Goodwill: Good Deed Doesn’t Go Unpunished?
Note: Please read all updates listed below.
Update 8/24: After posting the update of 8/22, I e-mailed Ms. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia’s Director of Marketing & Communications:
"As promised, I amended my blog post to reflect the information you shared with me. If for some reason there are inaccuracies in my latest update, please let me know so I can correct them immediately."
An e-mail I received from Ms. Walters this morning explained that there are some remaining inaccuracies and that Goodwill would appreciate that they be corrected. These changes mostly concern what the alleged eyewitness told me. It’s important to note that there is a discrepancy between what this individual, who claimed to have been on-site at the time, and Goodwill states — namely that, based on the surveillance video, only the former employee and the private investigator were on-site at the time, thus putting into question the accuracy of what this "eyewitness" allegedly saw and heard.
As Goodwill is most likely aware, it is common practice, in support of the blogosphere’s spirit of transparency, to correct factual inaccuracies — especially when they are substantive in nature — in such a way that readers can follow both the original "error" and the correction. Furthermore, due to earlier versions of a post being captured electronically, "overwriting" entire posts is not recommended.
Therefore, I’ve attempted to reconfigure the text of the original post to reflect the facts as presented by Ms. Walters via the written edits she submitted to me, in conjunction with the changes made on 8/22. However, I also attempted to stay as true as possible to the story shared with me by the alleged eyewitness in order to accurately report what I was told, keeping in mind that the eyewitness statements are simply one person’s interpretation of what actually occurred.
First a bit of background. Over the past decade I’ve donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I’ll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn’t there.
Here’s what I was told by A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw gently used baby equipment at the site and wanted to know if maybe — please — she could take it, even though this wasn’t really allowed. Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea. But after taking pity on the woman, "Joe" relented. Shortly thereafter, "Joe" was fired from his position. So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate: Goodwill of Central Virginia’s leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:
————————————————————————————————————
ORIGINAL POST OF 8/19:
It doesn’t take much to question the reputation of an organization — even an unconfirmed story such as the one outlined below.
First a bit of background. Over the past decade I’ve donated many items to various non-profit organizations, and in the past year to Goodwill of Central Virginia. Most of the time when I stopped at the local donation site a man I’ll call "Joe" helped me. "Joe" had been employed by Goodwill for several years and was well-known in the shopping center where the donation site was located. But yesterday "Joe" wasn’t there, apparently the victim of a sting.
Here’s what I was told by an eyewitness someone who claimed to be an eyewitness:
A woman came to the donation site with a sob story of how she had just moved into a new place, had little money, and no furniture to put in it. She saw some old pieces at the site and wanted to know if maybe — please — she could take it, even though this wasn’t really allowed.
Now, "Joe" no doubt knew that he should ignore this plea, regardless of how desperate the woman appeared (and according to the
eyewitnesI spoke with,person who claimed to be an eyewitness, she layed it on pretty thick). But after taking pity on the woman, and apparently given the old condition of the furniture, which the eyewitness told me would likely have been disposed of anyhow, "Joe" relented.A few moments later, the conversation having been secretly recorded, "Joe" was fired from his position by the very women, actually an employee of Goodwill, who entrapped him (strictly speaking, entrapment is a legal term that involves a law enforcement officer or his agent inducing or persuading someone to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; here the women was neither a part of law enforcement or an agent thereof).
So here are the questions, assuming the incident as outlined above is true and accurate:
- Should "Joe" have allowed the woman to have the furniture? No, as it wasn’t his to give away.
- But would he have been inclined on his own to give someone these items, without being induced?
- And weren’t "Joe’s" actions in line — in spirit, at least — with Goodwill’s mandate of helping people in need?
- Did he, through his actions, violate the organization’s Code of Ethical Conduct?
- Did he personally profit from this action, and should this have factored into Goodwill’s decision to terminate him?
- Was the punishment excessive, and would an option instead have been to give him a reprimand and unpaid time off from work?
Goodwill of Central Virginia’s leadership is comprised of several attorneys. Perhaps they were consulted, or helped establish policies, that govern situations as the one mentioned here.
Update 8/21:
I spoke with the supervisor for the donation site, Henry White, and told him that I’ve been a regular donor to Goodwill and wondered why "Joe" was no longer employed there. Mr. White commented that "[Joe] went on to better things." When I mentioned to him the story I’ve been hearing, he said "that’s not what happened" and referred me to Human Resources.
I called HR Supervisor Michelle Danner and explained to her what I had heard and wondered whether she would comment on the situation, but she referred me on to Missy Murdock, Vice President, HR.
After telling Ms. Murdock that I’m a regular donor to the organization and that I’m concerned about what I’d heard, she stated that she couldn’t speak about this. I also mentioned that I work in PR and that, by not commenting, the impression that "Joe" had been somehow set-up was the only one left with the public. Ms. Murdock repeated that she could not comment and thanked me for the call.
——————————–
From a public relations perspective, is the negative word-of-mouth surrounding the circumstances of Joe’s termination — which, by the way, is apparently being was characterized as a voluntary quitting by the alleged witness – worth Goodwill maintaining a "we will not comment under any circumstances" policy?
While I appreciate Goodwill of Central Virginia’s general policy of not commenting on confidential employee matters, the refusal to make a statement explaining its side of this story, even in very broad terms — and instead leaving the impression that a former employee was terminated under questionable circumstances — probably isn’t an entirely productive approach.
Additional note:
I’ve edited this post several times as I’ve received more information and tried to address the points made in the comments.
Update 8/22:
Aimée P. Walters, Goodwill of Central Virginia’s Director of Marketing & Communications, contacted me via e-mail today, and we had a phone conversation about Goodwill’s mission, policies and procedures, codes of conduct, employee training, and, of course, the incident discussed above, without divulging any confidences she is obligated to keep either by law or policy. She also mentioned that tomorrow she intends to leave a comment on this post, in order to explain, in the organization’s own words, what transpired. And, just to note, Ms. Walters consented to our conversation being "on record."
According to Ms. Walters, Goodwill has a very strict policy governing donated items and loss prevention that is communicated to its employees. Furthermore, it lets its employees know that donation sites are canvassed at random — which is what Ms. Walters said took place here:
– A licensed, female private investigator (who is a former undercover police officer), was canvassing several of the donation sites on the day in question. She approached "Joe" and had a 16-second conversation with him, which was recorded on a surveillance video w/o audio, as permissible by law.
– Based on the communication between the investigator and "Joe," which was transcribed by the investigator (the specifics of which were not shared with me), a policy violation took place that was grounds for termination.
– The incident did not involve furniture, but instead baby items.
– The surveillance video did not indicate that any other person besides "Joe" and the investigator were present.
Not directly related to the facts of this situation, but nevertheless interesting, was that Ms. Walters said she first learned about this post from someone outside Virginia (I believe she said California and Arizona, and maybe she’ll confirm that in her upcoming comment) who filled out Goodwill’s online form, perhaps this one, and provided a link to the post itself. Only later did she find out, when speaking with Ms. Murdock, that I had contacted Goodwill directly — it had apparently been Ms. Murdock’s understanding that I was simply a concerned donor, which is why my inquiry was not passed on to Ms. Walters. Mentioning that I work in PR did not trigger me being put in touch with Ms. Walters, who deals with media-related matters.
Mmm… The professionalisation of charities is probably a good thing, but this just goes to show it can be taken a bit too far. Also: I can understand why this entrapment technique is unlawful around here. Poor Joe. I guess he’ll think twice next time (should there be one) ; but I’m sure I would before donating anything to this organisation again.
Goodwill took this too far—Joe should have been warned or suspended, but not fired. Things are a little too far the other way in the US—here, even in the case of theft, you can’t legally fire the employee.
This is an incredible story. I cannot believe they used entrapment. Not only will they likely lose donations, but how are they going to find good people to work for them from now on. Once trust is broken, it is difficult to repair.
Andrea, have you asked Goodwill about its side of the story?
This sounds like a case study of what not to do if you’re a charitable organization. Joe should have been reprimanded, yes, but fired? What did Joe do to warrant this attack anyway? Now poor Joe, who probably wasn’t making much over minimum wage to begin with, doesn’t have a job and possibly not enough money to buy clothes and furniture. Ironic, huh? For a measly $20 dollars (if that) and the integrity of the apparently flawed corporate handbook, Goodwill has ruined its reputation in Virginia and perhaps elsewhere. Will do-gooders still donate knowing that their old, ratty furniture might be used to entrap employees and thus CREATE more need than it alleviates? Of course, the percentage of people who give just to clear clutter will not be bothered and will certainly continue to keep Goodwill in business. But the rest, who sincerely gave to the organization because of the cause will never look at Goodwill the same. Salvation Army here I come!
After reading this story about Joe being punished for trying to do a “good” deed, I have to say my initial reaction is to resent this woman employee of Goodwill. I have to say that if I had been in Joe’s situation, I probably would have given the lady the piece of furniture as well. Clearly, Goodwill was not thinking about its image to the public when they fired Joe because I definitely think this termination has tarnished its reputation. So basically, Goodwill has tarnished its reputation locally and possible nationwide over an old piece of furniture. This termination was definitely not worth Goodwill tarnishing its image. From the public relations perspective, I think Goodwill would definitely rethink some of its decisions if they could go back in time. I will say that Phillip Young brings up a good point when he asks if you have asked Goodwill their side of the story. It would be interesting to know if there are any details that the public may not be aware of.
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. I got in touch with Goodwill and spoke with three people, none of whom would elaborate on what had supposedly really happened. Interestingly, me saying that I’m sure they didn’t want the public to have a “false” impression of what really happened didn’t seem to sway their “no comments” policy. What a shame as this could have been handled much differently.
Count me in as the odd man out/Devil’s advocate here. (First though, let me say I think as others do, the punishment may be way out of line considering the circumstances.)
But, I can’t blame the pitbull employee for entrapping since Goodwill corporate probably gave her the green light.
We also don’t know if they did this because they have a widespread problem of employees turning the other way as donations “mysteriously’ dissappear, and they decided to do something about it. Could Joe be the victim of this larger pattern of company-wide transgressions? Sure. I feel bad for him.
Bottom line though, if what he did was against the company policy on theft, AND he knew that, he’s guilty, right?
Now, if I was running PR for Goodwill, I definitely would’ve put that story out there as a way to deflect criticism. (Waiting just makes them look bad.)
“…Once trust is broken, it is difficult to repair.”
I agree. The trust was there between Goodwill and Joe. Unfortunately, Joe broke it this one time.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hear from Goodwill? Why the silence? If it’s as you suggest, then the organization should come out and make some general statement — non-specific so it doesn’t violate any confidentiality provisions — that there has been an issue with some employees facilitating “theft” (because once the items have been handed over and accepted by an agent, they’re owned by Goodwill) and that the organization has recently taken action to make sure this doesn’t occur again. How hard would that be?
This appears to be an example of where policy (probably created by legal and enforced by HR) gets in the way of good PR. Again, I wish we could get Goodwill’s side of the story.
True. Silence is not always golden. In this case especially… Mind: I can see what MTLB is saying here, but HR as well as PR are a people’s business. And applying the rules too strictly without tyring to discover the reasons why behind how people act, does not always (usually not?) get the best results…
Two points occur to me, Andrea. One, which rather worries me, is that if “Joe” was so well known, anybody locally who reads this knows who we are talking about. And, secondly, it is another reminder that social software is global; “the negative word-of-mouth ” that is potentially tarnishing Goodwill’s image is not now on a limited, local basis - I am in the UK and Serge is in Belgium!
Okay, another little wrench in the story. Most Goodwill employees are actually part of their program to help people that have issues, including past criminal histories, to get training and new jobs:
http://www.goodwillrichmond.org/jobcenter.asp
So, Joe may have been a victim of overzealous policies, but my experience has been that these kind of training programs usually have very strict rules.
Also, isn’t the HR person bound by law not to talk about a former employee?
Wait a minute: this is turning out to be a real conversation. Whoever said social media can’t do that, was definitely wrong :-).
Anyway: this also goes to show there are always lots of sides to one story. But Goodwill’s silence is still somewhat awkward. Especially with such a great argument as their being a ’social employer’. Kami is right, of course: it’s a good thing Goodwill didn’t open Joe’s book. But total silence only - like Andrea already pointed out - makes Goodwill look ‘guilty’. Luckily for them, Andrea’s blog hasn’t got thousands and thousands of readers across the States. Yet!
What struck me first was why does Goodwill use “secret shoppers”?. Sounds like they have had problems before with employees giving away goods without permission.
[This does not get in the way of Andrea's point about how Goodwill Virginia have badly mishandled this.]
However there is a potential defence IF there has been a previous history of this (and the “secret shopper” is an indication of this) AND the staff had previously been warned that this is a termination offence. Then this can be justified. (but Andrea is still right about the PR thing. )
Serge wrote: “I can see what MTLB is saying here, but HR as well as PR are a people’s business.”
I disagree. HR has always been about protecting the company, despite what most employees think.
PR should have been notified of such policies and situations, at least to the extent of advising the potential for public backlash. Right now, though, Joe is not even a local media issue. It’s just on a blog, with a limited readership.
My guess? PR isn’t even tracking this, and is blissfully unaware that there is a secret shopper/job chopper.
Wow, good detective work Andrea. I love that Goodwill hears about this through the grapevine. It goes to show the real influence of blogs in general.
That said, I look forward to an explaination from Ms. walters.
As you may have read on our web site, Goodwill of Central Virginia is part of a network of 205 community-based, autonomous member organizations in the United States, Canada, and 23 other countries that serve people with obstacles to employment, including those with disabilities and disadvantages, through education, training and career services. Last year, we served more than 6,300 individuals in our local community - providing hope, dignity, and independence.
When Andrea contacted our organization regarding an associate that had served her at a local Goodwill Attended Donation Center, her inquiry was directed to the appropriate person for assistance, in this case Human Resources since it was regarding an employee. Like any employer, we understand the importance of confidentiality. When an employee leaves, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, we protect their privacy by keeping employment matters confidential. We do have a policy in place for news media inquiries. If an employee is contacted directly by a reporter, they are to redirect the call to Marketing and Communications, or to obtain the caller’s name, contact information, affiliation, and a brief description of the subject in question, for the call to be returned. Andrea was viewed as a member of the donating public, who works in PR as a profession. Had there been a mention of online media, an article, or story, I would have been notified immediately. With that being said, we appreciate the links to the blog that Goodwill supporters e-mailed through our online contact form.
Our retail customers are critical in allowing us to fulfill our mission and work, by funding valuable programs that meet community needs. Since our merchandise comes from public donations, Goodwill believes that “it’s only fair” that every customer has an equal opportunity to purchase items for sale in our stores. It is also the policy of Goodwill that all donations received are for public resale. It is our responsibility to prevent any possible perception of unfair advantage in the selection and purchase of donated items. All of our employees are aware of our written donation policy, and receive ongoing customer service training. There are no exceptions to the policy. If there is any doubt about its application, it is the employee’s responsibility to clarify it with management before a decision is made. We must avoid any possible appearance of impropriety. It is not unusual for a social enterprise to adopt “It’s Only Fair” policies to uphold its fiduciary duty to the community – who expects a high level of care for their donated items.
Employees are aware that we canvas donation sites at random, to protect community donations. Policies are in place for public trust, security, and consistency in employment practices. As noted, it was a licensed private investigator (not an employee of Goodwill) that observed several Goodwill Attended Donation Centers. The entire interaction was only 16 seconds. What kind of impression does it leave with the person pulling up to make a donation to Goodwill, who sees someone taking another person’s recent donation from the center? As a retailer, we have a loss prevention program in place, including an ethics hotline. Our employees are well aware that we randomly check our Attended Donation Centers to prevent theft and other wrongdoing. Other associates, on the same day, declined requests as trained to do so.
Resources and support services are available through Goodwill to help people in need obtain clothing and other items from our stores through a community service voucher program, in partnership with local Departments of Social Services and other community agencies. Goodwill employment centers can also assist individuals in need with information and referral services.
To learn more about our mission and work, please visit http://www.goodwillcva.org.
I forgot to mention that the donation policy applies to all employees. In fairness, no exception can be made for any one employee.
Devil’s Advocate hat thrown off. I’m in Andrea’s house, so I’ll play nice, but…
The Goodwill mission statement above still doesn’t get out in front of the situation from a PR POV. Reads more like a list of great things they do.
How long was Joe an employee and was this a repeat problem for him? First time in 20 years? Repeated pattern? Has he been approached before and how did he handle it then?
Sounds like PR peeps or lawyers would like to talk to Joe about a case. Basically, the implication is that Joe caved in over a binky in less than 16 seconds. Yeah, that looks a whole lot better for Goodwill. I have a hard time buying that though. So too would the court of public opinion I’ll bet.
Should’ve just come out and said ‘we’ve had issues with employees and needed to stop the problem.‘
End of story.
Now, if it isn’t a problem, then Goodwill just comes off looking like they don’t care by really coming down hard on Joe, (unless of course, it was a repeat problem with him and they’d tried to help him in the past). But it looks bad. You get three strikes for drug possession but one from Goodwill. Yeah. That works.
I’ve donated to Goodwill many times in the past and the elderly guy I give the stuff to there does the job and minds the trailer.
I have to say though, if someone really was desperate and had no money and needed furniture, I wouldn’t have a problem with my furniture or clothes going to them, no matter how they got them. Sure would hate to see someone go without just because Joe’s hands were tied. Defeats the purpose of giving, doesn’t it?
After all, isn’t that what we expect? Our donated stuff going to help someone?
Matthew 25:40 “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me”
Matthew 25:45 “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me”
Remind me again if Goodwill has a true Christian heart…
I can see that Goodwill has to uphold certain principles, for the good of the public, its own organisation, its donators, its ‘customers’ and everybody involved. But I tend to agree with MTLB: where’s Joe in this story? That’s also, btw, what I meant with ‘a people’s business, Ike: the ‘matter’ you deal with are people. It’s not about machines that need readjusting, or about making the right calculations. You never know what makes people tick - people are erratic, have emotions and can not be programmed. E.g. “raise in pay = more motivation” is not correct by definition. I agree with you that the HR dept is there for the sake of the company, mind you. But I may have used the term ‘people’s business’ in another/an incorrect way.
How should online journalism handle corrections?
One of the points that Times Higher editor John O’Leary made in Vilnius that caught my attention was to encourage press officers to seek corrections when wrong information was included in newspapers and particularly when this would also be carried
Aimee, I was curious are you saying that once an employee is caught giving away items once you don’t just give them a warning, but immediately fire them?
Putting policy aside momentarily, what you need to ask yourself is was “Joe” morally right in his decision? At the core of every human we hope that other humans are good. In today’s society there is so much skepticism and judgment passed that no one looks to see the good in people anymore. If that scenario was true, who am I to pass judgment on to a guy who was just trying to help a woman who he thought needed it. It is understandable that it was potential merchandise, but is firing him really necessary? I think the first punishment would be strict, but not that bad. What ever happened to paying for the merchandise, work without pay or probation?
The first thing people think of when they think of Good will is helping those who need it. Am I not right? So where did “Joe” go wrong? Oh yeah, he was willing to give a woman “baby items,” who he thought couldn’t afford them. From a public relations view, Goodwill is just digging itself into a hole. They fired an employee for trying to help someone who he thought was in need. I don’t know if there’s a good way to spin this one, even if Goodwill bring up its policies, I don’t think it’s a way out. They’re going to have to come up with a better reason.
Maybe I’m sticking up for “Joe” because I probably would have done the same thing in his situation. Sorry about your job “Joe.”