

Apple to Match $10K in Charitable Contributions Per Employee - sbkirk
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392762,00.asp

======
apetresc
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.

~~~
latch
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 :)

I need computer break..bbi30

~~~
jonknee
Probably because the article made it sound like something unique to Apple or
at least Silicon Valley. It's great that they're doing it, but it's nothing
new.

------
sbkirk
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&#...</a>. I think
it amounts to a few billion per year ($4.8bn according to this link: <a
href="http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/Guide_To_Workplace_Giving3.pdf"
rel="nofollow">http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/Guide_To_Wor...</a>).

------
mbateman
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.

------
Joakal
Would it be unethical for a company to decide to match $10K in Voluntary Tax
Contributions Per Employee as well?

~~~
melling
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.

------
dillona
That is awesome. I wish my company did that.

Or even $10 per employee would be an improvement....

------
josscrowcroft
That's nice, but why not just _give_ $10k per employee to charity?

~~~
latch
_sigh_...seriously?

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.

~~~
51Cards
His comment is not without merit. Your view assumes that a high percentage of
employees are inclined to donate. Perhaps they are not. If only 10% of
employees partake then that's a far smaller amount going to charity.

What would be best is to say "Apple will donate $10k to the charity of every
employee's choice and we encourage our employees to add to those donations as
well". Then you get a donation even for those who won't donate of their own
accord, they still pick the charities, and those who wish to donate still have
the chance to do so as well for personal reasons.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here but if you're looking for guaranteed
highest donations generated that would be it. Not that I've ever seen any
company do that so it's mostly a mute point.

~~~
boredguy8
[http://www.one-step-forward.net/2008/05/making-moot-point-
mo...](http://www.one-step-forward.net/2008/05/making-moot-point-moot-versus-
mute.html) just FYI. And, btw, it rhymes with "newt" not "cute".

~~~
stan_rogers
Bad selection of terms -- where I come from, "newt" and "cute" rhyme. Perhaps
"boot"?

