A question of morality

[quasimodo]

Travel back more than 30 years and imagine, if you will …

… a young lad is fresh out of college at his first job with a major American company. He is working at their headquarters, and it is time for the evil United Appeal campaign. Our young man has never liked the idea of United Appeal. He is aware that they use goon squad techniques to force people to give a pre-determined “fair share.” The young man is called into the office and invited to give his so called “fair share.” The young man does his best to refuse the arm twisting and implied threats of having a representative of his employer insisting on a donation. But it becomes clear that the young man will not be allowed out of the office until he has given in to the extortion. So the young man crossed his fingers and made his pledge - which he directed to be made after being invoiced … not via the ever so convenient payroll deduction. After a short time the economy tanked and our hero lost his job at this major American employeer - along with thousands of others. He had to move out of town to find an place to live and seek employment. Somehow the evil United Appeal found him and sent him past due notices and threatening letters, which he ignored. Eventually, the evil extortionists gave up and went to pick on other victims.

Now, these many years later, our hero wonders does he have a moral obligation to fulfill that pledge?

 

[LilyM]

For starters our hero lost his job, which surely affected his ability to honour the pledge - though he should have told them as much when it happened

Secondly it does rather sound as if our hero was coerced quite badly into giving his promise, though he should examine his conscience as to whether he is perhaps exaggerating just a tad. Otherwise simply duly confess if it’s felt to be necessary and be guided by the confessor.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, your fellow has a moral obligation to not fulfill the pledge and if asked he should remind them and anomously remind the past employer the statements was made under duress. If he fulfils the pledge he encourages coercion, which is a bad thing.

 

[thistle]

Travel back more than 30 years and imagine, if you will …

… a young lad is fresh out of college at his first job with a major American company. He is working at their headquarters, and it is time for the evil United Appeal campaign. Our young man has never liked the idea of United Appeal. He is aware that they use goon squad techniques to force people to give a pre-determined “fair share.” The young man is called into the office and invited to give his so called “fair share.” The young man does his best to refuse the arm twisting and implied threats of having a representative of his employer insisting on a donation. But it becomes clear that the young man will not be allowed out of the office until he has given in to the extortion. So the young man crossed his fingers and made his pledge - which he directed to be made after being invoiced … not via the ever so convenient payroll deduction. After a short time the economy tanked and our hero lost his job at this major American employeer - along with thousands of others. He had to move out of town to find an place to live and seek employment. Somehow the evil United Appeal found him and sent him past due notices and threatening letters, which he ignored. Eventually, the evil extortionists gave up and went to pick on other victims.

Now, these many years later, our hero wonders does he have a moral obligation to fulfill that pledge?

I guess it must be an American thing but what is the United Appeal?

 

[quasimodo]

I guess it must be an American thing but what is the United Appeal?

United Appeal is an syndicate of charities that come together to pool their money raising efforts. The management of the syndicate seems to be made up of upper management of the important and or large employeers in the area served.

The problem comes in when they place extremely high emphasis on getting 100% participation of the employees of their companies. That is a big deal - management’s pride, ego and reputation is on the line to have their employees tow the line. They also have the audacity to determine for the employee what a “fair share” is - it is progressive like the income tax system, as I recall. I am familiar with people in extreme financial difficulty who were told to give their fair share regardless of their problems. If you make the mistake of expressing your fair share as a % of your pay - they up the take if you get a raise.

The charaties are not all things I want to support, as well. They say you can direct your share to the charity of our choice, but I believe that is really smoke and mirrors. The amounts given to each charity is more or less set prior to the campaign.

To be fair, I understand that this situation was a lot worse years ago than it is now. When I have worked at smaller companies there was very little pressure and no consequences to not giving.

Oh, and no … our hero does not think he is exaggerating

 

[mosher]

Travel back more than 30 years and imagine, if you will …

… a young lad is fresh out of college at his first job with a major American company. He is working at their headquarters, and it is time for the evil United Appeal campaign. Our young man has never liked the idea of United Appeal. He is aware that they use goon squad techniques to force people to give a pre-determined “fair share.” The young man is called into the office and invited to give his so called “fair share.” The young man does his best to refuse the arm twisting and implied threats of having a representative of his employer insisting on a donation. But it becomes clear that the young man will not be allowed out of the office until he has given in to the extortion. So the young man crossed his fingers and made his pledge - which he directed to be made after being invoiced … not via the ever so convenient payroll deduction. After a short time the economy tanked and our hero lost his job at this major American employeer - along with thousands of others. He had to move out of town to find an place to live and seek employment. Somehow the evil United Appeal found him and sent him past due notices and threatening letters, which he ignored. Eventually, the evil extortionists gave up and went to pick on other victims.

Now, these many years later, our hero wonders does he have a moral obligation to fulfill that pledge?

Coercion does not an obligation make.

 

[1ke]

I guess it must be an American thing but what is the United Appeal?

United Way agencies are all charities that apply for and become affiliated with The United Way-- you can Google “United Way”.

Under this coalition, companies can give money to “United Way” which will then in turn distribute the money to these organizations-- taking a nice administrative fee in the process.

Offensive groups such as Planned Parenthood and other reprehensible groups can qualify to get United Way funds-- it’s a local United Way board decision who gets what.

You can theoretically “designate” funds, but actually that is ineffective.

Many companies in the US like the prestige of being a certain level of “United Way Giver” and so they hold huge rallies every year in the offices, some use strong-arm tactics to get their employees to pledge a certain amount, and then the company will match the pledges up to X dollars.

Many people who refuse to pledge are then treated like they have let down the company. Those who do contribute often get special perks (which also points out exactly who did NOT contribute by process of elimination) such as getting an extra day off, getting to leave early, getting to wear casual dress, or getting their name ina a raffle for prizes.

Not all companies are like this, but many are.

 

[1ke]

For starters our hero lost his job, which surely affected his ability to honour the pledge - though he should have told them as much when it happened

Secondly it does rather sound as if our hero was coerced quite badly into giving his promise, though he should examine his conscience as to whether he is perhaps exaggerating just a tad. Otherwise simply duly confess if it’s felt to be necessary and be guided by the confessor.

Since you have not worked in the US for a large corporation, you cannot relate to this. “Our hero” is not exaggerating at all.

It is, unfortunately, commonplace in many US companies to be so rabid about getting “100% participation” on the United Way campaign that employees feel forced to sign up because of possible repercussions of not being a “team player” later on-- promotions, raises, etc.

As a manager it was worse as I was expected to go around doing the arm twisting.

 

[quasimodo]

Since you have not worked in the US for a large corporation, you cannot relate to this. “Our hero” is not exaggerating at all.

It is, unfortunately, commonplace in many US companies to be so rabid about getting “100% participation” on the United Way campaign that employees feel forced to sign up because of possible repercussions of not being a “team player” later on-- promotions, raises, etc.

As a manager it was worse as I was expected to go around doing the arm twisting.

Our hero forgives you. Some of the arm twisters had their own arms tied in knots and stuffed where the sun don’t shine to make sure they got 100%.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

As a manager it was worse as I was expected to go around doing the arm twisting.

Did they ask you to enforce the “no harassment policy” and build “morale” at the same time ?

 

[1ke]

Did they ask you to enforce the “no harassment policy” and build “morale” at the same time ?

My group always had 100% participation. Those who didn’t want to contribute anything wrote $0.00 (including me), but by gosh I always turned in 100% of my cards.

 

[wcknight]

From another perspective, I’ve always given to the Federal version of the United Way, aka the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC).

No one should feel obliged to give under duress. I had almost the same experience 25 years ago. I was new to the particular office, and I was called into the directors office. I was told they had “almost” 100% participation except for ONE, me. I fully intended to give but I had put it off and forgotten about it. I put in a check willingly but I did feel the pressure to conform and I was very embarrassed by the incident. The thing is, I would have given anyway as I am pretty big on charity anyway. They could have asked in much less aggressive way.

In spite of the awkward negative first experience, I am still a big supporter of the Combined Federal Campaign. It has it’s negatives (as the abuses mentioned), but I believe it does far more good than bad. I designate specific charities that I want to support, and I know they get the funds because they invariably contact me afterwards.

One of them is my former Catholic HS which was terrific to me and my family over the years. I consider it the school with a heart of gold, because when my family could not afford to send me there, they let me in for free for all 4 years. The CFC does some wonderful things and it is a shame some folks abuse their power and pressure other folks into giving.

Giving under duress is not charity, and folks who use gestapo like tacticsm, do the system a great disservice. To the OP, no, you should feel no obligation to make good on your pledge. It was forced and you should feel no moral obligation to fulfill it. However, as a Christian or just as a caring human being, charity is a moral obilgation for everyone.

 

[Island_Oak]

Travel back more than 30 years and imagine, if you will …

You seem to have a peculiar preoccupation with this organization given some of your posts on this and other threads. While it is unfortunate you were strong-armed by an employer to contribute towards any charitable cause of which you were not fully supportive, this was, per your own description OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO.

If you must entertain some lingering guilt over your coerced, but unfulfilled pledge, contribute the $ to a charity about whose mission you feel passionately. Then move on…