Conference 7.286::digital

    There can be fairly subtle and often subjective differences between
    what simply constitutes active encouragement of a beneficial community
    charity and actual pressure to contribute.
    
    Those employees who are extremely sensitive to the hierarchical
    nature of the manager/employee may perceive subtle pressure where
    none actually exists (the manager is merely following the company's
    lead in making a popular and worthwhile charity [and DEC's matching
    contribution procedure] very easily accessible to those who wish
    to participate).
    
    Then again, those managers who are extremely team-conscious and
    gung-ho about absolutely everything may in truth be unable to avoid
    feeling some slight reservation about someone who for whatever reason
    does not choose to participate in this particular (non-job-related) area.
    
    It's a tough call either way.  I do respect DEC for its contributions
    to society, but feel that the United Way hoop-la in particular is
    inappropriate (even though the same thing is pretty common in other
    companies).  It does tend to over-step the line between making the
    activity readily available and actively promoting individual
    participation:  the latter is an absolutely private issue, and a
    mechanism that got the managers out of the loop and simply made
    cards (and DEC's matching donations) easily available would help
    keep it that way.  If it resulted in reduced participation - well,
    that's none of DEC's business anyway (DEC, after all, can contribute
    whatever it wants to).
    					- Bill
    

    I have heard horror stories about how companies deal with United
    Way in the past.  Based on these, DEC's treatment is VERY reasonable.
    In addition, my understanding is that the keyperson (i.e. the one
    who collects the envelopes) does not open the envelopes.  Of course,
    they can track who has and has not returned an envelope.
    
    To be honest with you, I don't get overly worked up about the United
    Way campaigns any more.  I used to boycott them due to the bad
    reputation they had in the city where I used to be.  However, the
    horror stories seemed get fewer and further between, and I never
    felt any pressure on myself personally, so I finally decided a few
    years ago that UW was probably a good way to get money to small,
    but nontheless important charities that were less likely to get
    directly-contributed funds.
    
    Burns

    DEC just signed an agreement with Raytheon to market some "militarized"
    VAXen or some such: remember that story in DTW?

    Guess whose corporate president happens to be Chairman of the National
    United Way Campaign?  The UW campaign seems to be much stronger
    in DEC this year--I wonder if there's any connection?

    My Significant Other works for D.C. Heath, which is a subsidiary
    of Raytheon.  If you think the pressure is bad here, you should
    see it there.

    Please see my comments on this is 110.9

    However, United Way does have one feature oon it that has always
    bothered me.  On personnel records, one's United Way ciontribution
    is listed.  That means _someone_ is using it as part of an overall
    evaluation.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    Back in the old days when I worked for Ma Bell, the pressures to
    contribute to the UW were enormous.  If one made over a certain
    amount, your "fair share" was 1% (or even 2%, if your salary was
    big enough) of your GROSS income.  Group participation was posted
    on a big board in the cafeteria, and awards were passed out to groups
    with high percentage of "fair share" contributors (often 100%!!!).
    In addition, your OWN participation level was noted in salary reviews
    (if you didn't contribute, you weren't a team player).  No credit
    was given for contributions to charitable organizations not covered
    by UW (and there are a LOT of them).
    
    DEC's approach is really laid back in comparison.  I prefer to give
    to organizations that, by their nature or choice, are not represented
    by UW.  Since I ALWAYS use the matching gifts forms, there is probably
    a record somewhere of this, but my conscience (and salary review)
    are clear.
    
    Bill

    RE .5
    
    As one who has been doing evaluations for quite some time, I can
    assure you a manager is not informed on who gives and doesn't give.
    We have no idea, and have never had any pressure put on us to
    punish the non-contributors. 
    I've worked at Dec for 17 years, and have done Evals for approx.
    13 of them.
    
    P.S. after a fiasco I went thru when my family needed a little
    help, I refused to give, and wouldn't take part in any fund drive,
    (matter-of-fact, I was pretty vocal against UW) and no-one came
    back at me.
    
    Bottom line, is I really don't think you have to worry about
    not contributing if you don't want to.

    From 110.4 by /AHM
    
        "
Personnel Policies and Procedures
Section 6.19
Page 1 of 1
Date 17 May 82

		Solicitations and Distribution of Literature

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.
"                  
    
    How does UW square against this policy?
    
                                        August G. Reinig

    It may not be a lot of pressure, but the "official" nature of the
    campaign lends it what the Supreme Court (in another connection)
    called a "chilling effect".
    
    I do not think it proper of Digital to hand out United Way cards.
    Make them available at Personel, yes.  Send to every employee, no.
    
    			-John Bishop

    In Illinois a few years ago, people were harrassing their employees to
    contribute to different political organizations, PACs and other
    cause-oriented organizations. Many of these were legitimate charitable
    organizations engaged in supporting their causes to legislators. It
    caused new legislation whereby pressuring employees is considered
    blackmail and, as such, people could be subject to fines or
    imprisonment. I believe the law passed.
    
    I also have wondered for many years about why the corporation has
    made such strong statements against solicitation while sponsoring
    it in the case of the UW.

                            -< Flame On >-
    
    I personally have known friends that have contibuted to UW for years
    and as reply 7 has stated that when *THEY* needed some help they
    were told sorry. I guess if u contribute they don't have to help
    u. They must feel if u can contribute u'll never need any help..
    I for one tell them and personnel to STICK IT. I didn't know about
    it being in your personnel folder though. I WILL look. I wonder
    how much of a hassle they'd (personnel) give me if I took $ for
    my charity..... DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Joe
    

But if they contribute to even one employee that is down on his luck,
then every employee in trouble will ask for a handout!  Is that any way
to run a company?  Besides, an employee that was turned down for a
handout would probably sue!  Bursaw is probably in a better legal position
precisely because they have no existing relationship with the person.

:-} but also :-(

Bob

    
    		YAY FOR .0!!!!!!!!  I too felt that very same way, but
    i thought it was just me and I had just started with company about
    6 years ago and naive and all. So I gracefully gave.
    oh well,     maybe one of these days i'll change that but until
    now............
    		;^) whats a dollar a week?
    				wen.
    

    Back to the original question - should DEC be so evangelical about
    this particular charity??
    
    I've little information on this, but UW seems to be sort of a corporate
    standard, by which corp giants can compete with each other.  This
    may sound cynical on the surface (on my part) until you take into
    account the fact (?) that UW has something like a 40% overhead rate.
    If this is indeed true, then WHY continue to support such an
    inefficient distributor of charitable funds??
    
    Does anyone know more about their overhead rate???
    
    Sign me,
    
    Prefers_to_donate_100%_directly_and_ignore_corp_peer_pressure

It reminds me of when I worked for defense contractors.

They tend to be especially "evangelical" about US Savings Bond drives.

After all, a company gets to fly a special pennant for reaching its
participation goals!

Bob

    re: .13
    
    Maybe this is a topic for a note on health insurance, but...
    
    I had Hodgkin's almost exactly 10 years ago.  At the time, I was
    in college and on my mother's Blue Cross.  They paid for every penny
    of the whole thing (surgery, CAT scans, lymphograms, two months
    of radiation, etc.) except for my TV and telephone when I was in
    the hospital.  Since I live in fear of a relapse, I have to wonder
    what would be in store for me insurance-wise.  What was the deal
    with your friend?
    
    -joet

    
    
    too bad there isn't any fund set up to help the employees when they
    fall on some bad times medically. Is it too silly to think that
    maybe the employees can set up some fund like that? yes I guess
    it might be.
    
    I remember when I joined DEC almost 4 years ago, we were handed
    out those cards to contribute to United way, and it seemed that
    every organization was competing with the others to see who collects
    more money. I remember the head of our organization (which I should
    say was a big organization) rounded everyone in the cafeteria one
    afternoon, for a talk about United way (brought in representatives),
    and then told us that the cards need to be filled with our
    contribution, and the last joke was that he asked the people who
    weren't planning to contribute to stand up. No one stood up. 
    
    However, I decided not to contribute and a week later turned in
    my card cancelling my automatic deduction....well..it was never
    cancelled, and now I am debating if I should just let it go or contact
    payroll and make them cancel it.
    
    One wonders how much money goes to the needy. Are there any figures??
    
    
    Nisreen

    I have my own "pet" charities that I contribute to, but I have
    refused to contribute to the UW. One reason being the horror
    stories of how the funds are disbursed (eg. you can specify
    any charity your want to get your money, but UW will give it
    to whomever they damn well please). Another is that I have a
    non-conformist nature that abhors being pressured into anything.
    The more they put on the pressure for me to contribute to UW,
    the less likely I'm going to do it.
    
    I did succumb some years ago, and had a fair-sized deduction
    taken out weekly. After a year, I cancelled the deduction and
    that was that.
    
    --- jerry

Late one night while watch TV (had to be several years ago), I saw a commercial
come on with Ronnie preaching how he and Nancy thought so much of the UW and
how I could be a better citizen if I gave!  It just struck me as a real cheap
thing for a president to do (indorsing a commercial venture)!  yes, I too think
(like in a previous note) feel that with all the overhead of such a large 
organization most of your contributions go to commercials, salaries and now it
even seems presidents!  Anyone else ever see that spot?

BTW - does anyone have any of the overhead figures?  I too would be very 
interested in knowing how a dollar gets distributed.

-mark

    Re .5
    
    Having worked with personnel systems in the past I feel confident
    that the only reason the UW information is kept is so that it can
    be used by the payroll system. Most payroll data is kept as part
    of the personnel system, and they used to share records. As far
    as I knew no one ever asked for reports on who was giving to UW,
    other than gross corporate % figures and total $'s. As a manager
    I do not have access to what people in the group give (nor do I
    care). I do not even have access to where they live!
    
    Worrying about DEC using this data to monitor people seems a bit
    paranoid. 
    
    At Star Market years ago they threatened to fire people for not
    contributing. All they wanted was a few cents so they could make
    100%.
    
    I don't think it's appropriate for DEC to push it hard. True, personnel
    records may not be used to check up on people, *but* there are people
    (as in .5) who think they will, and will give to protect themselves
    and not for the right reasons.
    
    

seems to  me I remember seing that $.88 goes to the local charities and $.12
is for the  UW  overhead,  then  the question is what is the overhead of the
local charities?

Claude

    re .23:  The 12% overhead figure seems like about what I remember.
    
    Regarding local charities overhead, I don't know what it is, but
    I'd be willing to bet it would be a LOT higher if they had to scrape
    up on their own what they get from UW.  After all, that IS the point
    of UW.
    
    Burns

    BTW, to 12% overhead was in the little booklet that we (in NIO
    at least) were given with our pledge cards. Didn't everyone read
    them? :-)
    
    		Alfred

    re .18
    
    Not sure if you're asking if united way would help or not.
    
    
    If you are forget it.
    
    My wife found out she was in the last stages of the diease when
    my youngest son was born. At the time I had a 9 year old, a 1 &1/2
    year old plus the newborn. At the time they gave her less than a
    50-50 chance. 
    
    I didn't feel we asked for much. NO DOLLARS, just some help with
    baby sitting availability,  while I was at the hospital.
    
    I was politely (on the Q.T.) by the worker, told that if I left
    my wife and kids, all the bills would be taken care of. If I 
    stayed at home, they wouldn't help a lick.
    
    I also had a woman working for me who needed help for her husband
    who confined to a wheel chair........same story .......no help.
    
    
    Bottom line, carry insurance, don't rely on U.W.
    For everyone I've heard they've helped, I've heard 10 times 
    that who will give you a horror story. 

	re: help from Digital - A year ago the house my apartment was
	in burned down, destroying all my belongings. I had very
	little cash in the bank, since I had just bought new furniture
	(delivered two days before the fire!). The people in my group
	pitched in and donated enough money to me to enable me to put
	down a security deposit on a new apartment.
	
	re: United Way pressure - I never got any pressure, every so
	often a card shows up in my mailbox and I throw it away.
	
	Moral: You should work in the right group!
	
	Mike (BCSE, Merrimack)

	I don't see why Digital should officially support any specific
	charity. I think a better thing to do would be to distribute
	the matching gift cards at regular intervals and encourage
	employees to make use of them. And those groups who compete
	based on UW donations should switch to competing on the basis
	of total donations.
	
	Mike (who gives when and to who he feels like)

    RE: Overhead rates.  Yes, as was pointed out earlier, the UW literature
    claims a 12% OH rate for their own operations.  The net effect is
    that this is still a tax on contributions which then go thru the
    local organization's OH structures.  Net result - less money to
    the end charity application.  But probably not 40% as I had been
    led to believe.
    
    Re: Competitive pressure - I saw an interesting poster in the Stow
    facility cafeteria today, which had the participation rates of a
    number of the major groups located in the Stow facitlity listed.
    Cudos were given to the top groups via a speech in the caf. by some
    senior Field Ops managers.  Interesting speech, too, as it mentioned
    how a little healthy competition between Stow groups would help the
    facility get to its participation goal of 65%.
    
    I agree completely with -.1 - encourage the use of the
    donation/matching gift program as a non-sponsored charity push.

Lest anyone think that United Way is gypping local charities by spending 12%
on collections... for some "charities" the administrative costs and such
exceed 50%.  If you get a professional fundraiser to do your appeal, they
take at least 25%, sometimes a lot more.  I doubt if many charities do 
better than 12% administrative costs, if pay their workers.

If one requirement would be fulfilled, then I wouldn't see anything wrong 
with pushing UW through DEC.  That would be for everyone (key people, etc.)
who gets information on contributions to agree to absolute secrecy about
who gave and how much they gave.  No contests between groups based on 
participation level, no followup of any kind on people who do not contribute.
Hoopla, raffles, movies, volleyball contests, and so forth are fine, but the 
decision to contribute or not must be completely private.  

	Larry

PS - I heard once that in Utah, Mormons can make their tithe as a payroll
deduction!

When I heard that UW had bowed to pressure from some large religious
charities to drop participation by groups involved in the dissemination
of contraception and family planning information, I was *not* well
disposed to the idea of giving them any money.  But I do check their
brochure, now and then, to see if there's been any change in policy.
Sorry.  That's how it is.  Nobody has ever pressured me on giving.

Pat Hardy

                              

Re .31:

If I heard that data about individual contributors were not protected
by the "Personnel Confidential" security classification, I would be
upset.  Aggregate data does not deserve that label.

I haven't been pressured with group participation figures, but I think
I'd regard it as just a part of the whole program.
				/AHM

    
    
    
    The actual amount of money that finally reaches the people who need
    it is something less than 40 cents on the dollar donated, by the
    time UW takes their 30% plus off the top and then the other
    organizations take their cut.
    
    Don't shout,"but they said 12%!!!" I know what they said, but what
    they call administrative costs are strictly payrol and do not include
    such things as advertising, printing distribution and such. Unless
    they have gotten teribly eficient lately. My wife worked for the
    UW in Providence for a while so I am aware of what the figures were
    at that time. 
     
    I will not give to any of the traditional "Charities". I would rather
    go out and buy the food or give the money or share the room directly
    than have some middle man clip more than half of what is supposed
    to go towards helping people. 

        The company that I used to work for was very hard sell on UW. It
        started with a manditory meeting where some folks from the UW
        showed a boring movie, and told us what they do for the community
        with our money. Then, over the next few days, the department
        manager called you into his office, made his pitch, told you what
        your "fair share" was, and then asked you how much you would give.
        He filled in the card, and had you sign it on the spot. It was
        also clear around the office that your career path was subject to
        giving your "fair share". They had no matching gift program as
        Digital does with UW or other charities. 
        
        To me, it was extortion. The first year, I went with the flow. The
        second year was when the flack about UW, Anti-abortionism, and
        Planned Parenthood hit the fan. I informed my boss that I didn't
        like "charities" that bowed to such pressure, favoring either side
        over another, and that I would give the same amount as last year,
        but directly to the group of my choice. He was not pleased with
        this. He did ask for some documentation, so it would still count
        towards his goal! That really ticked me off. He really couldn't
        care less that I gave, how much I gave, or to whom, just that he
        got his brownie points for it. The third year, I resigned and came
        to work for DEC. 

        That experience left an nasty feeling about UW with me. They would
        be well advised to request that businesses drop the hard sell
        approach to their fundraising, as it gives them a bad image. Here,
        Digital takes a laid back approach, giving me an envelope that I
        can either return to my PSA, or pitch in the trash. Mostly as a
        resule of my previous employer, it goes in the trash. I give what
        I can, to those groups that I think do important, worthwhile
        services for the Chicago community, and always send the Digital
        matching grant card along. 
        
        BTW, here in the Chicago area, UW goes under the name "Crusade of
        Mercy", but the literature does indicate that it is part of the
        UW. 

    When my wife worked for Neiman-Marcus in Boston the management
    threatened everyone indirectly if they didn't contribute their fair
    share towrds the store pledge. One Month later Management came back
    and pulled the same trick except this time they "forced" all the
    department managers to write a letter (on the spot) to the US senator
    from Massachusetts complaining against the upcoming clothes import
    tax legislation. My point is where does this thing stop? 
    Before you know it you are voting for the candidate that your company 
    or union specifies.
    
    As the above replies indicate, this practice seems so out of place in the
    unique culture of Digital. 
    
    I believe the charity that has the highest percentage of uach dollar
    actualy going to the needy is CJP - Combined Jewish Philanthropies, 
    at 88 cents.
    
    -joe

I have been an outspoken critic of the United Way campaigns for over five 
years. Our organization makes it part of your job to attend a United Way 
meeting and watch an emotional film. I do not feel this is part of my job and 
resent it being treated as such. There has been no pressure to donate money, 
but they do come and ask for your card. I have made it no secret that I put a 
big goose egg ($0.00) on the card each year and will continue to do as as long 
as the United Way continues to be forced upon me.

Its bad enough during timeouts and halftimes to see all of the sports figures
telling me how great the United Way is. And then the billboards, radio and TV 
spots, signs, etc. I don't need to see it at work....

Jim

      The first year I worked for Digital, when the UW campaign came
      around, I listened to their pitch, and decided that I would
      contribute a small amount.  I signed the card and everyone
      was happy and that was that.
      
      The second year, when the pitch started, I told my supervisor
      that I didn't intend to go the boring presentation, but that
      I did intend to continue my contribution.  He told me that
      going to the presentation was required.  I said it seemed like
      unnecessary hassle, and a waste of time, especially for someone
      like me who was already willing to give to the cause, but I
      would go.  I went.  They passed out the cards, which said on
      them words to the effect that if I desired no change in my
      current contribution, I had to do nothing, not even turn in
      the card.  I resolved simply to ignore it, allow my contribution
      to be deducted each week for another year, and I went back
      to work.
      
      During this time, there was much visibility given by management
      to the UW program:  there were multi-line login announcements
      each and every time you logged in to any system; there were
      posters everywhere; there were PA system announcements; there
      were additional pep talks which had to be attended.  I was
      feeling really hassled, but, what the hell, I didn't have to
      DO anything else.
      
      About a week later, my supervisor bugged me for the card. 
      I said I didn't need to turn it in because I wasn't changing
      anything--I was continuing my contribution.  He said that
      nevertheless, the department manager insisted that everyone
      turn in their contribution card.  I said I was tired of being
      hassled when I was already willing to give, to play ball, to
      go along with the program, blah, blah.  This was worse than
      the military:  in the military, it's US Savings Bonds.  Once
      you sign up for the minimum contribution (which goes back to
      you anyway), they just leave you alone except once a year to
      offer you a chance to raise your deduction.  If you say no,
      they smile, they're still happy 'cause you're still giving
      at least the minimum, and that counts towards the numbers.
      But I digressed.  Back to Digital and the UW.  I told my
      supervisor if they were going to insist that I turn in the
      card, contrary to the written procedure, and continue to subject
      me to harassment, then I would comply with the letter of the
      request and turn in the card, but I would cancel my contribution,
      thus LOWERING the departmental contribution ratio.
      
      He said that nevertheless, the boss wanted everyone to turn
      in their card.  I said okay; I got the card, put the big goose-egg
      on it, signed it and gave it to the boss.   That was the end
      of the harassment.  No one has bothered me about it since then,
      and I'm still not contributing.  I contribute to the charities
      I pick and I turn in matching donations cards.

      I've seen no sign of harassment in my new job in LKG.
      
      Dave C.

    
    Having worked in many of the local facilities, I can tell you each
    one is different in the way you are approache/pressured.  In PK,
    it was the cards with the paychecks, posters, pep_type_rallies,
    runs, etc.  Real Carnival approach.  In MR, real quite, posters
    and daily decmail message.  After numerous complaints about the
    decmail crap, that stopped!  In AK, I saw posters.  In NR its like
    PK but worse.  I've been here 2 weeks.  I'm not an employee, I here
    on contract, and I've been "hounded" for run/walk pledges al least
    a half-dozen times, and for a bake sale twice.  I have better things
    to do with my time!
    
    I don't donate.  I feel like Jim. (how ya doing, guy?)   Don't hassle
    me, don't force me, I'll donate to whom I please, when I please.
    
    George
    

    One of the hidden benefits of Third Shift: no one expects you to
    go to these presentations. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    
    ...just got the word...united way week(s) in MR....
    

    WMO puts on a lot of events around Unitet Way - races, trivial pursuit,
    etc. that I think are enjoyable.

    The Exeter News-Letter, October 3, 1986 -- Page 3
    
    United Way turned down
    
    HAMPTON -- The United Way will not be allowed to solicit donations
    from town employees through payroll deductions.
    
    Selectmen, at their Monday night meeting, decided to refuse the
    non-profit organization's request to obtain donations in such a
    manner.
    
    Board members said that though they did not object to United Way
    representatives exhibiting to employees what functions the group
    performs, they thought payroll deductions were troubling and
    inappropriate. 

Associated Press Mon 06-OCT-1986 11:52                   United Way

  LOS ANGELES (AP) - The chairman of the United Way of Los Angeles
says the agency has been cleared of wrongdoing by two investigations
and must now get its fund-raising effort back on track.
   ``United Way has now undergone two rigorous independent
examinations, and its integrity remains intact,'' William F.
Kieschnick said Sunday as he released a county counsel's report on
the organization's financial practices.
   The organization is two months behind its fund-raising schedule,
he said, in part because of the controversy over reports that the
charity's funds were used to make loans to employees and in a failed
attempt to bail out its now-defunct credit union.
   The counsel's study noted some problems, but cleared United Way
officials of wrongdoing. It endorsed the recommendations of an
earlier study by an independent citizens' group, which United Way
officials have agreed to implement.
   The counsel study also recommended that annual reports and
financial statements be provided to the local board of directors,
and that the organization's independent auditors inform the board of
``all non-routine employee transactions.''
   The report described the salaries and benefits of employees as
permissible and consistent with similar organizations. But it said
expense reimbursement for Francis McNamara, president of United Way
of Los Angeles, ``is more sizable, subject to fewer controls, and
less well documented.''
   Kieschnick said that the group's president ``directly administers
a wide range of conferences, employee meetings, participation in
community events and employee travel.'' He said changes would
include a monthly review of the president's expenses.
   The county counsel also looked into loans to United Way
employees. Of 14 loans to six employees from 1980 through 1985,
totaling $327,654, the report said 11 were lawful and were
sufficiently in furtherance of United Way's charitable purposes.
   ``Three of the loans totaling $28,500 were not sufficiently in
furtherance of UWLA's charitable purposes. However, these loans have
been repaid without any significant loss to UWLA,'' the report said.
   Expenditures totaling $258,119 from 1977 through 1981 in a failed
attempt to bail out the organization's credit union ``were not
properly authorized by the UWLA Board of Directors and were in
violation of UWLA's charitable purposes,'' the report said.
   It added, however, that the payments had been made on the advice
of counsel and thus do not warrant a finding of liability against
any individual.

RE: .0 and others

It seems to be up to individual department managers as to how they conduct
their part of the United Way campaign, and each manager seems to have
his or her own style.

Officially, I think this is how it is supposed to work:

1)  The corporation does sponsor the drive and officially sanction it.
    Everybody is supposed to be aware of the United Way campaign and that
    Digital as a corporation endorses it.

2)  There is no requirement to contribute, and nothing bad is supposed to
    happen to you if you decide not to.  Contributions are supposed to be
    completely voluntary.

3)  Whether you contribute or not, and whether you change your contribution
    amount or not, you are expected to return the little card.

I myself do not contribute to United Way.  I have selected my own charities.
Furthermore, I object to the way United Way campaigns have been conducted
in other companies (***NOTE:  **NOT** DIGITAL!).  There are some companies
where "voluntary contribution" is mandatory, and the techniques used are
barely short of extortion.  I cannot in good conscience support an
organization that receives money through such techniques.

Anyway, every year I fill out the card saying that nothing is to be deducted.
My management knows my position on this issue, and they accept it.  I have
never been hassled about it, and I do not have any fear of negative action
being taken as a result of it.

Nor do I know of any such problems ever having occurred within DEC.

--PSW

    A few weeks ago I received the UW payroll deduction card and on
    the basis of this note decided to eliminate my weekly contribution.  I
    filled out the form and put $0.00 as the weekly deduction.

    This morning I received a letter from Judi Vondohlen, in Corporate
    Community Relations, that I must specifically contact my PSA or
    FPA to cancel UW contributions. 

    Interesting, I can sign the card to start deductions but I can't
    use it to stop.  So much for privacy. 
    
    /marc
    

Change it to 0.01 if you care about privacy.

/john

      I guess none of us in here need to worry about privacy any
      more.  :-)
      
      Dave C.

    re .34
    
      If by "share the room directly" you mean helping someone less
    fortunate than yourself by giving him a place to stay, I tried that.
    This person was sleeping in his car so we let him stay in my house
    for a week. 2 weeks later we found out that he had stolen 20 blank
    checks from me. 
    
                                    Paul W. (who used to give a dollar
                                            a week for 7 years but stopped)

    
    	So what's the scoop on The United Way?  Are they legitimate,
    	or not?
    
    	[Referring to recent rumors of high-paid execs, etc.]
    
    							GTI
    

    Strictly illegit if you ask me.  There latest move occured in a distict
    someplace in the Mid-west, to wit....that chapter has withheld funds
    from the local Boy Scouts, because they said that the Boy Scouts were a
    subversive organization!!!!!  You see in the Boy Scout oath it talks
    about "My duty to God and my Country.."  And that chapter of United Way
    said that by using that oath  showed that the Boy Scouts were
    discriminating against atheists and therefore was not qualified for
    charitable funds.  Give me a break.  This is really a true story.

re: .51

I read over the weekend that the United Way entity involved reversed their
decision and has restored the funding.

Bob

    re: .50
    
    I am sympathetic to that attitude.  I have not served in the Boy Scout
    organization as an adult because of that religious requirement.
        John Sauter

    Re: .51 & .53:
    
    IMHO, calling recitation of the Scout Oath a "religious requirement" is
    overstating it just a bit.  You might be interested in the discussion
    going on in CACHE::SCOUTING, note 248, for more details.  
    
    Another opinion: this falling out between the United Way and BSA has
    little to do with religious tests: the United Way seems to regard BSA
    as too well-heeled to warrant charity - they count all the real estate
    tied up in camps as capital assets for one thing. 

    Hmmm, interesting.  The United Way seems to have its own little real
    estate empire -- wonder why they're upset at the BSA?  For example, I
    drive by a United Way office building on South St. in Fitchburg on the
    way to work.  It's modest, only the size of a large colonial.  But then
    there's the Nashville Red Cross office building, something like six
    stories of glass, metal, broad spiral staircases and (useless) lobby
    space.  Largely funded by United Way.  Of course I'm only counting
    places I've seen, so I may not have the big picture.  Does seem to me
    that camps for the people the program is for are a bit different than
    office space for the overhead...

	Re: last several concerning United Way and the Boy Scouts

	No matter which side of the "argument" your position is on, the United
Way's initial position and then their reversal confirms to me why I don't
contribute to the United Way.  I'd *much* rather look into the charitable
organizations myself, decide which ones I could justify supporting and then
support them directly.  Besides the "directability" of my contributions, the
target organizations can get the 15% that the United Way would have taken
off the top for their overhead.  Why effectivly pay someone 15% to make
decisions for you that you might not agree with?

								-craig

             <<< BTOVT::ALTSYS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]OLD-VERMONT.NOTE;1 >>>
                           -< Vermont Conversations >-
================================================================================
Note 411.0                         United Way                            1 reply
BTOVT::JPETERS "John Peters, DTN 266-4391"          103 lines  17-FEB-1992 09:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The following column by Jack Anderson appeared in the Daily
	Freeman (Kingston, New York), 14 February 1992.
	
	"United Way takes care of own
	
	WASHINGTON- The nation's largest charity, United Way of America,
	has a favorite charity of its own - its top officials and high
	priced consultants with privileges and perks that fly in the face
	of an altruistic mission.

	This umbrella organization that uses high-pressure workplace
	tactics to collect $3 billion a year for distribution among
	charities, spends $30 million of that money at its headquarters in
	Alexandria, Va., overseeing a tangled web of subsidiaries and
	double-dipping executives.

	
	AN investigation of United Way's books is obstructed by the
	agency's consistent refusal to be anything but superficially
	accountable to contributors.  But there is enough information
	available from troubled employees and from records to put together
	a disturbing picture.

	Regardies magazine, in an article scheduled for publication later
	this month, reports that several United Way employees were
	disturbed enough about what they perceived as problems to hire
	their own lawyer to make inquiries.  They were afraid to tackle
	the investigation themselves, because they had seen co-workers
	fired after asking too many questions.  That lawyer confronted
	United Way's general counsel and was told that the problems the
	employees were worried about had been considered and dismissed.

	But the questions still linger.  Earlier this month, United Way
	executives sent two memos to their top officers alerting them that
	reporters were swarming over the United Way finances.  The Feb. 5
	memo says the United Way board "took a resounding vote of
	confidence" for United Way President William Aramony.


	UNITED WAY was a brilliant idea - a kind of bank where donors
	could give money and experts would dole it out to charities on the
	"A" list.  Under Aramony, United Way has blossomed into a clever
	business, wooing corporate executives in every community.  Hardly
	a worker in America hasn't had his or her arm twisted on the job
	for United Way.  The system coaxes money out of people who might
	not otherwise give, and supports charities that would struggle
	without it.

	The corporate partnership technique brought in money in such
	astounding quantities that Aramony diversified, creating
	subsidiaries to make life easier for the charities that got United
	Way money.  There was an insurance company for employees of
	non-profit agencies, a travel agency, a discount office-supply
	company, even a company to make promotional T-shirts and bumper
	stickers.

	They all started as subsidiaries of United Way, sharing some of
	their money with their parent agency, but some have been spun off
	as private companies, where their accountability to United Way and
	the donors has entered a murky area.

	The most questionable of these spinoffs is Charities Funds
	Transfers, the electronic banking function of United Way that
	collects the money and distributes it to charities.  Sources close
	to the operation say that as a subsidiary, CFT thrives off the
	interest from the money while it is in transit.  That interest has
	brought in as much as half a million dollars a year to CFT, some
	of which went back to United Way to pay for the burgeoning
	headquarters budget, and in one case to bring Aramony's expense
	account out of the red, according to a source who witnessed the
	bookkeeping.


	TWO financial officers for United Way now claim they lost their
	jobs when they asked too many questions about the spinoff
	companies.

	The spinoffs have allowed United Way executives and consultants to
	make money off the enterprise in more than one way.  For example,
	one top-level employee at United Way was also a consultant to a
	spinoff.  Another financial officer at United Way was demoted, but
	allowed to keep collecting the equivalent of his $100,000-plus
	salary as an employee and consultant, and is now president of two
	spinoffs.

	Salaries and perks at United Way and its spinoffs are generous by
	other non-profit standards.  The top-echelon executives make about
	$200,000 a year.  Regional directors can make more than $150,000.
	Aramony makes almost $400,000 a year, according to tax filings.
	He has an individual budget of at least $180,000 a year, and took
	his key staff to the Super Bowl this year.  He has an apartment in
	New York, which used to be rented by United Way until one of the
	agency's board members questioned it.  The apartment was then
	purchased by one of the private spinoff companies, which allows
	Aramony unlimited access.

	Aramony did not return our calls.

	The high-powered corporate executives who make up United Way's
	board of directors are used to big salaries and perks.  When
	questioned, they don't seem overly concerned that Aramony, the
	head of a non-profit charitable endeavor, gets the same
	treatment."
================================================================================
Note 411.1                         United Way                             1 of 1
BTOVT::GILBAR                                        12 lines  17-FEB-1992 10:04
               -< ...what was that, soughtin' just hit the fan! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whats that saying about "Power is Absolute"?  What a shame, if this
    turns out to be true.  So many people benefit from this service, it
    would be awful to see the public funding for this drop off like it
    did for the televangelists when their "skeletons" were exposed.
    Does anyone know if Jon got a copy of this, so we can make sure that
    Digital can exert pressure on them to clean up the mess ASAP?
    
    I hope I'm wrong...but I get the feeling here that once they start
    "turning rocks over", they're going to find a lot more.
    
                                                             Mike
    

    I'm not surprised by .57 as items like this have been mentioned
    before, here and elsewhere. Confirms why I don't give to these
    people. I have never appreciated the strong armed tactics of DEC
    in trying to get me to give either.
    
    My family gives generously to charity ever year but not this one.
    As with anything these days, buyer/giver beware.
    
    Jim C.
    

    Like .58, I have never succumbed to the pressure at DEC to donate
    to the United Way, and haven't given them a nickel.  My wife and
    I donate directly to the charities that we feel are worthy.
    
    

    Don't believe everything you read...
    
    Especially factless columns quoting disgruntled former employees,
    written by has-been columnists with nothing better to do than sit
    around and write about things they know nothing about.  Jack Anderson
    is accountable to NO ONE.  One day I'd like to have a job like his.
    
    (He wants us to believe that not one but 2 FINANCIAL OFFICERS left
     because they couldn't find out what was going on with the FUNDS!?!?)
    
    Jack Anderson used to be worth following.  That was over 20 years ago.
    Nowadays he doesn't do the supermarket checkout line justice.
    
    As for the United Way, if you don't like them, then this article is a
    self-fulfilling prophecy.  To me, it says that their overhead rate is
    1%, startlingly low for that industry ($30 mill/$3 bill).
    
    OK, everyone back to work,		:7)
    \Gary

    Re .61:
    
>    ...To me, it says that their overhead rate is
>    1%, startlingly low for that industry ($30 mill/$3 bill).
    
    The $30M figure refers to amounts spent at the headquarters operation
    in Virginia.  There are also local offices and a variety of other
    expenses not accounted for in this figure.
    
    I don't recall the figures (please forgive my lack of data), but you do
    "lose" money when donations pass through United Way (or any other
    "donation broker") on the way to the actual charity involved.  That is,
    in addition to the destination chariy's overhead, you pay for the
    broker's overhead.
    
    If you already have charities of choice, I believe that you can more
    effectively spend your money by donating directly.  However, I cannot
    believe that the amount lost to overhead is sufficiently large that you
    can really justify *not* donating (which is many people's alternative
    to United Way or some other broker).
    
    (Personally, I don't really like the "strong-arm tactics" used by some
    companies/locations when sign-up time comes around, but doesn't that
    say more about those groups than it does about United Way?)
    
    Lloyd

    
    The United Way also would like to impose its 'rules' on the private
    organizations that it gives your money to.  Boy Scouts of America
    is now loosing its funding.  UW would like to make BSA change its
    rules it had since its charter.  If they don't, UW will stop the money.
    
    We can argue as to weither or not BSA should change its rules, but a
    simple matter is that some people donate money knowing that it will
    reach organizations listed in the UW advs.  Also, there is no way
    in telling where UW will step into other organizations and insist that
    they do other things or the money will stop.
    
    My money avoids the middleman and goes straight to the organization
    that [I believe] desires it.
    ed
    

    Specifically, what rules does UW want BSA to change?

    
    >Specifically, what rules does UW want BSA to change?
    
      I don't know,  but in the last year or so,  BSA has been under
    	public criticism in 2 areas:
    
    		1) Admission of women
    
    		2) Religious (God and country) references in scout oath	
    			etc.
    
      I'd suspect it's one or both of these issues.
    
    
    						-al
    

    Of late, there has been a specific issue with BSA having to do with
    their exclusion of homosexual scouts and scout leaders. Could be that
    one.
    

    For those whould would not like to continue reading, type "next unseen
    after the first page.
    
    To the point and back to the subject of United Way... UW has no right 
    getting involved in the policies of the BSA, any more that BSA has the 
    right to get involved in UWs' policies.
    
    There is a specific discussion, in the SCOUTING notes file, which is
    covering this topic.
    
    Bob G. (18 year member of BSA, and PROUD of what it stands for)
    

    FIRST OFF, a disclaimer..... The opinions expressed below are my own
    and MAY NOT reflect specific opinion of the BSA or any of BSAs local
    orginizations....
    
    The UW has been trying for years to remove the BSA from its list of
    charities.... One year it was because BSAs' own fundraising efforts
    were directly effecting (allegedly) the fundraising efforts of the UW. 
    One year, it had to do with the BSA and not allowing women into
    portions of the orginization. Another year it was due to BSA having in
    its' Oath, the mension of "duty to God". Now, UW is attempting to cut
    funding due to the fact a council in San Fransisco had denied the
    application of a gay, who had applied to be a leader.
    
    Now, as for the women in scouting issue... BSA has women involved in
    all aspects of the program, and had changed this policy LONG before UW
    began the campaign for cutting funds for that reason. 
    
    As for the "Duty to God" issue. BSA has included the religious aspects
    of the program, NOT to teach religion to the boys. Religion is kept
    within the family structure. "Duty to God" is a personal thing, but as
    I see it, there has to be (and has always been in BSA) a basis for
    moral guidance. It is felt that religious foundations provide that.
    
    Now for the sticky subject.. Gays in scouting. I PERSONALLY don't like
    the idea of gays being involved in scouting (sorry, that is just the
    way I feel). NOW, as far as the Scouting program goes, I see nothing in
    ANY policy that requests information about an applicants "sexual
    preference", therefore, it seems to me, if a person wants to be
    involved in scouting, fills out an "adult application" COMPLETELY, then
    submits that application to the unit committee... AND if the
    application is screened (yes, there is a screening process that ALL
    potential leaders MUST go through) successfully... there is nothing on
    the application that would indicate a persons "sexual orientation".
    That is because "sexual orientation" SHOULD NOT be a subject discussed
    outside someone's bedroom or home environment. Someone used the example
    if "what if a 'straight male" walked into a Girl Scout office,
    requested an application to be a leader..., then announced he likes sex
    with women....". Now, there is nothing wrong with liking sex with
    women, but WHY would someone expect to have a group of women except
    this person, after making such an announcement. I think the same
    applies to the gay situation... 
    
    I give all my charity moneys to the BSA. 
    
    PLEASE, from this point forward, take the BSA specific discussion to
    the Scouting notesfile.... BUT please understand, there are LOTS of
    ladies and gentlemen, in that file that take Scouting extremely
    seriously, as well as BSAs policies... 
    
    Bob G. (18 year member of BSA, and PROUD of what it stands for)

    
    I don't know if this is still the case, but the UW has in the past
    given money to PACs.  That is why they don't get any money from
    me.  I just circular file the pledge card each year and forget about
    it.
    
    Steve
      

    I'm not sure of the source of this but its on the net and it seems
    relevant here....
    
*****************************************************************
The following are the United Way's responses to the questions 
that were cited in Jack Anderson's article.
*****************************************************************


UNITED WAY OF AMERICA BUDGET:


    United Way of America does not raise or allocate money.  
    Individuals in communities across the country voluntarily 
    give to local United Ways in their home towns.  The budget 
    for the national service center primarily comes from dues 
    paid by the local United Way organizations.

    In 1992, United Way of America's budget has dropped 2.9 
    percent and staff has been reduced to 268 from over 300 as 
    part of an overall organizational effort to downsize.

    Dues paid by Local United Ways make up 82 percent of our 
    income.  The remaining income is derived from foundation and 
    corporate grants, program services fees, and other sources.

RELATED CORPORATIONS:

    Local charities can be helped in two ways to generate 
    resources to meet the bottom-line needs they confront.  
    First, they can raise money.  Second, they can reduce costs.  
    The latter reason is the overriding factor in United Way of 
    America's efforts to set up other organizations to handle 
    specific functions.

    Throughout their history, the United Way movement and United 
    Way of America (UWA) have faced some unique problems or 
    situations.  In developing creative responses to the 
    opportunities presented, sometimes the solution was found in 
    addressing the problems through other corporations.

    There are several independent organizations which have been 
    started by United Way of America in order to provide better 
    services to charities across the nation.  These include Gifts 
    In Kind America, Charities Funds Transfer, United Way 
    International, Partnership Umbrella, and Sales 
    Service/America.

OUTSIDE CONSULTING WORK:

    Bill Aramony does not receive compensation from any of the 
    so-called spin-offs.  Other employees may, with his approval, 
    engage in outside work.  The following is United Way of 
    America's personnel policy on "outside interests."

	 No exempt staff member shall make or enter into 
         arrangements for outside professional employment 
         including, but not limited to, teaching or outside 
         consulting, without the prior written approval of the 
         President of United Way of America.  The performance of 
         any compensated professional work for United Way of 
         America other than the work for which an individual is 
         employed is considered to be outside professional 
         employment.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

    United Way of America is forthcoming with all legally 
    required financial statements.  United Way of America's Form 
    990's, audits and other records are regularly shared with 
    media upon request.  This included Regardie's magazine and 
    The Washington Post recently.  Jack Anderson and his staff 
    never contacted us to request this information.

CHARITIES FUNDS TRANSFER:

    The allegations regarding transfer of money between CFT and 
    UWA are absolutely false.  The mission of Charities Funds 
    Transfer (CFT) is to simplify and speed the distribution of 
    corporate, employee, retiree, and foundation donations.

    Large companies today make gifts to hundred of different 
    charities.  Each charity, in turn, receives donations from 
    many national corporations.  A 1987 American Express Company 
    study confirmed the need to utilize electronic transfer to 
    speed needed donations to recipient organizations.  The 
    effort substantially enhances the cash management systems of 
    companies and recipient organizations.

    CFT was created as a nonprofit organization in 1988 by UWA to 
    provide a simplified allocation service for corporation, 
    employee, retiree, and foundation donations.  It serves as a 
    support organization to the United Way system and other 
    nonprofit organizations.  CFT is governed by a board of 
    directors comprised of United Way executives from across the 
    country.

SALARIES:

    UWA'S Board of Governors establishes the compensation for the 
    president as well as salary ranges for staff.

    The ranges are set using comparative and competitive 
    information gathered by Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby, a 
    well-known leader in the field of compensation.

    It is the board's belief that a core of top-quality 
    professional staff people, working in unison with a corps of 
    volunteers, is the most effective and productive way to 
    provide what it is we are in the business of providing more 
    services to needy people.

COERCION:

    Absolutely no form of coercion is acceptable in raising money 
    for United Way.  Giving is a personal matter and decision; 
    whether to give and how much to give is up to the 
    individuals.

    The Board of Governors believes that the most responsive 
    contributors are those who have the opportunity to become 
    informed and involved.  A well-planned campaign with an 
    effective communications program, conducted by committed 
    volunteers, will ensure responsive contributors.

SUPER BOWL ATTENDANCE:

    Bill Aramony attended the Super Bowl.  United Way of America 
    paid for travel and hotel.  It paid no entertainment 
    expenses.

    We are very proud of our long-term relationship with the 
    National Football League.  We take normal steps to cultivate 
    that relationship.  Each year, through the generosity of the 
    NFL and its owners, United Way receives $45 million in public 
    service advertising during most league broadcasts.

    Mr. Aramony attended the Super Bowl to maintain that 
    relationship with NFL owners, players, and league office 
    officials.  While in Minneapolis, official duties included 
    attending meetings with NFL owners there and hosting national 
    volunteer leadership and volunteers from the Minneapolis/St. 
    Paul area.

    The only other UWA employee on the trip was Dick Fusco, 
    senior vice president, resource development and marketing.  
    Fusco is the principal UWA liaison with NFL officials.

BOARD CONCERN:

    In December 1991, members of the United Way of America  Board 
    of Governors became aware of inquiries by The Washington 
    Post.  From the information we received, The Post as looking 
    into some serious allegations.  The Board takes the public 
    trust and confidence in United Way very seriously and acts 
    accordingly.  Any charges like these - even if found to be 
    false - are significant to us and to our contributors.

    Upon learning of the Post's inquiries late last year, the 
    Board acted quickly.  The Executive Committee, at Bill 
    Aramony's request, commissioned an outside independent 
    investigation to fully examine the issues under scrutiny.  
    Mr. Aramony was not, and is not, involved in any way in 
    directing the investigation.

    As recently as February 3, 1992, members of the United Way of 
    America Executive Committee in a conference call, took a 
    resounding vote of confidence in support of Bill Aramony, his 
    leadership of United Way of America, and the vital work he is 
    doing for America.

    I have donated to United Way for more years then I can remember.
    They were good at one time but feel they are getting like  all
    the others.
    
    I am tired of it all and will cancel my United Way Pledge and
    give directly to organizations I feel I want to give to.  It is
    called taking charge.
    
    Bob

I do not like the fact that the United Way has assigned parking spots right 
near the front enterances at facilities (i.e., DAS).  Probably need them so
they don't have to lug large sacks of money great distances.

Peter

Didn't I read somewhere that Digital didn't have "assigned parking spaces"???

I've often wondered why people seem to get more recognition for United Way
donations and fundraising than they do for being excellent engineers, managers,
assemblers, secretaries, technicians etc...

-John

I believe that the parking spaces labelled "United Way" are not reserved for
United Way personnel, but are raffled to those folks who turn in their pledge
cards.  I think 1 is for a year, and a few are monthly rotations or something
like that.  It's used as a prize in the raffles they run just like a television
or savings bond would be a prize.  At least that's how it was done when I 
worked in FSL, and I don't think it has changed.

    For those opposed to abortion, it should be noted that the United
    Way funds Planned Parenthood.
    
    Mike

   ><<< Note 185.74 by CUPMK::PHILBROOK "Customer Publications Consulting" >>>
   >
   > For those opposed to abortion, it should be noted that the United
   > Way funds Planned Parenthood.
   > 
   > Mike
    
    
    For those in favor of abortion, it should be noted that the United
    Way funds Planned Parenthood.

Please do not turn this topic into a discussion of which entities UW should
or should not support.

Thanks,

Bob - Co-moderator DIGITAL

     The Jack Anderson article apparently originally appeared in an opinion 
column on Feb. 12th, 1992.  This matter is entirely between Mr. Anderson,
the Washington Post, and United Way of America, and does not involve Digital 
in any way.  Some information on United Way of America is attached for 
informational purposes of Digital Employees.

                                      Greg

                         
====================================================================
*****************************************************************
The following are the United Way's responses to the questions 
that were cited in Jack Anderson's article.
*****************************************************************


UNITED WAY OF AMERICA BUDGET:


    United Way of America does not raise or allocate money.  
    Individuals in communities across the country voluntarily 
    give to local United Ways in their home towns.  The budget 
    for the national service center primarily comes from dues 
    paid by the local United Way organizations.

    In 1992, United Way of America's budget has dropped 2.9 
    percent and staff has been reduced to 268 from over 300 as 
    part of an overall organizational effort to downsize.

    Dues paid by Local United Ways make up 82 percent of our 
    income.  The remaining income is derived from foundation and 
    corporate grants, program services fees, and other sources.

RELATED CORPORATIONS:

    Local charities can be helped in two ways to generate 
    resources to meet the bottom-line needs they confront.  
    First, they can raise money.  Second, they can reduce costs.  
    The latter reason is the overriding factor in United Way of 
    America's efforts to set up other organizations to handle 
    specific functions.

    Throughout their history, the United Way movement and United 
    Way of America (UWA) have faced some unique problems or 
    situations.  In developing creative responses to the 
    opportunities presented, sometimes the solution was found in 
    addressing the problems through other corporations.

    There are several independent organizations which have been 
    started by United Way of America in order to provide better 
    services to charities across the nation.  These include Gifts 
    In Kind America, Charities Funds Transfer, United Way 
    International, Partnership Umbrella, and Sales 
    Service/America.

OUTSIDE CONSULTING WORK:

    Bill Aramony does not receive compensation from any of the 
    so-called spin-offs.  Other employees may, with his approval, 
    engage in outside work.  The following is United Way of 
    America's personnel policy on "outside interests."

	 No exempt staff member shall make or enter into 
         arrangements for outside professional employment 
         including, but not limited to, teaching or outside 
         consulting, without the prior written approval of the 
         President of United Way of America.  The performance of 
         any compensated professional work for United Way of 
         America other than the work for which an individual is 
         employed is considered to be outside professional 
         employment.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

    United Way of America is forthcoming with all legally 
    required financial statements.  United Way of America's Form 
    990's, audits and other records are regularly shared with 
    media upon request.  This included Regardie's magazine and 
    The Washington Post recently.  Jack Anderson and his staff 
    never contacted us to request this information.

CHARITIES FUNDS TRANSFER:

    The allegations regarding transfer of money between CFT and 
    UWA are absolutely false.  The mission of Charities Funds 
    Transfer (CFT) is to simplify and speed the distribution of 
    corporate, employee, retiree, and foundation donations.

    Large companies today make gifts to hundred of different 
    charities.  Each charity, in turn, receives donations from 
    many national corporations.  A 1987 American Express Company 
    study confirmed the need to utilize electronic transfer to 
    speed needed donations to recipient organizations.  The 
    effort substantially enhances the cash management systems of 
    companies and recipient organizations.

    CFT was created as a nonprofit organization in 1988 by UWA to 
    provide a simplified allocation service for corporation, 
    employee, retiree, and foundation donations.  It serves as a 
    support organization to the United Way system and other 
    nonprofit organizations.  CFT is governed by a board of 
    directors comprised of United Way executives from across the 
    country.

SALARIES:

    UWA'S Board of Governors establishes the compensation for the 
    president as well as salary ranges for staff.

    The ranges are set using comparative and competitive 
    information gathered by Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby, a 
    well-known leader in the field of compensation.

    It is the board's belief that a core of top-quality 
    professional staff people, working in unison with a corps of 
    volunteers, is the most effective and productive way to 
    provide what it is we are in the business of providing more 
    services to needy people.

COERCION:

    Absolutely no form of coercion is acceptable in raising money 
    for United Way.  Giving is a personal matter and decision; 
    whether to give and how much to give is up to the 
    individuals.

    The Board of Governors believes that the most responsive 
    contributors are those who have the opportunity to become 
    informed and involved.  A well-planned campaign with an 
    effective communications program, conducted by committed 
    volunteers, will ensure responsive contributors.

SUPER BOWL ATTENDANCE:

    Bill Aramony attended the Super Bowl.  United Way of America 
    paid for travel and hotel.  It paid no entertainment 
    expenses.

    We are very proud of our long-term relationship with the 
    National Football League.  We take normal steps to cultivate 
    that relationship.  Each year, through the generosity of the 
    NFL and its owners, United Way receives $45 million in public 
    service advertising during most league broadcasts.

    Mr. Aramony attended the Super Bowl to maintain that 
    relationship with NFL owners, players, and league office 
    officials.  While in Minneapolis, official duties included 
    attending meetings with NFL owners there and hosting national 
    volunteer leadership and volunteers from the Minneapolis/St. 
    Paul area.

    The only other UWA employee on the trip was Dick Fusco, 
    senior vice president, resource development and marketing.  
    Fusco is the principal UWA liaison with NFL officials.

BOARD CONCERN:

    In December 1991, members of the United Way of America  Board 
    of Governors became aware of inquiries by The Washington 
    Post.  From the information we received, The Post as looking 
    into some serious allegations.  The Board takes the public 
    trust and confidence in United Way very seriously and acts 
    accordingly.  Any charges like these - even if found to be 
    false - are significant to us and to our contributors.

    Upon learning of the Post's inquiries late last year, the 
    Board acted quickly.  The Executive Committee, at Bill 
    Aramony's request, commissioned an outside independent 
    investigation to fully examine the issues under scrutiny.  
    Mr. Aramony was not, and is not, involved in any way in 
    directing the investigation.

    As recently as February 3, 1992, members of the United Way of 
    America Executive Committee in a conference call, took a 
    resounding vote of confidence in support of Bill Aramony, his 
    leadership of United Way of America, and the vital work he is 
    doing for America.

     Mr. Aramony, head of United Way of America, has resigned amid the 
furor over his administration of the agency.  The investigation into his
alleged wrong-doing will continue.

                                    Greg

    re .-1
    
    Heard on the radio this morning that this guy's salary was $400K +
    bonuses! Not bad for brokering charitable contributions.
    
    Dave

    
    Re: .78
    
    ... and not to mention the number of perks like a chauffeured limo,
    trips to Europe on the Concorde, unrestricted use of a Manhattan
    condo, etc. all above and beyond his salary and bonuses.
    
    Steve
    

    Hopefully the truth at the local level won't get obscured by the
    problems at the national level: the local agencies' cost of
    administration, which includes a small national membership dues, is
    still extremely small and our confidence in, and our contributions to,
    those local agencies should not change. They're locally managed, and
    local volunteers make up the boards that oversee not only their
    internal expenses but also the allocation of funds to local agencies.
    It's good the national director resigned and they now have a chance to
    help the local agencies retain their contributor base. Unfortunately
    many people will misunderstand the situation and cancel their
    contributions, hopefully we can do our part to mitigate this within our
    own spheres of influence. Support of our local United Way agencies is
    still an excellent way to support our community, and one that I'll
    continue to give high priority!
    
    Fred
       

    I'll still give directly to the local charities and bypass United Way.
    The money is still going to get where I want it to go without the
    middleman. We all know that there is overhead in charity organiza-
    tions I'll continue to cut out one layer of it.
    
    Jim C.
    

    
    The following topic has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to HUMANE::MODERATOR, specifying the
    note number. Your message will be forwarded with your name attached  
    unless you request otherwise.
    

    
    The local people also get paid pretty well. The local paper (Gazette
    Telegraph) said the head of the Pikes Peak United Way (ie, smaller area
    than a State) earned $86k last year plus benefits.
    
    

    re .-2  I'm tempted to call up Jack Anderson and contribute directly
    to his favorite charity.

    The local UW manager here in the Phildelphia Penna. area fessed up to
    having  a salary of 245k per annum plus perks, the local chapters are
    refusing to send in their  annual dues cause of the announcement.
    They want something about it, well the local manager was quoted as
    saying "We all know where  charity begins."
    	regards
    	John

     Every year, there are people who try to talk everyone else out of donating
to United Way.  They hard-sell it more than the people they are criticizing.

     This fiasco may be just what the UW of A needed.  They were getting sloppy,
and needed a kick in the butt to straighten them out.
 
     The important thing is that the end agencies get some support.  If you are
uncomfortable with United Way but still want to give, then use the matching 
funds program and donate directly.  If you don't want the bother of going that
route, United Way is still an option.  Go and talk to the rep at your local
chapter to make sure that things are kosher.

     United Way of America, as an organization, will not bear the brunt of this
furor.  The harm will be done to the organizations on the receiving end.
Don't let anyone fool you.  Even with their shortcomings, the local,
autonomous United Way chapters are the most efficient method of getting the
funds to the right people that currently exists.

     In recent years, the Colorado Springs (CX sites), have led the entire
corporation in total donations to United Way by a long shot (overwhelming even
those sites with far more employees).  We have maintained that same leader-by-
a-long-shot position among the other corporate donors in Colorado Springs.
That looks good for Digital, and reflects well upon our employee community.
Through Pikes Peak United Way, a lot of charitable organizations have a large
part of their total budgets derived directly from Digital employees.  It
would be sad for us to let them down now.

                                     Greg  

    If the total Colorado Springs donations (UW and other) exceeded other
    and larger plants, then I agree it would look good.  That situation may
    even exist.

    But I don't see why it looks good for a location to donate specifically
    to UW.  If employees in other plants choose to donate more total, and
    do so directly not using UW, why isn't that preferable?

    RE: <<< Note 185.86 by SSDEVO::EGGERS "Anybody can fly with an engine." >>>

    >If the total Colorado Springs donations (UW and other) exceeded other
    >and larger plants, then I agree it would look good.  That situation may
    >even exist.

        It does exist.

    >But I don't see why it looks good for a location to donate specifically
    >to UW.

         Keep in mind that I did not say that.  However, due to the high 
    visibility of United Way, the community can see that the location is
    donating, whereas many individual donations are invisible to the community
    unless they are very large.

    >If employees in other plants choose to donate more total, and
    >do so directly not using UW, why isn't that preferable?

         Do you have any reason to believe that this is happening?  I have very
    good reasons to believe that this is far from the truth.  I have been told
    that United Way donations encompass many times more employees, more
    locations, and a lot more money.  I currently only have stats on United Way,
    but it may be possible to find out about matching funds to verify what I
    have been told.

                                          Greg

    I have been led to understand that the Boys Club and Girls Club in
    Nashua, NH receive a very sizeable part of their operating capital from
    the United Way.  There are also other organizations here that receive
    United Way support.
    
    From my way of thinking, just the programs that happen at the
    Boys/Girls Clubs that keep kids off the streets and give them healthy
    things to do is sufficient to keep me contributing.
    

RE: .88

Why not contribute directly to Boys/Girls Club, then?

--PSW

    If anybody prefers to give directly then by all means they should.
    United Way is a convenience for those that want to support all the 
    agencies that receive funding without doing all the extra work of
    requesting Corporate matching funds, etc.
    
    But having worked UW campaigns for some years, I'm not sure that all
    those that said they prefered to give directly in fact did. I sincerely
    hope they did, but to quote an old saying: "Me think they protest too
    much.".
    
    Unfortunately this whole flap just gives them another excuse to not
    support the needs of their communities. 
    
    Fred
    

    Re .91

    >-< Forget how; just give! >-
                          
    Interesting. Why Fred, do you want people to stop asking questions and
    just part with their money? 

    Would answering these questions uncover something that you would rather
    they didn't know?

    If this Charity is honest it should welcome questions, not avoid them.

    Jamie.

    re: .89
    
    Yes, I could give directly to those charities that I want to give to. 
    Payroll deduction makes it a lot easier.  I use Metpay for the same
    reason.

	Re: Giving directly versus UW payroll deduction convenience

	Wouldn't the best of both worlds be if Digital allowed us to designate
up to some number (small, maybe 2 or 3 max per employee to keep the paystub
format from getting way out of control) of charities that we could directly
support by payroll deduction?  United Way would certainly be on the "available"
list, but so could the local Boys/Girls club and the local <whatever>...  If
someone has a favorite charity, great, they can support it.  If someone wants
to go the "spread it around" route of the United Way, great, they can do that.
But what gets removed is the "will they write the check?" convenience argument.

								-craig

    re: designated direct payroll deductions
    
    I would prefer this approach.
    
    I also like the idea of a company, actually plant, fund.  This would
    involve an elected board of volunteers to investigate and evaluate
    various charities and make allocation decisions.  The direct expenses
    to Digital probably wouldn't be higher than what is spent on the United
    Way solicitation.  Not only would the admin expense from my payroll
    deduction (yes, I do contribute) go to zero, but it would give us some
    serious control over how the money gets distributed.
    
    If UW is the only option, I'll continue to support it.  But it feels
    like an unhealthy monopoly to me.

    On WBUR this morning was a report about some eastern MA & southern NH
    local UW chapters that are sitting on $1-2 million in invested money
    while the agencies they are supposed to be supporting are having
    substantial cashflow problems.  The debate is whether the chapters
    *should* be operating "like a business" (which the chapters' rationale
    for having such large sums invested) or whether they should be spending 
    all -- or at least a much larger percentage -- of their contributions 
    in funding the services we think they are funding!
    
    Nancy

           It's that time of year again for United Way.
           
           I was looking through the listing of UW Agencies, and did not
           see Planned Parenthood.  Does anyone know if they're "hiding"
           under a different name or did UW drop them because of the
           controversy (ie- abortions)?
           
           Steve

	While I couldn't find it listed in Under the Mass. agencies it was 
listed in the Rhode Island agencies. It may have been a local decision.