4 ms·

Getting someone else to do your "charity" work for you is not charity...They're not volunteers b/c they're getting paid (by you) to do the work. You're not vol

by rprasad 14y ago

Getting someone else to do your "charity" work for you is not charity...They're not volunteers b/c they're getting paid (by you) to do the work. You're not volunteering b/c you're not doing anything (and you're not even treated as making a donation which would be deductible for tax purposes). If you are going to use Exec to "volunteer" for you, you might as well just give the money directly to the charity. They can use it on their charitable activities without wasting any time training your Exec "volunteers".

Goronmon 14y ago
It doesn't sound as bad as you make it out to be. If a charity really does need a warm body for some task(s), then what is the harm in paying someone to do said task? The charity gets the work done the same as if a volunteer came in. You make it sound like there is some huge downside to doing this.
- rprasad 14y ago
  There is a huge downside for this to the charity: they have to waste time training "volunteers" who will probably never come back unless they're paid to be there. Volunteers (as in, real volunteers) are much more likely to come back, minimizing the amount of time wasted on training. Volunteers are also more likely to have knowledge or experience in the area of the charity, whereas Exec's [gophers?] are likely to know nothing at all.
jsmcallister 14y ago
Manpower is a priceless commodity for a lot of charities. I know plenty of people who run charities who would pass on a $100 donation in exchange for two hours of idle hands.
- drewsears 14y ago
  If that's what they want, then let them use the money to hire an Exec. If not, don't force it on them. This just limits the charities options, and only benefits exec.
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    Is it possible that after various administrative costs, they don't end up getting $100 worth of labor out of someone, vs. $100 worth of labor by hiring Exec?
    - rprasad 14y ago
      Exec also takes administrative costs out of that $100. Either way, the charity will have to train the person. But the person the charities hires is likely to come back, so that time is not wasted. The Exec worker may never come back, rendering all of the time spent training them wasted.
- rprasad 14y ago
  I know plenty of charities who would prefer the money. Manpower is freely available for most charities at least down here in SoCal (maybe people have less time to do good works up in the Bay Area?). Money, however, is the primary factor limiting their capacity to perform their charitable activities. Let's put it this way: with $100 but no volunteers, you can still acquire supplies, services, or manpower. With 10 volunteers but no money, you can twiddle your thumbs.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by rprasad 14y ago

Goronmon 14y ago

It doesn't sound as bad as you make it out to be. If a charity really does need a warm body for some task(s), then what is the harm in paying someone to do said task? The charity gets the work done the same as if a volunteer came in. You make it sound like there is some huge downside to doing this.

rprasad 14y ago
There is a huge downside for this to the charity: they have to waste time training "volunteers" who will probably never come back unless they're paid to be there. Volunteers (as in, real volunteers) are much more likely to come back, minimizing the amount of time wasted on training. Volunteers are also more likely to have knowledge or experience in the area of the charity, whereas Exec's [gophers?] are likely to know nothing at all.

jsmcallister 14y ago

Manpower is a priceless commodity for a lot of charities. I know plenty of people who run charities who would pass on a $100 donation in exchange for two hours of idle hands.

drewsears 14y ago
If that's what they want, then let them use the money to hire an Exec. If not, don't force it on them. This just limits the charities options, and only benefits exec.
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  Is it possible that after various administrative costs, they don't end up getting $100 worth of labor out of someone, vs. $100 worth of labor by hiring Exec?
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Exec also takes administrative costs out of that $100. Either way, the charity will have to train the person. But the person the charities hires is likely to come back, so that time is not wasted. The Exec worker may never come back, rendering all of the time spent training them wasted.
rprasad 14y ago
I know plenty of charities who would prefer the money. Manpower is freely available for most charities at least down here in SoCal (maybe people have less time to do good works up in the Bay Area?). Money, however, is the primary factor limiting their capacity to perform their charitable activities. Let's put it this way: with $100 but no volunteers, you can still acquire supplies, services, or manpower. With 10 volunteers but no money, you can twiddle your thumbs.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]