The Passover holiday season brings with it an outburst of the joy of giving on the part of commercial companies. Gestures like that of Bank Hapoalim in facilitating free entry to leisure sites and museums around the country is typical of banks, credit card companies, and other commercial entities. The main argument for them is that everyone benefits, both customers and culture, which becomes accessible to larger sections of the population.
Lawyer, author, and social activist Yuval Albashan, who is a deputy director of Yedid - the Association for Community Empowerment, can hardly find a good word to say about such moves. “At the outset, and without cynicism, it’s important to say that if a decent company comes along and makes its contribution for the greater good of all, nothing is more noble. There were and are companies like this, that are run on the right lines and take responsibility, and there’s nothing finer than that.
”Unfortunately, that is not the case here: I see what happens today, and it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. It’s an old American trick from the 1960s, studied on beginners’ courses in marketing: first exploit the worker, then donate two computers to her son’s school. That way, not only do you get rich, but you also win the status of a do-gooder.
”If Bank Hapoalim wants to contribute to society, the first way of doing that properly is through its employees. Instead of investing millions in opening museums up to the community, let it first give adequately to its workers, so that they will be able to take their children to whatever museum they want. For the customer too, there’s something more honest about him not gaining admittance through charity, thanks to the baron, but simply being able to do so thanks to his labor.
”If the bank has enough money, let it cut its overdraft interest rate. The people that these entities give their holiday largesse to are those that groan under them every day. I make hundreds of millions from crazy, usurious rates of interest from household accounts, employ workers under minimum conditions, and have the effrontery to draw huge salaries, and then I give a quarter of a fun day at a museum. This is unfair manipulation. You want to be socially active? Narrow the gap between the worker who works full time for pennies and the bank CEO who takes home millions every year. It may be legal to behave like that, but it is completely immoral. So contributions that are essentially a form of oppression are better left undone, otherwise society’s norms will become those of Galia Maor and Eli Yones.”
What is so bad in activity that contributes to the community and exposes people to culture and art? Even if the motives behind it are not completely pure, something good can certainly come of it.
”Once, I thought that, at the end of the day, we gain something. Now, I see that as a mistake. If the price is brutalization of society, it’s not clear that it pays. My child may get free entry to a museum and enjoy fine culture, but the loss to the culture he sees outside the museum is greater. What is gained on the swings is lost on the roundabouts.
”There’s a difference between that and business people like Eli Hurvitz and Dov Lautman, who set up enterprises in a decent way and afterwards contributed to the surrounding society. I accept their contribution with admiration. It is also necessary to distinguish between companies that deal in the public’s assets and private companies. I very much respect Shari Arison. It’s her money, she is the owner, I say thank you for every penny, even if I don’t rush to award her an honorary doctorate. Public companies are a different matter. Here the hypocrisy cries to the high heavens you give a pip for the benefit of the community. That is something dangerous and liable to be calamitous. It goes without saying that the amounts donated are much smaller than what would be invested in fair trading and good conditions for the employees. It brutalizes society. Whoever dares to applaud these phenomena it can deteriorate in two seconds. In the end, we will find ourselves in the former Soviet Union, where whoever despoiled the citizens of the republics became their most respected citizens.”
How should the ordinary person respond? By taking what’s offered, or by coming out against the hypocrisy and boycotting these gestures?
”I’m against boycotts. If there’s something that works to your benefit, whoever finds it enriching, let them enjoy it. There is no reason not to benefit from what is on offer. But let’s not applaud outside of it. My sense is that the veil of naivety has somewhat frayed in the past four years, and people have become more skeptical of the companies’ noble stance.”
So if companies are to contribute to society, what’s the right way to go about it?
”The companies’ PR doesn’t bother me too much, although I’m in favor of giving discretely. What’s really important is to contribute to empowering activity. Whoever wants to donate to a hungry person shouldn’t give fish but fishing rods and easy access to the sea. Long-term projects perhaps don’t attract the same publicity and don’t photograph as well, but they bring about gradual, deep change.”
As someone in the leadership of a social non-profit organization, would you refuse a donation from a company because you don’t like the way it is run?
”I’d very much like to give you a brazen ‘yes’. We would certainly like to cooperate with a company that behaves decently to its employees and customers. ECI, for example, is a shining example, contributing to projects for enforcing women’s rights and empowering them. In practice, I have to admit, the problematic companies are not exactly banging on our doors to contribute to projects of that nature.”
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on March 29, 2012
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2012