Service to the community

[Burchfam]

What do people think of the importance of this? Famists are encouraged to offer their services voluntarily.

 

[michel]

What do people think of the importance of this? Famists are encouraged to offer their services voluntarily.

I think it is important. A community should be a collective of people eager to help each other.

The sad fact is, unfortunately, that our culture tends to encourage selfishness; I am not saying that everyone is selfish - I know a good many people who are, but, here in the Western world, we are seeing trends of 'insularism'. The reason for that ? Maybe because we are all so busy, busy lives may not be conducive to helping others.

My younger son (James) works for Deloitte (a Worldwide known reputable firm of accountants); I was both amazed and then pleasantly surprised when he told me that all employees are expected to spend one day a month doing voluntary community work to help those in need.

That - from a firm whose partners earn astronomical sums of money (and who therefore must be anxious to maximise profits at all times), surprised me - as I said, pleasantly.Theres a link to that here:- http://clients.ctn.co.uk/deloitte/annualreport_2004/aboutdeloitte/contribution.asp



Community programmes | Charitable giving
At Deloitte we believe that giving something back to the communities in which we work is the right thing to do. Through the skills and energy of our people, we are making a substantial and increasing impact in our local communities.
By contributing our professional skills and encouraging our clients to become involved, we increase the leverage and impact of our community programmes. These activities are benefiting the recipients and our staff. More than 95% of staff canvassed on one of our programmes said they would recommend participation to a colleague.
During the year our partners and staff donated approximately 15,000 hours to community programmes in normal working time, and we increased the scale of our flagship skills4industry programme. Our charitable donations grew by over 30%, with staff and partners donating more than £1,000,000.

Top
Community programmes
Our community programmes focus on Enterprise, Education and Employability.

• Enterprise: 60 of our staff and partners act as mentors for The Prince's Trust, supporting young people who have set up businesses with a loan from the Trust.
• Education: 250 of our staff and partners mentor secondary school students from disadvantaged communities who may be at risk of underachieving in the run-up to their GCSE exams.
• Employability: skills4industry (www.skills4industry.org) is our flagship programme giving young people the qualifications, experience and skills they need in order to gain employment. Sponsored by some of the largest UK companies and funded by the Department for Education & Skills, it is designed for 16-18 year olds from disadvantaged communities who have underachieved at GCSE, but demonstrate above average aptitude for success in a vocational environment. More than 100 students are currently enrolled on Information Technology and Retail courses at Further Education colleges across the country.

The quality and impact of our work has been widely recognised during the year. skills4industry has won three awards: a Lord Mayor of London's Dragon Award, a Business in the Community Award for Excellence, and a Greater London Training Award.
Top Charitable giving We direct our charitable giving towards charities representing children and young people, health and the community. 1,300 staff contribute to our Give As You Earn scheme, and their donations of more than £500,000 ranked Deloitte among the Top 20 payroll giving companies. Our national charity partners in the year just ended were ChildLine and Marie Curie Cancer Care. Each of our regional offices runs a fundraising programme in support of a local charity chosen by staff, this year raising over £200,000. And the Deloitte Foundation donated £400,000 to charity, including matching donations for staff fundraising

 

[Burchfam]

That is a very admirable policy of that company. As for a fragmented and selfish way of life becoming more prevalent, I'm not really sure that in my experience that is necessarily the case. People do help each other when they can.

Famists are encouraged to do the sorts of jobs that others don't want to do, such as cleaning toilets in places like hospitals. This is putting back something into the community in return for our immense privilege of having heard the call of Frya. We do not seclude ourselves away in some remote retreat.

 

[Ozzie]

What do people think of the importance of this? Famists are encouraged to offer their services voluntarily.

Voluntary service is good in teaching people to develop non-monetry means of exchange with others. Cash represents options for satisfying self-interest and the transaction is disinterested towards the other party to the transaction. Voluntary service cant be without self-interest, but at least we have to value something in the other party to the transaction that we want rather than cash.

 

[michel]

Voluntary service is good in teaching people to develop non-monetry means of exchange with others. Cash represents options for satisfying self-interest and the transaction is disinterested towards the other party to the transaction. Voluntary service cant be without self-interest, but at least we have to value something in the other party to the transaction that we want rather than cash.

I agree. What is more (and this is slightly off topic, but I think it still is valid in this thread), I am not over keen on giving to Charities (because one never knows what proportion of donation are 'Syphoned off'.

A very good example was that of "Children in Need" Charity here, in England, which was carried out yesterday - the BBC are involved.

I was somewhat horrified to hear that £2M was spend in "Administration". All stars who appear do so free (as a contribution to the appeal).

I have always tended (in the past; I am now not fit enough) to donate my time to charities; twice, I have volunteered to work for these people (the first time was a one year stint), and the last time I managed two years before becoming "burned out" - which is an unfortunate but quite common occurence; it is a difficult thing 'not to take home'.

I hope to be fit enough to do another two year stint at some time.

 

[Pardus]

Alot of people who do services to the community acctually do disservices to the community by not targetting the real problem.

Then something appears to have been done and the problem just festers.

 

[Ozzie]

I agree. What is more (and this is slightly off topic, but I think it still is valid in this thread), I am not over keen on giving to Charities (because one never knows what proportion of donation are 'Syphoned off'.

A very good example was that of "Children in Need" Charity here, in England, which was carried out yesterday - the BBC are involved.

I was somewhat horrified to hear that £2M was spend in "Administration". All stars who appear do so free (as a contribution to the appeal).

I have always tended (in the past; I am now not fit enough) to donate my time to charities; twice, I have volunteered to work for these people (the first time was a one year stint), and the last time I managed two years before becoming "burned out" - which is an unfortunate but quite common occurence; it is a difficult thing 'not to take home'.

I hope to be fit enough to do another two year stint at some time.

You do better than me. I have no time to donate my time voluntarily, but I reckon I do my bit for society raising kids. Anyway my father worked for a while as an accountant at the Red Cross. Afterwards he never gave money to them as he saw firsthand what administration eats up in donations. He gave blood instead.

 

[PureX]

Alot of people who do services to the community acctually do disservices to the community by not targetting the real problem.

Then something appears to have been done and the problem just festers.

This is a very good point. This does happen, sometimes, and it is because the folks performing the service carry their ignorance or prejudices along with them even though they're sincerely trying to help. It's something that we need to watch out for when we decide to "help" other people.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to forgive the oversight of someone who sincerely wants to help us, than it is to forgive the malicious intent of some of those folks who don't.

 

[Pardus]

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to forgive the oversight of someone who sincerely wants to help us, than it is to forgive the malicious intent of some of those folks who don't.

Acctually i believe the former does more harm than the latter.

 

[Ozzie]

This is a very good point. This does happen, sometimes, and it is because the folks performing the service carry their ignorance or prejudices along with them even though they're sincerely trying to help. It's something that we need to watch out for when we decide to "help" other people.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to forgive the oversight of someone who sincerely wants to help us, than it is to forgive the malicious intent of some of those folks who don't.

Do you think it attracts bad karma to the person sincerely wanting to help but seems deluded in the eyes of some? Or do we need to develop donation etiquette? (like careful not to be too liberal with the frubals)

 

[PureX]

Do you think it attracts bad karma to the person sincerely wanting to help but seems deluded in the eyes of some? Or do we need to develop donation etiquette? (like careful not to be too liberal with the frubals)

I don't think it's a matter of making a policy. I think it's more a matter of the sincere servant being aware that he/she may not be as helpful as they intend. Sort of like a rich banker giving neckties to homeless men so they can go into a fancy restaurant to have a meal. The banker means well, but is unable to see past his own lifestyle, and so completely misunderstands the cause and solution to the homeless man's hunger.

 

[Pardus]

And the only real result is the homeless man gets mugged for the tie.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Matthew 25:37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' NIV

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own. John F. Kennedy

​

As much as we would LOVE to ignore them, service to the less fortunate is how we show our love. In fact, quite often love is spelled T-I-M-E. I urge everyone on this forum to MAKE TIME to help those who are poor, who are invalid, who are oppressed or who are hated. Donate your time to help our youth, to help a battered woman's shelter, to help the local Food Bank. There are a TON of agencies who are looking for YOU to come and help.


It has been a long personal commitment of mine to volunteer at least 80 hours every year. More often than not, I double or triple that commitment. Join me in loving the not so loveable.

 

[Ozzie]

I don't think it's a matter of making a policy. I think it's more a matter of the sincere servant being aware that he/she may not be as helpful as they intend. Sort of like a rich banker giving neckties to homeless men so they can go into a fancy restaurant to have a meal. The banker means well, but is unable to see past his own lifestyle, and so completely misunderstands the cause and solution to the homeless man's hunger.

I think this reasoning lends itself more readily to misdirected or inappropriately targeted foreign aid than to interpersonal interactions. If it really is creating a problem for the homeless that private citizens have generousity to help them, then yes it should be a matter of policy, government policy, to fix the problem so private citizens with worthwhile intentions are not left confused.

 

[PureX]

I think this reasoning lends itself more readily to misdirected or inappropriately targeted foreign aid than to interpersonal interactions. If it really is creating a problem for the homeless that private citizens have generousity to help them, then yes it should be a matter of policy, government policy, to fix the problem so private citizens with worthwhile intentions are not left confused.

I think it happens at all levels. But at least with one-on-one interactions, the recipient of the aid can express their need directly. And the servants can learn of their need, directly, as well. I agree that the bigger the "organization" of the giving becomes, the less able it will be to hear the needs of the needy, directly.

 

[Scuba Pete]

then yes it should be a matter of policy, government policy, to fix the problem so private citizens with worthwhile intentions are not left confused.

Then we have the loss of personal awareness for their plight. Too often, the "rich" insualte themselves from being touched by those less fortunate. It's good for all of us to experience our brother's and sister's pain up close. It's surely harder to say "no" in such a situation.

 

[Ozzie]

Then we have the loss of personal awareness for their plight. Too often, the "rich" insualte themselves from being touched by those less fortunate. It's good for all of us to experience our brother's and sister's pain up close. It's surely harder to say "no" in such a situation.

It is surely harder for the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth as a result of well-directed government policy. I'm sure they would notice and seek to find out where the money is being directed. Voila! No more ambiguity.

 

[Ozzie]

I think it happens at all levels. But at least with one-on-one interactions, the recipient of the aid can express their need directly. And the servants can learn of their need, directly, as well. I agree that the bigger the "organization" of the giving becomes, the less able it will be to hear the needs of the needy, directly.

On a public level part of the problem of directing aid is the back-slapping self-congratulatory philanthropic mentality where the size of the donation matters mostly. This gets back to the problem of cash interactions in society generally. They remove the term "personal" from term "service" in "service to the community"./

Similarly "corporate responsibility" as a concept implies ownership.

 

[Hema]

Hinduism calls it Seva or selfless service. When we help the less-fortunate we receive much more in return. Karma Yoga or working for the benefit of humanity is also a path to reach God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It is surely harder for the rich to sacrifice some of their wealth as a result of well-directed government policy. I'm sure they would notice and seek to find out where the money is being directed. Voila! No more ambiguity.

Luke 21:1 As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." NIV

I humbly disagree. The rich can afford to give via the government far more than any tax levied so far. Time is the ONLY thing that can not be bought or sold. However, it can be given away, and the blessings for doing so are beyond our abilities to comprehend.