Apple Institutes New Charitable Matching Program for Employees

[Tiger8]

Thats the problem. What if someone donates to lets say... Al Queda?

Guys, a lot of companies do that with no problem. 'Charity' is either a designated charity (i.e. we are matching for donations to the RedCross), but most commonly it is ANY 503 not-for-profit charity. So yes, it could be the red cross, salvation army, Newman, Islamic Relief... any LEGIT charity.

When did Al Qaeda become a registered charity?

 

[The Beatles]

the fact that the government couldn't even agree on the correct way to wipe there asses, I wouldn't put it past the government to miss things.

Isn't wiping ones as something that should be loosely regulated and probably best to leave at "whatever works"?

 

[TallManNY]

Exactly. They're not losing anything by doing this.

Umm, do you know how tax benefits work? For every dollar Apple gives to charity, they will get a $1 deduction on their taxable income. The general corporate tax is 35%, so reducing taxable income by $1 reduces income by 35 cents. So every $1 of charity given costs Apple 65 cents.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Hmmm. Wasn't Jobs at the helm in 2008 when Apple made a $100,000 donation to the "No on 8" campaign?

Yes and regardless of whether you are for or against it companies should not be using shareholders money to push politics.

Guys, a lot of companies do that with no problem. 'Charity' is either a designated charity (i.e. we are matching for donations to the RedCross), but most commonly it is ANY 503 not-for-profit charity. So yes, it could be the red cross, salvation army, Newman, Islamic Relief... any LEGIT charity.

When did Al Qaeda become a registered charity?

Whos to say that the "Middle East Hungry Children Fund" isn't actually the "Al Qaeda front for getting money from Americans to help fund us fund." It already has happened and been caught by the government. I could start a charity right now its not that difficult. I think Apple should offer 25-50 of the most trusted charities. From there you choose who you want and Apple matches.

 

[mode101]

What if your charities are considered offensive to other employees though? I'm all for INDIVIDUALS contributing but when companies get involved it starts getting a bit murky.

Didn't you hear? Corporations ARE people, now...

 

[BaldiMac]

Exactly. They're not losing anything by doing this.

If not gaining.

What does that mean? Of course, this cost them money! If their tax rate is 35%, then donating $10,000 costs them $6,500.

 

[notjustjay]

Yes and regardless of whether you are for or against it companies should not be using shareholders money to push politics.

Right, and so I would argue that this would have been better served under a matching funds program such as this. Any employee who supported it could donate, and Apple would match. Any employee that didn't support it, didn't donate. Or in fact could have donated to an opposing cause.

It's either this or the company doesn't donate anything, ever, there's no other way to be completely fair.

 

[CWT1965]

Before all the Steve jobs bashing begins as chairman he would have rubber stamped this and approved it so before everyone says this is cook's work no way would it have gone through without Steve giving the ok unless he is comatose which I doubt

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Didn't you hear? Corporations ARE people, now...

No, people are people, corporations are entities.

Right, and so I would argue that this would have been better served under a matching funds program such as this. Any employee who supported it could donate, and Apple would match. Any employee that didn't support it, didn't donate. Or in fact could have donated to an opposing cause.

It's either this or the company doesn't donate anything, ever, there's no other way to be completely fair.

Not if its something you are morally against. Thats the problem its not Apples place to support peoples individual agendas, its Apples job to provide stunning benefits (which it does) and decent pay (which it does.) They don't need to contribute to peoples personal agendas it just becomes way to messy. Lets say 8000 people contribute to a charitable foundation that is headed by a Democrat lobbyist. Is that fair for the other employees that are republicans or don't want to anything to do with said organization? People act like charities are angels they are not. A lot of charities are scams in disguise.

 

[The Beatles]

http://news.intelwire.com/2010/04/us-gave-millions-to-charity-linked-to.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/07/terror/main621621.shtml

It happens.

Why am i not surprised. Alright then, your other posts aren't as ridiculous anymore. Charities should account for their funds and spending. Any charity that doesn't, shouldn't receive donations. However thats naive, people would just manipulate the books. What a mess.

 

[notjustjay]

I think Apple should offer 25-50 of the most trusted charities. From there you choose who you want and Apple matches.

That's not a bad compromise.

 

[Avatar74]

Contributing matches generally are to accepted charities that the company has checked out to ensure they aren't donating to some cause contrary to their philosophy or, for example, corporate EEO/LGBT, etc. policies.

There's usually a process to suggest a new charity before the company will match charities they haven't already ok'd... There's all kinds of wise reasons for this.

What I am hoping is that Jobs will join Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge. Some years ago, Bill Gates was derided for making zero philanthropic contributions, and that changed... he is now partnered with Warren Buffett to persuade the world's richest to commit at least 50% of their personal wealth to charity.

That's a tall request, and I don't think it's very productive to criticize those who don't give to charity for whatever reason... I think it's far more constructive to applaud those who do, and try to persuade those who don't. That's just a sensible approach to anything, as the internet is pretty good evidence that haranguing or criticizing someone's perspective rarely ever makes them change it.

 

[flottenheimer]

So here is my plan.
1. Form a 503 (c) (3) corporation - 500.00 at most
2. Make friends with an Apple employee at my local genius bar
3. Have him donate 10,000 to my non-profit
4. Collect an additional 10,000 from Apple
5. Give him 12,000 back
6. Profit 7,500

7. Go to jail

 

[guzhogi]

Wow! Imagine when this goes world wide... $10,000 x 50,000 full time employees...

That's half a billion a year!

Don't forget that Apple matches a donation, so charities will be getting $1 billion total. Woo-hoo!

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

That's not a bad compromise.

My current company offers this. Every year I donate $5000 to the ASPCA (its one of the approved charities) and my company matches half of that.

Other charities that we have are Meal on Wheels. It just really gives people a chance to donate to a well known charity.

 

[acslater017]

So here is my plan.
1. Form a 503 (c) (3) corporation - 500.00 at most
2. Make friends with an Apple employee at my local genius bar
3. Have him donate 10,000 to my non-profit
4. Collect an additional 10,000 from Apple
5. Give him 12,000 back
6. Profit 7,500

I think that's called "fraud" or "money laundering".

 

[mode101]

No, people are people, corporations are entities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Contributing matches generally are to accepted charities that the company has checked out to ensure they aren't donating to some cause contrary to their philosophy or, for example, corporate EEO/LGBT, etc. policies.

The problem is Apple has an agenda and they aren't afraid to show it. Look this is a great idea and its about time but it has to have restrictions. Apple donated $100000 to the Cal Prop for gay marriage. What if 3/4 of Apples employees decide they want to donate to a charity that helps preserve Man/Woman union. I don't think Apple would match those donations seeing how its against its already established agenda. Again, all I want to see out of this is money going to the right places not for politics.

 

[The Beatles]

My current company offers this. Every year I donate $5000 to the ASPCA (its one of the approved charities) and my company matches half of that.

Other charities that we have are Meal on Wheels. It just really gives people a chance to donate to a well known charity.

Awesome

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-are-people/2011/08/11/gIQABwZ38I_story.html

Facts please not Mitt Romneys opinion. It means nothing to me.

Awesome

We also do animal adoptions and canned food drives. That is what charity is about. Not blindly writing a check but being proactive in helping. Maybe Tim Cook and Eddy Cue could go work a Soup Kitchen with some other Execs to show that Apple cares. It costs less money and would have a greater impact on people then just matching blindly. Simple things like that can really drive others to do good things.

 

[samcraig]

Agree 100%.

Of course, this news doesn't preclude him from doing that sort of thing (or getting someone to do it), but frankly when it comes to getting a retina iPad out there that blows everyone away, consumers don't really give a sweet damn about charitable matching programs. Nice but not necessary. And if it was done in response to perceived pressure from that retarded NYT article and whatever phantom (meaningless) criticism it might have generated, then the end is near for Apple. At least the Apple that brought the brand back to life and turned it into a cultural icon.

The Apple I know doesn't cave. Let's hope they did nothing of the sort this time.

First of all - your use of the word retarded is offensive. Find another word.
Second - You want to choose to see this as Apple caving - that's fine - but that's a pretty negative connotation. I don't see it as caving and more than I see them offering FCP 3 again caving.

They are business decisions. Smart and full of purpose.

But I don't expect you, specifically, LTD - to understand that.

 

[CWT1965]

Contributing matches generally are to accepted charities that the company has checked out to ensure they aren't donating to some cause contrary to their philosophy or, for example, corporate EEO/LGBT, etc. policies.

There's usually a process to suggest a new charity before the company will match charities they haven't already ok'd... There's all kinds of wise reasons for this.

What I am hoping is that Jobs will join Warren Buffett's Giving Pledge. Some years ago, Bill Gates was derided for making zero philanthropic contributions, and that changed... he is now partnered with Warren Buffett to persuade the world's richest to commit at least 50% of their personal wealth to charity.

That's a tall request, and I don't think it's very productive to criticize those who don't give to charity for whatever reason... I think it's far more constructive to applaud those who do, and try to persuade those who don't. That's just a sensible approach to anything, as the internet is pretty good evidence that haranguing or criticizing someone's perspective rarely ever makes them change it.

I am sure given his health problems and his possible fight for life charity is the last thing on Jobs' mind at the moment and rightly so

 

[iLunar]

Yes and regardless of whether you are for or against it companies should not be using shareholders money to push politics.

Then it's your choice as a shareholder to withdraw your funds. No one forced you to become a shareholder. If you don't like the way a company is operating, you don't put your money into it. Simple.

 

[mode101]

Facts please not Mitt Romneys opinion. It means nothing to me.

I think we're on the same side, here, notice the on my original post...

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Then it's your choice as a shareholder to withdraw your funds. No one forced you to become a shareholder. If you don't like the way a company is operating, you don't put your money into it. Simple.

All right the if you don't like it leave statement.

Employees get stock options as part of the "compensation package".