Apple to Match $10K in Charitable Contributions Per Employee | Hacker News Reader

Apple to Match $10K in Charitable Contributions Per Employee

pcmag.com

34 pointssbkirk19 comments

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.

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

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.

Microsoft matches up to $12k as well.

(Source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoftpri0/20139398... )

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&#.... I think it amounts to a few billion per year ($4.8bn according to this link: http://www.charitynavigator.org/__asset__/_etc_/Guide_To_Wor...).

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.

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

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.

That is awesome. I wish my company did that.

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

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

I would be curious to know if any companies do actually do this?

That wouldn't encourage others to get into giving?

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.

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.

http://www.one-step-forward.net/2008/05/making-moot-point-mo... just FYI. And, btw, it rhymes with "newt" not "cute".

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

Actually, the math is not simple. Why are you assuming all 100 employees will donate $10? What if only 5 out of the 100 donate $10? In which case, the company donating $10 for every employee it has, regardless of whether they donated or not, will result in a higher amount.

Save the mock exasperation for elsewhere.

P.S. I agree with your 'Secondly,...' point.

I bet they end up spending a lot less than 10k per employee with the current plan. The current plan means that people who are already donating, the people who would care about this 10K get it, and Apple saves money on the people who don't care.

$10k per employee costs $10k per employee, but matching grants cost ~$50 per employee, given typical participation rates.

Do we all have to pretend to be shocked, shocked that Apple is a for-profit corporation which is good at PR?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com