The gaul of some people!!

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Berkshire Gives Up On Giving How a pro-life housewife took on Warren Buffett. FORTUNE Monday, July 21, 2003 By Nicholas Varchaver Warren Buffett has drawn criticism in the past for supporting pro-choice causes, but it never affected Berkshire Hathaway's charitable giving—that is, until Cindy Coughlon, a 34-year-old stay-at-home mom in Peoria, Ariz., came along. Now, as a result of her campaign against pro-choice donations, the most powerful man in business (see Cover Story) has terminated Berkshire's entire contribution program, which distributed nearly $200 million over the past two decades to institutions ranging from schools to groups on either side of the abortion debate. The unusual program—call it a charitable dividend—allowed Berkshire shareholders to designate $18 per share annually for up to three charities of their choosing. Some shareholders, including Buffett via his foundation, used the mechanism to give to pro-choice causes such as Planned Parenthood. (FORTUNE editor at large Carol Loomis is a director of the Buffett Foundation.) The events were set in motion this winter by Coughlon, a mother of three who wanted to earn some money by selling for the Pampered Chef, a recent Berkshire acquisition with $740 million in revenues. Some 70,000 freelance "consultants" sell kitchen wares through Tupperware-style parties in people's homes. Coughlon says she was drawn to the Pampered Chef because she felt it shares her Christian, pro-family values. The company's mission statement, for example, encourages people to "develop their God-given talents." But Coughlon was dismayed to learn that Berkshire's purchase of the Pampered Chef meant that some portion of the profits she'd generate could fund pro-choice groups. She e-mailed a petition, which asked Berkshire and Buffett to end donations to such organizations, to 100 friends and family in January. Pro-life organizations such as Life Decisions International began publicizing it. Pampered Chef chairman Doris Christopher initially told consultants in an April e-mail that though "my personal views on some issues differ from Warren Buffett's ... it is not my place to ask or to judge." But her message didn't quell the furor. Consultants were resigning, says Coughlon, and customers complaining. (Coughlon numbers the petitioners at "less than a thousand.") By late June the pressure had become intolerable, and Christopher "went to Warren with a heavy heart," according to an e-mail she wrote to consultants. "It troubled him deeply that charitable donations from Berkshire Hathaway were causing you difficulty." On July 3, Berkshire announced the end of the charity program. Before this year, Berkshire seemed impervious to such pressures. Pro-life activists had picketed its annual meetings and boycotted it for years. Last year a shareholder resolution to cancel the charity program was soundly defeated, with 97% of shares voted against it. And Buffett defended the program in Berkshire's 2001 annual report, saying Berkshire makes "no contributions except those designated by shareholders," who "are probably on both sides of the abortion issue in roughly the same proportion as the American population." So why did Berkshire abandon the program now? The company's announcement said that "its ownership is now harming" not only a subsidiary, but also individuals. The board was willing to accept some damage from boycotts in the past because the cost was diffused across a giant corporation, but this was affecting Pampered Chef consultants, who had nothing to do with Berkshire's policy. For her part, Coughlon is "just delighted with the decision." But she says she won't be satisfied until the man she deferentially refers to as "Mr. Buffett" stops donating to pro-choice causes. "Now," she says, "the focus is on him."

The absolute nerve of some people just astounds me!!!! Just because she disagreed with what her boss was spending his money on she caused a huge ruckus. #1 according to the article money was going to more than just 1 charity. #2 since when was it anybodys business what anyone else spends their money on?? I wonder if miss busy bodie realizes what she has done? According to the article the company has stopped giving money to ANY charity!! She has single handedly killed the funding to numerous programs all in the name of her own narrowminded "Christian, pro-family values " . The worst part is that , according to her own comments about being "just delighted with the decision." , this imbecille doesnt even realize the ramifications of what she has done. How many programs wil have to shut down just because this brainless practicaly jobless woman had to have her way?? When will people think before they create a storm in a teacup?? Better yet, when wil people mind their own business and just live and let live?

Note, the highlighting is mine.

link to original site: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/ceo/a...465772,00.html

[ 07-22-2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[Moiraine]

Hunter, I hate saying this, but when you really really believe in a cause, you are ready to do whatever it takes to promote it. While I (strongly !) disagree with whomever wants to direct my life in my place, and hence with so-called 'pro-life' people (when did I say I was 'against-life' ? ) who should IMO more accurately be called 'against-choice', however I don't see what is wrong with the woman finding an efficient way to win a battle for he beliefs. I am not happy with it, but she played by the rules. Now, I sure hope other people fight for the decision to get reversed.

[Indemaijinj]

Yes this is sad. Completely legally sound, but still sad.

[Cloudbringer]

Moiraine has some good points Hunter.

I wonder if the charity was an anti-abortion one (or something you dislike intensely, as the housewife did), and someone complained to get it stopped, would you be as vocal about it?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Moiraine has some good points Hunter. I wonder if the charity was an anti-abortion one (or something you dislike intensely, as the housewife did), and someone complained to get it stopped, would you be as vocal about it?

Why does it matter? How or why Hunter is vocal about either side of the abortion issue has nada to do with it.

The point is the charity gave to BOTH sides of the abortion issue and many charities that had nothing to do with the issue.

Is that okay? For many people to be possibly hurt to serve the agenda of a few?
Is it her place to tell other people where to spend their money?

I think she is blinded by her own pride and that her own "good intentions" pave a road to harm.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

It would be fine if all she did was get the funding to one charity stopped. Unfortunately in her effort to push her moral code onto others she got all of the funding stopped for all of the charitys.That is what has got me all fired up. Now other people have to suffer because of this womans pet crusade. Also the company funded BOTH pro life and pro choice programs. To quote the article,

The unusual program—call it a charitable dividend—allowed Berkshire shareholders to designate $18 per share annually for up to three charities of their choosing.

So basicaly instead of being able to choose which charitys to give to the company has shut down the whole thing. Maybe Moiraine is on to something with her "against choice" statement?

[Rokenn]

This is a text book example for the Law of unintended consequences. So be careful what you wish for...

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: It would be fine if all she did was get the funding to one charity stopped. Unfortunately in her effort to push her moral code onto others she got all of the funding stopped for all of the charitys.That is what has got me all fired up. Now other people have to suffer because of this womans pet crusade. Also the company funded BOTH pro life and pro choice programs. To quote the article, quote: The unusual program—call it a charitable dividend—allowed Berkshire shareholders to designate $18 per share annually for up to three charities of their choosing.

So basicaly instead of being able to choose which charitys to give to the company has shut down the whole thing. Maybe Moiraine is on to something with her "against choice" statement? [/QUOTE]The decision to end ALL charitable donations was made by Warren Buffet and his Board of Directors...not Cindy Coughlin. Coughlin complained (legitimately so), that a portion of the profits she generated for the company were being used to support causes she did not agree with. Warren Buffet and the Board could have chosen to simply cease charitable donations to either side of the abortion issue, but instead they had an over-the-top reaction and cut out ALL funding to charity organizations. Which doesn't really make any sense if you think about it.

Why would a giant corporation suddenly cease ALL charitable donations because of a petition with less than 1,000 signatures on it. They have faced annual boycotts before and accepted them as part of business. But now the actions of ONE individual has caused this multi-conglomerate corporation to suddenly retract all funding to every charity and institution it supported - including some schools.

Hmmmmmm.....methinks I detect the faint odor of scapegoat.

It sounds to me like the corporation is trying to say "Because of the singular efforts of Cindy Coughlin, we will now retract the 200 million dollars we were annually donating to various charities. This is a decision we feel we have to make in good conscience in order to satisfy a handful of "consultants" employed through one of our subsidiary companies." Sounds more like an orchestrated effort on Berkshire's part to turn Ms. Coughlin into a public pariah.

AFA her "being delighted" at the decision of the company...what is wrong with that. She specifically chose to work through Pampered Chef because it seemed to reflect her own Christian values. Then she learned that at least a portion of the money she generated for Berkshire was used to support a cause directly opposed to her Christian beliefs. I think she had every right to take the action she did, just as I think someone who was "pro choice" would have every right to complain if they discovered the company they went to work for was actually supporting pro-life charities with a portion of their proceeds.

But in regards to her "going after Mr. Buffet" to make him stop his personal donations to pro-choice groups - THAT is none of her business. What her boss does with his personal salary is his choice and his business alone.

[harleyquinn]

If she was so against it, why not just stop working for them? There are plenty of other jobs out there, I'm sure she could've found something else.

[Davros]

Pardon messieur - I was drawn in by the typo on the title. Seing as it was evidently unintended I will eit stage right [img]smile.gif[/img] .

PS - good point Claude - call them "Anti Choice" people rather than "Pro Life".