Google matches up to $12K in charitable contributions per employee.
It used to be $6K, but during one of the weekly all-hands, an employee asked if it could be raised (to match the recent pay raise that was happening at that time). Two days later, it was doubled to $12K.
Something about your comment got under my skin. My first response is, "so what?" However, I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was. I read it to say "Google is not only $2K/employee more charitable, but also much quicker to act on this sorta stuff." But there'll almost always be someone who donates more and who reacts quicker...we could probably find a company that matches $13K, and $14K and 15K...but we aren't gonna list them all, are we?
I guess I'm just missing the point/value of your comment and I'm assuming the worst (which really isn't all that bad when I think of it :)
There are lots of workplace giving programs out there. We (TechiesGiveBack - techiesgiveback.org) are looking into a program to bring workplace giving programs to smaller tech companies. IBM, cisco, goldman all have those types of things, often with a commitment to matching, but smaller tech companies who might just be getting HR departments up and running and certainly don't have corporate social responsibility depts seem to be an area that could use some prodding towards allowing their employees to give. Charity navigator has some stuff on workplace giving: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&#.... I think it amounts to a few billion per year ($4.8bn according to this link: http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/Guide_To_Wor...).
I really hope that the OP is wrong in implying that the matching is in response to that NYT article, which was one of the most churlish things I've ever read.
I don't think it's unethical. However, if they match for a charitable contribution, doesn't it become a tax deduction? If you donate to the government, there is no such deduction.
I bet they end up spending a lot less than 10k per employee with the current plan. The current plan means that people who are already donating, the people who would care about this 10K get it, and Apple saves money on the people who don't care.
First, simple math. $20K > $10K. If you have 100 employees, and they donate $10 and you donate $10..that's $2K. If only you donate $10, that's $1K. In other words, if you are gonna ask this silly question, it should at least be "why not just give $20K per employee".
Secondly, Apple already donates to charities (google it). At what point does a company donate enough that people stop asking "why don't they donate more?" (especially keeping in mind that Apple's priority is to its shareholders).
Thirdly, this is an opportunity for employees to donate money to a cause they believe in and have it essentially doubled. I'm not even sure how else to explain this, except to assume you've never donated money in your life before. For some people, this is a very personal thing (maybe their wife died of cancer)...they want to donate and this is just an little bit extra goodness. Having the company just write a cheque isn't even close to the same thing.
Finally, this makes donating (not just money either, but time and other services) a culture aspect of the company now. The impact of engaging and involving employees can be considerably more significant than just a cash lump sum payment.
[+] [-] apetresc|14 years ago|reply
It used to be $6K, but during one of the weekly all-hands, an employee asked if it could be raised (to match the recent pay raise that was happening at that time). Two days later, it was doubled to $12K.
[+] [-] CurtHagenlocher|14 years ago|reply
(Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/20139398... )
[+] [-] latch|14 years ago|reply
I guess I'm just missing the point/value of your comment and I'm assuming the worst (which really isn't all that bad when I think of it :)
I need computer break..bbi30
[+] [-] sbkirk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbateman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Joakal|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dillona|14 years ago|reply
Or even $10 per employee would be an improvement....
[+] [-] josscrowcroft|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patio11|14 years ago|reply
Do we all have to pretend to be shocked, shocked that Apple is a for-profit corporation which is good at PR?
[+] [-] sammcd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexbell|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latch|14 years ago|reply
First, simple math. $20K > $10K. If you have 100 employees, and they donate $10 and you donate $10..that's $2K. If only you donate $10, that's $1K. In other words, if you are gonna ask this silly question, it should at least be "why not just give $20K per employee".
Secondly, Apple already donates to charities (google it). At what point does a company donate enough that people stop asking "why don't they donate more?" (especially keeping in mind that Apple's priority is to its shareholders).
Thirdly, this is an opportunity for employees to donate money to a cause they believe in and have it essentially doubled. I'm not even sure how else to explain this, except to assume you've never donated money in your life before. For some people, this is a very personal thing (maybe their wife died of cancer)...they want to donate and this is just an little bit extra goodness. Having the company just write a cheque isn't even close to the same thing.
Finally, this makes donating (not just money either, but time and other services) a culture aspect of the company now. The impact of engaging and involving employees can be considerably more significant than just a cash lump sum payment.