Pressured to give at the office
MY NEW BOSS walked into my office and handed me a card and said, "I always like to hand deliver United Way pledge cards to employees so they understand how important the cause is to me and the company." I threw the card in my desk drawer and didn't think about it again until he showed up two weeks later.
This time, a bit sterner, he informed me, "Of course giving to United Way is not a requirement and completely voluntary, but I pride myself on my department having 100 percent participation and only you have not enrolled yet. By the way, when you do enroll, 1 percent of your gross salary would be about the right amount - but that is up to you."
Not knowing what to do, I decided his subtle suggestions were not so subtle. Who wants to disappoint a boss? He is the person who controls your job, promotions, salary, and career. Add to that the fact he has "dropped by" twice to let me know his "thoughts." So, I signed the card for a payroll deduction amount for less than the 1 percent and I guess he got his cherished "100 percent participation."
Now, the United Way, despite the national scandal it endured many years ago, is a wonderful organization. Here in Greater Boston, the United Way's great works penetrate many levels of society with concentrations on children and the most in need. Representing hundreds of worthy agencies, the United Way is a vital force in changing people's lives for the better.
Many companies do a great job of conducting employee campaigns that not only encourage giving to United Way, but apply no pressure to employees as to whether or how much to give. As we all know, however, such campaigns are not always the norm.
Any tactics that force, cajole, embarrass, or threaten employees to give are usually the result of companies whose management teams, while perhaps well-intended, see the campaign as an intracompany and/or intercompany competition. Who gives the most money in total? Who gives the most money per employee? Who has the highest employee participation percentage? These measurements often drive the unsavory tactics that can accompany a United Way campaign.
The United Way will, of course, respond to this column with outrage, denial, and a list of their good works. But I am not suggesting that United Way endorses these methods - as a matter of fact, its Code of Ethics denounces such actions. But as we all know, too many companies and their executives still do not play by the rules.
Every company should have a "whistleblower" campaign that anonymously allows employees to report any manager who uses coercive tactics. Any company that consistently uses such tactics should be thrown out of the United Way network.
But the real issue is not just the tactics, but the fact employees do not receive enough charitable choice. In fairness, the United Way does give choices so that donors can give to a particular United Way charity, cause, or even a specific municipality's United Way. None of that should cease.
However, United Way's mesmerizing hold on company executives and its easy-to-use payroll-deduction plans really do put employees at a great disadvantage. The charitable choices people want to make might not be part of the United Way network. Both the United Way and companies need to recognize that employees have many other charitable interests and should not feel constrained to give to United Way if those interests outweigh their interest in their company's desire to be a United Way "leader."
There are thousands of nonprofit organizations vital to our society that are not part of United Way and rely to a great extent on individual contributions. While some companies have matching-gift programs for employees who contribute to those charities, many employees cannot afford to give to both United Way and to their more cherished charity. Or, because they split their giving, they don't give as much as they would desire.
For example, a family making $70,000 a year and paying for a mortgage, taxes, food, clothes, car payments, etc. has little left over for charity. But still they want to do their part, perhaps by giving to their church, synagogue, or mosque. Or to a hospital that has cared for an ailing relative. Or to a school their kids attend, which needs the money for after-school programs. Or, for that matter, to any of thousands of personal choices people should be able to have. But, if any spare income is spoken for by their company's United Way program, they might have to forego their preferred desire.
At one company I worked for, we used to give people many payroll-deduction charitable options, including United Way, and total charitable giving from employees actually increased. Corporations should encourage employees to contribute to charity and should unlock their payroll-deduction system from United Way exclusivity, letting employees give without embarrassment or fear or resentment. They can then contribute to whatever organizations they care about most - including United Way.
Giving should come from the heart - not from the coldness of a corporation's required programs.
David D'Alessandro, a guest columnist, is former CEO of 
