Comments on: A Really Bad Deal

By: Scott from Ohio

Scott from Ohio — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:11:00 +0000

It's not "member benefits," it's "employee benefits." Those would be employees of the union itself, including administrators, not the members.

By: Fifty Ville

Fifty Ville — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:38:00 +0000

A good charity is defined as one that uses a minimum of 80% of revenues to support its main function, and a maximum of 20% towards overhead and fundraising.

Unions, on the other hand, appear to be nothing more than social clubs for the gullible. Would you donate to a charity where only 11% went towards its goals?

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:59:00 +0000

Amen to that, Matt. Upon once being tasked to look into raising support from charities for a medical mission, I narrowed my list to the dozen most promising candidates. Upon reading the 990 PF statements required by the IRS, I discovered: Charitable Trust "A" spent 3.5 out of 4 million bucks on 'legal services' supporting their organization. Charitable Trust "B" hid from their advertizing that their "Christian" mission was to send over 80% of their dispersed funds to Planned Parenthood. Charitable Trust "C" sent over 90% of their donations in support of Charitable Trust "D", who sent over 90% of their donations in support of Charitable Trust "E", who sent 90% of their donations to Charitable Trust "C". Things to think about as you hear "supported by the _____ Charitable Trust, dedicated to a safer, healthier planet" or some such hogwash.

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:50:00 +0000

Well, let's just say, in the spirit of providing care rather than managing the providers, in whatever like the old Bell Telephone slogan can "reach out and touch someone". Blowing stuff up certainly is letting them know you care.

By: Samrobb

Samrobb — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:45:00 +0000

The old Combined Federal Campaign rules (pre-2006) disallowed participation by charitable organizations that spent more than 25% of their income on administration and fund-raising, and the vast majority of organizations were able to report < 15% spending in those areas. The evidence seems to be that everyone except the government is capable of accomplishing this basic feat.

By: mantispid

mantispid — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:47:00 +0000

Need to split out 'member benefits' and 'administrative costs'. Aren't 'member benefits' ones of the roles of Unions?

By: marque2

marque2 — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:22:00 +0000

The whole rebate thing was a canard. We were all told that health insurers were using all sorts of money on their bureaucracy we were led to believe it was something like 50% of the money or more. Those guys are really ripping us off, and then some of them were actually showing a profit to boot.

Well I my rebate check - those bastards were spending so much on overhead they had to return 97 CENTS to me - and I have private insurance! And I think this was the same for most folk. The claims that we would get $100's of dollars back from this rebate were phony.

And if you think about it, how could they be anything other than phony? What business would contract with a health insurer that was not providing value for the overhead? What private person would contract with an insurance company that charged an outrageous rate compared to others? Seems like the free market creates the efficiency.

By: Matthew Slyfield

Matthew Slyfield — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:58:00 +0000

What about the military?

Where does 85% of their budget go? Blowing stuff up?

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:24:00 +0000

Warren, could the same principle apply to all gov. services?
1. 85% of every public university's expenses go to teaching, not admin, sports, or others.
2. 85% of every road budget go to construction/maintenance, not admin, "here's your tax dollars" advertising, or planning.
3. 85% of every post office budget go to mail delivery, not pensions, yada.
4. 85% of every NASA budget go to missions, not muslim outreach.
This management standard could really catch on...

By: Matthew Slyfield

Matthew Slyfield — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:55:00 +0000

Actually the best way to detect scam charities is not looking at admin costs vs total budget, but fund raising costs. There are "charities" out there that spend as much as 85% on fund raising alone. Then take out 12% admin costs and 2% get's spent on the charities supposed mission.