Am I a cheap bastard or not?

September 24, 2007 2:25 PM

Are you expected to donate to the non-profit that employs you?

I work for a non-profit organization that is funded largely through donations (some from big foundations, some from individual people). I work hard and receive solid-for-non-profit pay, though clearly lower than the private sector. I do it because I love the job, the people and the cause.

The development department is after everyone on the staff to set up recurring donations via credit card or bank draft. I have been hedging, because I think it's odd that I'm being asked to "give back" a portion of my salary like that. I donate to other causes ... ones for which I cannot work 40+ hours a week.

Anybody else who works for a non-profit ... can you tell me whether you're expected/pressured/required to donate at your place? Am I being a cheap bastard or a reasonable steward of my limited financial resources?

(Just to clarify ... I am not being asked to donate to United Way or some similar community thing, as happens at many workplaces. I am being asked to donate to my own employer.)

posted by mccxxiii to Work & Money (33 answers total)

I've never worked for a donation-funded non-profit, but I can tell you that it's a little strange. A situation like that seems ripe for abuse come review/raise time.
posted by pmbuko at 2:30 PM on September 24, 2007

I have worked for non-profits for about five years, and my wife has for about 10 years. We have both made donations to our employers on specific occassions, but we haven't and I don't think we ever would set up a recurring contribution. I think it's inappropriate of them to expect that of you.
posted by alms at 2:32 PM on September 24, 2007

I teach at an independent school, and we are certainly pressured to donate. The way that they describe it to us is that they want to show potential donors that they have the full support of the staff behind them. I do give, and started at a $5/month payroll deduction...didn't notice it from my paycheque and became part of the team. I have upped it since then, but I do feel it is a worthy cause to support.

The short answer: you are being a reasonable steward of your cash, but you will have to weigh the negatives of not donating with the positives of having $60 extra per year. For me, it was worth $60 to get them off my back.
posted by ms.v. at 2:32 PM on September 24, 2007

At the largish art museum where I work, it's somewhat common but not mandatory among the lower- to mid-tier employees, and pretty much socially required if you're one of the ~20 people in the organization with the word "Director" somewhere in their title.
posted by COBRA! at 2:32 PM on September 24, 2007

'Expect' is a strong word, but, at least at the nonprofit where I work, there's a culture where upper managers and administrators are very likely to donate to the institution. This kind of thing seems to be pretty common.
posted by box at 2:33 PM on September 24, 2007

I don't work for a non-profit, but I vote that you are not a cheap bastard (at least on this score), and the development department should show a little more tact than to pressure co-workers. Go do your job and scare up some outside funding, dev people... this isn't MLM.

As you say, in choosing to work for this non-profit, you are essentially donating the difference in salary that you would otherwise make in the private sector. It would make me very uncomfortable to be expected to contribute further. On preview, as pmbuko says, it could make for uncomfortable performance reviews.
posted by mumkin at 2:35 PM on September 24, 2007

Absolutely not. A non-profit probably pays less than the market rate for whatever your job is, so in a way, by working their you are donating the difference between what you could be paid and what they are paying for you. Also, it may be illegal for them to force ("encourage") you to donate to them.
posted by Pastabagel at 2:39 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I also work at a non-profit, and while there is no direct pressure or rule that we have to donate back, it is part of the expectation for those of us in the upper management end that we make contributions during the annual fundraiser - i.e., be seen buying tickets to attend, make bids on the silent auction items, participate in the raffles/side draws/other things that might be going on.
posted by never used baby shoes at 2:42 PM on September 24, 2007

It's commonplace. I work for a non-profit.

When asked to contribute I demur that my giving is personal and private, and that I certainly do support [aim of non-profit] without giving further details. You can also point out that you're not comfortable discussing your salary or your finances with your colleagues. Make no excuses. Don't play their game.

I suspect it is one where an employer cannot lawfully require its employees to pay part of their salary back to the employer.
Also, it may be illegal for them to force ("encourage") you to donate to them.

Probably moot -- individual giving is usually handled by the "Foundation" of such-and-such organization.
posted by desuetude at 2:45 PM on September 24, 2007

Similar things happen in higher ed, and I would suggest not to freak out unless you were feeling some pressure from your immediate manager (though, like box says previously, executive types probably feel pretty strong pressure to donate), just chalk it up to an overzealous development campaign.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 2:46 PM on September 24, 2007

You're definitely not a cheap bastard. There's nothing wrong with donating to your non-profit employer if you choose, but for them to expect it is down-right cheeky - particularly as a recurring payment.

I guess you have to weigh up how much you like the job against how much you dislike the pressure.

If it were me, I'd be looking for a new job on principle, as you said, you're already earning less than you should, they shouldn't be expecting you to give it back.
posted by missmagenta at 2:47 PM on September 24, 2007

You're not a cheap bastard for not wanting to enroll in a monthly donation plan.

When I worked for a non-profit, I supported its fundraising efforts by buying tickets to every fundraising event that I was able to attend. (We only had two or so per year.)

I think it's bizarre, possibly illegal, and definitely in questionable taste that employees are being pressured to set up recurring donation withdrawals to their own workplace.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:48 PM on September 24, 2007

It's annoying, but expected - I can tell you that the people who write fundraiding ethical agreements (The Association o f Fundraising Professionals - www.afpnet.org) expect THEIR employees to donate.

Because I was one for two years, and I know damn well we had to. You were scoffed at and grumped and harassed if you didn't.
posted by FritoKAL at 2:52 PM on September 24, 2007

You do not need to donate money, but obviously there could be social consequences at work; of varying legality.

The trouble with this sort of thing is that it would be difficult, if not impossible to prove that you were passed over for a promotion because you chose not to donate.

Ultimately, you need to evaluate the risks and benefits of donating; we don't have enough information about the culture at your workplace to do it for you.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:53 PM on September 24, 2007

Best answer: I used to work for a non-profit where the donations were also regularly expected. I never really got the concept of that, to be honest -- I mean, why not just pay me less?
posted by ph00dz at 2:56 PM on September 24, 2007

You are not a cheap bastard. If you are working significantly below the market rate, that difference, is your automatic, non tax deductible donation to your employer. I find it slightly unreal they would even ask.

However....

It may be career suicide not to. So I would do it.
posted by whoaali at 3:01 PM on September 24, 2007

Sometimes, people will feel compelled to donate when they feel like the work has really touched their lives. But no, it's not like working at the Gap. You are not earning enough to be expected to hand some of it back. However, should you reach tax season and discover you owe money, you might regret it. So do what I did: calculate your taxes early and then decide what's worth it for you to give.
posted by parmanparman at 3:06 PM on September 24, 2007

I agree ph00dz -- I never understood why a non-profit would have an employee assume that tax burdened-salary just to have them give the money right back. (Unless, of course, there's some obvious financial gain for the non-profit in doing so.)
posted by JohnFredra at 3:08 PM on September 24, 2007

Best answer: I just want to clarify a point that I (until recently, with my rise to upper management of the non-profit world) didn't understand about the environment in which non-profits exist.

Our organization is about to embark upon a major effort to raise our profile and develop relationships with some of the major corporations/people with influence in our community. In doing our background research and preparation for this, we learned something very interesting - one of the questions often asked while these relationships are being developed is about how much of the organizations Board and Staff give. It seems to be a measure by which these potential donors evaluate the organization - not only is it a worthy cause, but are the people involved with it giving it financial support as well?

The fact that this question is asked caused us some consternation in terms of our prep work. Not only do the staff work for less than could be expected in either the government or private sectors, the Board members are all volunteers who feel (rightly) that by giving their time, they are making a donation.

I'm very glad that we decided to not pressure everyone to make direct financial contributions, but instead include the fact that the entire Board and the majority of our staff get involved with our fundraisers as indications of their support, without noting the exact dollar value of a contribution (thus, we can say that 100% of our Board assisted in fundraising X thousands of dollars this past year), regardless of whether they did that through donation, participation, or helping to organize/run the event.

I am left to wonder if it is this issue that drives other non-profits to put pressure on staff to give.
posted by never used baby shoes at 3:19 PM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Both universities where I've worked tried to get their faculty to donate. I tell them yes, I will contribute. In fact I have already contributed: it's the difference between what you pay me, and what I'm worth. They don't ask again.
posted by Wet Spot at 3:25 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

In my own experience, it was expected or at least encouraged among upper management, at least, and would have been welcome from middle-management. Everyone else would, at most, chip in for an auction item or raffle ticket at a major fundraising event.

My take was not that it was for the actual money (because yes, they're paying you less than market value for your contributions) but for the gesture: your name on those donor lists is valuable, because it shows other donors that you put your own money where your mouth is. Board members were *strongly* encouraged to contribute every year and to attend fundraising events. Again, this sends a message that the Board supports the organization. Those who were not in a position to make large donations generally helped solicit contributions from their contacts in the community - but then again, so did the heavy hitters. Time was great, but money was really what the Board needed to contribute, whether directly or indirectly.
posted by bassjump at 3:44 PM on September 24, 2007

They give you a paycheck, then you donate money to them, and then they give your next paycheck for the same amount as the first. That's just roundabout way of giving you a pay cut.

You're donating your services at a significant discount. That's enough of a gesture. It's really, really tacky of them to demand more.

And, not to be too cynical here, but how do you know that your "donation" isn't going to go directly into the pocket of that higher-up who's asking you for it?
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:20 PM on September 24, 2007

(I should add that depending on the size of your paycheck, it could also be really, really tacky of you to refuse.)
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:23 PM on September 24, 2007

Are you involved in the active solicitation of donations from outside of your organization?

As a fundraiser for a Canadian University, I would find it unethical to ask other people for gifts for an organization I do not support myself. However, this a case of personal opinion.

If you explain that financially, you are unable to make a donation, the development staff should back down.

You should also let them know that you are active with other (NON-COMPETING) charities. Say that while you do support the mission of the group you work for, you are a financial backer of Organizations X, Y and Z and that your annual philanthropic budget is currently dedicated to those charities and that you would not be comfortable removing your support from them.
posted by elkerette at 4:38 PM on September 24, 2007

This is fairly standard in the world of non-profit, member-supported organizations. It's not inappropriate or unusual.

My experiences is the same as Cobra!'s - at our museum we are explicity asked by the President and Director of Development to make a contribution to the Annual Fund. I most definitely need to do it to stay in good graces; besides which, I feel like I should contribute to the sustainability of the organization I work for and, theoretically, believe in. It gets more challenging to ask the staff paid hourly to donate - many are seniors or students with fixed incomes. This year, the president's idea was to put out a bucket at the staff party and ask everyone to drop in a cash donation, from a penny to whatever. At the end of the party it was assumed all had donated, so he could say to the board and on grant applications "We have 100% staff participation in the annual fund."

I have worked at nonprofits where we participated in the United Way donate-a-dollar-per-paycheck program. I felt more comfortable saying "no thanks, my donation dollars are already budgeted" in that case. Since it wasn't my own employer, I didn't feel much pressure to participate.

But in the three museums, two camps, and one private school I've worked in, an annual fund contribution was definitely requested. It reflects well upon the organization if the staff is in support.

You're donating your services at a significant discount.

That's not really true; non-profit workers are as free to leave their employment as anyone else is if they don't like the compensation. I'm a professional, not a donor. Many people choose nonprofit work because they prefer the working conditions, projects, and co-workers or because they believe in the mission of the organization. It's true we'd be paid more in the private sector, but we don't donate our services or any portion thereof.

how do you know that your "donation" isn't going to go directly into the pocket of that higher-up who's asking you for it?

By reading the annual report and monitoring your department's budget.
posted by Miko at 5:40 PM on September 24, 2007

Best answer: Also, it's interesting to note that as you move up through your field and through income brackets, donations become more important - both those you make, and those you ask for. Donations aren't simply tithing or a non-deductible tax. They are an indication of community interest, of the power behind the idea. Donations have a way of coming back around to you. When you become a donor or a member of a nonprofit, you gain some social capital and some steering power in the organization in question. In the nonprofit world, the logrolling process of donations is quite important. We definitely need to talk to donors and grantors about "% staff participation" in our campaigns. I used to think of these requested donations as money I was "losing;" today I understand they are part of the grease that makes the wheels turn, and a cheerful donation contributes to my stock of the non-quantifiable, intangible resources I need to progress through an organization.
posted by Miko at 5:46 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think this is common. Where I work (nonprofit) we are all expected to give annually but it can be any amount--it could literally be a dollar and no one would give a shit. We just do this so we can say that 100% of board and staff give (as mentioned above). Supposedly, it looks good for grants--I'm really not sure that it would make a difference. It really doesn't bother me to give $30/yr, I probably would anyways.
posted by fieldtrip at 6:19 PM on September 24, 2007

Response by poster: Wow, excellent answers! This is exactly the reason I love Ask MeFi!

A little follow-up ...

I think "never used baby shoes" and others hit it on the head ... it's more about appearance and participation than about dollar amounts. Now that I think about it, I have heard a couple of comments about how good it would look to be able to write "100 percent" on a couple of particular grant applications.

Other random things:
I don't have an important enough job to feel the social pressure that a director or board member would. (But I might *want* to have that job one day...)

I am not directly involved in the solicitation of funds, so I do not consider there to be any ethical component in that regard.

I have not felt any threats or repercussions so far, and the vibe at my place is and always has been remarkably good.

I'm not thinking of this in terms of a legal problem, unless something very drastic happens in the future. For now I'm just curious about how my instinctive reaction fits in with other people's experiences.

Thanks everyone for your thorough and helpful responses!!
posted by mccxxiii at 8:32 PM on September 24, 2007

This happens at my work -- but my boss has made it clear that she wants to be able to say that all the staff donate, so if we want to give a dollar (annually) that's fine. So I usually do.

I still think it's an uncomfortable situation though, and I wish that it wasn't something people asked.
posted by Margalo Epps at 8:34 PM on September 24, 2007

My NPO encourages, but does not require, staff donations at about $120 a year. The reason isn't the $120, it's so that we can tell donors that we have 100% staff and board participation.

Seems people don't want to sometimes donate to an organization where board and staff members don't contribute.

Personally, I don't give dollars because I work 50-70 hour weeks, I figure the difference more than makes up for $120 a year. :)
posted by TomMelee at 9:44 PM on September 24, 2007

I have worked at several different non-profits and volunteered a several others. A good chunk of my social circle works at non-profits. I have never heard of employees being pressured to donate to their own employers. This is all news to me, and frankly, I find it tacky. I wouldn't do it. If they want your money, you should demand a raise to cover the cost.
posted by decathecting at 9:52 PM on September 24, 2007

I've worked for a nonprofit that shanghaied employee donations - in fact, one of the first things I was asked to do at that job was a drive specifically to badger everyone into donating. I personally think the practice sucks.

As long as the development director isn't in charge of your job, definitely donate the barest minimum you can get away with - the dd isn't allowed by law to tell what you donated anyway, just whether or not you did. For political reasons long term, it will almost always be in your best interets to donate SOMETHING. The only place where I ever buck office politics is on United Way donations. They're the freaking borg.
posted by medea42 at 11:26 PM on September 24, 2007

didn't read the whole thread (my bad) so if I'm repeating everyone else, my apologies.

Many funders look at things like employee and board gifts as a sign of a well-run organization. I think it is absolutely appropriate for your development department to solicit you for gifts, at any level you fell appropriate. What outside funders are looking for is not the dollar amount raised from staff, but the percentage of staff that gives, so even a $5 gift can help this.

It is NOT appropriate for your development department to be pressuring you for payroll deductions, gifts of a certain size, or to be using quid pro quo tactics. It is not appropriate for it to be a condition of employment, and if your development department is saying that, you might want to look into the ethics section of the Association of Fundraising Professionals. If you feel the development officer is out of line, report him/her. No teeth to this, but it's something you can do.

You state that you give to other organizations "ones for which you can't work 40 hours per week." I understand your point, however, your work is not a donation-- they are in fact paying you for that.

If you are senior or even middle management it is my feeling (I am a fundraising professional) that you should be making a significant gift to your organization. If you are entry level/clerical/support, then give as the spirit moves you.

The first rule of fundraising is "nobody gives if they aren't asked." I think your development department is just following through on this. If you don't want to give, don't give.
posted by nax at 2:17 PM on September 26, 2007