Ever since Barak Obama managed to raise $6.9 million out of $25 million through small donations on the web, 92% of which were $100 or less, many involved in the non-profit world started to understand the potential of crowd sourcing small “micro-donations” instead of, or in addition to, the traditional approach of getting small numbers of large donations. Micro-donations are generally under $10 per person, with the idea being to crowdsource very large numbers of donors. A good example of an organization that maximizes the potential of micro-donations is Kiva. Kiva’s fund-raising activity takes place almost exclusively on the web, where it allows donors to make small donations to finance small businesses in developing countries. Kiva uses the web and social media brilliantly (their email newsletter is one of the best I’ve seen), and their emphasis on the fact that donations are “person-to-person,” and the transparent nature of their enterprise succinctly represents the personal culture that users of social media expect and appreciate.

round-up simplifies micro-donations

A new initiative in micro-donations came to Israel in 2008 in the form of round-up, or “Igul Letova” in Hebrew. round-up is a non-profit that enables people to give micro-donations to non-profits of their choice by rounding up purchases on credit cards or by rounding down salaries. The option to give automatically every month by rounding down one’s salary was recently added by the organization.

I interviewed Vered Shavit Mazor, Manager at round-up, to learn more about their initiative.

Me: How can people join the new employee salary round-up option?

Vered: This is being implemented in companies that are characterized by an ongoing connection (like computerized payment or collection) with a large user base. Until September of this year, the only option for rounding up was available credit card companies. In September, we introduced the option for companies that use Hilan Tech to manage their salaries to offer round-up to their employees. Hilan Tech developed a unique module for their system which enables direct donation from an employee’s salary slip. Amdocs and Matrix are already offering their employees to round-up.

The way the rounding up works is as follows: an employee chooses to donate a small amount on a monthly basis by rounding down their salary to the nearest 5 NIS, 10 NIS or 20 NIS, which would yield an average monthly donation of NIS 2.5, NIS 5 or NIS 10 accordingly. The employee chooses which cause or category of causes will receive their donation. In the event that the company is interested in doing so, the module can also enable the employer to match the employee’s donation, for the same cause.

Me: How does the employee choose the cause they are donating to?

Vered: Employees can choose to donate to a minimum of one or a maximum of three causes from the list of eligible causes compiled by round-up. The donations can be made to general categories of non-profits, like health or education, and/or to specific designated NPOs. The employee’s donation will be divided equally between the selected causes. In the event that a general category is chosen, the donation will be divided equally between all the NPOs in that category.

The amount of the donation will appear on the salary slip as a debit line and the cause/s for the donation and the amounts transferred that month shall also be presented. If the employer matched the donation, an additional line item will appear on the salary slip noting the employer’s donation. round-up transfers the monies in full according to the specifications of the donors, based on a report received from the employer via Hilan Tech.

Me: What does a company need to do to join?

Vered: The implementation of round-up is via the salary accountant and/or the human resources department, and based on the Hilan Tech salary system which has been configured to handle the matter in a simple and effective way.

Me: How did round-up select the organizations that receive the donations?

Vered: A public committee founded by round-up and headed by President of the Supreme Court (ret.) Judge Meir Shamgar prepared a list of categories and foundations that can be selected by donors. All the causes in the list successfully passed the “Seal of Transparency” test of Midot, an organization that rates and screens non-profit organizations.

The list of eligible causes currently includes over 40 foundations in the following categories: health, education, children and youth at risk, welfare and employment, women in distress, culture and recreation, communities in need and new immigrants, quality of the environment, tolerance and human rights, and people with disabilities.

Me: What’s the big vision behind round-up?

Vered: Several shekels from many employees can total tens of hundreds of millions of shekels per year for advancing social causes.

Me: Thanks Vered!

—————————————-

While round-up doesn’t specifically use the web or social media to crowdsource their donations, the approach to micro-donations via credit cards or salary slips is simple and therefore effective. Additional details about round-up can be found on the website: www.round-up.org.il.

It’s that time of year again: the next Entrepreneur Breakfast meeting is coming up, and we’ve got an amazing speaker lined up for you.

Ruth Shlossman, Principal at the Washington DC-based negotiation consulting firm, Watershed Associates, will be the guest speaker at the upcoming Entrepreneur Breakfast meeting on Monday, September 17, 2007. Ruth will be talking about “Best Negotiating Practices…Learn the basic, universal, key negotiating practices that create a win-win outcome.”

Watershed Associates provides consultative training in negotiation skills worldwide, and has served global corporations such as Coca-Cola, General Electric, NASA, and Rolls Royce, to name just a few on their impressive client list. Ruth Shlossman has over 20 years experience in leadership, sales and consulting. She has trained thousands of people in the art of innovation, negotiation, sales negotiation, and bargaining with emotional intelligence.

In my opinion, this is an opportunity not to be missed! To find out more details, and how to RSVP, read on!

Date: Monday, September 17, 2007.

Time: 9 am – sharp!

Venue: Probably the Begin Center in Jerusalem. We haven’t finalized yet, but this seems like our best bet. It is conveniently located across from Jerusalem’s Cinemateque and near Emek Refaim.

Cost: About 50 NIS per person. This will only be finalized once we close on the venue and we see the number of people who RSVP, but we estimate that it will be around this amount.

Please note that we do not have the facilities to provide receipts, since we are not a registered amuta. All proceeds go directly to cover the costs incurred in planning the event.

The meeting will include a light breakfast of coffee, juice, baked goods and fresh fruit.

To find out more about the meeting, go the Entrepreneur Breakfast site, and click here to RSVP.

[Go to the end of this post to see the original ad]

If any of us thought that the West was going to work to stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, at least economically if not militarily, then think again. The following pretty much indicates that profit, even the smallish profit derived from newspaper advertising, is way more important then the lives of little ol’ you and me.

Ad: Looking for ethically-challenged people to build Iran’s nuclear reactor

Let’s say you’re a despot trying to build up your nuclear powers. You’ve got one nuclear reactor in the making that will hopefully soon be able to blow whole cities into oblivion. So far so good. But let’s say you want to be able to blow whole countries into oblivion. You’ve maxed out on your own country’s nuclear-development capabilities (your citizens are too busy to get an education, since you’re spending all your money on weapons of mass destruction and they are all poverty-stricken) and need to turn elsewhere. Hmmm, who can such a despot turn to in this time of need?

Of course – the West via The International Herald Tribune!

Yes, it’s true – Iran has published tenders for the construction of two spanking new nuclear reactors in last Wednesday’s edition of the International Herald Tribune. Now, it is understandable that Iran wants to recruit the best nuclear-reactor-builders for this endeavor (only the finest for Uncle Ahmadinejad’s genocidal projects), but it is harder to swallow IHT’s compliance with the advertisement of such a project, especially since this paper is sold in local newsstands across Israel – Iran’s prime target!

I don’t think that I have to elaborate on the absurdity, immorality, and farcicality of this whole thing. So without further ado, here are some of the details of the tender as published in IHT. Feel free to do with this information as you please (some suggestions: giving Mr. Esmaeili a piece of your mind; pointing out to Austria Bank Creditanstalt that their involvement in plans for another Holocaust seems to indicate that they haven’t really learned anything):

Tender No. IRI-NPP-07-1001

The nuclear power production and development company of Iran (NPPD), an affiliate company of the atomic energy corporation of Iran (the owner) invites field bids from contractors, companies for the design, supply of equipment, construction and commissioning, of two large scale units 1000-1600 MWe each with 3rd generation nuclear power pressurized light water reactor in the Bushehr province of Iran. Qualified bidders who have sufficient experiences in the construction and commissioning of such plants are requested to obtain the respective bid inquiry specification (BIS) documents upon payment of a non-refundable fee of 15,000 euros transferred to the following account.

Account number: 01754283800
Name of Bank: Austria Bank Creditanstalt
Code of Bank: 12000
IBAN: AT881100001754283800
SWIFT or BIC: BKAUATWW

Within 15 days from 25 April 2007 through AEOI’s representative office presents at the permanent mission of the IR of Iran of the IAEA at Heinestr. 19/1/1, A-1020 Vienna, Austria or company’s headquarters office at #7 Tandis Street., Africa Avenue, Tehran, IR of Iran.

They go on to note that any bids must be accompanied by a bid bond of 20 million Euro. So mark your calendars: bidding begins on May 8, 2007 at 10 am.

If you have any questions, they may be contacted as follows:

Telephone: +431-2140971 or +431-2140972
Fax: +431-2140973
Mr. Esmaeili at esmaeili@teleweb.at

Thanks to Karin Kloosterman for the scoop!

Postscript: Karin scanned the original ad, so here it is. It appeared in the International Herald Tribune on April 25, 2007 on page 14.

Moreover, I advise that the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

It is apparent that many women find the work environment to be a hostile place. Stories abound about women being asked all manners of inappropriate questions in interviews, such as if they have children, do they plan on having children, what does their husband think of their career, etc. Employers want assurance that work will come above all else, and an employee must commit to that work ethic or else.

For mothers of small children, this approach is particularly problematic. As we know, children are unpredictable. They can get sick, they can have vacations, and they may just want and need attention. All of this demands time and understanding, something rare in the workplace.

Many newspapers have reported about the high-power career women who have left their jobs to pursue a career in caring for their children. But do they do this out of will, or because they feel that they are forced out?

Of course, it is not only women that seek a better balance between family and work. Many men also would like to have more time to spend with their families and children.

The ROWE approach – Results Only Work Environment

Self-employment is one option for those seeking greater flexibility in their jobs. But self-employment is not for everyone, and many prefer the security of a monthly paycheck.

The answer (possibly): ROWE – Results Only Work Environment. This is an experiment that has been implemented by Best Buy, whereby bosses have no say in scheduling and can only judge employees by tasks successfully completed. So workers can work when and were they want, as long as they fulfill their responsibilities. This “experiment” has been in place for five years, and Best Buy reports that employee productivity has increased an average of 35% in departments covered by the program.

This plan not only increases productivity, but also saves them money:

“The per-employee cost of turnover is $102,000, and ROWE teams have 3.2 percent less voluntary turnover than non-ROWE teams. So once Best Buy’s 4,000-person headquarters is completely converted to ROWE, the company stands to save about $13 million a year in replacement costs.”

I can personally attest to the ridiculousness of time-based employment. In one of my first jobs, I was employed as an editor for 20 hours a week, and up to 40 depending on the workload. I was completing the editing work in 5 hours. To fill up the remaining 15, I offered to take on other tasks. I ended up reorganizing their library and became their “librarian”, helped the bookkeeper with her backlog, and I even started working for another department doing research and improved their client-communication material. Not to mention that I worked with them on writing their brochure, and managed the project for improving their CRM system. But when the end of the year came, they saw that I was missing many hours because often I would come in a half hour late or leave a bit earlier because of my kids – this adds up over a year. They didn’t care that I was doing three times the amount of work, and made me pay for my missing hours. Some of you may think this is totally fair on their part, but I felt very unappreciated (and soon left to more appreciative pastures).

The conventional time-based work environment penalizes those who are efficient. It may even encourage people to waste time – why should they fulfill a task in one hour if it means they will only get recognition for one hour of work? Better to drag it across three hours, and make the boss happy.
Will companies begin to adopt ROWE? I don’t think so, at least not in the foreseeable future. It’s hard to get executives to wrap their heads around this new way of thinking. But at least there’s hope on the horizon!

A recent conversation on the Digital Eve Israel mailing list brought up the topic of pregnancy and the workplace. While the law in Israel states that employers cannot fire pregnant women, this is apparently not enforced and many stories were related by women on the list who were fired when pregnant or upon return from maternity leave. Many didn’t sue their former employers because they didn’t have the energy, resources, or hope that it would help the situation.

Suing, however, can be effective. An article from Haaretz was cited that reported on a case in September where the court ruled that a company must pay NIS 300,000 to a woman fired illegally during pregnancy. But the woman who sent out this article pointed out that if the courts become too effective, this may end up backfiring on women and companies would think twice before placing women in certain positions.

Weak law enforcement
The fact that the law prohibiting employers from firing pregnant women or those on maternity leave is not enforced, is problematic, but is not unique to this law. How many of us have seen people smoking under the non-smoking signs in public areas? But I think that this issue is representative of a larger problem that exists in Israel, and may exist elsewhere, and that is the question of women’s status in the workplace.

Supposedly, the State of Israel wants to encourage women to work outside of the home. Someone from MATI explained to me once that this is the reason that only women get tax points for children, and men do not. This is also the reason for the above-mentioned laws related to pregnancy and maternity leave – to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace.

Women-friendly work environment?
However, the reality is that these laws don’t help women as often as they could, and the general structure of Israeli society does not create a women-friendly work environment. For example, tax credits only benefit someone who has an income that reaches levels where it is taxed. In Israel, like in most countries, women earn less than men, and a third of working women are part-time employees, while only 7% of men work part-time. Another person from MATI explained to me, half-sarcastically, that the real reason women get the tax credits and men do not is because very few women would have to pay taxes anyways, so the government doesn’t lose any income.

And of course, it is clear that the law forbidding employers from firing pregnant women or women on maternity leave is not taken seriously. It seems that women are dependent on the kindness of their employer in order to keep their jobs.

The day care and school system in Israel makes it almost impossible for a woman to hold a job. Let’s just start with the two month break in the summer; the summer camps offered cost a fortune, especially for families with many children. And then, if you manage to survive the summer, a few weeks later there is Rosh Hashanah and Sukkot vacations. Then Chanuka. Purim. The month-long Pessach break. And then summer again. Now I’m all for celebrating the Jewish holidays, but why are there always vacation days added on to the beginning and end of every one of them? And do the kids need to have off all 8 days of Chanuka? Last time I checked, Purim was only one day, and yet the schools close for three days. And while cleaning for Pessach may be difficult, do the schools really need to close for a month?

Why women should work
It seems that society has not yet really decided whether women should or should not be encouraged to join the workforce. This issue is not unique to Israel; see this letter from a man in Portland, Oregon, who thinks women should stay home and do THEIR jobs (i.e. laundry and cooking), and that the entry of women to the workforce has been the downfall of the American family and job opportunities for men.

To sum up, here are some points in favor of women working taken from the response to the above mentioned letter:

• “A Catalyst survey of Fortune 500 companies found that companies with the highest representation of women in their top management teams experienced better financial performance than companies with the lowest women’s representation.”
• “In April 2006, The Economist said that “women … are the world’s most under-utilized resource; getting more of them into work is part of the solution to many economic woes.”

And finally, Guy Kawasaki in his manifesto “The Art of the Start,” says that women are essential to making your business work. When building your business model, he says you should ask women for their advice. The following is a bit of a long quote, but he explains his logic so hilariously that I can’t just tell you what he has to say – you have to read it for yourself:

“My theory is that deep in the DNA of men is a “killer” gene. This gene expresses itself by making men want to kill people, animals, and plants. To a large degree society has repressed this gene; however starting an organization whose purpose is to kill another organization is still socially acceptable.

“Hence, asking a man about a business model is useless because every business model looks good to someone with the Y chromosome…

“Women, by contrast, don’t have this killer gene. Thus, they are much better judges of the viability of a business model than men are. Don’t agree with me? The book The Darwin Awards provides irrefutable proof of women’s greater common sense. These awards commemorate “those individuals who have removed themselves from the gene pool in a sublimely idiotic fashion.”

“For example, in 1998 two construction workers fell to their demise after cutting a circular hole in the floor while they were standing in the middle of the circle. The Darwin Awards contain nine chapters about the stupidity of men, and one chapter about the stupidity of women. I rest my case.”

He goes on to provide an exercise on figuring out if your business model is viable. It ends with “Ask a few women if they think you have a chance of selling that many units. If they don’t, you don’t have a business model.”

Nuff said.

Thank You for Smoking is the first good movie I’ve seen in a long time. The characters are great, the script is brilliant, and it addresses interesting issues like moral relativism, political correctness, and our responsibility to our children. All of this takes place around a man who defends the tobacco industry to the world.

We all know that cigarettes are bad for us. They have been linked to diseases, diminished quality of life, and death. The general consensus is that smoking is bad, and therefore someone who spends their life defending cigarette producers is obviously morally questionable.

But cigarettes are a clear cut case. How about other products that aren’t directly related to death, but harm those who use them or are part of a lifestyle that leads to death? For example, studies have shown that foods high in fat and sugar are addictive, and are the leading causes of obesity. Being overweight has been linked to higher risks for heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. Obesity has been identified as an epidemic by the World Health Organization. So are the manufacturers of potato chips and ice cream as morally questionable as the tobacco people?

The other cause of obesity identified by the WHO is reduced physical activity. One of the causes of this is television. A long term study of children between the ages of 5 and 15 found that 41% of those who watched a lot of TV were overweight or obese, and their body mass indices were closely related to the amount of television they had watched as children. The Journal of Pediatrics reported similar findings.

Now your baby can watch TV too!
But instead of striving to limit television viewing among children, providers of television programming are doing the opposite: they are increasing their potential audience by generating programming for toddlers and even babies; and this despite other studies that show a link between toddler television viewing and increased risk of ADHD.

When I was in the hospital after giving birth about a month ago, the freebie woman came around distributing her package of goodies to the new mothers. The package included the usual diapers, wipes, and other baby and mother care products. But this time the package contained something new – and very disturbing. A DVD introducing a new series of shows created just for your baby!

The Yes satellite company has launched a station for new parents and their babies. Part of the station provides advice to nervous new moms and dads, and the second part gives these newbies the opportunity to turn their babies into zombies from an earlier age. The package states that the shows are for six month old babies and will help mothers relax, i.e. get the kid to stop moving around so darn much!

At what price profit?
Yes obviously wanted to expand their subscriber base by offering shows geared towards a never-before targeted demographic – babies. Based on the above quoted studies, and many others, Yes is leading these kids down a slippery slope to weight problems and its related health issues, and even attention disorders. But isn’t Yes only doing what so many other companies do today – try to sell more of their unhealthy and even dangerous products?

One of the tobacco chiefs in Thank You for Smoking aptly describes the cigarette business: “They’re cool, they’re available, they’re addictive. The job is practically done for us!”

It is easy to sell people harmful things that make their lives more convenient or enjoyable, since many of these products tend to create addictions or dependencies. But just because we can technically and legally sell these products or services, it doesn’t mean that we should. Business isn’t just about profit – it’s also about responsibility. The responsibility doesn’t just lie on the shoulders of the consumers, but businesses need to start to share the responsibility for the welfare of their customers.

Or else this may be what’s in store…

If music be the food of love, play on;
Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die.

William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616), “Twelfth Night”, Act 1 scene 1

Humans are creative beings with a strong creative impulse, and this comes into play in almost all realms of our lives. Even in business, a seemingly dry and uncreative pursuit, art and creativity play important roles. From logos to taglines, businesses use art to peak the interest of clients. In addition, managers of companies often get a “spark” of creative insight or inspiration that drives them to introduce a new product, feature or service for the benefit of their company.

It is generally agreed that art is important and that it enriches the lives of those affected by it. However, does business or government have a responsibility to provide the means for artists to thrive? Does a country have a national interest in cultivating great artists?

Lloyd Masel believes they do. Lloyd moved to Israel from Australia in 1999, where he worked for over 40 years as Sales and Personnel Manager in a retail clothing business chain. Aside from being an active businessman, Lloyd also invested in a rich musical career. He studied the bel canto singing technique with Viennese mezzo-soprano Vali Lewin, and was a finalist in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Vocal and Concerto competition in Perth. He also held principal tenor roles with the Western Australian Opera Company.

After making aliyah, Lloyd was disheartened to see the multitudes of talented young musicians whose talents were being wasted due to the lack of funding available for artists, and watched sadly as many of them sought their fortunes outside of Israel.

Lloyd is now working on a new musical venture to help young musicians develop their talents. Along with his partner, Tomer Menahemi, he is setting up “Overture,” a program dedicated to helping students fine-tune their singing skills to prepare them for auditions at the Buchmann-Mehta School of Music (Tel Aviv University) or the Jerusalem Academy of Music and Dance.

Read Lloyd’s opinion on the importance of music in Israeli culture, and you will also learn something about the state of the arts in our country:
(The opinions below do not necessarily reflect those of illuminea or its staff.)

Corporate Sponsorships for the Arts
by Lloyd Masel

The arts are often perceived as the playground of the rich, a pursuit reserved for the wealthy. Governments agree, and explain that they cannot fund the arts as long as most of their taxpayers do not belong to the upper class. So, public funding for artistic ventures moves to the back burner, and boils away.

Israel has heavy budgetary constraints. Our social welfare program is over-burdened, and we have a top-heavy defense budget. In this constrained environment, the arts hardly get a nod when it comes to funding allocation.

So to survive, the arts need to look towards private funding, such as corporate sponsorship. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra realized this, and today is a world-class entity. Founded in 1936, this orchestra depends mainly on subscribers and sponsorship for its survival. It is a highly efficient business which is almost self-supporting. They recognized that big government funding is not realistic, and began to encourage for corporate support. Income is limited from door sales since seat prices are beyond the reach of many Israeli citizens, but corporate support is attainable and effectively engineered.

Let’s take a closer look at some of our country’s other musical bodies. We now have a fine opera house and opera company. The New Israeli Opera has grown in stature since the opera house was completed in 1985, and now conducts joint ventures with other opera companies around the world. Yet, it experienced serious financial problems over the past few years. This is difficult for the government to support as seat prices are so steep that opera really only caters for the elite. Once again, private sponsorship is the only way forward for an opera company which aims for rich goals, but with limited resources.

We once had a National Choir of Israel. It no longer exists due to insufficient funding. The list of extinct Israeli artistic groups is almost endless.

With the influx of thousands of musicians from the former Soviet Union there is an abundance of talent in the semi-professional and amateur musical groups. Israel now boasts numerous regional orchestras, dozens of choirs and an abundance of smaller music ensembles. But there is no funding available for most, if not all of them. Many of these groups ask their members to pay for the upkeep, and we are in danger of losing highly talented artists who seek better opportunities outside of Israel. This is a drain on our cultural assets, but it could be arrested if corporate sponsorship was more readily available.

As many of us are aware, Israel is a country rich in human resources and talents. Our hi-tech sector is an example of how we can excel, and this potential for excellence exists in our talented young artists as well. It is a national priority that this talent does not go to waste. Corporate sponsorship of the arts can help society, and even bring positive public relations value to the companies’ balance sheets.

If you are interested in hearing more about Lloyd and Overture, you can contact Lloyd by email at falstaff@zahav.net.il.

I hold a lot of business meetings at a certain café on Emek Refaim. This particular café is great because it has wireless Internet, great food, friendly service, and ambience. And to top it all off, they have the Tav Chevrati, which is a kind of social certification indicating that, among other things, their workers get paid minimum wage and on time (in many places the workers have to depend on tips for their salary!), and they meet other criteria like handicap accessibility.

Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu) stopped by to grab a bite. Ok, it wasn’t with me, and we were on either side of the restaurant, but it’s not such a big place so we practically lunched together. The person I was meeting pointed out that this country is so small that celebrities can’t act like celebrities. If they want a good cup of coffee, they show up at the same mid-level cafes like the rest of us. This encounter drove home again how small this country really is; this isn’t the first time I’ve run into one of our politicians, and I’ve even worked with one of the richest people in this country! Six degrees of separation? I think in Israel it’s three or less.

I wanted to tell Bibi that I think it was a great idea that he started his own blog, and that he should check mine out. But by the time I got up he was gone…

The Charedim are boycotting El Al (and the environmentalists are boycotting tobacco companies, etc.)

I read two other Israeli blogs, and within the past few days both wrote about the Charedi boycott against El Al. Michael Eisenberg at Six Kids and a Full Time Job argued that the boycott could cause serious economic damage to the carrier, that we need an Israeli carrier for global flights and good security, and that this approach won’t necessarily bring people closer to Shabbat.

David Bogner at Treppenwitz argues that El Al is now a private entity that needs to survive in a highly competitive environment, which may necessitate flying on Shabbat and/or serving non-kosher food to passengers. He also questions the logic of choosing to fly on other airlines, which aren’t necessarily more stringent with Shabbat and kashrut.

I disagree with both of them. It is every consumer group’s right to exercise their economic clout by boycotting a company if they feel it is violating principles that are important to them. Not only is it obvious to all that Shabbat and kashrut are important issues to the Charedim, but apparently El Al promised them that they would adhere to these principles.

Eisenberg is concerned that the Charedi boycott will bring El Al to its knees, which would affect the livelihood of many and even have nationalistic and security implications. If the Charedim do have enough purchasing power to cause damage to El Al – well, isn’t that what a boycott is all about? This is their right as consumers, to choose to buy or not to buy from certain companies. If their economic clout with El Al is so significant, then El Al will simply have to consider whether it is more worthwhile economically for them to fly seven days a week and potentially gain one more day of business and lose the Charedim, or not. El Al won’t be the first company to have to reconsider its strategy in light of consumer pressure, and they certainly don’t have to self-destruct as a result.

To Treppenwitz: I have to question the extent to which El Al has been privatized. If it now holds the same status as every other airline that flies to and from Israel, why does the Israeli government insist on limiting the flights of other airlines? Is it because of good memories and sentiments? I doubt it. The government seems to have some kind of stake in El Al, and is determined to make sure that they can maintain their semi-monopolistic state of Israel’s air space. If that is the case, then El Al is still Israel’s national airline, is still coddled by the fat man, and may not be able to use privatization as an excuse for changing their religiously-related policies. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t fly on Shabbat – I’m just saying that the argument may not hold water. And if it does, then they are subject to boycotts just like any other private company, and will have to consider the demands of their clients in addition to their own independent economic strategies.

And finally, does it make sense to boycott El Al and then fly on other airlines that don’t keep Shabbat? No, but the Charedim are in negotiations with Israir to devote themselves to that airline in return for a guarantee that they won’t fly on Shabbath. Will people become closer to Shabbat as a result? Probably not, but that’s not necessarily the Charedi goal in this fight.
In the meantime, it looks like El Al is succumbing to the Charedi pressure. El Al’s CEO told reporters this week that “There is no boycott…El Al has no intention to fly on Shabbat.”

If you’re in business, one of your main goals is usually to provide an income to yourself and your family. Now, you can’t just be in business to make money – you have to love what you do and enjoy “helping” others, i.e. your clients or customers. But this kind of “help” does not fall under the category of charitable giving, where helping takes the form of aiding those who are less fortunate with basics, like food, clothing and health care.

I realized recently that a person in business can use their business connections and knowledge to truly help others in a charitable way: by helping people reach a state where they can sustain themselves with their own income, rather than depending on charitable contributions.

Maimonides (Rambam), an ancient Jewish doctor and philosopher who lived in Spain and Egypt at the end of the 12th century, listed the types of charitable activities that people can do and rated them from most ideal to least ideal. The most obvious type of charity is, of course, giving money to someone in need. This form of giving actually ranks pretty low on Maimonides scale of giving. He states that the best form of charity is to give someone the means to sustain themselves, whether it’s through an interest-free loan or by helping them get a job.

Over the past few months, I have been lucky enough to help two people get jobs that have become their main sources of income. In addition, friends and family often approach me for advice and guidance in starting or managing their small businesses, which I am happy to give.

I’m sure that business can be used to help others in many more ways – how do you use your business to truly help others?