Google doodle

[Dannyalcatraz]

The question, really, is "Is it more efficacious for the government to allow citizens to choose which charities the government gives to by forking up the money initially, or would some alternative method of determining how the government allocates the same money (say, with a kind of rating system made up from aggregated taxpayer preferences) work better?" Whether the same charities would get roughly the same amount of money from the government without the tax deduction method of allocation is the real issue.

We know that certain kinds of charities absolutely depend on direct or indierect government assistance. Many artistic/quality of life programs- inner city arts programs, B&G Clubs, relatively new charities, etc.- report that their private donations fluctuate in proportion to the sums they get from government programs- the more the government gives, the more private parties do. Some even report that withdrawal or big reductions of government funding utterly craters private donations because government funding acts like a "seal of approval" that a charity is legitimate. So when government money dries up, the private donors scurry away.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Linky-dinky

First things first: This thread is not for discussion of the statement the doodle was meant to make. We can't talk about that here so forget whether you're pro-rainbow or not.

Ok, with that out of the way, here's why I posted this link: How do you feel about corporations taking stands like this (any stand at all - the article is just a handy example)?

I don't see a problem with it.

Do you think it's fair to the company's employees to take a global position on something like this?

Sure, why not? For the most part, Google attracts people that have similar interests and views. Then they mold them to fit the company vision. It's not as if Google keeps its social commentary secret. You know going in what Google, and other companies like it, are doing.

Do you think it reflects on the nation the company is based in in any way?

I'm sure it can, but I doubt it is going to change someone's view on a nation. It's not as if some guy in Afghanistan is going to go "Eh, I used to like the U.S., but Google's support of gay rights (or whatever other topic) has changed my mind. They are an evil empire." More likely they will already have a negative view of a country and use this (or some other comment/action by a company) to support their view of said country.

Is it something that we need to look at on a case by case basis - in other words, is a making a statement about something like green energy or global warming different than one about civil rights?

Why?

I don't know how I'd feel if the company I work for did something like this. I mean, it gives money to charities like St Jude and ACA every year but I see that as different. I mean, what if I didn't agree with what they told the world they obviously do? Just who do people see that 'they' as? It's interesting that Google did this but I have to wonder what exactly it means to their employees.

Google, and companies like it hire people they can mold into a certain type of person. They also tend to attract a certain type of person. Chances are the employees at Google are all (or the large majority) behind this. Generally it is advised that you research a company you are interviewing with. You should know a bit about that company, and if yo find things that you don't like, don't apply with them. If they change during your tenure, you are free to leave.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I really don't understand the idea that a company should ever have an obligation to "stay neutral". Neutrality in a power-imbalance situation always favors the oppressor, never the oppressed. It's complicit complacency.

As such, I find pleas that any company should just "stay neutral" to be terribly dishonest. If nothing else, the person making the plea is being dishonest with themself about what "neutrality" means in the real world.

That aside, I prefer dialogue to censorship. I'd rather a company be upfront with what it supports. That way I know whether I want to support them. That goes both pro and con. There are various companies that I won't do business with if I can avoid because I don't wish to support them. Similarly, there are those I'll chose over their otherwise-equal competitors because they've taken actions to earn my favor.

Further, you have to remember that not all statements are explicit. Google's doodle? Explicit statement of support. Coca-Cola being a sponsor of the Olympics? Implicit statement of support. Why should one statement be allowed but another frowned upon?

 

[Tonguez]

​

Wat?

I didnt even get a gay rainbow association when I saw tje google doodle, it was just some coloured panels associated with sports

And all power tto google for it

 

[Zombie_Babies]

What I think is interesting is that many of the replies so far illustrate exactly why I think this may not be fair to the employees. Everyone is referring to 'the company'. Well, who is 'the company'? Did the mailclerk get to take part in the meeting where the decision to make the statement was made? What about your average business analyst or even department manager? That's sort of the point. We talk about 'the company' when 1 or 2 percent of its employees had anything to do with this.

And yeah, the people could just quit if they didn't like the statement. That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.

 

[Morrus]

I dunno. Is that any different to any other company policy or product that individual employees disapprove of? Companies make decisions all the time, and every employee doesn't have to agree with every decision.

 

[Umbran]

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]

Depends on how you measure efficiency.

Somewhat paradoxically, government welfare operations actually spend more of each dollar in their budget on the people they're meant to serve as opposed to administrative costs than most private charities do. Economies of scale make that happen. So do government wages.

So, 8% of the entire SNAP (aka Food stamp program) goes to administration costs (and more than half of that is for reimbursing state-level administrative costs). Most charities are doing well if they only allocate 25% of their budget administrative costs. Not only do they keep admin costs low, but the current US Ag estimate on SNAP fraud is between 2-3%.

One example is demonstrative that it can be done well, yes. It isn't proof that it is *generally* done well.

There's lots of charities who spend 80% or more of their money on the "mission", rather than on administrative costs. Yes, many of these are large, so economy of scale comes into play. There are multiple agencies out there checking on this for you, and reporting on it for free.

How much of our government runs with less than 20% overhead, really? How easy is it for a normal person to discover whether a program is running well?

Government welfare programs also tend to hit economic sectors private charities simply don't.

Charity coverage is by no means universal, true. But I'm not arguing that we should get rid of all government assistance. I'm just saying that some small encouragement for private citizens to get into charity work is likely justified as darned useful and worthwhile.

 

[Umbran]

I do not think it is about who is more efficient with the money, though that is a closely related question. The tax deduction for charity is not really about spending money but rather allocating it.

My point is that it is somewhat about spending the money. If the charity can do the same job more cheaply, the government should encourage private engagement directly with the charity rather than through government programs. I don't mean it in the extreme sense of "government should be in the business of charity". Merely that there's probably sound economic reason for the government to encourage private involvement in charity, alongside government efforts.

 

[Umbran]

That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.

As noted before, there's a whole lot of decisions the company makes that have impact on the world - where/from whom you get your supplies, where/how the work gets done, what benefits get offered to which employees, and so on. All of these have ethical implications, and the guy in the mailroom doesn't usually have a say in those, either.

Corporations are not democracies, generally. Only some of the employees get to set policy. Whether it is fair or not, it is required for efficient operation of the business concern.

What is unfair is blaming the guy in the mailroom for a decision he had no part in.

 

[EscherEnigma]

What I think is interesting is that many of the replies so far illustrate exactly why I think this may not be fair to the employees. Everyone is referring to 'the company'. Well, who is 'the company'? Did the mailclerk get to take part in the meeting where the decision to make the statement was made? What about your average business analyst or even department manager? That's sort of the point. We talk about 'the company' when 1 or 2 percent of its employees had anything to do with this.

And yeah, the people could just quit if they didn't like the statement. That doesn't mean the decision was fair, however.

Do you also apply this to Intel's decision to go for "conflict free minerals"? That's a political statement to. One that probably had an impact on the bottom line. What about every advertisement ever? Remember that big ol' flap because Cheerio's had a commercial with a bi-racial girl? Or Coca-Cola's recent upset because they had America the Beautiful sung in different languages? How would the marketing department ever function if they caved to your idea of "fairness" towards the employees?

And where would that lead the company anyway? If the executive leadership wants to continue to have the company behave in a way they view as moral, but they have to make sure they're "fair" to their employees, now they have to have an idealogical test before they hire anyone?

I mean hell, Google annually gives away something like $100,000,000 (well, according to their own website anyway) in grants. I'm pretty confident that not everyone at Google is going to agree with all the recipients. And if you're asking them to wait for some sort of consensus among their employees, or even a majority, that's gonna take a while with 50000 employees. So either they do no giving, or they shut down operations for at least a few days as everyone sits down to research the background of each and every possible grant recipient.

To hell with fair, being "fair" doesn't sound terribly workable.