services. The National Charities
                        Information Bureau considers an agency efficient if
                        50% goes to programs. The United Ways of New
                        England averages an impressive 35% - 40% above that 
                        standard. 
    
      Has anyone in this note donated time to a local UW? Has anyone in
    this note bothered to visit a local UW to understand how much work is
    done with the limited cash they have? 
    
      The issue about the UW everyone seems to almost remember was an issue
    between the UWA and the media (the media seems to have won and the
    people who need the local UW support seems to be the big losers if this
    note is any example of whats out there). The local UW held back funds
    from the UWA and didn't release the funds until they had proof that
    their dues were being utilized properly by the UWA. 
    
       As the United Way Chairperson for Mill Site (MLO) I understand the
    hard feelings that are out there at this time about many things - IMO,
    those feelings are there because we feel the problems the company is
    having and we also feel like we haven't a place to turn (similar to a
    feeling of being out of control). But, to bash local United Ways that
    truly help people in need is not the way to go. 
    
       This year at the Mill we had a very, very low profile campaign. I
    sent out one memo explaining the administrative procedures of United
    Way Card distribution and I handed out the UW cards with paychecks. 
    No games, no bingo, no raffle and no special events. I've been the
    chairperson at a site that goes all out with special events and it was
    employee driven (no personnel types). The employees, both working and
    participating in events, had a great time. Therefore, my feeling about
    special events is they should be "fun" first and raise money second.
    There should be no coercion, but employees should have an opportunity
    to raise money with special events if they wish.   
                                                 

For years, each December I have donated a modest amount in the form of a
personal check to the local Salvation Army folks; each January I get a nice
"Thank you"  note.  Later on I get a statement for tax purposes.

Recently, I sent a modest amount in the form of a personal check to the New 
England Shelter for Homeless Veterans in Boston; I got a nice "thank you" note.

Recently, I sent a similar amount to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief 
Fund; I DID NOT get any "thank you" note.

For years, I have had United Way deductions from my paycheck.  I have never, 
NOT ONCE, received any recognition of that donation.

I no longer pay any attention to UW begging, here at work or anyplace else. I 
am undecided about the Red Cross; I'll give them another opportunity to snub me.

But then, perhaps I am asking too much of them just to say "Thank you."

Dave

RE: .14 and .15

     This has been going on for years.  Every campaign, there is a topic
filled with people doing their best to stop DEC employees from donating to
United Way.  Without fail, the comments in such replies are replete with
errors and misinformation.  

     CX (CXO & CXN - Colorado Springs) has donated the largest portion of the 
local United Way's funding for many years. Our site services manager is 
directly involved in how the local United Way spends its money (he's on their 
board).  

     Fortunately, we expect that CX will retain its position as making the
largest donation in the corporation this year.  With hard times and downsizing,
that is a truly significant feat.

                                     Greg

     

    
    
      Does Digital match employee payroll contributions to the UW?
    
    
    							-al
    

    Regarding the America Red Cross, my wife and I received a personal
    hand-written thank you note from the Chapter Director (Seacoast NH).
    Our donation to the disaster relief fund was a relatively modest amount, 
    but the director took the time to personally thank us.
    
    I guess it depends on the chapter.  Needless to say, we'll be donating
    again.
    
    Mark.

    >  To the authors of replies .1-.13 I ask that you stop making false
    >  assertions that have no basis in fact. 
    
    Please explain to me how my posting of the part of the Personnel Manual
    in .5 is a false assertion that has no basis in fact.
    
    I am in no way saying that people shouldn't support the United Way.  If
    that is the charity they choose to support, that's fine by me.  I
    choose other charities.  
    
    I AM saying that DEC should either follow its own written policies or
    amend the written policies to reflect the actual policy.  The personnel
    manual states that ALL (emphasis mine) employees are not to solicit
    other employees.  It does not exclude those employees soliciting for
    causes the company deems worthy.  It does not exclude those employees
    whose job it is to solicit other employees.
    
                                    August G. Reinig

	Wow, a thank you note determines whether a charity will get your money 
or not?  I always choose the charity based on the benefit they are providing to 
their particular area and the amount of the donation that will actually go to 
support that work.  I don't normally receive thank you notes from most of the 
charities to which I contribute or donate my time.  It would be a nice gesture 
on their part, but I don't think I'd stop supporting them...JMHO...

				Tom

    re: .14
    
    Comparing apples to apples: United Way's overhead cannot be truly
    compared to that of other charities, since most other charities
    actually DO something with the money.  UW is merely a solicitation and
    redistribution agent, as opposed to the Salvation Army, etc. who put
    the funds to use directly.
    
    As someone appropriately recognized, UW represents _unnecessary_
    overhead to those people who already have an idea where their money
    should go.  5-10% overhead is high compared to the 0% overhead of
    deciding where the money goes yourself.
    
    re: those who state that this note represents misinformation
    
    If the figures published regarding the ex-pres were incorrect, then
    kindly provide the actual figures and set the record straight.  Also,
    please provide the number of years he received that salary.  The
    stories I read on the subject indicated that he had drawn a hefty
    salary for some time.
    
    Please do not accuse people of making unwarranted statements without
    having attempted to correct the facts (saying "it ain't so" is
    insufficient).
    
    Respectfully,
    
    -- Russ

re .21

There are far, far more charitable organizations than I can afford to donate 
to. Many (probably most) of them would be worthy recipients of my time and/or 
money. I, personally, put some value into simply courtesy; perhaps more than 
others. So, when I look for ways in which to differentiate potential donees, I
elect to look for those who, among other things, demonstrate their appreciation.
That has not always been a "Thank you" note, but that seems sufficient.

As Ross Perot says, it is my money and I will spend it any way I want. If you 
get some, the least you COULD do is ignore me (UW does that) and do not plan on
getting more, the least you SHOULD do is let me know it is received.  Even the
skinny Santas on the corner offer a "Bless you" of sorts.

Dave

    
    
    	re .14 and .15
    
    	I would like you to prove that statements made in .1 through 13
    	are false and full of misunderstanding, specifically my response.
    	The head of the Massachusetts UW was paid a salary of more than
    	$100,000 last year. That is fact. William Aramonys' total package
    	(including salary) was in excess of $700,000. Do yu know how many
    	employee contributions it takes to pay these exorbitant amounts?
    	Don't you think that these individuals and this organization is
    	being a little bit piggy in doling out these plums?
    
    	I believe in charity, given of my own volition, to organizations
    	that perform worthwhile services to the needy. I also believe in
    	exposing greed and skimming when it occurs. I do not believe that
    	anyone working for a charitable organization deserves more than
    	to be reimbursed for the reasonable expenses that they incur. A
    	whole lot of needy people can be helped for $700,000, don't you
    	think?
    
    	Now where have I misunderstood something? Facts, please.
    
    	John Sobecky

RE: <<< Note 2162.18 by MUDHWK::LAWLER "Employee says 15000 analysts must go!" >>>
   
>              -< Matching contributions could be expensive >-
>      Does Digital match employee payroll contributions to the UW?
 
     Yes.  Digital does match payroll contributions to United Way.  Digital
matches donations from employees to a wide range of organizations.  I am not 
completely familiar with what makes each organization eligible.

                                    Greg

    
>      The company believes (still) that it has responsibilities to local
>    communities.  It also believes that the UW is the best way for it and 
>    its employees to make a difference.  

It is NOT the company's 'job' to tell its employees the best way to make a
difference.  The employees can certainly decide that for themselves.

>The company puts its money where
>    its mouth is by matching all UW contributions.  This is corporate
>    responsibility and virtue of the highest order.

And of course, the company gets no tax breaks of any sort for this 'altruism'?

RE .25 and as a general suggestion to those in charge of the UW Campaign

	I agree that Digital should stay active in the community and I have no 
problems with their method of fund solicitation.  Compared to when I worked for 
the Federal government and I actually heard managers offer to pay employees 
back for their contributions (just so the manager could claim that they had a 
100% participation), I have been impressed with the way Digital handles the 
Campaign.  

	On the otherhand, the Feds have a much better method with the Combined 
Federal Campaign.  There are many different organizations, including the UW, 
to which each person can specifically contribute.  I know the last time I 
filled out the card, there was a choice of several hundred different 
organizations of which I could specify (I believe) up to 5 and the percentage 
of my donation that they should receive.  In the event I chose not to specify 
any agencies, the money was equally distributed among all the agencies.  The 
list included a brief, one line description of the agency along with the amount 
of money which actually went to the specific cause.  Many of the smaller 
charities were ALL run by volunteers and 100% went to the specific charity.  
With this option, people were free to choose specific charities based on their 
own personal situation and beliefs.  Some people might choose to contribute to 
the Red Cross or Planned Parenthood and others may choose to contribute to 
religious charities or the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.  Still others may choose 
the UW or Salvation Army.  It doesn't matter what you choose, just that you 
have a choice of where the money actually gets donated.

	Some folks as indicated in this note may not want to support various 
agencies which receive money from the UW.  Some may want to support a specific 
charity because they know someone who is benefitting from that charity.  While 
they can contribute to those charities personally and not contribute to the UW, 
it is much easier for them to have that money automatically taken out of their 
check than it is for them to make a personal contribution (which may also 
require some effort to get Digital's matching contribution on).

	Just so there's no question, I've chosen to take both routes.  I 
contribute quite a bit less from my paycheck than I did when I was working for 
the Federal government and have chosen to make that up (and more when possible) 
on my own with charities that I choose since I know where my donation is headed 
and what it will be used for.  In any case, I'd love to see more choices than 
just UW or your local UW and I personally believe that more money would be 
contributed through Digital under such a plan.

				Tom

    
    Re: DEC matching contributions.
    
    Great! we lay off hardworking people and then contribute to a
    "charitable" organization that pays six figure salaries to their 
    officers.
    
    -Ed

    re.30  I'm sorry you feel the need to delete responses. I wish more
    people with facts and the power to make a difference got involved with
    notes. Employees have valid concerns about this issue, as well as many
    others, and this company has a great need to open the communication
    network and develop a two way dialog. I think it was .29 (sorry i'm in
    the middle of typing so I can't go back to look) who talked about how
    the Feds handle contributions and some of the ideas sound great in that
    note. But who listens? People in notes. If our corporate people responded to
    notes we could answer questions and help people understand the
    directions we are taking and why. And, if people in corporate who are
    suppose to have answers don't have them is there a better way to
    uncover a problem like that other than notes? The most important thing
    about notes IMO, is the wealth of knowledge we (employees as a group)
    have. Sure, notes are a risk - I'm taking one now entering this note,
    but if we really want to change this company these are the risks the
    people need to take. 
                               John Santos

    
    RE: 31
    
    WE'RE non-profit, and WE pay our officers six figure salaries.

    If you really want your favorite group to get the largest donation you
    can give, mail the check yourself to that organization. If you are only
    checking off one organization thru UW, you are "paying a 10-15% premium
    for using the payroll deductions".
    
    The non-profits I donate my time to ALL thank you for the donation and
    keep you updated on what they are doing.
    
    Howard
    [My donations include finding cost effective/cost reductive
    communication methods for non-profits.]

    In the past, at another place, I too was able to check which charities
    in the United Way got my money.  But this really has no effect.  Each
    charity is allocated a percentage of the pie.  If you choose a
    particular charity, their percentage doesn't increase.  So, while they
    get all of your money, they get less of everyone else's.  Since your
    money is no different than anyone else's, your targetted giving had no
    effect.
    
    The only time it has any effect is when so many people target a
    particular charity that the total of their donatations exceeds the
    charity's allotment of the pie.  In this case, they get all of the
    specific grants but nothing else.
    
                                    August G. Reinig

    
    Bottom line:
    
    UW is a way for a group of rich "soceity" types to hobnob at fund
    raising dinners and make speeches and get praised by other rich snobs.
    All the while, *THEY* decide where your money gets spent.
    
    Seems like Digital corporate officers like to schmooze with these
    people and have made a pact with the devil.
    
    UW- Just say NO!
    
    -BTW, did UW cut out the Boy Scouts recently?
    
    -Ed

    RE:     -BTW, did UW cut out the Boy Scouts recently?
    
    In some places, UW has drastically deminished or cut out completely,
    donations to BSA.....
    
    Now, the big thing between UW and BSA is.... UW informed BSA that if
    they hold fund raisers at the same time UW holds fund raisers, UW will
    cut funding in the area the fund raiser takes place... This seems to
    include individual units (troops, packs, posts, ships, etc.) who get
    zero (0) funding from UW, directly or indirectly...
    
    UW (IN MY OPINION) is a money laundering institution for the rich
    snobs.... so they can pound their chests and say they contribute to the
    lower classes.... (I am not says those who give to UW are snobs, it is
    the snobs who run it I am talking about (the professionals who draw a
    paycheck from UW), not the volunteers either).....
    
    If UW were serious about fund raising for "charity" they would place a
    cap on salaries of its' professional staff. 6 digit salaries are not
    even close to the cap I would have.... Mid 5 digits would be the high
    end....!
    
    Again, MY OPINION..!!!
    
    Bob G.
    

    Re: .36 & .37:
               
    >> -BTW, did UW cut out the Boy Scouts recently?
    
    >In some places, UW has drastically deminished or cut out completely,
    >donations to BSA.....
    
    Yes, and various additional reasons have been given, including that BSA
    discriminates (against gays and atheists) in its membership
    requirements, and BSA is undeserving because of its huge capital assets
    (namely, vast real estate holdings -> its camps).  Right now there's a
    ongoing feud at the national level between UW and BSA top executives
    over membership restrictions.  At the local level, UWs have typically
    been steadily decreasing the amount and proportion of funds allocated
    to individual BSA Councils with each passing year.  
    
    UW's attitude toward BSA is the chief reason my wife and I, who are
    both volunteer Scouters, have dropped participation in Digital's UW
    campaign.  
    
    FWIW: We are also both heavily involved with GSUSA, which has NOT been
    as severely affected by cutbacks in funding as has BSA.  

>    RE:     -BTW, did UW cut out the Boy Scouts recently?
>    
>    In some places, UW has drastically deminished or cut out completely,
>    donations to BSA.....
 
     REALITY CHECK!

     Once again, United Way is not one huge agency, they are many local
     agencies.  The well politicized Boy Scout brouhaha was in San Francisco.
     Pikes Peak United Way, for instance, did not alter its funding for the
     Boy Scouts at all due to that fracas.

>    Now, the big thing between UW and BSA is.... UW informed BSA that if
>    they hold fund raisers at the same time UW holds fund raisers, UW will
>    cut funding in the area the fund raiser takes place... 

     United Way has rules for all of its member agencies which limit how much
     fundraising they can do on their own.  That is the whole purpose for them
     belonging to United Way in the first place.  Fewer people are banging on
     your door for bucks, so you can give more to a single place (which then
     passes on to multiple agencies).

                                         Greg

    Re: -1
    
        Well, I don't support the UW but, it has nothing to do with any
       hatred.  I simply feel that it is better for me to donate directly
       to the charities that I choose and eliminate the middle man (Read
       UW).  There are local offices for Meals on wheels, Special Olympics,
       and they will receive my checks, not the UW.
       Its just that simple, no hate just more efficient.
    
       -R

    
    Re: .39
    
    > United Way has rules for all of its member agencies which limit how much
    > fundraising they can do on their own.  That is the whole purpose for them
    > belonging to United Way in the first place.  Fewer people are banging on
    > your door for bucks, so you can give more to a single place (which then
    > passes on to multiple agencies).
    
    Which is precisely what the problem is.  United Way wants to ensure
    that it gets the money first so that the money goes where the UW
    chooses not necessarily to the most deserving or needy organizations.
    When I found out that *some* local UW agencies had given funds to
    PACs like Citizens to Ban Handguns, I wrote them off completely.  They
    have NO business involving politics in their decisions to disburse
    funds.  I now give directly where I want to and it sure isn't to
    any PACs.
    
    Steve
    

re .40

>	Some are so bent and twisted in their blind hatred

	Who in this string has exhibited "blind hatred"? Who 
	are "twisted"?

>	There are some in this string who are using the tactics of Joseph
>	Goebbels.  Tell the big lie. 

	Who in this string has used these tactics? In which replies? What
	"big lie" has been told, and in which reply will I find it?

					Tom_K

    Marv, I knew you would get sucked back into this. This particular note
    seems to belong in soapbox because most notes in this string, similar
    to soapbox, deserve no response. I know how upsetting it is to read
    some of the comments given the bashing of an organization that truly
    helps needy people. 
    
    Some of the notes in here demanded facts about the UW and they were
    posted. Therefore, let me demand some facts from noters who are bashing
    because I don't know the answers to the following, but given
    some responses I have read in here you bashers must know.
    
     * How much money does UW bring in on a yearly basis?
     * What is the overhead (money not going directly to the needy) of
       organizations you donate to and what is that organizations name? The
       statement I read yesterday about 0% overhead if you deliver the
       money to the organization yourself isn't correct unless, for
       example, the organization your giving to is the homeless and you
       walk up to a homeless person and hand them your cash.  
     * How much should the CEO of a multi-million (billion?) dollar
       organization get? 
     

>>    In the past, at another place, I too was able to check which charities
>>    in the United Way got my money.  But this really has no effect.  Each
>>    charity is allocated a percentage of the pie.  If you choose a
>>    particular charity, their percentage doesn't increase.  So, while they
>>    get all of your money, they get less of everyone else's.  Since your
>>    money is no different than anyone else's, your targetted giving had no
>>    effect.

	Lest there be any confusion, the UW was only one of the several hundred 
charities on the list of which I was speaking.  Any of the money which I 
specified to go to a particular charity went directly to that charity without 
any middle man via payroll deduction from the Federal government.  These 
charities were not necessarily tied to the UW in any way.  I assume that if I 
had specified the UW of America or a specific local chapter of the UW, that 
they would have spread the funds that I sent them according to their normal way 
of doing things.  In my case, I specified direct agencies such as the Cystic 
Fibrosis Foundation, Special Olympics, or XXX religious charitable 
organization as examples.  I chose not to support middle man types of agencies 
like the UW so that I was sure where the money went.  All I was suggesting was 
that Digital consider a similar setup so that those who do not wish to 
contribute to the UW would have other options available to them.

				Tom

    re.45 I thought the base note and .29 had some good constructive
          suggestions. 

    .41,.42 here-here! In agreement all around.  I don't hate, just despise
    inefficiency and overpaid bureaucrats.
    
    Ogre.

    
    	I, for one, felt RIPPED OFF and DECEIVED when I found what the
    administrators (national and state level) of the UW were getting paid.
    
    	The concept of efficiency in collection SOUNDED good, but given
    my concept of what a "working for a charity" means, in terms of
    financial renumeration, United Way deceived me BIG TIME.  I got taken.  
    Won't happen again, by these guys.
    
    	Per the Boston Globe, the "new" director's salary is $195,000.00
    per year.   They think this will make me think they have made a great
    improvement ????  
    
    	To me, there are clearly better avenues for contributing.

I, personally, don't support the United Way for three reasons:

    1. I don't wish to support several of the organizations that
       they support. This is for specific real reasons, personal
       experience and experience of friends.

    2. I have been angered by the tactics used in corporate fund
       raising efforts at Digital and even more so at my previous
       employer.

    3. I prefer to directly support the organizations I want.

I don't have enough direct information to put down the United Way for
improper use of the funds it raises although there seems to be a lot
of press that would concern me if I were a contributor. I do not 
begrudge anyone their right to support the United Way if they wish. 
I just want them to let me alone. Point two above is the reason I wish 
Digital would not so actively support the UW.

At this company I have been ordered to attend fund raising activities
(I pushed back and was allowed to not attend but the "order" was allowed
to stand for those who did not push back). At a previous company a
senior manager was a strong supporter and he required all his people
to give their "fair share". If an individual employee below him did
not wish to participate that employee's manager was expected to "talk
him into it" or pay a larger amount himself to make up for the employee
that did not give. Managers of organizations that did not end up with 
an average of a "fair share" across all their employees were transfered
or terminated. I haven't seen this at Digital (thank goodness) but
some things I have seen approach it.

				Dick

    
    	
    	Some folks in here solidly support the UW. If they choose to
    	support an organization that pays it's execs six-figure salaries,
    	it is their money. 
    
    	Some folks in here are solidly against the UW. The main reasons
    	seem to be that the execs are paid six-figure salaries.
    
    	Personally, I have a hard time giving to an organization that
    	sqaunders the amount of money paid to UW execs. After all, what
    	could possibly be so hard about the job? It's supposed to be
    	charity, isn't it? It's supposed to come from the heart, isn't
    	it? So what is the justification for a six-figure salary? I
    	would be much more inclined to give money to a street beggar than
    	I would to one of those overpaid execs.
    
    	Now, I haven't seen any notes in here that say that the people
    	that work in the trenches for UW (the truly dedicated workers,
    	IMO) aren't sincere. I do agree with one of the responses that
    	dealt with the amount of fund raising that organizations are 
    	allowed to do is regulated by the UW...the UW wants to make sure
    	that it gets it's cut of the action. Somehow smacks of unionizing
    	the charities.. or worse. 
    
    	To say that people are trashing the UW and making it sound like
    	they are unworthy of response is being blind to the arguments
    	being put forward. I know that some of you defenders have been
    	the UW site person and may feel that your efforts have been some-
    	what diminished by criticism of the UW. Nobody is bashing you
    	personally, at least not me..as long as you volunteered to be
    	the site person out of a genuine concern for the needy and not
    	for some political feather in your cap. So give the detractors
    	some slack. 
    
    	John

    
    
    	re .50
    
    	I was the person that quoted the >$700,000 package (not salary).
    	I am POSITIVE that number was quoted in a Boston Globe article
    	this summer. I will research it.
    
    	But...only $360,000, you say? In my opinion, that is about 
    	$350,000 too much.
    
    	John

    I want to echo one of the points made in .51:
    
    While working for another company (during the 70's - maybe things have
    changed) each employee was pressured very hard to give their "fair
    share."  If my memory is correct, this was 1% of your salary.  Failure
    to have that 1% deducted was duly noted and *WAS* held against you in
    the form of lower prformance ratings and diminished possibilities for
    promotion.
    
    I know this was not directly the fault of the UW, but it certainly left
    a distinctly bad taste in my mouth.
    
    I have found the solicitation at Digital far less onerous.  And, to my
    knowledge, no supervisor has checked on whether or not I am
    contributing.
    
    So, I donate a small amount each year to UW through payroll deduction. 
    I make sure it is destined for the Monadnock chapter in NH which
    services the area where I live.  But, trust me, the bulk of my
    contributions are made directly to the charities *I* want to support -
    not the charities deemed "appropriate" by a nebulous board.
    
    I'm sure the UW has done a tremendous amount of good over the years. 
    But, the heavy handed solicitation plus the extremely poor way in which
    they have managed their own house have, and will continue to, cause
    many people to have attitudes like those expressed in this file.
    
    Chet

re .50

>	Did I answer you questions?

	Thank you for indicating that you felt KELVIN::BURT, TEXAS1::SOBECKY, 
	BROKE::RAM, BRAT::REDZIN::DCOX, NEWVAX::PAVLICEK, RUSURE::MELVIN, 
	TLE::REINIG, FORTSC::CHABAN, and BSS::GROVER were "using the 
	tactics of Joseph Goebbels."

						Tom_K

    
    Re: .50
    
    >.37  "...so that the money goes where the UW chooses not necessarily to
    >     the most deserving..."
    >     Lie.  Decisions concerning where funds raised by the UW goes are
    >     made by community volunteers NOT UW professionals.  
    
    Marv, 
    
    One note made the following statement:  The UW has rules which either
    prohibit or at least restrict the agencies they fund from doing their
    own fund raising so that the UW can be the "one stop shopping place"
    for making charitable donations. Is that true or isn't it?  If so then
    to benefit from the UW, you have to play by their rules.
    
    First if this is false then my statement is incorrect, but I'd
    hardly call it a lie.
    
    Second, if this is true then the money goes where the UW chooses it
    to go since they get it paid to them directly and disburse it where
    they see fit.  So where is the lie in that?  Don't give me that line
    about local volunteers.  They are simply in that regard agents of 
    the UW whether they do it as volunteers or not.
    
    > Anyone who wishes to volunteer to serve on these boards are
    > welcome to step up to the plate and try it.  You will soon find
    > that it is not fun and games.
    
    Just because you've got your feathers ruffled by some of the comments
    here about the UW doesn't make them untrue and certainly doesn't give
    you cause to call anyone a liar when the most they might be guilty
    of is having wrong information.  Chill out and get a life.
    
    Steve
    
    
    
    

Marv,

	FWIW, there are agencies to which 100% goes to the work of the charity 
and 0% to overhead.  My wife and I volunteer our time (and that of one of our 
dogs) to one called Pets On Wheels which takes pets into local nursing homes 
and hospitals.  This is one of the several hundred organizations that can be 
donated to via the Federal government (at least here in the DC area).  All of 
their fund raising is done by volunteers (frequently bake sales held in 
conjunction with local dog shows) and through companies who volunteer to 
promote the organization or contribute to it.  They DON'T put any money into 
advertizing or administration.  

	There aren't many of these agencies around.  I agree that most agencies 
seem to run in the 90% range, but there really are some that do better.  

				Tom

    re.52  I think I was the only UW site person and beleive me I don't
           take things personnaly that others say in notes towards me.
    
           I made a challenge to folks about in a previous note that nobody
           has bothered to respond to because IMO, it would take facts to
           respond. How do you know if the UW execs are over paid if you
           don't know how they compare to other CEO's (i.e. Red Cross,
           Salvation Army). How do you know how much of the money you say
           you donate direcly to organizations is used - how much for
           saliries, advertising? Can anyone name a non-profit that doesn't
           compensate their highest official highly? 
    
           You say people have not bashed the UW - have you read this
           string? Have you at least read .50?  Now, if you have read the
           string or at least .50 you would have to agree that there is 
           some UW bashing going on and if you bash the UW you *are*
           bashing the "truly dedicated workers who work in the trenches".
    
           re - the UW wants to make sure that it gets it's cut of the
                action.
                I think you have this backwards. Organizations choose to be
                members of the UWA to lower their their overall costs and
                to make sure they get their cut. These organizations could
                do the work on their own if they didn't want to be
                affiliated with the UW. 
      
            re - so give the detractors some slack
                 I've responded with facts I have against bad information.
                 Think about this comment and you may think about what
                 may be "detracted" from who (money that is spent on direct
                 community service, community advocacy and equal
                 opportunity, Hungry and homeless, employment and training,
                 research, education, treatment, elderly and so on - to more
                 than 650 agencies in New England). 
    
                 I asked for names of
                 agencies that people are giving to because I would bet
                 some of the people who are saying "I wouldn't give to the
                 UW I give to who I want" are giving to UW agencies and
                 don't even know it.  
                 

    
    The UW reminds me of the New Testament story of how Jesus critisized the
    rich self rightious snobs for praying in public and their acts of
    one-upmanship as far as donations and sacrifices at the temple were
    concerned.
    
    The only difference here is that these rich folks are using other people's
    money. Heck, at least Andrew Carnegie built libraries with money drawn from
    his own bank account!
    
    Before anyone slags me about this, I'm sure there must be similar
    admonitions in Jewish, Moslem and Buddist writings.
    
    What you give and who you give it to is nobody's business except your own
    and your God's whomever he/she may/may_not be! 
    
    Does this sound like Goebbels to you?
    
    -Ed
    

    
    	There are two instances that have happened to me in my life
    that have made it where I will never again give to United Way.
    They both involved the American Red Cross.  Without going into
    detail, I was in desperate need of assistance; once overseas while
    in the Navy, and again a number of years later here in Colorado
    with the Pikes Peak Red Cross.  Both times I was refused assistance
    with very strange "reasons".
    	So now, like many others in this string, if I wish to donate 
    to a specific charity that is under UW's umbrella I go directly to
    them.  But I do NOT want once cent of my money going to the
    American Red Cross.  
    	The seemingly outrageous salaries that are paid to the exec's
    of UW are hurting donations to some degree.  I know of quite a few
    people that have stopped their donations on this point, and that
    of the scandle of last year.
    
    	Tim Warnock
    

I always ask for an IRS form 990 from a charity before I contribute to it.  This
is the tax form that they are required to file with the IRS and they can get
into lots of trouble if they refuse to divulge this information.  With this form
you can see exactly where the contributions go.  I don't contribute to anything
that is less than 90% efficient or differs from my personal values.  

SideNote: 
A few years back the Salvation Army was 94% efficient while the US welfare (I
know they don't qualify as a charitable organization), system is <10% efficient.
I hope my memory is correct on the form #.  

dls

    
    	re .59 (JSantos)
    
    	Whether or not the UW salaries compare favorably with other
    	the salaries of other non-profit organizations is not the
    	point. I firmly believe that an organization that bills itself
    	as a charitable organization has no moral right paying those
    	salaries to their execs. The fact that other charities may do
    	it doesn't make it any less wrong.
    
    	I would genuinely like to hear your explanation of the reasoning
    	behind fund-raising limits imposed by the United Way on its
    	member charities. 
    
    	If I heard that an organization that I donated to was paying the
    	salaries that UW execs gets, I would stop donating immediately.
    	But that's neither here nor there..this topic is on the UW.
    
    	I don't understand why you said that this note belongs in soapbox..
    	can you elaborate (was it you that said that)?
    
    	I'd also advise both sides to stop the name calling and personal
    	attacks, else the mods will shut the note down and people will
    	go away angry and frustrated. Then again, maybe that ain't such
    	a bad idea.
    
    	John

        The original note 2162.50 was deleted because it included personal
        attacks on a number of identifiable persons (by name).  This note
        is simply a placeholder because several following notes refer to
        the old .50.  If you're already caught up in this topic, you can
        resume with .65.
        
        Please refrain from defaming others.  It reflects poorly on you
        and can result in negative repurcussions.  
        
        Tom
        one moderator

    .55- thanks for letting me know I was attacked- I figured the new .50
    most likely mentioned me. I only read this file (and others) before
    work and at lunch so I can't keep up with it 24 hrs a day.
    
    To who ever wrote the old .50, I only want to go on record as saying
    that I'm tired of how people have lost sense of responsibilty,
    integrity and individuality.  I do not wish to have others make
    decisions for me that affect me personally.  If it's a group issue
    (work, family, friend, community, etc) I wish to be able to voice my
    opinion and vote the way I see fit and majority wins.  And if I don't
    like the outcome I can either 1) leave or 2) work to presuade others to
    see life as I see it and let them vote their conscience.  I live to
    live and let live and accept the fact that others opinions are diferrent
    than mine (in most cases radically 8^) ).  I can work with and get along 
    with anyone, just don't accuse me unjustly.
    
    Ogre.

    RE: .56
    
    >One note made the following statement:  The UW has rules which either
    >prohibit or at least restrict the agencies they fund from doing their
    >own fund raising so that the UW can be the "one stop shopping place"
    >for making charitable donations. Is that true or isn't it?  If so then
    >to benefit from the UW, you have to play by their rules.
    
    This restriction is true.... There is a discussion going on in the
    SCOUTING notes file that details the situation where a Scouting
    Executive could not approve a fund raising application (all groups
    within BSA have to file a request to fund raise) due to the United Way
    campaign which had been underway....
    
    The major problem with this is.... the "unit" gets no money from UW.
    All UW funding stays at either the National or Council level.
    Therefore, the unit is left to provide funding for itself.. The UW
    campaigns usually last quite awhile.... This greatly reduces the time
    for which these individual units can hold "approved" fund raising
    events.
    
    HOW has the UW gotten so powerful, that they can make these demands on
    others.?
    
    THESE ARE FACTS..!
    
    Bob G. 

RE:           <<< Note 2162.66 by BSS::GROVER "The CIRCUIT_MAN" >>>
                             -< ONLY THE FACTS.! >-

>    THESE ARE FACTS..!

     Well...almost facts...

>    The major problem with this is.... the "unit" gets no money from UW.
>    All UW funding stays at either the National or Council level.

     This is not completely correct.  AGAIN, United Way is not one huge 
     national agency.  The local United Ways support the local scounting
     organizations (if that is what that particular local United Way has
     decided).  If the local organization is the council, then the 
     council gets the bucks, but the money is certainly not relegated to 
     the national organization.
 
>    HOW has the UW gotten so powerful, that they can make these demands on
>    others.?
 
     Because member organizations AGREE to the rules before they join the 
     United Way.  They weigh the options and decide that the United Way is
     the most efficient and intelligent way to go.  All are completely free
     to go it on their own, and the rules about independent fund-raising do
     not exclude ALL independent fundraising, but specific types which might 
     conflict with fundraising for the entire group. 

                                      Greg

>        <<< Note 2162.52 by TEXAS1::SOBECKY "It's all ones and zeros" >>>
>...    
>    	Personally, I have a hard time giving to an organization that
>    	sqaunders the amount of money paid to UW execs. After all, what
>    	could possibly be so hard about the job? It's supposed to be
>    	charity, isn't it? It's supposed to come from the heart, isn't
>    	it? So what is the justification for a six-figure salary? I
>    	would be much more inclined to give money to a street beggar than
>    	I would to one of those overpaid execs.

Why do the execs get paid so much?  Let me offer a rationale.
It isn't an attempt to justify the behavior to anyone, and in fact make even
sway some fence sitters to shun the United Way and other charities.

The United Way (or any other charity) has some sort of Board of Directors 
or Trustees or somesuch.
These people have an agenda.  At its heart, this agenda is basically
charitable, though there are always ulterior motives possible.
The Board hires managers to execute this agenda, with gusto and success.

So, executive X gets paid $200,000 per year, and raises (say) $100 million
for the charity.  The board is ecstatic.  Executive Y observes that
if he were in charge, he could improve the program and raise $300 million,
but he'd need $300,000 to do so.  (That's what he'd get by working that hard
in private industry, so  he says.)
The Board gives him that shot,  and he performs to the tune of $350 million!
Yowza!
Executive Z observes that he can get to $500 million, and will do that
for $400,000 per year, PLUS one one hundredth of one percent of everything
above $500 million (that's one dollar for  every $10,000 raised - a mere
pittance!).
He raises a billion dollars and makes $450,000 dollars.

Is social good being served?  Probably, since uncoerced charitable giving
would probably be far lower than the $1 billion executive Z raised.
How much work does all this coercion represent?  
Probably far more than many would give the executive credit for.

Two closing points:

  1) The search criteria for presidents of private universities
     and similar not-for-profit institutions place fund raising skills
     at least as high as organizational and academic skills.

  2) The typical for-hire telephone and door-to-door fundraisers
     who call on you to collect for environmental and political action
     and other not-for-profit (and profit) organizations can get paid
     ONE THIRD of your donation for their own efforts.

My complaint with United Way is not its overhead, but its impersonality
and the lack of control and knowledge I have for its giving plans.
Given the way things go, I think an 80-90% direct aid component
for any charitable effort (beyond those so personal that only the directly
concerned work on them) is acceptable, even admirable.

- tom]

    Why do I think this note belongs in soapbox. Because some/most of the
    responses in here remind me of sit-coms and because .0 had some very
    good suggestions, but from .3 on it became a urinating contest. If
    there are people in here who truly feel the United Way is not something 
    that the company should be doing tell the proper individuals (I could
    give you names) if you really want to do something other than complain
    and try to sway people in the same cowardly way our media is famous for.
    And please, don't tell me to grow up or not call you names because
    you'll go running to my boss (who needs to grow up here?).
    
    Someone says it doesn't matter what other non-profits pay their highest
    exec because this is the UW and this is suppose to be a charity. Well,
    charity or not - people who are responsible for billion dollar
    operations are compensated highly anywhere - a great example of this if the
    Catholic Church - no money in overhead here right? Then where did the
    800 million dollars that was paid out in out of court settlements come
    from that I read about in the Globe this morning? 
    
    As far as falling on one side of this issue - I waited to see a voice
    of reason in here about the good UW does in our communities - I didn't
    see 1 in the first 14 responses. I know for a fact people support the
    UW in high numbers in this company - I didn't do any advertising in my
    site and the donation cards came rolling in (our company averages about
    50% consistantly and will again this year). IMO, actions speak louder
    than words and if UW cards wern't being turned in my feeling is the
    company wouldn't support it because the majority of the employees
    choose not to. I don't want to accuse anyone of bashing here, because
    I've already been told that saying something like "giving to UW is
    stupid" isnt bashing" so I guess I don't know the meaning of bashing.
    And, I don't want to call any one in here a liar, because I already
    read in here that people may not be making true statements but thats
    not really not a lie, so I guess I don't know the meaning of a lie.
     
    We can go back and forth forever in here and we won't accomplish
    anything, (except maybe getting a memo sent to our boss), so for me
    participating in this particular note isn't worth it. If you think you
    have more to say call me, send mail to my account or stop by to visit
    me in my office because I am willing to talk. But, to take a risk of
    hurting someones feelings where they feel the need to go out
    of this note and complain to a person who has nothing to do with this
    discussion, a persons boss, to me isn't worth it.   
               
    
    

    
    Re .69
    
    >  I am curious.  In .61 you say that giving to whatever and whoever
    >one wishes is nobody's business except their own, yet in prior notes
    you
    >lied yourself with the more virulent entries calling UW contributors
    >fools and such.
    
    Did I say that?  I simply consider the UW corrupt and those who
    contribute are simply being misled.  I did not mean to imply those
    who contribute are corrupt, and I don't think I did.
    
    Saying contributions are "nobody's business except their own" does not
    preclude me from criticizing recipients, it simply reflects my belief
    that Digital does not have the right to ask us to dig into our pockets
    to support an organization that supports Political Action Commitees
    and squanders money on fancy salaries and expensive "Dinners".  Even if
    I approved of the way the UW conducted business, I'd have to say
    Digital has no right to try to influence where *OUR* money get's sent.
    
    As for the motivations of UW "Activists", I simply have to think back
    to the numerous times I was asked to provide after dinner entertainment
    at those wonderful fund-raising dinners in New Jersey.  One by one
    the corrupt businessmen, government officials and crime bosses took
    the stage to present checks or receive plaques.  The newspapers
    printed their names in the "soceity" column as often as they appeared
    in their coverage of the scandals Jersey is known for.
    
    -Ed                                                
    
    

    RE: .67

    >and the rules about independent fund-raising do not exclude ALL 
    >independent fundraising, but specific types which might
    >conflict with fundraising for the entire group.

    Well, if selling candy, car washes, etc.. is considered a conflict with
    United Way activities.. There is a problem. This money is to insure the
    boys get to go camping, hiking and other "boy activities".

    There should NEVER be a reason to keep the boys (in this case) from
    accomplishing their goals.... After all, the boys is what the program
    is for....! If we allow bureaucracy to stand in the way of ANY program,
    than what good does it serve?
    
    Bob G.
    

RE:           <<< Note 2162.72 by BSS::GROVER "The CIRCUIT_MAN" >>>
     
    >Well, if selling candy, car washes, etc.. is considered a conflict with
    >United Way activities.. There is a problem. This money is to insure the
    >boys get to go camping, hiking and other "boy activities".

     I suspect that there is more to this issue than either of us knows.
     It is easy to get crazy about something when we don't know all of the
     facts involved in the matter.

     It may simply be a case of misinterpretation or overly cautious 
     enforcement of the guidelines by the Boy Scout Council management.  

                                        Greg

    I will agree that my statement of those who still donate are fools
    would be interpreted as to unjustly accusing someone.  And, as much I
    attempt to retract anything negative about me, it wouldn't work.
    
    But, I will make an effort in saying that I don't think any less of
    those who donate, I just consider it a lazy, irresponsible, and rude
    way to donate to a charity of ones choice.  Again, what I have said
    will be misconstrued and interpreted to mean that I have unjustly accused,
    but I have spoken my opinion and I choose to leave this discussion. I
    opt not for persuading anyone my way as I wish everyone would continue
    to support their charity of choice, I just know there's a better united 
    way.
    
    Ogre.

    I do about 5 hours a week of volunteer work for an animal shelter...
    I am also on the board of directors and chairman of our craft
    committee.  Do I expect to get paid...heck no..it is a non-profit
    organization and all money collected goes back to the shelter where
    it belongs.   I cannot imagine nor can our president imagine making 
    a 4 digit salary...never mind a 6 digit salary!!! 
    
    As far as "thank you" notes for donations.  We try so hard to
    ensure each and every person gets a special thank you via a card...
    but I will admit we are sometimes late with our thank you's because
    even though this is important....paperwork is not the priority...
    taking care of a sick animal or rescuing others is the priority 
    especially when you have limited volunteers.  We also publish a list
    of all the names that have provided donation in our quarterly
    newsletter.
    
    Bottom line for me is....the money that is going to the exec's should
    be going to the folks the charity is suppose to help.   To me that's
    what VOLUNTEER work is all about!!
    
    Sandy
    

     I don't think anyone, supporter or not, should be happy about the
salaries of certain United Way officials (local or UW of A).  This scandal
was the best thing that could have happened to them.  Salaries will be
falling all around the country, and so they should.

                                   Greg

	re .70 (JSantos)


>    Why do I think this note belongs in soapbox. Because some/most of the
 
	This was my question, so I believe this paragraph is directed
	to me.

>    responses in here remind me of sit-coms and because .0 had some very
>    good suggestions, but from .3 on it became a urinating contest. If
>    there are people in here who truly feel the United Way is not something 
>    that the company should be doing tell the proper individuals (I could
>    give you names) if you really want to do something other than complain
>    and try to sway people in the same cowardly way our media is famous for.

	Not sure about this...are you accusing me of being a coward?

>    And please, don't tell me to grow up or not call you names because
>    you'll go running to my boss (who needs to grow up here?).
 
	John, where did I ever mention going to your boss? And where did
	I tell you to 'grow up'?
   
>    Someone says it doesn't matter what other non-profits pay their highest
>    exec because this is the UW and this is suppose to be a charity. Well,
>    charity or not - people who are responsible for billion dollar
>    operations are compensated highly anywhere - a great example of this if the
	
	The argument that 'everybody else does it' is a weak one, almost
	not worth answering. We are each responsible for determining what
	is right or wrong.

>    Catholic Church - no money in overhead here right? Then where did the
>    800 million dollars that was paid out in out of court settlements come
>    from that I read about in the Globe this morning? 
 
	Irrelevant.   

>                I don't want to accuse anyone of bashing here, because
>    I've already been told that saying something like "giving to UW is
>    stupid" isnt bashing" so I guess I don't know the meaning of bashing.
 
	Which response said this? I must have missed it.
 
>    And, I don't want to call any one in here a liar, because I already
>    read in here that people may not be making true statements but thats
>    not really not a lie, so I guess I don't know the meaning of a lie.
 

	Let me help you here. Lie: to make a statement that one knows
	is false, especially with intent to deceive. Only one noter has
	done that in this note, and he deleted his response (wisely, I'm
	sure).

    
>    We can go back and forth forever in here and we won't accomplish
>    anything, (except maybe getting a memo sent to our boss), so for me
>    participating in this particular note isn't worth it. If you think you
>    have more to say call me, send mail to my account or stop by to visit
>    me in my office because I am willing to talk. But, to take a risk of
>    hurting someones feelings where they feel the need to go out
>    of this note and complain to a person who has nothing to do with this
>    discussion, a persons boss, to me isn't worth it.

	I agree that both of us are pretty set in our ways. Our main 
	disagreement seems to be our own personal view of the morality
	of UW execs being paid six-figure salaries, and probably thus
	our views of the purpose of charity. But we can disagree without
	becoming enemies, no? 


	Regards,
	John Sobecky        
    
    

    
    Can we agree that Corporate America has no business trying to influence
    where an employee's charitable contributions go? 
    
    -Ed
    

    
    	re:.78
    
    	 a resounding *YES*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    	Tim

An article this week in the Wall Street Journal states that contributions
to the United Way are down and that both the Salvation Army and the Red Cross
(founders of UW and major recipients) are stepping up in-house fundraising 
operations.  

    re: John Santos & comparing overhead of charities
    
    I apparently did not make my point clear enough the first time.  My
    apologies; let me try again...
    
    Say I have some money to give to charity.  If I give it to my favorite
    charity, they remove their overhead and spend the rest on the chartered
    activity.  If I give the same amount to UW, they take off their overhead 
    before passing it on to my favorite charity, who then takes off their
    overhead, before spending it on the chartered activity.
    
    If I know where I wish to donate my funds, it is counterproductive to
    give to the UW since less actual funds make it to the "cause" after TWO
    levels of overhead are extracted, rather than the ONE level encountered
    by the direct donation.
    
    My argument is not that UW is HIGH overhead, it is simply UNNECESSARY
    overhead for someone who knows where the money should go.  Granted,
    this does not apply to people who do not have specific charities in
    mind.
    
    -- Russ

    and people who do not have specific charities in mind must be looking
    for a tax break and what better way to do that than to prove one has
    donated to a charity.  Those people obviously have no idea on how to
    help anybody but themselves.
    
    oh, and substituting fools and lies with misguided and incorrect?
    Please, call it what you want, but I call it how I see it- no pc-s**t,
    no doublespeak, no gray.  the words all say the same thing, depends on
    one's level of sensitvity on how words are interpretated.
    
    Ogre.

    
    Re .83:
    
>>    and people who do not have specific charities in mind must be looking
>>    for a tax break and what better way to do that than to prove one has
>>    donated to a charity.  Those people obviously have no idea on how to
>>    help anybody but themselves.
    
    Dear Reginald,
    
    Having been one of those people for some number of years, but
    also having been blessed by my mother with a small measure of social
    graces and charity toward the less fortunate, it is only with the
    utmost control that I refrain from labelling you a self-important,
    bigoted fool, without the sense to warm up your brain before moving
    your lips, for uttering such an indefensible statement.
    
    But I will be so bold as to suggest that straight talk is beneficial
    only to the extent that it is pointed in a constructive direction.
    
    						Most sincerely,
    						Bill Kilgore
    

    By insinuating that you wish to label me all that, you have done so.
    Just say what's on your mind; I respect your opinion, can you mine?
    
    Like I said, straight talk.
    
    Ogre.

RE:                   <<< Note 2162.83 by KELVIN::BURT >>>
    
    >and people who do not have specific charities in mind must be looking
    >for a tax break and what better way to do that than to prove one has
    >donated to a charity.  Those people obviously have no idea on how to
    >help anybody but themselves.
    
     What a mass of illogic.  If you don't have a specific charity in mind,
     you must be looking for a tax break??  That does not cover the possibility
     that you might consider several charities to be worthwhile, but don't 
     want the hassle involved in contacting each one.  It also fails to 
     cover the possibility of plain old altruism.

     This irresponsible statement names a condition which could have any 
     number of causes (not having a specific charity in mind) and insists
     that only one of the possible causes is the REAL cause (tax break).
     The blatant lack of logic appears to be for the purpose of baiting.

                                       Greg

re .82  UW is not HIGH overhead, just UNNECESSARY overhead in some cases >-

Overhead is not necessarily that easily determined.  If the American Red 
Cross has an overhead of n% and UW has an overhead of m%, the new overhead 
is not necessarily (n+m)% as that would assume that the American Red Cross 
could raise contributions without raising overhead.  I do not believe that 
to be a true assumption.

I think the charities involved in receiving UW funding do so because it 
CUTS their overhead, giving them all the benefits of economies of scale.  
There can hardly be a less expensive way to raise funding than through 
companies handling the advertising and collections and passing on the 
revenue.

take care,

matt

    I stopped giving to UW several years ago when I became disenchanted
    with some of UW's practices; and this was before the last info came
    out about the salary of the former director.
    
    There were numerous areas of interest to me, but I was drawn to the
    Atlanta Union Mission.  Although they do solicit me directly for
    special programs throughout the year (and I give what I can); when
    I send in my donations prior to Thanksgiving and Christmas, the AUM
    can tell me *exactly* how many people they can feed for the amount I
    send.
    
    I also receive a newsletter published by residents of the mission and
    I have been able to tour the facility first-hand and see the new addi-
    tions that were added-on <---- the majority of the work being done by
    residents.
    
    Before I stopped my UW contributions, I called the AUM to see if they
    participated (I couldn't find them on the list).  The AUM said that
    although they had participated in the past, they dropped out because
    they found they could secure more substantial revenues by going 
    directly to the population of the Greater Metro Atlanta area.
    
    It's rare that one can go a week and not see some article or newscast 
    on the homeless; I'm sure just about every city in this country has
    some local organization that is trying to help the homeless or others
    down on their luck.
    
    Karen
    

    re: .87
    
    True, but only to a point.
    
    If I send a check today to my favorite charity it will NOT negatively
    impact the overhead of that organization beyond the relative
    additional benefit to that organization (unless the gift is frivolously 
    small).
    
    What you are comparing is the overhead budget of a charity with vs without
    the UW.  This is the cost of the organization to gather dollars from
    those who are not already predisposed to donate to the organization.
    
    I, on the other hand, am asserting that someone who has already decided
    to give to said organization will do far better to send the check
    directly to the institution, as the overhead of processing a single
    (non-trivial) check is undoubtedly less than the cost of UW taking its
    slice first and the charity still expending some overhead to process
    the UW money.
    
    The losers in the direct donation scenario are the other
    UW-participating charities which do not benefit from the UW's tapping
    my funds, thus (slightly) increasing the UW's overhead percentage
    (i.e., costs remained the same, but they did not realize revenue from
    my funds).  This is as it should be, since I made no commitment to help
    these other charities (and, in some cases, I have no interest in
    helping them succeed).
    
    In short, UW may be a reasonable vehicle for those who wish to spread
    their donations around in a "broad-brush" fashion.  So be it.  But, it
    is clearly in the best interest of any specific charity to receive your
    donation directly once you have made up your mind to target said
    organization.
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ Forgive me if the above seems foggy; I'm a bit under the weather
    this evening.

    re: .89
    
    Makes perfect sense to me.
    
    Bob

    
    
	Many people in here have expressed their disgust at the
    salaries that are paid to UW execs, especially the $700k that
    was paid to William Aramony. I'll admit that most billion dollar 
    organizations compensate their presidents well, but most are not 
    charities. What Mr. Aramony might have done (if his heart were 
    in the right place) was to donate most of his $700k salary back 
    to the United Way. Then maybe he could ask for our help with a 
    clear conscience.

  	Some of the notes in here seem to imply that the salaries have 
    actually been lowered since Aramony left UW. I doubt if this is true. 
    Chances are, the new director is making just as much, if not more !!

	No one has mentioned the "real scandal" which hit the papers
    several months ago. It seems that William Aramony *ALLEGEDLY* mis-
    directed UW funds to bogus companies set up by his cronies. The
    money was then used to invest in Real Estate, some of which had
    William Aramonies name on the deed. I read an article in the
    Worcester Telegram a couple of months ago that suggested a RICO
    suit might be filed. I doubt if the United Way would want to press
    this suit, as it would surely hurt future donations. So just like
    the S&L crowd, William Aramony (and his cronies) may get away with 
    their ALLEGED crimes scott-free and don't even have to give back the 
    millions of dollars they ALLEGEDLY stole from United Way. The number 
    I read in the papers was in the order of $5-10M. 

	If the United Way (and it's supporters) want the continued
    support of the public, then William Aramony and his cronies should
    be brought to justice. To allow the man to keep several million
    dollars in donations is truely obscene, and it serves as a bad
    example for future directors who might be tempted to do the same.

	Getting back to the issue raised in .0, should Digital continue
    with it's United Way program ??  I guess you have to weigh the benefit
    of continuing with those of stopping. The program is administered, for
    the most part, by volunteers. We are able to raise thousands of dollars
    for charity, improve our public relations, take a tax break for the
    money paid out in matching contributions, and promote a team-effort
    among our employees. From that standpoint, I think DEC should continue
    the program. But I also think that United Way should do some house-
    cleaning.

	Mark
    

From 

Note 2139.0                Bob Palmer's DVN on 9/30/92                47 replies

    "THE CUSTOMER MUST BE THE CENTRAL, PRIMARY FOCUS OF EVERYTHING WE DO."

	How do United Way fund raising help us focus on the customer?

    "Reducing unnecessary expenses is vital not only for profitable growth, 
    but for survival.  And we are looking at every expense -- whether large
    or small -- weighing its necessity, evaluating its return,
    examining and reexamining its importance.  We will be deliberate
    in our efforts to further reduce our costs."

	Are expenses associated with United Way fund raising necessary?
	What is it's return?

    "The criteria guiding today's decisions are simple...first, does
    it help us more effectively meet customer needs; second, does it
    make us more competitive as a company."

	How does United Way fundraising help us more effectively meet
	customer needs, or make us a more competitive company?

    "We have to accept the fact that we can no longer do everything everywhere
    for everybody all the time." - Robert Palmer

			Tom_K
 

    When the stock hits zero, hopefully we'll go on a charity listing 8^)
    
    .92  I didn't prefer that depiction either, maybe you should have
    presented a disclaimer stating that it was not a real interview.  We
    all know how easily miscontrued some people can be.
    
    Ogre.

    
    
      IMHO,  the "employee time"  is a red herring compared to the
    huge expense of the corporate Matching Funds for these donations.
    
      Perhapse a compromise would be to eliminate the matching gift
    program (or scale it way back)  while still allowing fundraising
    to continue from whatever employees were interested?
    
    
    
    						-al
    

re .93

	Marv,

	That wasn't an interview, and I didn't construct any fantasy.
	Those were BPs words, and you can look them up yourself.
	The context was how Digital will conduct itself under BP's
	leadership. I assume UW falls into that. I don't know if 
	BOP is for or against UW. I do know that he has said the we
	(Digital) need to focus on the customer, so I was asking
	the UW supporters here how UW does that. So far the 
	response has been silence, except for your feeble attempts
	at derision. I guess that if you don't have logic on your side,
	mocking the opposition is all that you have left.

	BP has larger fish to fry, but if he does read notes, I hope
	he reads mine and puts a stop to this UW stuff once and for all.

					Tom_K

	Marv,

	I didn't see any smileys where you accused me of deception.

	And I didn't post questions above his words, I took statements
	from his speech, and using that as a context, asked questions 
	to the UW supporters in this string relating to things that BP 
	had said. I closed the note with an attributed quote, which
	I felt needed no additional comment. Where you got this 
	"interview" stuff, or how my note is deceiving is beyond me.

	If you are going to accuse me of deception, which you did again,
	I think you ought to prove it.

					Tom_K

>      I really don't *have* to prove anything. 

	IF YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUALLY CLAIM THAT I AM BEING DECEPTIVE,
	YOU DAMN WELL BETTER PROVE IT! YES I MEANT TO SHOUT!

					Tom_K

    
>      Let's see what others think.  I'd appreciate it if we could hear from
>    anyone as to whether or not they believe that reply .92 could deceive the
>    reader that BP's comments are in direct response to the planted UW
>    questions.
 
	I do not believe that a reasonable person would believe that BP's comments
	are in direct response to the planted UW questions. Of course all you have to
	do to prove the other side is name a reasonable person who did believe that
	that was an actual interview with BP responding to those questions.

			Alfred

    I think I am reasonable, and I did not misinterprete Tom_K's note.
    Marv, I think you are getting carried away here .....
    
    NOTE: I am sure a number of people can be found that would believe that
    I am unreasonable ... so this note may not carry any weight with you
    either way.

I was confused briefly by the format of .92, until I read
it more carefully.  Tom's questions are in response to
BP's statements, not vice versa (as though it were an interview).
This might have been clearer had it be formatted differently,
but I don't see any reason to suspect intent of deception.

	I wasn't confused or deceived, I thought it quite straightforwards.

	Heather

.92 is perfectly clear and follows the usual convention of indenting 
commentary.  Maybe a few >>>'s would have made it even clearer, but it 
is neither deceptive nor confusing.  

BTW, the answer to Tom's clear and reasonable questions could be that while 
Digital has a "central, primary focus" of the customer, as a large corporate 
entity there are certain activities, like UW, that we engage in for the 
greater good and that, furthermore, the expense of these activities is below 
the noise level in the corporate budget.

All that notwithstanding, I've quit contributing to the UW because it's 
just too impersonal.  

re: 103

Marv, since you asked....
    
>      Let's see what others think.  I'd appreciate it if we could hear from
>    anyone as to whether or not they believe that reply .92 could deceive the
>    reader that BP's comments are in direct response to the planted UW
>    questions.
    
No! at least I didn't think so.
Well, maybe it could decieve a reader who has not read the BP memo and
also had not followed this note. How likely are we to find such a reader?

I read the note as Tom said he tried to convey it.

Me thinks that you, for whatever reason are being just a tad defensive.
    
FWIW, I think one can feel that something is deceiving without implying
that the author is doing so deliberately.    
      
- George

    Could .92 be deceptive?  Absolutely not.
    
    It was crystal clear to me at first reading.

    so now it appears that the general consensus in notefiles is to NOT add
    a disclaimer of sorts to the comments we make.  I get the impression
    that the participants of notefiles have radically changed their
    reasoning skills and have all finally matured.  This is so refreshing.
    
    From now on we can assume that factless comments are purely opinionated
    and that hypothetical situations don't need clarification because we're
    all big enough to read clearly.
    
    Ogre.

    I found .92 perfectly clear and easy to understand.
    
    My thesaurus lists the following words as equivalent to 'deceive':
    
    	cheat
    	betray
    	hoodwink
    	dupe
    
    In my opinion, all of the above words have very negative connotations
    and I would take offense if a note I wrote was labelled 'deceiving'.
    
    Bob

    Okay, here's my $.02 worth:
    
    Note .92 was cleverly contrived and obviously so.  I don't see how a
    'reasonable' observer could think it deceptive in any way.
    
    [I use 'reasonable' in the sense that a court of law resorts to
    invoking "the rule of the reasonable man" when arbitrating disputes
    between two feuding parties that have succumbed to pure emotionalism.]
    
    FWIW: For me it was not only clever but thought-provoking.  Perhaps
    though because I harbor reservations as to whether Digital should be so
    institutionally entrenched in boosting the UW campaign as the company
    has traditionally been.  What's so great about UW that it alone should
    have the 'inside track'?
    
    Demanding that Tom insert disclaimers and special marks to offset BP's
    remarks is over-reacting just a bit IMHO.   

	To return to focusing on the topic at hand:

	In Bob Palmer's DVN presentation of 9/30/92, the complete text
	of which is in note 2139.0 of this conference, Bob made the following
	points:

		o "THE CUSTOMER MUST BE THE CENTRAL, PRIMARY FOCUS OF 
		  EVERYTHING WE DO."

		o "Reducing unnecessary expenses is vital not only for 
		   profitable growth, but for survival.  And we are looking 
		   at every expense -- whether large or small -- weighing 
                      ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ [emphasis is mine - Tom_K]
		   its necessity, evaluating its return, examining and 
		   reexamining its importance.  We will be deliberate
		   in our efforts to further reduce our costs."

		o  "The criteria guiding today's decisions are simple...
		    first, does it help us more effectively meet customer 
		    needs; second, does it make us more competitive as a 
		    company."

		o  "We have to accept the fact that we can no longer do 
		    everything everywhere for everybody all the time."

	When considering Digital's participation in United Way fund raising
	efforts, I believe the above points need to be considered. In
	particular, the following questions come to mind:

		o How does United Way fund raising help us focus on the 
		  customer?

		o Are expenses associated with United Way fund raising 
		  necessary? What is the return on these expenses?

		o How does United Way fund raising help Digital more 
		  effectively meet customer needs, or make Digital a more 
		  competitive company?

	PARMENTER (sorry, you didn't leave me a first name) is so far the
	only person to take a shot at answering these questions. I found
	those arguments unconvincing. Anyone else want to take a shot?

						Tom_K
 

    re: .114
    
    >These words, equivalent to 'deceive', have much less negative
    >connotations.  Your list was selective and might be considered
    >misleading, intentional or not.
    
    Actually, what I did was call over the cube wall to a co-worker who was
    working in Microsoft Word and asked him to type 'deceive' and poke the
    Thesaurus thing.(How's that for Windows jargon :-))  I then asked him
    to tell me the first 3 words it came up with.  As such, it couldn't
    have been much less selective, as I had no say in the outcome and my
    coworker had no idea why I was asking.
    
    Bob
    

Re .116:

Tom's whack at the party-line for UW in Digital is not the first one in the
conference - depending on your energy level, you will probably find more
examples in the other UW topics in this conference.  Some of them have the
UNITED_WAY keyword on the base note; if I notice more, I'll keyword them, too.
				/AHM

    re my entry .16
    
    Just to tidy up a loose end, if anyone still cares.
    
    Yesterday, I received a "thank you" letter from the American Red Cross;
    I have moved them off my "undecided list".
    
    Dave

Article 10624 of alt.society.civil-liberty:
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: al@gtx.com (Alan J. Filipski)
Subject: United Way supports Drug Testing
Organization: GTX Corporation, Phoenix AZ
Lines: 47


The local paper reported that the local United Way chapter is
working with the Chamber of Commerce to get a federal grant to
encourage small businesses to perform drug testing on employees.

I wrote the United Way a letter saying that I would no longer
contribute any money to them and that I would encourage
others to stop contributing also.  Attached is the text of that letter.

-------------------------------

Dear United Way Chairperson:

According to the enclosed article, the United Way is using its funds to
promote drug testing by small businesses.  I am disappointed that the
United Way is encouraging this personally intrusive, degrading,
unnecessary, and offensive practice.  If employers want to improve the
performance of employees, they can use direct measures and tests of
performance without intruding into employees off-duty behavior.  What's
next, cameras in employees' bedrooms to make sure they do not engage in
unsafe and illegal sex practices that may affect their job
performance?  Recording devices on workers' cars to notify employers if
they speed? Do you really want to live in such a society?

In the computer business field that I am familiar with, many major
companies are refusing to perform drug tests on employees.  These
include Amdahl, Autodesk, Borland, Cray, DEC, Microsoft, Sun, Tandem,
and Wang labs.  Some of these companies have issued public statements
of opposition on principle.  The major companies that still perform
drug testing seem to be doing so mostly because of government contract
pressure, not because of any inherent business or societal benefit to
the tests.

In view of the United Way's support of this intrusive and degrading
practice, I must refrain from any further contributions to the United
Way; also, I will pass this information along to a computer network of
several thousand like-minded individuals who are trying to mitigate the
damage the war on drugs has been doing to our society and legal
system.


-------------------------------------------------------------


--------------
alan filipski
al@gtx.com

    	Letters such as .120 always fall apart with the "What's next?"
    	section.  Fiction doesn't enhance fact.
    
    	However, the fact still stands that UW *is* trying to push this,
    	and shortcomings of the letter in .120 don't change that fact.
    
    	Then again, I don't have anything to hide in this area, so I
    	wouldn't blow a fuse if it really did come to fruition here.

Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!!  Not the "if you haven't anything to hide then ...", 
Argument again?
Please this has been hashed out over and over again, somewhere in this notesfile
please review it there.

    	.121 is not the "haven't anything to hide" argument.  It's
    	just saying that I'm not going to get upset about this item,
    	and not that I'm going to approve of it or support it.  If you
    	notice, I (admittedly weakly) indicated in the second paragraph 
    	that I don't like it.

    Well, I hate to burst any bubbles, but DEC does have it's 
    employees drug tested. Ask any MCS Engineer who has had to service
    equipment at Milliken (or countless others).
    

    
    
    		I just knew , lurking there in the shadows somewhere,
    	was a plan to implement Urinalysis company wide. I haven't
    	had to do that since I was stationed in Berlin, Germay with
    	the U.S. Army. I kept wondering why , if it was a random 
    	drug test of personnell, my number came up every Monday
    	morning for a month. Come to find out my Commanding Officer
    	had four "wildcard" samples he could hand out to anyone he
    	chose to.  So much for random. If I were to have to take 
    	another one for Digital I'd insist on my boss holding the
    	jar............
    
    
    				Pablo
    

    RE: .121  by CSC32::J_OPPELT 
    
    	>Then again, I don't have anything to hide in this area, so I
    	>wouldn't blow a fuse if it really did come to fruition here.
    
    Ah yes, the old "If you object, you must be hiding something".  So much
    for the presumption of innocence.
    

Re:   <<< Note 2162.120 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>

>In the computer business field that I am familiar with, many major
>companies are refusing to perform drug tests on employees.  These
>include Amdahl, Autodesk, Borland, Cray, DEC, Microsoft, Sun, Tandem,
                                          ^^^

Oh, you mean Digital?  :-)

-  David

    
    no,    DELCO Electronics Corporation
    

re .126 TOPDOC::AHERN 
    
	I guess you missed my reply in .123