The Red Cross has been criticized by some for denying claims to some Harvey victims. I guess somewhere along the line, people forget they are a charity, not a government agency.

A few people have a legit beef but many, as frustrating as it seems, need to find another way, especially those with light or essentially no damage.

The Red Cross needs some reforms. They aren't what they used to be. They either need to become more efficient at converting a higher percentage of donations into truly useful help to victims or they need to cease being the primary beneficiary of donations from the general public. I thought it was just BS, but the more I find out, the more clear it become the organization has lost its way. If it takes a little bad publicity to get things straightened out over there, I'm ok with that.

(09-24-2017 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The Red Cross needs some reforms. They aren't what they used to be. They either need to become more efficient at converting a higher percentage of donations into truly useful help to victims or they need to cease being the primary beneficiary of donations from the general public. I thought it was just BS, but the more I find out, the more clear it become the organization has lost its way. If it takes a little bad publicity to get things straightened out over there, I'm ok with that.

Well with the shelter my parents were at, the Red Cross was providing cots and blankets, but that was it. The food came from volunteers. The staff came from the city and county. There was no help from the Red Cross on food or personnel. They ran out of food and were concerned about the water supply so they got moved nearly 300 miles away on very short notice to a place manned by volunteers in Central Texas.

Like I said, people look at them like a government agency but they're a charity that can only work within the resources given to them. People are kinda spoiled in expecting help but there was was time in human history not all that long ago that when disaster struck, there wasn't a convoy of resources and help on its way in the matter of hours and that was still the case for much of the world until the past 2-3 decades.

So even though it's relatively corporate, the Red Cross is a charity that by and large is helping people out of the kindness of its heart.

The Red Cross has some faults but overall it has been my experience that they do a great job. Between using them when people were displaced by structure fire to working with them in disaster situations they have always done exactly what needed to be done. We even had a major brush fire one afternoon that went into the night. A local Red Cross official lived nearby and came up to offer their services feeding our crews, setting up warming tents (it was winter time and down in the low 30's) for us. People complain all the time about the salary the CEO of the Red Cross earns but they fail to realize the full scope of the organization she runs.

To appeal to mass complainers, they should be given a $1/yr salary but full housing, transportation (including unlimited gas, rental car and air travel stipends), hotel stipends and any other sensible need and a few wants as well. I'd presume they'd have a spouse and friends as well, so it's not as if they'd be homeless with a $1 salary and they'd could be given money on the side by those same friends, let alone other avenues of income.

That's just to get around loud people complaining about them making too high of a salary.

Honestly, it's a charity people. You're getting free food and shelter. Just say thanks and deal with it, or go to some other shelter.

(09-24-2017 12:44 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  To appeal to mass complainers, they should be given a $1/yr salary but full housing, transportation (including unlimited gas, rental car and air travel stipends), hotel stipends and any other sensible need and a few wants as well. I'd presume they'd have a spouse and friends as well, so it's not as if they'd be homeless with a $1 salary and they'd could be given money on the side by those same friends, let alone other avenues of income.

That's just to get around loud people complaining about them not making too high of a salary.

Or you can just ignore the ignorant and continue to do what has worked for you for decades.

(09-24-2017 12:04 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Like I said, people look at them like a government agency but they're a charity that can only work within the resources given to them. People are kinda spoiled in expecting help but there was was time in human history not all that long ago that when disaster struck, there wasn't a convoy of resources and help on its way in the matter of hours and that was still the case for much of the world until the past 2-3 decades.

So even though it's relatively corporate, the Red Cross is a charity that by and large is helping people out of the kindness of its heart.

if I had the capital, I would create an entire different business model that woulld dominate this market....

the RC has been left behind like too many others that haven't recognized how to become more efficient....#fatcat

is akin to our over-inflated gov't at this point.....

The red cross does a lot of good work, but they have significant issues. Read up on how they worked over Haiti after their earthquake.

http://time.com/money/4920070/hurricane-...red-cross/

(09-24-2017 12:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:44 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  To appeal to mass complainers, they should be given a $1/yr salary but full housing, transportation (including unlimited gas, rental car and air travel stipends), hotel stipends and any other sensible need and a few wants as well. I'd presume they'd have a spouse and friends as well, so it's not as if they'd be homeless with a $1 salary and they'd could be given money on the side by those same friends, let alone other avenues of income.

That's just to get around loud people complaining about them not making too high of a salary.

Or you can just ignore the ignorant and continue to do what has worked for you for decades.

That too but those same ignorant are ones who also volunteer and make donations, so you don't want to alienate too many of them. Like I said, do what I laid out and that's like a million dollar salary anyways. Free food, travel, lodging and even a few wants, such free phones and what have you. And they can even do stuff like have some kind of side income (let alone what family and friends give them).

I believe the Salvation Army's leader gets something similar and I'm sure he's well compensated overall.

Red Cross have been attacked by media from both sides. Bill O'Reilly went after them for denying helping people who lost their homes to the wildfires out in California. These charities are hiring people who were CEOs of big business, and some of them are getting paid multi million dollar paychecks.

(09-24-2017 02:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:44 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  To appeal to mass complainers, they should be given a $1/yr salary but full housing, transportation (including unlimited gas, rental car and air travel stipends), hotel stipends and any other sensible need and a few wants as well. I'd presume they'd have a spouse and friends as well, so it's not as if they'd be homeless with a $1 salary and they'd could be given money on the side by those same friends, let alone other avenues of income.

That's just to get around loud people complaining about them not making too high of a salary.

Or you can just ignore the ignorant and continue to do what has worked for you for decades.

That too but those same ignorant are ones who also volunteer and make donations, so you don't want to alienate too many of them. Like I said, do what I laid out and that's like a million dollar salary anyways. Free food, travel, lodging and even a few wants, such free phones and what have you. And they can even do stuff like have some kind of side income (let alone what family and friends give them).

I believe the Salvation Army's leader gets something similar and I'm sure he's well compensated overall.

No they aren't.

And if they do what you said people would still complain.

True but it'll be one less thing to complain about, one less call of corruption.

(09-24-2017 04:37 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Red Cross have been attacked by media from both sides. Bill O'Reilly went after them for denying helping people who lost their homes to the wildfires out in California. These charities are hiring people who were CEOs of big business, and some of them are getting paid multi million dollar paychecks.

It may be corporate in some senses but they're still a charity and not a full fledged government agency. Go after FEMA and local governments over the RC.

(09-24-2017 07:15 AM)Crackerjackprize Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The Red Cross needs some reforms. They aren't what they used to be. They either need to become more efficient at converting a higher percentage of donations into truly useful help to victims or they need to cease being the primary beneficiary of donations from the general public. I thought it was just BS, but the more I find out, the more clear it become the organization has lost its way. If it takes a little bad publicity to get things straightened out over there, I'm ok with that.

Back a couple of years ago, I checked out the Red Cross' financials and found they were reasonably efficient in converting over 90% to programs. Yes they have a high paid president, but she(?) is not overpaid relative to the total budget.

Now any organization of this size is going to have incidents of inefficiency, inequitable distributions, fraud and outright blunders. So I generally contribute to smaller charities that have smaller goals that can be met.

Its not really the salary of the president that bothers me so much. Its what count as help and how they count it. For instance---when the big floods hit Wimberly/San Marcos area a while back, there were many volunteer workers helping to look for bodies and clear debris so homes could be rebuilt. It was nasty hot work. No Red Cross folks around. There were several faith based organization working side by side with homeowners. The Red Cross would drive up in an air conditioned car and ask if everyone was ok. The workers would say --yeah, but do have any water? They would say no and drive off. Apparently this "drive by" counts as a "visit" and is part of the Red Cross relief effort. The sum total of help they gave the homeowners in question was a kids stuffed doll.

When I hear directly from people impacted---the Red Cross is not anywhere near the top of the list for most helpful. Maybe its ancedotal evidence---but my sense is that the organization has become more interested in paper "stats" than really getting to the nitty gritty of helping folks.

I didnt start the thread nor do I count myself as an expert on this---but I can tell you they seem to not be held in very high esteem by a number of people you'd think would be the ones singing their praises. Just makes me think maybe they arent being run very well and its made me hesitant to give to the organization. Ive chosen to give directly to Harvey victims I know personally so I know the money is getting to people in need.

Look, this is just one guys opinion working with an admittedly limited storehouse of facts. However, I found it doesnt take much time to look on line to find a number of stories questioning the Red Cross's ability to put money to good use. These were the just first 3 to pop up---there were plenty more.

http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/08/28/wh...e-victims/

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/m...w_way.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...57214e0e31

Obviously, they're basically corporate. If you want your stuff to go where it should, you need to work with people and organizations on the ground level.

(09-24-2017 12:07 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The Red Cross has been criticized by some for denying claims to some Harvey victims. I guess somewhere along the line, people forget they are a charity, not a government agency.

A few people have a legit beef but many, as frustrating as it seems, need to find another way, especially those with light or essentially no damage.

I stopped donating to the red cross a long time ago for this reason. Now I donate food or clothes but not money.

(09-24-2017 12:07 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The Red Cross has been criticized by some for denying claims to some Harvey victims. I guess somewhere along the line, people forget they are a charity, not a government agency.

A few people have a legit beef but many, as frustrating as it seems, need to find another way, especially those with light or essentially no damage.

People will complain about anything, even about a CHARITY trying to help them out.

Warching the local Fox affiliate and people are still complaining, especially on social media.