- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Red Cross in Shelters of flood areas
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:04 am to beebefootballfan
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:04 am to beebefootballfan
quote:
You mean an organization as large as the RC only takes items from trusted vendors to prevent lawsuits.
Surely people see what taking anything from anybody could open them up to lawsuit wise
I had this discussion with someone earlier - people are complaining that they are turning away food but in this weather, food safety is important. If they serve tainted food, they will be liable and not the donating group. It sucks, but it's a part of our litigious society.
As far as turning away donations, I worked at the Cajundome shelter after Katrina and you wouldn't imagine the junk people dropped off as "donations". We had piles and piles of old junk that we had to dispose of.
Of course local entities are better in the community, but the Red Cross serves a purpose in a catastrophe of this scale. No local church or group can handle this alone.
1
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:06 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
Lawsuits? Cmon man. I saw them turning away large tailgate setups that were preparing to cook good food for thousands.
Can't sell overpriced stuff to themselves with your donated money if all the local churches are allowed to feed the masses.
Can't sell overpriced stuff to themselves with your donated money if all the local churches are allowed to feed the masses.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:06 am to Isabelle81
quote:
Check WAFB for Red Cross statement by Nancy Malone. And, note that Red Cross wants no items donated. They want money only. I see this as a problem, does anyone else? Persons in the shelters who have lost everything cannot even benefit from a few items of clothing donated from the outside, or any other item that may bring them the slightest bit of joy in this horrible situation.
I don't see wanting just money as a big deal at this time. Again though, I'd rather give the $$$ to a local church.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:06 am to LSURussian
quote:
Remember, just a few years ago it was revealed the CEO of the American Red Cross was making a $650,000 annual salary and the top 15 RC executives made combined salaries of $4.5 million annually.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the salaries as they are non profit. Many groups such as St. Judes Childrens hospital are non profitand the CEO's make good money. With low or no salary you wont find anybody to run such a large organization.
I do have a problem with taking over an area and kicking everybody out and refusing donations, etc. There were many quite upset with red cross with their antics they pulled a couple days ago. Tons of food and clothing donations went to waste.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:07 am to notiger1997
Glad you said what I've been thinking. How can they take over a shelter? They don't own it. Do they have a contract with the state that says they have total control. This is sickening.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:13 am to BigEdLSU
quote:
Lawsuits? Cmon man. I saw them turning away large tailgate setups that were preparing to cook good food for thousands.
I'm not saying I agree, but big organizations have bureaucracy and risk managament is always in play.
It sucks, but if someone wants to cook, the solution is easy: set up in neighborhoods to help those working on homes. Evey neighborhood I've been in has had people delivering food to homes directly - no Red Cross needed.
Kudos to you, by the way for doing your part to help!
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:13 am to Mudminnow
quote:I have a huge problem with the CEO of a donor funded disaster assistance organization being a 1%-er in salary.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the salaries
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:14 am to Isabelle81
quote:
Glad you said what I've been thinking. How can they take over a shelter? They don't own it. Do they have a contract with the state that says they have total control. This is sickening
I was wondering the same. Who pulls the trigger to allow the Red Cross to take over. I assume it's the governor.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:17 am to Black n Gold
Would like an answer to that one. If the governor doesn't know about the crap they are dealing, he needs to.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:18 am to CajunAlum Tiger Fan
I have a problem with them not telling people upfront that in exchange for using the Red Cross shelter, you will be denied any and all offered outside help.
It's like they view these displaced people as revenue generators, and they want them to themselves. It bothers me a lot.
It's like they view these displaced people as revenue generators, and they want them to themselves. It bothers me a lot.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:21 am to Isabelle81
The Red Cross is a corrupt, too big organization that is only still around because of their name and their old reputation, which they are quickly trashing.
After issues with them in Katrina I refuse to donate to them.
In later years I learned of things such as
1) Every time they collect for a disaster, they hold back some of the money for other uses not related to said disaster, which to me, is misleading since they do not readily disclose it.
2) The only thing they ask for, and want, is money. At least they readily admit to this. But many people can't donate money, but they can donate time or supplies, none of which is wanted by the Red Cross.
3) The Red Cross real business lines are selling of blood and selling of medical certifications such as first aid and CPR and lifesaving. I prefer to donate to organizations that focus more on disaster relief.
After issues with them in Katrina I refuse to donate to them.
In later years I learned of things such as
1) Every time they collect for a disaster, they hold back some of the money for other uses not related to said disaster, which to me, is misleading since they do not readily disclose it.
2) The only thing they ask for, and want, is money. At least they readily admit to this. But many people can't donate money, but they can donate time or supplies, none of which is wanted by the Red Cross.
3) The Red Cross real business lines are selling of blood and selling of medical certifications such as first aid and CPR and lifesaving. I prefer to donate to organizations that focus more on disaster relief.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:24 am to Black n Gold
quote:
I was wondering the same. Who pulls the trigger to allow the Red Cross to take over. I assume it's the governor.
The state, through DCFS and GOHSEP, have standing contracts to provide various types of services in disaster situations, from fuel to food to sheltering to trash pickup.
My guess is that is how this is being handled.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:26 am to Isabelle81
Red Cross has been a crooked SCAM for years.
They were sued a few years back because they used a particular natural disaster (I forget which one) to solicit donations. But, they only gave about 25% of the money collected to the victims of that natural disaster. The victims in the area sued and WON. The courts required the Red Cross to distribute the money that was collected for that natural disaster.
The result --
Notice that all of the ads soliciting donations for the flooding in Louisiana lists the Louisiana flooding -- but then list "other" areas from other natural disasters. In this way, they are SCAMMING the public into believing they are donating to the flood victims, but by saying "and other natural disaster, such as XXX happening around the country," they are not obligated to give the money to the victims in the area of the flooding, NOR TO ANYONE ELSE.
If you doubt me, pay attention to the next Red Cross ad you hear soliciting money for the flooding. They will throw in something like "Give to the Red Cross to help the victims of the Louisiana floods and other disasters around the country by texting your donation to....."
They were sued a few years back because they used a particular natural disaster (I forget which one) to solicit donations. But, they only gave about 25% of the money collected to the victims of that natural disaster. The victims in the area sued and WON. The courts required the Red Cross to distribute the money that was collected for that natural disaster.
The result --
Notice that all of the ads soliciting donations for the flooding in Louisiana lists the Louisiana flooding -- but then list "other" areas from other natural disasters. In this way, they are SCAMMING the public into believing they are donating to the flood victims, but by saying "and other natural disaster, such as XXX happening around the country," they are not obligated to give the money to the victims in the area of the flooding, NOR TO ANYONE ELSE.
If you doubt me, pay attention to the next Red Cross ad you hear soliciting money for the flooding. They will throw in something like "Give to the Red Cross to help the victims of the Louisiana floods and other disasters around the country by texting your donation to....."
This post was edited on 8/22/16 at 9:32 am
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:32 am to BigEdLSU
quote:
Lawsuits? Cmon man. I saw them turning away large tailgate setups that were preparing to cook good food for thousands.
And when someone gets sick or dies from said food, the red Cross is going to get the shite sued out of them
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:44 am to Deactived
quote:
And when someone gets sick or dies from said food, the red Cross is going to get the shite sued out of them
And under what scenario do they get sued for handing out donated clothes?
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:47 am to Black n Gold
quote:
Sorry, but even in today's litigious world, I don't see how accepting a box of clothes at your doorstep opens you up to a major lawsuit.
You would hope not, but you'd also be surprised what kind of claims people and their attorneys can conjure up.
Many of the people the Red Cross is now helping have lost quite a lot, if not everything. They will need money. It's not inconceivable that someone with some kind of skin condition could be in the shelter. They then put on some clothes that were donated by some anonymous person which somehow exacerbates that skin condition. That person will then be looking for someone to sue and the only known potential defendant, with money, will be the Red Cross.
Or, let's say a local church group wants to donate several chicken dinners. If some of those chickens are undercooked and people in the shelter get sick, then they could come after the Red Cross. The argument would be that the Red Cross was negligent in accepting undercooked meals.
I'm sure the Red Cross has indemnity provisions in all their vendor contracts to protect them against litigation, thus the insistence on only using vendor provided goods.
I think it is a shame because most people really do just want to help their fellow man and most people in the shelter really are grateful for whatever help they can get. However, when you combine people in serious need of money with a defendant that has lots of it, all in a chaotic situation where accidents can happen, it could be a recipe for litigation.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Red Cross is a bureaucracy that is much more inefficient that a local church group. However, I can somewhat understand them trying to protect themselves from litigation. It's the world we live in today
Posted on 8/22/16 at 9:47 am to Isabelle81
Donate to your or a local church. To hell the Red Cross. Local churches do far more good and do it exponentially more efficient than any government run organization.
Posted on 8/22/16 at 10:10 am to Black n Gold
Like the previous guy said, can you imagine the type of shite people would bring in?
Old and disgusting clothes that no one wants to wear. They would probably waste a ton of time sorting through the bullshite and then having to dispose of all the unwanted materials.
Im sure the organization is a shitshow and run inefficiently, but people have to see where they have to draw the line on donations that they can take
Old and disgusting clothes that no one wants to wear. They would probably waste a ton of time sorting through the bullshite and then having to dispose of all the unwanted materials.
Im sure the organization is a shitshow and run inefficiently, but people have to see where they have to draw the line on donations that they can take
Posted on 8/22/16 at 10:15 am to Isabelle81
Bookmarked thread only because they suck (take your money with little reults
Posted on 8/22/16 at 10:25 am to Isabelle81
Will never give anything to the red cross. They are borderline scam artist!
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News