Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Institutes New Charitable Matching Program for Employees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, that's the main reason why this is so bloody clever. Apple is only pledging to support their employees choices. In so doing, they're basically making a clear point of NOT aligning themselves directly with ANY of the charities thus supported. They support the decisions of the their employees, and that's all. I think it's a pretty brilliant way of handling the whole charitable donations thing.
And, by the way, any company that has this kind of profitability and DOESN'T donate considerable sums is being horrifically irresponsible. That's just the way it is. Every reasonable-sized, and half-way respectable company has a budget for charitable donations. It's a tax write-off, and it's the decent thing to do. They have to give back something.
And for those who think it can be "scammed"... well, charitable societies have to do their books just like any other company. They have to account for every penny. So they can only "scam" Apple as easily as any other company can scam you or I, or the government, or their competition, and so on...
My company, with a similar but much less generous matching program, got involved in a situation like you described.
When the end-of-year reports by the charities listing their donors came out, every corporation which matched donations was listed as a donor.
One right-wing group saw that our company had matched donations to Planned Parenthood (a mainline 501(c)(3) organization) - and launched a boycott against us for "baby killing".
Our board/executives basically said f'em, and ignored it all. Nothing came of the boycott, stock is up, we're happy.
Actually, I doubt that they will have an approved list. The story says that they'll match 501(c)(3) donations, not "some 501(c)(3) donations".
If the IRS considers it to be a legitimate non-profit, that should be good enough for Apple. Some employees will donate to the "Church of Latter Day Saints" (the "Mormons"), others to "Lambda Legal" (a major gay advocacy 501(c)(3)). Political and lobbying groups don't have 501(c)(3) status - so no problems there.
+1
Perhaps the shareholders should shut up and respect ALL of the gay Apple employees who are helping them get rich, including Tim Cook, instead of being bloodsucking pigs who want every single dime. That is, unless you want those Apple employees to take their talent elsewhere. I didn't see Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman helping out. Feel free to group up with those two if you want. I'll stick with the decent, good citizens who actually give to people instead of their own pocketbooks.
Why shouldn't companies push for human rights?
Last edited:
Apple is probably just doing this for tax reasons.
I support Apple for giving to support basic civil liberties to all, but the stockholders are in the business only for money. It isn't fair to call them greedy bloodsuckers because they put up the capital for Apple to succeed.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm really glad Apple is doing this. Makes me feel better when I buy one (or many) of their products. I would love for my company to do this as I would max it out.
And I actually see Bono's comment as an indirect knock against Jobs. Nowhere in his Letter to the Editor did Bono specifically mention Jobs as donating any of his money to Bono's cause. Regardless if Apple is donating money to any entity or not, I would have expected one of its major shareholders to have a track record of donating under his own name.
I'm really glad Apple is doing this. Makes me feel better when I buy one (or many) of their products. I would love for my company to do this as I would max it out.
And I actually see Bono's comment as an indirect knock against Jobs. Nowhere in his Letter to the Editor did Bono specifically mention Jobs as donating any of his money to Bono's cause. Regardless if Apple is donating money to any entity or not, I would have expected one of its major shareholders to have a track record of donating under his own name.
There are arguments both for and against corporate charity. I suspect that corporate charity is anything but. On the other hand, if it does help people in need that's great, though.
I remember reading about how Jobs denied early Apple employees an opportunity to buy discounted stock and Woz set up a program for those Apple employees. I'm not going to say that the Jobs back then is the same Jobs now, but he's definitely not known for trying to help people out.
I remember reading about how Jobs denied early Apple employees an opportunity to buy discounted stock and Woz set up a program for those Apple employees. I'm not going to say that the Jobs back then is the same Jobs now, but he's definitely not known for trying to help people out.
I just don't see why people care if Steve donates.Steve isn't, and never positioned himself as a moral leader, we respect Steve as an innovator.
To me this is the same argument that makes fun of beauty queens because they aren't very smart.
Your company does not sound like a publicly traded corporation.
No offense, but in my observation, most "college degrees" are utter crap. I have lost my job twice, once in the worst possible time of year to be looking in my industry. Got a job within 3 weeks both times. But then, my degree has something businesses actually want.
Then you don't understand public corporations. A board of a company like Apple has one main job: hire/fire the CEO. (NOT tell him/her what to do)
The problem with this particular political issue you harp on daily is that y'all don't seem to recognize that the courts have taken all those rights you worship away from the standard couples, too. You are going to win your battle, and find yourself in possession of Russia, in the winter, with no blankets.
Can the above poster clarify what he means about the courts taking away rights from standard couples?
I don't mean tí start a flame war, but what specifically is he referring to?
I don't mean tí start a flame war, but what specifically is he referring to?
I am pretty sure that people questioning why Steve wasn't public about his charitable donations helped this idea.
Yeah, because Apple threw together the plan for $500m, pitched it to the proper people, laid the groundwork, implemented it internally, AND got it announced to the public in the couple of days since that story was around. Isn't that beyond far-fetched, even by the loosest standards?
----------
You are working under the ridiculous assumption that local goods in China cost as much as they do here. 10 dollars goes MUCH further there than it does here.
----------
I disagree if they are willing to allow abuses against a subset of the very employees who are providing them that money. It's, in fact, extremely fair to call them bloodsucking pigs and worse. If shareholders want to complain about gay employees getting benefits and support from the company, then they should complain about EVERYONE getting benefits and support. What's good for one is good for all. Otherwise, they are providing less for certain employees, and those employees will gladly pop over to Google to work at a place that not only gives them the benefits, but ALSO pays for the extra tax penalties the gay employees are subject to for their spouses (even the ones they LEGALLY MARRIED IN CALIFORNIA) thanks to the DOMA. Does anyone who has stock in a company want to lose talented people to the competition that way? Steve Jobs himself thought enough of someone like Tim Cook to groom him to be his heir apparent for over a decade, and clearly SJ knows more about what's right for Apple than anyone, so any shareholder should really sit down and quit pretending to be in even the same galaxy as the man.
Are we talking about Apple giving money to gay rights charities? Or about Apple expanding the same benefits to their gay couples as their straight ones?
I even think there we're talking about the same thing.
If Apple loses money(I doubt this, for tax reasons) giving to gay charities, the stock holders would have a right to complain about that, as Apple is a publicly traded company whose capital is put up by shareholders.
I don't see why stockholders would complain about gay couples getting the same benefits as straight ones.
I even think there we're talking about the same thing.
If Apple loses money(I doubt this, for tax reasons) giving to gay charities, the stock holders would have a right to complain about that, as Apple is a publicly traded company whose capital is put up by shareholders.
I don't see why stockholders would complain about gay couples getting the same benefits as straight ones.
First of all, the IRS has to consider it a charity under the tax code. See:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/501(c)
The IRS has a list of every single org that qualifies.
One thing to notice about this: since these can't be political donations, many organizations have "educational" or purely charitable subgroups to donate to.
Second, an Apple employee has to donate. And, for most employees, we are talking $100-$500, not $10,000.
Third, somebody has to notice, and care. Sure, as someone mentioned, Planned Parenthood will get someone's attention, but, are a large number of TEABAGGERs actually not going to buy their new iPhone5's just because of this?
In any case, considering all the gripes about Apple/Jobs lack of public charity, it is kind of amusing the controversy this has stirred up. Just goes to prove that no good deed goes unpunished.
But they have had plenty of cash for several years, why wasn't it reinstated then?
Jobs Chairman of the Board in title only. He is fighting for his life and hasn't had much to do with anything at Apple for most of the year. It's window dressing, that's all and to think otherwise is wishful thinking.
Jobs signs off on nothing now. He is not in charge.
Jobs can’t sack Cook. The Board would have to vote him out. Jobs is not the ultimate boss of Apple and he is not running the show. He is being ravaged by a deadly disease.
So true.
Apple is a publicly traded company.
Steve is not in charge and hasn’t been for many months now.
Absolutely.
Last edited:
Can you imagine the outcry if Apple were found to be matching donations to a radical mosque ? Can you imagine the outcry if Apple were found to be donating to a group that supported 9/11 or a group that calls for the extermination of Israel ? It would be the PR disaster of the century so I am sure the Apple board have steps in place to ensure no donations are payable to extremist groups
----------
@ AppleScruff
Am on my iPad so can't multi quote but Jobs was still very active at Apple in the summer
He did the iPad 2 keynote, he did the keynote at the developer conference, he did the presentation at the council meeting, he has regularly been seen on campus since he announced his medical leave so he has still been heavily involved, I fully believe he will do the keynote for the iPhone 5
About time!
And never reinstituted it even though Apple rose to become one of the wealthiest companies in America.
And never reinstituted it even though Apple rose to become one of the wealthiest companies in America.
