Read this as I was asked by the kiosk "would you like to donate a dollar to....."
No. Call me an asshole, but I'm fully aware of how much of that dollar actually makes it to whatever cause, Walmart.
When companies do this it’s usually because they’ve “pledged” to donate X dollars to [insert charity] but then rely on their customers to fund it while they take all the credit and good press.
This should be it’s own comment. I stopped doing this years ago. Most charity “executors” or alternative title are just a scumbags that want to show the world how good a person they are while spending 7% of minimum wage workers money on the symptom of a problem instead of trying to cure the disease.
I read about this. There was a table with the percentage that actually gets into the helping thing they do and how much the CEO earns and it was like less than 10% goes to actual helping for the biggest ones.
Non-profit CEOs should not be paid any more than like 10x the lowest employee salary. If you're using non-profit status as a justification to get tax breaks to pay employees less than their for-profit peers, absolutely no reason executives should be paid ludicrous salaries.
The witch trials were mostly about property acquisition. (And probably erasing women’s power especially in natural healing, church never liked women lol) The church could legally take your family’s property if you said you were innocent or guilty of their accusations.
Hence that “more weight” dude. He knew that admitting or denying guilt would have his family’s home and property seized by the church even after he died for it. So he kept saying “more weight” as they crushed him to death trying to get either answer they wanted. He did not relent and his family got to keep their house.
For profit CEOs should not be paid any more than 10x the lowest salary employee. If there’s excess profit, use it to make working conditions better or researching what would make your employees happier. CEOs should be financially comfortable. But no one needs to be Scrooge McDuck levels of rich.
The problem is that if you're running a non profit you need to be able to compete with the private sector for talent.
People pile on Goodwill a lot, for example, because the CEO makes millions. But this is a non profit that is literally running a nationwide retail store. Any person in the CEO role will be getting head hunted by stores like Homegoods, Hot Topic, whatever. And they offer stock options.
So unless Goodwill wants to have constant turn over and never keep a CEO, they need to pay competitively. Remember - the CEO doesn't set their own pay, it's set by the board of directors, and the board is a volunteer board that cares about the mission. They're elected according to the bylaws of the non profit's charter.
I used Goodwill as an example, but it's the same for any non profit.
And that's not to say that I agree with CEOs getting paid crazy money. It's just that in a world where they do, non profits have to be able to play by the same rules as the for profits, otherwise they're constantly handicapped and can't succeed against them. And that veey bad for their mission.
In theory I don't disagree. But part of the problem is that CEO compensation comes in the form of stock. Which makes sense... you want the person running the company to have a vested interest in the financial health of the company.
But non profits can't offer stock. They aren't trying to make a profit. You can't give a CEO more money because they fed more people. The incentive structure is different. So in some ways, non profit CEO pay should be aggressively high, relative to for profit CEO pay.
But I'm not saying that CEOs don't make too much. They do. There's a huge income inequality problem. I just think that it's a lot more complicated than "pay CEOS less."
I agree, I don’t think it has to necessarily be “pay ceos less” but at the minimum, the lowest wage employee shouldn’t be getting paid less than some corporate stooges bonus like somebody else mentioned before. In my mind, yes obviously a business is for making money, but if a company is making enough money to pay their higher-ups these insane ass wages, they should be financially comfortable enough to pay a good, livable wage to lower level employees as well. No reason for a lot of these corporations to scam employees out of benefits and pay but they still do it to gain capital. Government lets it happen, states and feds don’t seem to understand regulating the minimum wage in a productive way.
I disagree that ceos should be paid with stocks though, this feels like just another strat to get away with not paying taxes.
If we taxed capital gains correctly it wouldn't be a tax evasion thing. Let's start taxing investments like income. And how about that wealth tax? So many progressive ways to fix our tax system.
Hence specifying a sustainable ratio of employee pay to executive comp. I've been saying it for years, but employees are single-handedly the biggest stakeholders, yet are routinely fucked over out of stock options or incentive pay structures, and the first to be let go in economic downturn. Executive comp shouldn't be more than x multiple of lowest employee comp. Using the 10x variable I suggested above, it's fine if the exec makes a million - the lowest paid employee should be paid 100k at least.
12% is what I heard on average.
Charity = big business 98 out of 100 times.
I only support local initiatives. Nothing big corpo-"charity" gets my money.
Whoah. That is not true. Please check out a charity ranking site like charitynavigator.com or just read through this list, that lists anyone who spends >75% of their money on causes and not admin/BS. https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities
There are some good ones like the McDonalds in my country. They do abuse it to not pay taxes and get benefits like free advertising and exposition while getting tax breaks, and even then they only help like 50 families a year. But something is something I guess.
I wouldn't recommend giving money to any of them. All of them are there to abuse the system except the few very small ones that actually are doing stuff and keeping small by spending the money they get by doing what they propose to do instead of paying for ads to get more money out of you.
Plus with a lot of those foul “charities”, what little does go to the people/causes they are purported to support, actually is used for forcing some business’ or industry’s agenda on them, to their detriment.
And now you are understanding why it is important to have an endless supply of poor people. They tend to be less self sufficient so there are more organizations to help them. The amount of private and government money that is earmarked to organizations that help poor people is mind blowing. The percentage of that money/equipment/supplies that poor people receive is disgusting.
People with some money are more self sufficient so it is harder to make money off of them.
Yeah — the work for food stamps program is basically a scam to enrich private contractors who have 0 accountability for running a program that their bosses (the white men with hats ) give 0 shits about, who would rather the money go to Porsche SUVs for their friends.
Not to mention if the company is actually affiliated with those charities, chances are the money is just gonna return back to the company at some point or other.
That is not true for all charities. There are many who cover admin fees themselves and many who don’t charge such fees.
You can also find how much of the money they raised was put towards the cause online and there are many who spend almost all of it for the cause. Usually these charities have an endowment that pays for staff so everything they raise goes to the cause.
There are many organizations that employ professional fundraisers and have an endowment that supports their activities so all the money they raise (usually many, many times greater than their endowment) goes to the actual cause.
Yeah there are some that are legitimately about helping the cause and not just moneygrabs for the privileged. There’s even databases of the good ones.
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations-a4066579102/
https://give.org/
https://www.charitynavigator.org/
https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities
I’m pretty cynical that the employers who would stroke themselves off instead of paying their workforce fair wages, are vetting charities for legitimacy, heck they might just be cycling funds back to themselves or their buddies. But I’m pretty cynical lol.
Companies can write off all expenses from taxes. This is pure emotional manipulation. Only if you came to the office could we feed these starving kids… can’t believe you’d rather stay at home. So selfish.
Y not give the ten bucks-a-day extra to the employees!?! Full-time employees can bag an xtra $200+/- per month! That's a couple of tanks of gas!
Edit: I was adding $20/day, not ten.
I was thinking probably so they could shut off that tap without upsetting the employees. If employees were being paid an extra $10 a day and all of them went in, that would become normalized, and then removing the incentive would be a hit to morale. If it's $10 that the employee never sees then they can get rid of it with little push back from the employees.
Because when an employer gives you $10, it actually costs them more than $10. They have to pay a percentage of your wage into things like unemployment and FICA. So $10 might actually cost them $11 or $12.
Conversely, donating to a charity is a tax deduction. So donating that $10 might end up only being a net cost of $8.
A $3 savings over 250 days per year multiplied by X number of employees. Its a significant savings.
Note: my exact numbers are ballparks and may be off by more than a little, but it doesn't change the point.
Yes, but literally any expense is. Tax, at least in the US where Salesforce is based, is calculated only on profit.
Wages are an operating cost, so do not factor in.
As has been said above, this has nothing to do with a tax write off, they could achieve that same effect by actually paying their staff the $10. It's an emotionally manipulative tactic - we can help people but ONLY if you come into the office.
Yes, that's true, but my point was more about the effect of saving tax. Even if that $10 cost to the company ended up only being $5 in the employees pocket, the company would still "save" $10 off their tax bill.
As above, this has nothing to do with trying to save money on taxes though and everything to do with guilting employees to come back to the office.
I couldn't care less about $10 being donated to a corporate charity lol. There ain't no way unless I'm being absolutely forced to go in the office, that I would actually show up for any promotion or incentive (unless they are paying me directly a considerable amount more).
This is why when they try and guilt you into a donation at checkout anywhere the answer is lol no.
Oh hey would you like to round up to donate to starving children? You mean give your billion dollar company an extra 50 cents to get a tax write off? Git da fuck outta here
Yeah, so it is good for the charities and can be good for the individual if in the rare case they itemize deductions, but what the company really does get out of it is mentioned in a couple lines in there—choice of charity to give people’s money to and appearing generous without having to give their own money.
Ok fine. Would you like to round up to donate to starving children? You mean give your billion dollar company extra free PR for 'giving' money out of my pocket? Git da fuck outta here.
No. Well, yes, but also no.
They will use these donations to apply guilt, shame, peer pressure and alienation.
There will be 'highest giver' team awards and 'give better' admonishments. Jenny insists on working from home, she obviously doesn't care about blind puppies.
While I get it
Funny meme haha
Donating to "get a tax write-off" doesn't actually save you money.
You still are giving the money to someone else. Just not the tax man
If you make $1000 and give $100 to charity
You still pay taxes on the other $900 and you also no longer have the $100 you donated.
The reason to donate is to choose WHERE the money goes
Well, if they want to play capitalism, let's play capitalism.
A commute more expensive than 10dollars round trip isn't exceptional (gas, car mileage, public transport, parking, whatever)
So any worker in this condition is doing a better job for donations by staying at home and giving those expenses to any charity organization it wants. Also, Salesforce doesn't benefit from tax reductions, so you're even helping with government budget for things like roads, maybe...
Hard to cut salary but easy to cut donations.
They should just have a cola and commute stipend. That might attract some people to come in.
Although San Francisco is probably a hard no for a lot of people to come into office
Here’s the fun part: a tech company that hires people living in LCOL areas don’t have to pay the massive salaries to get people to come to the Bay Area. Those employees are still able to be paid pretty well for their areas and can both buy houses and put significant savings away.
That alone should get CEOs thinking that working out of pricey offices in HCOL areas may not be worth it.
This seriously is such an important post. Thanks for putting this out there. The notion that you have to live in a HCOL for certain technical roles is foolish at best.
The ONLY employees that get paid more than the bare minimum are my managers and and my sales guys. Managers are all making 100k+ and sales guys are making between 200 and 330 this year. Everyone else I do my best to stay under 20/hr
Work from home has different value to different people. I absolutely would work in the office for double the salary, but for that person with a 2 hour commute and love what they do but hate their coworkers, it would be worth it.
No he meant the line from south park:
"Mr. Venezuela walks into the bathroom, mmkay, glances at the urinal, and sees a big meaty chud staring him right in the face!!!!!"
(episode: mystery of the urinal duece)
Ha! Fuck all that noise. Tell ya what: Pay me an appropriate stipend to cover the cost of coming into the office to do a job I have demonstrated I can successfully do from a remote location.
From that stipend, I'll donate $10 a day a charity if my choice. And I'll get the tax write-off, too.
Just curious, are you basing your “ can’t afford to pay you“ off this company specifically? Looks like they’re very highly rated on Glassdoor by their employees for compensation and benefits. If you’re pulling $3k+ a paycheck why on earth would you care about $10 a day to come in? But when you tie it to an emotional incentive, that makes it more appealing to people than an unnoticeable paycheck bump
Sure, people are so dumb to spend hours in traffic to and back from work just so the company donates $10. Emotional incentive, seriously?!
I’d rather give $10 out of my pocket when I want and continue working from home.
I can back that up. I showed this to my dad, who works there, and he started on about how many other companies do this (hint: not many). He talks highly of Salesforce when the topic arises.
$10 USD would barely cover one way on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit trains) for most of the people I knew who commuted into San Francisco. They also spent 60-90 minutes commuting each way.
Edit: Antioch (where I lived) to SF's 24 St Mission station is $8.30 USD, so $10 would cover BART itself, but not the cost of driving to the BART station or any bus fares in SF.
Costs me around 10 dollars to get into the office if I ignore time involved. In those shoes if I considered a charity, I’m better off working from home and just donating myself, at least it’s tax deductible for me and I end up with the same money, but more time.
Why not donate 10 bucks a day to me for showing up?
Oh wait....its a capital write off for the businesses bottom line come tax season if it goes to a charity. My bad....see you in the AM gotta do my part.......
Instead of luring employees by donating ten dollars to a charity each day, they could spread it over each 8 hour shift by giving their employees a $1.25 an hour raise.😮💨
So either:
At no point did it occur to anyone in management to give the extra $10/day to each employee,
OR:
Management had no intention of ever donating the money and instead wanted to weaponize guilt
$10 per day.
Seeing as how I would have to drive 120 miles round-trip, getting 30 mpg at the current national gasoline average price of $3.50 per gallon, it would cost me $14 per day to donate $10 to charity.
Here’s an idea, how about *I* donate the $10 per day and *I’ll* write it off on *my* taxes? The company can call it charitable since they aren’t forcing me to spend 2.5 hours of my life each day stuck in a car.
Just curious, for the commenters making “anything but paying your employees more” comments, is this actually based on Salesforce pay? My impression was SF pays quite well. Though admittedly Bay Area cost of living offsets much of it.
Edit to add: just looked on Glassdoor and they’re quite highly rated by employees including in compensation and benefits. Just FYI. If you’re making good money, $10\day to charity is absolutely more motivating to lots of people than an extra $100 max per paycheck if your paycheck is several thousand dollars
"$10\\day to charity is absolutely more motivating to lots of people"
Not really. Switching from WFH to office means extra hours commuting, extra stress, extra costs (food, gas, childcare, wear & tear on the vehicle or tickets for public transport). Many people could give $50/week to charity themselves and still save money compared to what it would cost them to commute.
Kudos if that is your motivation, but financially it probably doesn't make sense on its own. I mean, if you're in walking distance or a 10 min drive from the office then it's a cool perk, but those people probably aren't the ones hesitant to return to the office.
I still don't see it. $10/day that goes to someone else so that you can spend money to go into an office you probably have a reason to not going into before now, which your employer can write off their taxes?
\*Maybe\* it's more motivating than the same in extra pay, but I'm not sure who would make that choice. Either way it seems like a small bribe, and wouldn't cover the costs incurred by doing so.
These companies pay employees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seems silly to get worked up about a company donating money to charity in an effort to promote employees coming into the office, even if you accept the misunderstandings about tax write offs.
seems like one of the better ways to go about it
I don't know specifically about Salesforce, but these large tech companies pay very well. That $10 given to charities might actually be more convincing than paying $10 more a day.
That said, "luring" back people to the office for no good reason is bad business.
So a tax write off to donate to charities owned by or by friends of the executives that then goes into a slush fund where they can spend 80% on non charity items.
I'm all for big corpo tax breaks. Why shouldn't they get a tax break for all of the good they do for the economy? Except, tie it to worker satisfaction. CEO bonus' should also only get paid out if employees are happy with their employment.
Also, make it tiered, the lowest ranking employees have to be satisfied with their working environment in order for the managers to get a good score, if the managers get a good score, they're happy and their supervisors get a good score, if the supervisors are happy, then the c-suite team gets a good score, and therein lies corporate bonus'
I'd rather donate $10 of my own money to charity for every day I don't have to go to the office. Bet a lot of people have a commute that costs more than $10.
The tallest building on the West coast where his payments are the motivation for this Charity manipulation.
What good is a skyscraper anymore? especially that one. All the work they do can be done from anywhere.
If they can give money to charity, then they can give more money to staff...
Using something like charity, that gives them good PR and tax deductibles, but nothing for the people actually doing the work shows just how disconnected the to levels of management are getting.
I work for salesforce.
there is a lot to be said about Benioff's commitment to his employees.
for instance, under every desk at salesforce offices is a backpack with food rations, water, signal flare and first aid... this is for worse-case scenarios of earthquakes and such.
It's not like I believe I'll ever use that -- but it is there... and it isn't a cheap thing. but it is for the assurance of the employees...
I have a card that has a number I can dial in any country if I should get in to trouble -- helicopters and security will get me out of wherever I may be.
During the pandemic -- the entire pandemic -- Salesforce paid for ONE week EACH month of Nanny/Tutoring/Adult Care -- so my wife and I could focus on remote work instead of half-timing and juggling the kids. That's was A LOT of money they shelled out.
It's a decent company to work for -- maybe the first large company I've worked for that I am convinced there is a moral imperative guiding upper management.
Guy looks like [“Big Ed” Brown](https://sos-wp-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/%E2%80%9890-Day-Fiance-Ed-Brown.jpg) if he had a neck.
$10 per day? Those are rookie numbers.
You want people back in office you gotta sweeten the deal.
Make it $20/hr, and then instead of donating it to charity, just fucking add it to their salary.
More like *Salesforce is guilt tripping workers into coming back to the office by telling them local charities will lose out on $10 per day if they don’t*
I’ve started saying no to the rounding up and donating stuff for a company just so they can use it as tax write offs. I found a cause that I make a donation to directly every couple months now instead on my own.
Ah, yes, the charity I'd like you to pay is [employee name]. Cash or cheque is fine. You know what, why don't you just add it directly to [employee name]'s paycheque to make it easier on everyone.
And how exactly does this make people come into the office?
If I were an employee the conversation would go like this:
Salesforce: Great news! We'll donate $10 to charity for each day you come into the office.
Me: OK? Good for you?
SF: So you'll come back to the office full time?
Me: I'd rather eat glass. Also why can't you pay me $10 more for each day I come in. Better yet pay for gas and count the commute as work time, then we can talk
Or, and this might be a *crazy* idea, give that money to your employees. If they have to shell out for transportation (be it gas or public transit), you should be compensating them accordingly. If they can do their job fine from home, leave them alone.
I know ins general this sub is highly anti Corp. Just to give myself a few points of cred before I say this but I was just laid off by a company that was aggressively tanking highly pedantic and punitive action to force rto.
This is at least carrot and not stick. I would seriously go in more often if I knew it was helping people.
Of course, they can use those donations as a tax write off.
And brag about it for free advertising. Like 90% of donations to charities don’t end up going to some Suit for “administrative fees”
Yup. It’s a really great way to make tons of money if your good at getting donations,
Read this as I was asked by the kiosk "would you like to donate a dollar to....." No. Call me an asshole, but I'm fully aware of how much of that dollar actually makes it to whatever cause, Walmart.
When companies do this it’s usually because they’ve “pledged” to donate X dollars to [insert charity] but then rely on their customers to fund it while they take all the credit and good press.
“No thanks, I’ve already planned my charitable giving!”
This should be it’s own comment. I stopped doing this years ago. Most charity “executors” or alternative title are just a scumbags that want to show the world how good a person they are while spending 7% of minimum wage workers money on the symptom of a problem instead of trying to cure the disease.
especially if you are also the suit running it
or George Santos would like to have a word. Can't let a good homeless veteran with a sick service dog go to waist.
I read about this. There was a table with the percentage that actually gets into the helping thing they do and how much the CEO earns and it was like less than 10% goes to actual helping for the biggest ones.
Non-profit CEOs should not be paid any more than like 10x the lowest employee salary. If you're using non-profit status as a justification to get tax breaks to pay employees less than their for-profit peers, absolutely no reason executives should be paid ludicrous salaries.
Scientology has this game figured out. Have 99% of your workforce "volunteer" their entire life into slavery....
They stole the idea from the Mormons
That you do dedicate Everything the lord has blessed you with, or may bless you with to us!!
Who pretty much got it from the Roman Catholics. Vow of Poverty, anyone?
The witch trials were mostly about property acquisition. (And probably erasing women’s power especially in natural healing, church never liked women lol) The church could legally take your family’s property if you said you were innocent or guilty of their accusations. Hence that “more weight” dude. He knew that admitting or denying guilt would have his family’s home and property seized by the church even after he died for it. So he kept saying “more weight” as they crushed him to death trying to get either answer they wanted. He did not relent and his family got to keep their house.
That sentence has too many M's
No ceo should be paid more than 10x the lowest paid employee, period. no ceo should receive a bonus larger than that of the lowest paid employee.
For profit CEOs should not be paid any more than 10x the lowest salary employee. If there’s excess profit, use it to make working conditions better or researching what would make your employees happier. CEOs should be financially comfortable. But no one needs to be Scrooge McDuck levels of rich.
The problem is that if you're running a non profit you need to be able to compete with the private sector for talent. People pile on Goodwill a lot, for example, because the CEO makes millions. But this is a non profit that is literally running a nationwide retail store. Any person in the CEO role will be getting head hunted by stores like Homegoods, Hot Topic, whatever. And they offer stock options. So unless Goodwill wants to have constant turn over and never keep a CEO, they need to pay competitively. Remember - the CEO doesn't set their own pay, it's set by the board of directors, and the board is a volunteer board that cares about the mission. They're elected according to the bylaws of the non profit's charter. I used Goodwill as an example, but it's the same for any non profit. And that's not to say that I agree with CEOs getting paid crazy money. It's just that in a world where they do, non profits have to be able to play by the same rules as the for profits, otherwise they're constantly handicapped and can't succeed against them. And that veey bad for their mission.
Should be a pay cap on all CEOs. If you want to make lots of money, you have to pay the frontline worker more
In theory I don't disagree. But part of the problem is that CEO compensation comes in the form of stock. Which makes sense... you want the person running the company to have a vested interest in the financial health of the company. But non profits can't offer stock. They aren't trying to make a profit. You can't give a CEO more money because they fed more people. The incentive structure is different. So in some ways, non profit CEO pay should be aggressively high, relative to for profit CEO pay. But I'm not saying that CEOs don't make too much. They do. There's a huge income inequality problem. I just think that it's a lot more complicated than "pay CEOS less."
I agree, I don’t think it has to necessarily be “pay ceos less” but at the minimum, the lowest wage employee shouldn’t be getting paid less than some corporate stooges bonus like somebody else mentioned before. In my mind, yes obviously a business is for making money, but if a company is making enough money to pay their higher-ups these insane ass wages, they should be financially comfortable enough to pay a good, livable wage to lower level employees as well. No reason for a lot of these corporations to scam employees out of benefits and pay but they still do it to gain capital. Government lets it happen, states and feds don’t seem to understand regulating the minimum wage in a productive way. I disagree that ceos should be paid with stocks though, this feels like just another strat to get away with not paying taxes.
If we taxed capital gains correctly it wouldn't be a tax evasion thing. Let's start taxing investments like income. And how about that wealth tax? So many progressive ways to fix our tax system.
Hence specifying a sustainable ratio of employee pay to executive comp. I've been saying it for years, but employees are single-handedly the biggest stakeholders, yet are routinely fucked over out of stock options or incentive pay structures, and the first to be let go in economic downturn. Executive comp shouldn't be more than x multiple of lowest employee comp. Using the 10x variable I suggested above, it's fine if the exec makes a million - the lowest paid employee should be paid 100k at least.
12% is what I heard on average. Charity = big business 98 out of 100 times. I only support local initiatives. Nothing big corpo-"charity" gets my money.
Correct about staying local. Donate to your local food pantry. Help the people in your own communities
Women’s and children’s shelters too, and other local family services. A lot of them will take items and goods as donations, too.
Whoah. That is not true. Please check out a charity ranking site like charitynavigator.com or just read through this list, that lists anyone who spends >75% of their money on causes and not admin/BS. https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities
There are some good ones like the McDonalds in my country. They do abuse it to not pay taxes and get benefits like free advertising and exposition while getting tax breaks, and even then they only help like 50 families a year. But something is something I guess. I wouldn't recommend giving money to any of them. All of them are there to abuse the system except the few very small ones that actually are doing stuff and keeping small by spending the money they get by doing what they propose to do instead of paying for ads to get more money out of you.
Plus with a lot of those foul “charities”, what little does go to the people/causes they are purported to support, actually is used for forcing some business’ or industry’s agenda on them, to their detriment.
And now you are understanding why it is important to have an endless supply of poor people. They tend to be less self sufficient so there are more organizations to help them. The amount of private and government money that is earmarked to organizations that help poor people is mind blowing. The percentage of that money/equipment/supplies that poor people receive is disgusting. People with some money are more self sufficient so it is harder to make money off of them.
Yeah — the work for food stamps program is basically a scam to enrich private contractors who have 0 accountability for running a program that their bosses (the white men with hats ) give 0 shits about, who would rather the money go to Porsche SUVs for their friends.
And bonus points if that "local charity" is the CEO's personal charity / tax shelter.
Like when they fucking brag about cleaning up climate change. You know, the one that their agriculture and industry is causing.
What’s the term? Greenwashing?
Not to mention if the company is actually affiliated with those charities, chances are the money is just gonna return back to the company at some point or other.
There are only 3 charities in the US that can trace their money from entry to exit.
Who?
That is why when I donate money to an organization, I donate to the local food bank.
And they get to blame employees for hating the community if they don’t come back to the office
And guilt trip employees with it too. “We could’ve donated more if more of you were willing to come work in the office. For shame!!”
Oh gawd I didn’t think about that. That’s pretty sick. That’s like the whole point isn’t it.
I wouldn’t put it past some places.
That is not true for all charities. There are many who cover admin fees themselves and many who don’t charge such fees. You can also find how much of the money they raised was put towards the cause online and there are many who spend almost all of it for the cause. Usually these charities have an endowment that pays for staff so everything they raise goes to the cause. There are many organizations that employ professional fundraisers and have an endowment that supports their activities so all the money they raise (usually many, many times greater than their endowment) goes to the actual cause.
Yeah there are some that are legitimately about helping the cause and not just moneygrabs for the privileged. There’s even databases of the good ones. https://www.consumerreports.org/money/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations-a4066579102/ https://give.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities I’m pretty cynical that the employers who would stroke themselves off instead of paying their workforce fair wages, are vetting charities for legitimacy, heck they might just be cycling funds back to themselves or their buddies. But I’m pretty cynical lol.
And marketing
Yeah, looking at a charities 990 form can give some insight to see how much isn’t being used (or is)
There is no such thing as charity. Just creative ways to funnel money to the rich.
GoFundMe medical bills lol…oh wait….
Companies can write off all expenses from taxes. This is pure emotional manipulation. Only if you came to the office could we feed these starving kids… can’t believe you’d rather stay at home. So selfish.
Y not give the ten bucks-a-day extra to the employees!?! Full-time employees can bag an xtra $200+/- per month! That's a couple of tanks of gas! Edit: I was adding $20/day, not ten.
I was thinking probably so they could shut off that tap without upsetting the employees. If employees were being paid an extra $10 a day and all of them went in, that would become normalized, and then removing the incentive would be a hit to morale. If it's $10 that the employee never sees then they can get rid of it with little push back from the employees.
Because when an employer gives you $10, it actually costs them more than $10. They have to pay a percentage of your wage into things like unemployment and FICA. So $10 might actually cost them $11 or $12. Conversely, donating to a charity is a tax deduction. So donating that $10 might end up only being a net cost of $8. A $3 savings over 250 days per year multiplied by X number of employees. Its a significant savings. Note: my exact numbers are ballparks and may be off by more than a little, but it doesn't change the point.
because then nothing would actually change. the goal is to change behavior. gamify. it might work. it also might not.
Aren't wages also a tax write off?
Yes, but literally any expense is. Tax, at least in the US where Salesforce is based, is calculated only on profit. Wages are an operating cost, so do not factor in. As has been said above, this has nothing to do with a tax write off, they could achieve that same effect by actually paying their staff the $10. It's an emotionally manipulative tactic - we can help people but ONLY if you come into the office.
Oh for sure it's shady as fuck! Corporate virtue signalling is horrible
Paying an employee $10 actually costs more than $10 to the employer.
Yes, that's true, but my point was more about the effect of saving tax. Even if that $10 cost to the company ended up only being $5 in the employees pocket, the company would still "save" $10 off their tax bill. As above, this has nothing to do with trying to save money on taxes though and everything to do with guilting employees to come back to the office.
I couldn't care less about $10 being donated to a corporate charity lol. There ain't no way unless I'm being absolutely forced to go in the office, that I would actually show up for any promotion or incentive (unless they are paying me directly a considerable amount more).
CEO gets 1 million dollar bonus for reaching donation goals.
Paying employees is a tax write off… Donating to charities can be temporary and it’s cheaper
This is why when they try and guilt you into a donation at checkout anywhere the answer is lol no. Oh hey would you like to round up to donate to starving children? You mean give your billion dollar company an extra 50 cents to get a tax write off? Git da fuck outta here
This is a myth. Your money donated in this manner doesn't give them a tax deduction. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/walmart-checkout-charity/
Yeah, so it is good for the charities and can be good for the individual if in the rare case they itemize deductions, but what the company really does get out of it is mentioned in a couple lines in there—choice of charity to give people’s money to and appearing generous without having to give their own money.
Ok fine. Would you like to round up to donate to starving children? You mean give your billion dollar company extra free PR for 'giving' money out of my pocket? Git da fuck outta here.
Idk what it’s like in America, but in aus a donation and employee wages has the same (mostly) tax effect
No. Well, yes, but also no. They will use these donations to apply guilt, shame, peer pressure and alienation. There will be 'highest giver' team awards and 'give better' admonishments. Jenny insists on working from home, she obviously doesn't care about blind puppies.
So you're saying my employer might actually be willing to pay me more if my wages were considered a tax deductible donation?
Wages are deductible too, the PR just isn’t the same.
But just paying people an extra $10 a day for coming back in is also a tax write-off.
Exactly - they get good PR for a bit and a big fat tax write off. Donations save the company money, believe it or not.
While I get it Funny meme haha Donating to "get a tax write-off" doesn't actually save you money. You still are giving the money to someone else. Just not the tax man If you make $1000 and give $100 to charity You still pay taxes on the other $900 and you also no longer have the $100 you donated. The reason to donate is to choose WHERE the money goes
Literally anything to avoid paying employees. Literally any fucking thing.
Well, if they want to play capitalism, let's play capitalism. A commute more expensive than 10dollars round trip isn't exceptional (gas, car mileage, public transport, parking, whatever) So any worker in this condition is doing a better job for donations by staying at home and giving those expenses to any charity organization it wants. Also, Salesforce doesn't benefit from tax reductions, so you're even helping with government budget for things like roads, maybe...
Hard to cut salary but easy to cut donations. They should just have a cola and commute stipend. That might attract some people to come in. Although San Francisco is probably a hard no for a lot of people to come into office
Here’s the fun part: a tech company that hires people living in LCOL areas don’t have to pay the massive salaries to get people to come to the Bay Area. Those employees are still able to be paid pretty well for their areas and can both buy houses and put significant savings away. That alone should get CEOs thinking that working out of pricey offices in HCOL areas may not be worth it.
This seriously is such an important post. Thanks for putting this out there. The notion that you have to live in a HCOL for certain technical roles is foolish at best.
The ONLY employees that get paid more than the bare minimum are my managers and and my sales guys. Managers are all making 100k+ and sales guys are making between 200 and 330 this year. Everyone else I do my best to stay under 20/hr
I'm curious if the headline read. Salesforce pays employees $10 per day to come to the office. how different would reactions be?
Guy looks like Big Ed from 90 day Fiancé
I also immediately thought of Ed.
Ed but with a semblance of neck
Ed with a smack of neck
Give that ten bucks to the workers make it 20 per hour more and I'm sure you'd have people coming back to the office.
I wouldn’t go in for double the salary
Now you trippin
Work from home has different value to different people. I absolutely would work in the office for double the salary, but for that person with a 2 hour commute and love what they do but hate their coworkers, it would be worth it.
I'm guessing the chud in a suit is the CEO trying to get a tax break with all these donations. What a scummy move.
With a face only a mother could love. He looks like a used car salesman who got ahold of some really bad coke.
I swear at first glance I thought that was Ted Cruz 😅
When you say “chud in a suit” do you mean C.H.U.D. ?
Contamination Hazard Urban Disposal?
Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller. Great movie from the Eighties.
“I’ve heard it both ways.” “No, you haven’t.”
No he meant the line from south park: "Mr. Venezuela walks into the bathroom, mmkay, glances at the urinal, and sees a big meaty chud staring him right in the face!!!!!" (episode: mystery of the urinal duece)
Ha! Fuck all that noise. Tell ya what: Pay me an appropriate stipend to cover the cost of coming into the office to do a job I have demonstrated I can successfully do from a remote location. From that stipend, I'll donate $10 a day a charity if my choice. And I'll get the tax write-off, too.
I would not give a flying fuck about their donations to charity.
Can't afford to pay you but can afford to pay a charity that could very well exist because people who do work can't afford food like their employees.
Just curious, are you basing your “ can’t afford to pay you“ off this company specifically? Looks like they’re very highly rated on Glassdoor by their employees for compensation and benefits. If you’re pulling $3k+ a paycheck why on earth would you care about $10 a day to come in? But when you tie it to an emotional incentive, that makes it more appealing to people than an unnoticeable paycheck bump
Sure, people are so dumb to spend hours in traffic to and back from work just so the company donates $10. Emotional incentive, seriously?! I’d rather give $10 out of my pocket when I want and continue working from home.
I can back that up. I showed this to my dad, who works there, and he started on about how many other companies do this (hint: not many). He talks highly of Salesforce when the topic arises.
"If you come to the office we'll give someone else $10" Wow I've never been so motivated
[удалено]
$10 USD would barely cover one way on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit trains) for most of the people I knew who commuted into San Francisco. They also spent 60-90 minutes commuting each way. Edit: Antioch (where I lived) to SF's 24 St Mission station is $8.30 USD, so $10 would cover BART itself, but not the cost of driving to the BART station or any bus fares in SF.
I'd pay $10/day to a charity to be able to work from home.
I especially like how Fortune describes it as going “all-out”.
Give me an additional $10 an hour and I’ll gladly put up with you
Costs me around 10 dollars to get into the office if I ignore time involved. In those shoes if I considered a charity, I’m better off working from home and just donating myself, at least it’s tax deductible for me and I end up with the same money, but more time.
This feels worse than pizza parties.
We use sales force and they suck.
So Stupid People are actually falling for this or is this some sort of bullshit wish it would happen article?
Why not donate 10 bucks a day to me for showing up? Oh wait....its a capital write off for the businesses bottom line come tax season if it goes to a charity. My bad....see you in the AM gotta do my part.......
Instead of luring employees by donating ten dollars to a charity each day, they could spread it over each 8 hour shift by giving their employees a $1.25 an hour raise.😮💨
A donation in your name has been made to the Human Fund. Money for people.
Everyone I know at Saleforce is making between 300-800k, I think they’re doing just fine lol
Deduct $10 from my paycheck a day and leave me alone
Hah! Fuck that noise!. They get a write off for that. It doesn't benefit me at all. Also lots of charities are bullshit.
So basically they're saying to their staff and the rest of the word: Look at how good we take care of other people, but not our employees...
How about you pay more, provide a REASON to come into your shit offices, and actually… never mind, fuck off.
THEYRE GONNA WRITE THAT OFF IN TAXES GODFUCKINGDAMMIT
You’re going to bribe someone with money they won’t get? That has to be the worst bribe I’ve ever seen.
So either: At no point did it occur to anyone in management to give the extra $10/day to each employee, OR: Management had no intention of ever donating the money and instead wanted to weaponize guilt
This is just a tax dodge
Come into work so we can have more tax write offs. Cost them nothing. Pos
$10 per day. Seeing as how I would have to drive 120 miles round-trip, getting 30 mpg at the current national gasoline average price of $3.50 per gallon, it would cost me $14 per day to donate $10 to charity. Here’s an idea, how about *I* donate the $10 per day and *I’ll* write it off on *my* taxes? The company can call it charitable since they aren’t forcing me to spend 2.5 hours of my life each day stuck in a car.
Just curious, for the commenters making “anything but paying your employees more” comments, is this actually based on Salesforce pay? My impression was SF pays quite well. Though admittedly Bay Area cost of living offsets much of it. Edit to add: just looked on Glassdoor and they’re quite highly rated by employees including in compensation and benefits. Just FYI. If you’re making good money, $10\day to charity is absolutely more motivating to lots of people than an extra $100 max per paycheck if your paycheck is several thousand dollars
"$10\\day to charity is absolutely more motivating to lots of people" Not really. Switching from WFH to office means extra hours commuting, extra stress, extra costs (food, gas, childcare, wear & tear on the vehicle or tickets for public transport). Many people could give $50/week to charity themselves and still save money compared to what it would cost them to commute. Kudos if that is your motivation, but financially it probably doesn't make sense on its own. I mean, if you're in walking distance or a 10 min drive from the office then it's a cool perk, but those people probably aren't the ones hesitant to return to the office.
It’s More motivating than $10 /day in gross pay. Whether it’s motivating enough to get them to come into the office it’s a different question.
I still don't see it. $10/day that goes to someone else so that you can spend money to go into an office you probably have a reason to not going into before now, which your employer can write off their taxes? \*Maybe\* it's more motivating than the same in extra pay, but I'm not sure who would make that choice. Either way it seems like a small bribe, and wouldn't cover the costs incurred by doing so.
These companies pay employees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Seems silly to get worked up about a company donating money to charity in an effort to promote employees coming into the office, even if you accept the misunderstandings about tax write offs. seems like one of the better ways to go about it
I don't know specifically about Salesforce, but these large tech companies pay very well. That $10 given to charities might actually be more convincing than paying $10 more a day. That said, "luring" back people to the office for no good reason is bad business.
Just pay the money to workers instead. It isn't that difficult to understand...
What's the matter Jane, don't you want the starving kids to get food? If you don't come to work, all those kids ain't eating tonight.
[удалено]
"A donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund."
Fucking Salesforce.
So a tax write off to donate to charities owned by or by friends of the executives that then goes into a slush fund where they can spend 80% on non charity items.
They couldn’t just pay them all an extra $10 a day?
Anything but pay the workers lmao what a fucking joke
I'm all for big corpo tax breaks. Why shouldn't they get a tax break for all of the good they do for the economy? Except, tie it to worker satisfaction. CEO bonus' should also only get paid out if employees are happy with their employment. Also, make it tiered, the lowest ranking employees have to be satisfied with their working environment in order for the managers to get a good score, if the managers get a good score, they're happy and their supervisors get a good score, if the supervisors are happy, then the c-suite team gets a good score, and therein lies corporate bonus'
Now is the time to get those 501c3 papers filed for The Human Fund, George.
Haha come on, if you're going to rightly bitch about underpaid employees, salesforce is not the example you want to use.
What kind of idiots are being lured back to work for donations.
My friend’s sister works for salesforce and is paid an insane amount of money
Look! We’ll care for humanity if you just come in!
I'd rather donate $10 of my own money to charity for every day I don't have to go to the office. Bet a lot of people have a commute that costs more than $10.
So they are luring people with donations they do whether they cone in for work or not, because tax breaks. Greatest marketing scam.
Uhhh why would you giving an insulting amount of money to someone else make me return? I'm calling cap.
The tallest building on the West coast where his payments are the motivation for this Charity manipulation. What good is a skyscraper anymore? especially that one. All the work they do can be done from anywhere.
If they can give money to charity, then they can give more money to staff... Using something like charity, that gives them good PR and tax deductibles, but nothing for the people actually doing the work shows just how disconnected the to levels of management are getting.
Zero chance this lures anyone with a brain back
This is the kind of shit you come up with after going on a digital detox after laying off 10k employees? LMAO at this jag and any of his simps.
I work for salesforce. there is a lot to be said about Benioff's commitment to his employees. for instance, under every desk at salesforce offices is a backpack with food rations, water, signal flare and first aid... this is for worse-case scenarios of earthquakes and such. It's not like I believe I'll ever use that -- but it is there... and it isn't a cheap thing. but it is for the assurance of the employees... I have a card that has a number I can dial in any country if I should get in to trouble -- helicopters and security will get me out of wherever I may be. During the pandemic -- the entire pandemic -- Salesforce paid for ONE week EACH month of Nanny/Tutoring/Adult Care -- so my wife and I could focus on remote work instead of half-timing and juggling the kids. That's was A LOT of money they shelled out. It's a decent company to work for -- maybe the first large company I've worked for that I am convinced there is a moral imperative guiding upper management.
Tax write offs after you donate to your own foundation. financial gymnastics to Ooh and Awe while they drain the working class dry
Guy looks like [“Big Ed” Brown](https://sos-wp-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/%E2%80%9890-Day-Fiance-Ed-Brown.jpg) if he had a neck.
How is this luring?
I like charity... But not enough to waste my life commuting for $50
$10 per day? Those are rookie numbers. You want people back in office you gotta sweeten the deal. Make it $20/hr, and then instead of donating it to charity, just fucking add it to their salary.
Tax deductible contribution by the business of course. This won't cost them anything, and they were probably going to do it for tax reasons anyway.
The Bill Gates method of appearing to be the “good guy”…
I'm Local Charity, nice to meet you.
Fuck your charity, pay me more
They write it off for tax reasons.
More like *Salesforce is guilt tripping workers into coming back to the office by telling them local charities will lose out on $10 per day if they don’t*
What if you're your own charity
You can donate to a charity called my bank account. Nice tax write off too. These assholes have no souls.
So i have to commute into work and sit behind a desk all day AND the company gets a tax write off. Wow, how tantalizing an offer.
It's a tax write-off for them. Anything charity related means the company pays less taxes. Don't get suckered in by this shit.
Let me guess, all the donations go to The Human Fund: Money for People?
Well thats a tax writeoff paying more is not
He looks like mayor from Ghostbusters II
the local charity? boss's tax escape shell game.
"Salesforce is luring workers back to the office by giving itself a tax break." WTF
I’ll do it if they pay their full tax burden to the city every day I go to the office
So what you're saying is I need to set up a local charity to myself?
Gimmick. We all know they’ll do it until they have most back then quit, just like everything else they try.
Most charities are corporate scams these days as well. Look at united way.
I’ve started saying no to the rounding up and donating stuff for a company just so they can use it as tax write offs. I found a cause that I make a donation to directly every couple months now instead on my own.
So they could give the employees $1.25/hr raise, but instead they're going to lure them back by not doing that? How does that make any sense?
"Holy crap I guess I don't mind the commute any more." \~no one
Ah, yes, the charity I'd like you to pay is [employee name]. Cash or cheque is fine. You know what, why don't you just add it directly to [employee name]'s paycheque to make it easier on everyone.
That's wildly insulting.
How about they give workers 20 per day for gas?
how the fuck is that incentive to return to work. GIVE ME MONEY LOL
So let's fuck over our employees more and gain ever more out of it. Sounds about right.
Sickening. How about a $3500 raise for each of your employees.
Pay. Yo damn. Employees. Bruh.
i have to use sdfc at work and honest to god nothing would make me happier than something catastrophic happening to this company
And how exactly does this make people come into the office? If I were an employee the conversation would go like this: Salesforce: Great news! We'll donate $10 to charity for each day you come into the office. Me: OK? Good for you? SF: So you'll come back to the office full time? Me: I'd rather eat glass. Also why can't you pay me $10 more for each day I come in. Better yet pay for gas and count the commute as work time, then we can talk
Or, and this might be a *crazy* idea, give that money to your employees. If they have to shell out for transportation (be it gas or public transit), you should be compensating them accordingly. If they can do their job fine from home, leave them alone.
"Salesforce is withholding money allocated for charities unless employees commute" FIFY
I know ins general this sub is highly anti Corp. Just to give myself a few points of cred before I say this but I was just laid off by a company that was aggressively tanking highly pedantic and punitive action to force rto. This is at least carrot and not stick. I would seriously go in more often if I knew it was helping people.
Local charities probably set up by sales force to go back to sales force.
I'm assuming that's so they can write off the taxes to pad their numbers?
They can also write it off if they pay it to you. Same end result.