Delta Is Giving Away 1% of Its Profits to Charity

[FWAAA]

The petty arguments in this thread demonstrate why it may not be the best idea for hugely profitable companies to allocate part of the shareholders' money to charities selected by other people, be they management or rank and file employees.

The Delta employees just received $1.5 billion dollars of DL's 2015 profits, equal to about 20% of the corporation's profits. The employees get to do whatever they want with their money. Management probably shared the wealth with their bonuses as well. What's left, of course, belongs to shareholders.

And now, with the news that DL will be charitable with about $37 million of Other People's Money, DL employees have already asked "Will employees have a say in the spending of that OPM?"

It might be reasonable for Delta's shareholders to say "Maybe DL should stick to doing what DL does best (running a reliable and profitable airline) and then leave the philanthropy to the owners of the capital."

I'm not anti-charity; I'm just not convinced that corporations should make charitable gifts. Many here probably believe that corporations and unions should not spend money influencing politics (yep, Citizens United), and I put charitable giving in about the same category.

 

[townpete]

Why can't you just answer him?

Looks like he did and capped it with an exclamation point.

 

[Kev3188]

FWAAA--

That's a valid point, and I don't necessarily disagree. If I had my druthers, it would be rolled back into the tools we need to do our jobs.

That said, this is happening, and the tacit implication is that it's being done on our collective behalf. With that as the backdrop, I don't think wondering where it's going is unreasonable.

FWIW, this gift works about to about $462.5 per employee. Why not take that and multiply it by by the number of people in each station, and let them decide where that sum goes? Think global, act local...

 

[Kev3188]

Looks like he did and capped it with an exclamation point.

Only if you count some petulant foot stomping and an attempt at wedge driving as an answer...

 

[townpete]

The petty arguments in this thread demonstrate why it may not be the best idea for hugely profitable companies to allocate part of the shareholders' money to charities selected by other people, be they management or rank and file employees.The Delta employees just received $1.5 billion dollars of DL's 2015 profits, equal to about 20% of the corporation's profits. The employees get to do whatever they want with their money. Management probably shared the wealth with their bonuses as well. What's left, of course, belongs to shareholders.And now, with the news that DL will be charitable with about $37 million of Other People's Money, DL employees have already asked "Will employees have a say in the spending of that OPM?"It might be reasonable for Delta's shareholders to say "Maybe DL should stick to doing what DL does best (running a reliable and profitable airline) and then leave the philanthropy to the owners of the capital."I'm not anti-charity; I'm just not convinced that corporations should make charitable gifts. Many here probably believe that corporations and unions should not spend money influencing politics (yep, Citizens United), and I put charitable giving in about the same category.

There's a certain mindset of some that what you do with your money is their business, and what I do with my money is their business as well.

And when the company does something positive they go out of their way to poke holes or create drama from whole cloth.

 

[townpete]

FWAAA--
That's a valid point, and I don't necessarily disagree. If I had my druthers, it would be rolled back into the tools we need to do our jobs.
That said, this is happening, and the tacit implication is that it's being done on our collective behalf. With that as the backdrop, I don't think wondering where it's going is unreasonable.
FWIW, this gift works about to about $462.5 per employee. Why not take that and multiply it by by the number of people in each station, and let them decide where that sum goes? Think global, act local...

It's not your company to run as some fanciful collective socialist experiment.

How about you start your own company and run it how you see fit and let others do the same.

 

[Kev3188]

Actually, it /is/ my company. Yours too, assuming you're still an active employee, shareholder, or both...

 

[townpete]

Actually, it /is/ my company. Yours too, assuming you're still an active employee, shareholder, or both...

 
It's not actually "your" company. You're an employee of said company to do a specific job and for that you are compensated. Anything outside of that you have no control over.
 
You seem to be confused on what constitutes an employer-employee relationship.

 

[Kev3188]

Not confused in the slightest. You sell your shares?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I have a vested interest in this. They hold my pension. I have no problem with them giving some to charity so long as it is to something I support. If not, put it back into making money to ensure the continued viability of what I am owed as part of my previous employment contract.

 

[townpete]

I have a vested interest in this. They hold my pension. I have no problem with them giving some to charity so long as it is to something I support. If not, put it back into making money to ensure the continued viability of what I am owed as part of my previous employment contract.

 
You have no say or influence in the matter.

 

[eolesen]

All of the airlines I've worked will consider issuing tickets to charitable organizations for their travel needs.

Another way this could work is allowing employees to volunteer somewhere of their choosing on the clock.

AA used to allow that unofficially -- I was able to take my entire team to go work on a Habitat for Humanity house on the clock, and we had a similar arrangement with Junior Achievement. At Amadeus, I was allowed to do volunteering and even some training for Boy Scouts without having to burn up my vacation time.

That can add up very, very quickly when you keep track of it.

If you have 80,000 employees earning an average of $25, and allow everyone up to 16 hours, that by itself adds up to ~$32M in donated time.

But direct donations? That can be a seriously slippery slope and has the potential to offend both employees and customers depending on who it is or isn't.

 

[topDawg]

Good for them and those who are in receipt of it.

It would be nice if they allowed the employees to somehow have a say in where it went.

Agreed. I'd rather not have anything to do with United way for example. They use to at least be in the bottom of charities that actually give money to charity. The bulk of donations go to running the organization.
 
however that is really the only one I would change. 
 

They always have

they have? I don't remember getting a chance to pick who Delta gives money too. 
 

 
It just kills some of you that DAL does something good.
 
And you have to bend over backwards and try to poke holes in it.
 
Un-fricken-believable....

who said that? learn how to read. 
 

The petty arguments in this thread demonstrate why it may not be the best idea for hugely profitable companies to allocate part of the shareholders' money to charities selected by other people, be they management or rank and file employees.

The Delta employees just received $1.5 billion dollars of DL's 2015 profits, equal to about 20% of the corporation's profits. The employees get to do whatever they want with their money. Management probably shared the wealth with their bonuses as well. What's left, of course, belongs to shareholders.

And now, with the news that DL will be charitable with about $37 million of Other People's Money, DL employees have already asked "Will employees have a say in the spending of that OPM?"

It might be reasonable for Delta's shareholders to say "Maybe DL should stick to doing what DL does best (running a reliable and profitable airline) and then leave the philanthropy to the owners of the capital."

I'm not anti-charity; I'm just not convinced that corporations should make charitable gifts. Many here probably believe that corporations and unions should not spend money influencing politics (yep, Citizens United), and I put charitable giving in about the same category.

FWIW a lot of it isn't coming really from Delta's pockets but Delta is just being the middle man. 
 
having said that, I hope everyone gives a little money when they can to the Delta employee/retiree care fund!