> Microsoft's "generosity" is not limited to registered charities at all. It > promotes itself as a good, generous corporate citizen. It certainly gives > away a lot of product (though whether it 'costs' them or 'benefits' them in > the long term is obviously another question). > We here were given a considerable amount when we opened our Community Centre > here - which is not a business at all, but is not a registered charity. > > *My* point was that MS keeps up the PR of it being a big, generous citizen, > but at the same time is narrowing (considerably) the range of its > generosity, specifically excluding churches and church run bodies - whether > or not they are community services.
It's worth keeping in mind that Microsoft did almost no charitable work until they ended up in court on anti-trust charges. At the time of this case, they suddenly realized that they looked like misers and needed to improve their standing in society. > It is MS's money and it can give it to whomever it wants, but I think there > is an issue of truth that is lying around here somewhere. And I'm not saying it isn't Microsoft's money and they can't do with it as they wish (and I know your not accusing me of this). I'm just suggesting that Welfare Agencies like The Smith Family (and the Uniting Church) who work with low income Australians would do well not to get to caught up in the opportunity for a little pro-MS publicity, when Microsoft's corporate behavior isn't really in the best interests of many, including the poor. I see part of the role of Welfare Agencies is to rock the boat and try and solve the problem, rather than just applying a band-aid, and as such, helping promote a product your clients can't afford isn't an appropriate use of time and resources. On a personal note, it worries me that the Uniting Church seems loathe to stop using Microsoft products even when other more appropriate products exists, would meet the needs of the church and would actually work more towards the social justice principals of the church. Many in the church were happy to boycott Shell during the apartheid in South Africa, but the thought of having to change software so that low income families might better integrate into society it just too hard. For example, you can't talk about a fair eduction for all, while the software used in schools is too expensive for low income families to afford and alternatives that are more than suffice for educational and other purposes exist. The simple fact is that every time you send someone a word document, you assume they are rich enough to afford a copy of word. No wonder Christ used to tell stories (instead of writing them down), at least no one can make you buy software to listen to them. ;-] Rodd ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
