NetJets cuts its pledged donations

[-FlyAuburn-]

You mean like not furlough 495 pilots due to success of the voluntary measures??

+1

Those charities can have their money when the 495 get their jobs back and the company is on better financial footing.

 

[Sparse]

In the letter, Wexner told Buffett that he was “shocked and appalled” that NetJets “(turned) its back on the community.”

“Your company reneged on numerous charitable commitments totaling millions of dollars here in central Ohio,” he wrote. “The explanation? Berkshire Hathaway/NetJets had a tough year. Well, we all have had a tough year.”


Full story continues

Things change. It is a pledge not a gaurantee. Anybody half educated about fund raising knows that pledges are subject to change. Ask this yahoo if he would rather see the pledge converted or keep NJ and it's employee and tax base in Columbus. Additionally, such a hair brained comment might affect any future comittment NJ might be inclined to make, once this downturn reverses.

 

[Smoke]

+1

Those charities can have their money when the 495 get their jobs back and the company is on better financial footing.

Those jobs are not coming back.....And it was more like 800 employees laid off....Pilots are not the only ones that work at NetJets.

 

[NJAowner]

It is a pledge not a guarantee [sic]. Anybody half educated about fund raising knows that pledges are subject to change.

Actually that is not the case. Most larger charitable contracts (especially when someone or a company gets lots of exposure) is a legally enforcable contract and is NOT usually subject to change. Once in a while charities do take the unsual step of seeking to enforce the pledge and are usually successful. The premise is that the charity is relying upon that COMMITMENT and is moving forward on that behalf. For good PR (and the hope of getting future large commitments), charities usually do not seek to enforce the commitment.

While we all want pilots to be recalled, if assume the union contract does not require all pilots to be recalled before the comany can make charitable contributions.

I am not in favor of anyone (or compamny) making commitments and then walking away from them. I serious doubt RTS would have walked away.

Fly safe.

 

[imacdog]

NJAOwner, you may be surprised about that last sentence.

 

[o2bflyn]

It is a pledge not a guarantee [sic]. Anybody half educated about fund raising knows that pledges are subject to change.

Actually that is not the case. Most larger charitable contracts (especially when someone or a company gets lots of exposure) is a legally enforcable contract and is NOT usually subject to change. Once in a while charities do take the unsual step of seeking to enforce the pledge and are usually successful. The premise is that the charity is relying upon that COMMITMENT and is moving forward on that behalf. For good PR (and the hope of getting future large commitments), charities usually do not seek to enforce the commitment.

While we all want pilots to be recalled, if assume the union contract does not require all pilots to be recalled before the comany can make charitable contributions.

I am not in favor of anyone (or compamny) making commitments and then walking away from them. I serious doubt RTS would have walked away.

Fly safe.

Netjets, like all other companies effected in this recession, needs to return to profitability. Drastic times sometime call for drastic measures. I am sure that Netjets would have loved to honor this pledge, but I would never expect them to honor it at a detriment to the company. If the company goes down, then there is vastly different effect on the overall economy, than just these charities.

It is a regrettable decision, but a necessary one. We will never know what RTS would have done, so that is a mute point.

 

[gunfyter]

I guess we could furlough another 50 or 100 people to cover the donations....

I don't think we walked away ... simply reduced support.

Back to fight another day.

I recently had to cut back what I was giving to the Church. Largely because Chase Bank sent me a letter notifying me they want me to pay 5% per month minmum payments now instead of 2% per month... on the $26K I owe them. Or more than $700 more per month.

I can't furlough my wife and kids so....

When I retire this debt things will go back to normal...

Same for NJ....

 

[flagshipper]

"I serious doubt RTS would have walked away."

I don't care who you are. That right there is funny

 

[glasspilot]

It is a regrettable decision, but a necessary one. We will never know what RTS would have done, so that is a mute point.

It's a MOOT point. We would, however, have accepted a MOO point.

 

[flex*wife]

One of my first jobs was working for a public television station. After telethons we would spend months trying to collect on some of the larger donations, especially some of those "gift with minimum donation" pledges. After 6 months, they went to a collection agency. There wasn't anything unusual or scandalous about this in comparison to other similarly funded enterprises, so it would be interesting to see where this one goes. Maybe making such a long commitment in a business niche a 5 year old can predict volatility in ought to be the real discussion.

However I agree that commitment to one's own, whether that be family or employees should come first but surely there could have been classier ways to handle all of this, including the layoffs...