Chuggers chuggers everywhere

Pitchka said :

HannahMontana said :

A lot of them are young, attractive and have really exotic accents. My friend has already signed up to two charities because she thought two of the guys were cute! They may be really annoying but it works!

Well in that case you could:
1) ask them for a root/
2) tell them to fark off, which is my preferred approach (i get laid enough).

Actually I’d like to ask one of those nice European Chugger women for a root and tell her straight up that I will sign up if I get said root. She wants something and so do I. It probably won’t work though.

Barcham said :

Aeek said :

RedDogInCan said :

if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”

By that measure, heterosexual sex is unethical.

And thus we’ve concluded that gay marriage is the only ethical option.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

+1.
You are very funny Barcham.

I used to be a total mug for chuggers. I simply could not say no. It got to the point of being completely unaffordable and I had to cut some of the payments and HTFU.

Sorry Howeph, but I think it IS unethical of companies to build a business model based on making people feel guilty – for not wanting to make eye contact with a charming stranger because you know they are going to ask you for money, for being middle class in a first world country, for being able-bodied, etc – and using that guilt to gouge them for money.

I now just say to chuggers – “I’m sorry. I donate monthly to charities and NGOs that I have a long-standing relationship with” – but I don’t tell them that the relationship started with a chugger! – “please give me some information, I will read it tonight when I get home, and if I want to support this organisation, I will email them asking them how to set up a monthly payment and I will let them know that you were my introduction to their work.”

This usually works okay – we have a mutually respectful conversation and sometimes the charity does get me to sign up.

It certainly works a lot better than my earlier tactic of getting the mobile phone out and pretending to take a call while walking past – very embarrassing when my phone started ringing when I was already at the “ahem, um, um” stage of my imaginary conversation.

Barcham’s claims that his “one sarcastic editorial comment about the Prime Minister does not harassment make”. Presumably his comment at #21 on the same article means that “I’m not picking on Tony because he’s a Liberal, I’m picking on him because he’s a horrible human being who is doing horrible things.” constitutes a second ‘sarcastic editorial comment’.
I have no particular persuasion towards any political party, but I recognize anserine comments when I see them.

Aeek said :

RedDogInCan said :

if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”

By that measure, heterosexual sex is unethical.

And thus we’ve concluded that gay marriage is the only ethical option.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

I want to give a more expansive response later (maybe not today) but first I want to correct what looks like a misunderstanding:

Barcham said :

howeph said :

However I think the best approach is a utilitarian argument. The ethical action is the one that maximises overall “happiness”. Here we pit the minor inconvenience that we are collectively subjected to by “chuggers” against the real benefits that the money raised enables the charities to perform.

For me that calculus is a no brainer.

Please note I have constrained my analysis purely to the ethics of the activity. Arguments instead about its effectiveness, particularly in the longer term I think may have more merit.

You’re having your cake and eating it too. You only want to talk about the activity itself, but you bring in consequentialism and utilitarianism.

“I don’t want to talk about anything but this small thing, but when you look at the bigger picture it’s the best thing for the most amount of people.”

Pick one.

I should have written “Please note I have constrained my analysis purely to the ethics of the issue” instead of “activity”. So I meant to “pick” the big picture option, from an ethics perspective.

Sorry for the confusion.

RedDogInCan said :

if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”

By that measure, heterosexual sex is unethical.

I honestly thought this would be one of (and possibly only) issue on which all rioters would agree about.

Chuggers should be locked up in stocks on City walk where we can laugh and throw things at them. I’d actually pay money to charity to be able to do it. Possible new marketing technique for them?

RedDogInCan said :

howeph said :

Cool. So you are charged with demonstrating that it is unethical… Lets try and distil your argument from this post:

If Howeph had read a bit further down the Wikipedia page on ethics, they would have come to deontology, the approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”, and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.

Yes I did read that, and even started to try and formulate Bachram’s argument into that form. But I a) didn’t feel it was right to start putting words into his mouth; and b) for brevity decided to delete it. Now I regret it.

RedDogInCan said :

Barcham’s argument is that chuggers act towards him in a way that he would not consider as an acceptable way for him to act towards others. From the deontology point of view, this is a valid argument.

The problem with deontology, or rule based ethics, is that the outcome seems to depends on what rules you choose to follow.

From Bachram’s post the rules he seems to be following is that of what’s socially polite. I can think of obvious extreme examples where following such rules are stupid and clearly unethical e.g. When exiting a burning plane after a crash you don’t say “After you. No, no after You” when deciding who jumps down the slide first whilst your fellow passengers are burning to death behind you. Hence why ethics is not about following social conventions.

You’ve nominated the single rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”. Well speaking for myself I would have the “chuggers” ask me for donations, just never aggressively. I think they provide a valuable service. This rule to me seems rather arbitary and subjective.

An alternative, and what would be my preferred rule, is the rule utilitarianism. But this just makes the deontological argument the same as my original simple utilitarian argument above.

This, compared to th

L_Observer said :

Hilarious comment from Barcham: “Harassment is wrong….”.
In the last week alone, this guy has submitted us to (weekly) naughty parking; told us “How much do you want to bet that by this time next year Tony (Abbott) will have downgraded Medicare so that it only covers the use of leeches and amputation?’; and headlined an article “Want to see a truck driver act like a jerk” and then gives the number of the plate.

The parking photos harass no one, one sarcastic editorial comment about the Prime Minister does not harassment make, and I did not release the plate number, the person who uploaded the video did. I merely reported it.

I probably shouldn’t have called him a jerk though to be fair.

Correct me if I’m wrong but that can be summarised to: “I think it’s unethical because I find it rude, socially awkward and annoying.”

Incorrect. I’m saying that it’s unethical because it involves manipulating people’s better natures for personal financial gain. Personally I’ve moved past the annoyance and made peace with being rude to chuggers, but the idea that this is what they’re doing stuff bothers me. Right and wrong are not based on my comfort. I dislike my neighbors music, I don’t call it unethical that they play it loudly when in the yard during the weekend.

According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, “most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law”, and don’t treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.

Ethics is about right and wrong; not what’s socially polite. From my point of view, I don’t think that you have yet made the case that it is unethical.

Yes ethics is a standalone thing. Yes social etiquette/laws/religious beliefs are different things. However that in no way means that a break in rules of etiquette cannot also be unethical, in fact I’d argue that most social etiquette/laws/religious beliefs are based on ideas of ethics.

Something can be rude, illegal, sacrilegious, and unethical all at once. So stop trying to state something is manners INSTEAD of ethics. It can be both, and my position is that it is exactly that.

I don’t want to go all Star Trek, Vulcan on you; but it doesn’t matter if you are a “fan” of a particular style of logical argument or not – only the argument itself counts. And in this case a consequentialism argument seems like a reasonable place to start when arguing in support of “chuggers”.

However I think the best approach is a utilitarian argument. The ethical action is the one that maximises overall “happiness”. Here we pit the minor inconvenience that we are collectively subjected to by “chuggers” against the real benefits that the money raised enables the charities to perform.

For me that calculus is a no brainer.

Please note I have constrained my analysis purely to the ethics of the activity. Arguments instead about its effectiveness, particularly in the longer term I think may have more merit.

You’re having your cake and eating it too. You only want to talk about the activity itself, but you bring in consequentialism and utilitarianism.

“I don’t want to talk about anything but this small thing, but when you look at the bigger picture it’s the best thing for the most amount of people.”

Pick one.

howeph said :

Cool. So you are charged with demonstrating that it is unethical… Lets try and distil your argument from this post:

If Howeph had read a bit further down the Wikipedia page on ethics, they would have come to deontology, the approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person doing the act strove to fulfill. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule that “one should do unto others as they would have done unto them”, and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.

Barcham’sargument is that chuggers act towards him in a way that he would not consider as an acceptable way for him to act towards others. From the deontology point of view, this is a valid argument.

Hilarious comment from Barcham: “Harassment is wrong….”.
In the last week alone, this guy has submitted us to (weekly) naughty parking; told us “How much do you want to bet that by this time next year Tony (Abbott) will have downgraded Medicare so that it only covers the use of leeches and amputation?’; and headlined an article “Want to see a truck driver act like a jerk” and then gives the number of the plate.

johnboy said :

Or as gandhi said: “Means are ends in the making”

More begging the question. Are the means unethical?

Barcham said :

Howeph, I agree that ethics is a good way to view the issue but I disagree that what chuggers do is ethical.

Cool. So you are charged with demonstrating that it is unethical… Lets try and distil your argument from this post:

Barcham said :

Harassment is wrong and taking advantage of people’s desire to be polite is disgusting.

When a chugger approaches me saying “Hello” and holding his hand out to be shaken, I get placed in a position where I can either engage with him, hear his sales pitch, and waste a chunk of my lunch break, or I have to be rude and reject his handshake and greeting.

I want to do neither, but he is placing me in this position, he is doing so intentionally, and he is doing so for his own financial gain.

That to me is unethical behavior right there.

Correct me if I’m wrong but that can be summarised to: “I think it’s unethical because I find it rude, socially awkward and annoying.”

Compare this with the first sentence under the heading “Defining ethics” in the Ethics Wikipedia page:

According to Richard Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, “most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law”, and don’t treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.

Ethics is about right and wrong; not what’s socially polite. From my point of view, I don’t think that you have yet made the case that it is unethical.

Barcham said :

I’m not a fan of the idea that the ends justify the means.

I don’t want to go all Star Trek, Vulcan on you; but it doesn’t matter if you are a “fan” of a particular style of logical argument or not – only the argument itself counts. And in this case a consequentialism argument seems like a reasonable place to start when arguing in support of “chuggers”.

However I think the best approach is a utilitarian argument. The ethical action is the one that maximises overall “happiness”. Here we pit the minor inconvenience that we are collectively subjected to by “chuggers” against the real benefits that the money raised enables the charities to perform.

For me that calculus is a no brainer.

Please note I have constrained my analysis purely to the ethics of the activity. Arguments instead about its effectiveness, particularly in the longer term I think may have more merit.

Chuggers are as ethical as used car salesmen and real estate agents. All three are prepared to say whatever it takes to make the sale and get their commission. At least with groups like the Salvos, I know the person I am dealing with genuinely believes in what they are saying.

Watson said :

These people we are talking about don’t try help anyone but themselves. Some of the money going to charity is a positive side-effect of that. But the chuggers are NOT in any way linked to the charities’ philosophy or altruism. Their profession is marketing and we all despise marketing people for a variety of reasons, regardless of what they may be selling.

Is it possible that you are projecting a lot of negativity – arising from the feelings outlined above – onto people, doing their job, as professional fundraisers?

You are using emotive language like “these people … don’t try to help anyone but themselves.” Note that some people have the luxury of working in the job they love. Many do the work they have to to get by.

I don’t know, but I suspect that these people get a certain job satisfaction from knowing that what they do helps the charities that they are raising funds for. I know that I would. Perhaps this gives them the courage to soldier on in the face of the negative reactions that they receive, if the stories been told here are true.

Watson said :

I also disagree we are talking about a minority of “rude” chuggers here. Sure, it is still only circumstancial evidence, but I don’t think I have ever met one that wasn’t at least extremely pushy, which I classify as rude. The woman who often sits at our local shops with a bucket to collect money for the homeless, she is not rude. She says a friendly hello and that’s it. I give her money almost every time I pass. But someone stepping into your path to physically block you and force you to stop: rude and somewhat aggressive. And the anger that causes is not just because of the whole guilt trip you describe (which does come into play, but it’s not the whole story by far), it is caused by these people breaking the rules on acceptable social interaction.

Funny, I have never had a problem with them. A simple “no thanks” and I move on.

I feel the same set of emotions of course, but to quote one of my favorite literary characters, Mr. Bennett of Pride and Prejudice, “[I] do not despair this feeling will pass, and no doubt sooner than it should.” It takes less than 10 seconds.

I’ll address “rudeness” when responding to Barcham’s comment.

Watson said :

And not declaring how much of the money they want you to donate goes to the charity is low to say the least.

Under their code of conduct they are required to declare this information if asked (it’s my opinion that in addition it should be prominently displayed somewhere). If they refuse or can’t do so then you should complain to the Fundraising Institute Australia.

well said Barcham and johnboy

Howeph, I agree that ethics is a good way to view the issue but I disagree that what chuggers do is ethical.

I’m not a fan of the idea that the ends justify the means. The ultimate goal of the company behind the behavior does not change whether the behavior is ethical or not.

I don’t think you should do wrong in order to do right.

Harassment is wrong and taking advantage of people’s desire to be polite is disgusting.

When a chugger approaches me saying “Hello” and holding his hand out to be shaken, I get placed in a position where I can either engage with him, hear his sales pitch, and waste a chunk of my lunch break, or I have to be rude and reject his handshake and greeting.

I want to do neither, but he is placing me in this position, he is doing so intentionally, and he is doing so for his own financial gain.

That to me is unethical behavior right there.

We don’t even need to get into the rest of it. There’s plenty of other dodgy stuff. Once you do accept their greeting the manipulative speeches and “for or against” logical fallacies they present are disturbing. We could also discuss the ethics behind how they only employ young and conventionally attractive people to ask for donations. Or (as others have brought up) there’s the issue about how much of the money they ask for actually goes towards the cause. Or (as has happened to me) them using the details you provide to harass you down the line by calling you and trying to guilt you over the phone into giving even more money.

There’s a whole rabbit hole of ethical issues we could discuss, but when the very first part of the process, when you are approached on the street and someone tries to take advantage of your better nature, is already clearly disgusting behavior I don’t see why we should bother talking about the rest.

Having a charity organisation’s name printed on one’s shirt does not change the fact that there’s a right way and a wrong way to treat people and run an organisation, and they’re not in the right.

howeph said :

But it goes on. We subconsciously recognise the irrationality of our anger – after all isn’t it silly to be angry with people who are only trying to help others? And so we subconsciously go searching for reasons to justify our anger:

* A handful of instances where a charity worker was rude or a little aggressive makes them all rude and aggressive;
* The commission system is a swindle – when in fact it is a simple agreed contract between the charity and the fund raiser;
* it’s unethical;
* … etc, etc all the objections that we have read here on The Riot.

Charities do great work; they need our support not anger and hatred. Read the code of conduct. If you experience it being broken then report it. By doing so you’ll be helping the industry improve which benefits us all.

I was kind of with you, until the quoted part above. These people we are talking about don’t try help anyone but themselves. Some of the money going to charity is a positive side-effect of that. But the chuggers are NOT in any way linked to the charities’ philosophy or altruism. Their profession is marketing and we all despise marketing people for a variety of reasons, regardless of what they may be selling.

I also disagree we are talking about a minority of “rude” chuggers here. Sure, it is still only circumstancial evidence, but I don’t think I have ever met one that wasn’t at least extremely pushy, which I classify as rude. The woman who often sits at our local shops with a bucket to collect money for the homeless, she is not rude. She says a friendly hello and that’s it. I give her money almost every time I pass. But someone stepping into your path to physically block you and force you to stop: rude and somewhat aggressive. And the anger that causes is not just because of the whole guilt trip you describe (which does come into play, but it’s not the whole story by far), it is caused by these people breaking the rules on acceptable social interaction.

And not declaring how much of the money they want you to donate goes to the charity is low to say the least.

thatsnotme said :

I’ve got to agree with howeph. ‘Ethics’ just clouds and distorts this whole topic. I don’t give a shit about the ethics of it all …

Hi Thatsnotme, unfortunately I think that you have misunderstood me.

I think that ethics is the best way to look at this issue. It doesn’t cloud or distort the topic; rather it provides clarity and insight that challenges many peoples gut reactions (often erroneously called “common sense”).

People are hiding behind statements like “verges on unethical”, “questionable ethics” or an outright declaration that it is unethical; but when asked to defend those statements they can’t. Shouldn’t they then reflect on what else might be causing their negative reaction and whether it is proportional or justified?

Your honesty leads the way…

thatsnotme said :

… I just want to be able to walk through a public area without being personally harassed. By anyone – chuggers just happen to be the most offensive of the lot, not because of their cause, but their tactics.

The truth is that these people prick our conscience. All of us. Whether you already regularly donate time and money to charity or not.

They raise a feeling of guilt within us. As we determine not to engage or donate this quickly becomes a feeling of shame. Some might also feel some anxiety that they may be being judged by the charity worker.

All of the above is natural, and in truth nothing to be ashamed of. It just means you are a caring human being. But then for many of us the irrational kicks in…

All those negative emotions turn to anger. Anger that we are feeling this way. And, not surprisingly, that anger is directed at those who raised those feelings in the first place – the charity worker.

Ethics doesn’t come into it. Only emotion.

But it goes on. We subconsciously recognise the irrationality of our anger – after all isn’t it silly to be angry with people who are only trying to help others? And so we subconsciously go searching for reasons to justify our anger:

* A handful of instances where a charity worker was rude or a little aggressive makes them all rude and aggressive;
* The commission system is a swindle – when in fact it is a simple agreed contract between the charity and the fund raiser;
* it’s unethical;
* … etc, etc all the objections that we have read here on The Riot.

Charities do great work; they need our support not anger and hatred. Read the code of conduct. If you experience it being broken then report it. By doing so you’ll be helping the industry improve which benefits us all.

BimboGeek said :

It’s pretty unethical for private companies to syphon off what were supposed to be donations to charity. Charities are said to be acting unethically when their overheads account for more than 15% of money raised yet how much from street donations actually goes to charities? If it’s everything after the third year then I’d say many credit cards would have expired by this stage and the private company run off with the easy pickings.

Furthermore, the level of confidence shown in chugger staff is very low. You need to ask yourself, if their employers don’t trust them with cash, how can you trust them with credit card details? The whole exercise is set up to minimise risk for the private company, provide an apparently risk-free option for the charity, and what about you? You just gave a stranger the password to your bank account.

About six months ago I became suspicious about a so-called charity (based in Qld) that was supposed to aid recently returned soldiers. After doing some online research and many phone calls, I surmised that this was a one-man operation who had also run other non-related charities. The Dept of Defence looked into it but told me it was outside their jurisdiction. I finally got to speak to lawyers who were acting on behalf of the Qld RSL to close this guy down. No doubt he will pop up again with another charity idea.

BimboGeek said :

….the level of confidence shown in chugger staff is very low. You need to ask yourself, if their employers don’t trust them with cash, how can you trust them with credit card details? The whole exercise is set up to minimise risk for the private company, provide an apparently risk-free option for the charity, and what about you? You just gave a stranger the password to your bank account.

I’d have suggested that avoiding cash on their employees is a safety mechanism to avoid personal risk to the chuggers from being attacked and robbed than about not trusting their employees. They’d make a pretty soft target walking back to their hotels/home after a day of chugging, especially if crims knew that they’d have a couple of hundred doallars on them. Wouldn’t be practical to bank the money that day as some of their primetime is after COB when people are leaving work, which also happens to be when banks are no longer open.

Plus the companies and the charities are interested in ongoing payments to ensure a stable revenue stream, rather than one-offs which are unpredictable.

And in regards to “carrying” bank details, a lot of the companies seem to be going towards the use of I-pads by their chuggers, with no storage of the details on the devices at all, just a straight upload on through the website or a portal. So there goes the risk of chuggers being robbed to steal those details too. The actual worker is never in possession of those details in those situations, which is safest for everyone involved.

It’s pretty unethical for private companies to syphon off what were supposed to be donations to charity. Charities are said to be acting unethically when their overheads account for more than 15% of money raised yet how much from street donations actually goes to charities? If it’s everything after the third year then I’d say many credit cards would have expired by this stage and the private company run off with the easy pickings.

Furthermore, the level of confidence shown in chugger staff is very low. You need to ask yourself, if their employers don’t trust them with cash, how can you trust them with credit card details? The whole exercise is set up to minimise risk for the private company, provide an apparently risk-free option for the charity, and what about you? You just gave a stranger the password to your bank account.

I have developed perfect immunity to chuggers.

Unfortunately for the rest of you, it involved being employed by an NGO.

I suggest getting a job with AusAID, but the timing is not so great.

I personally like 2 tactics to deal with them. If they are male I’ll ask “Can I have your credit card details and home address?” They usually say no, so I reply “Well why do you expect me to give those details to you?”
If they are female I say “You’lll do, will you marry me?” When they say no I’ll pester them for about five minutes asking them to marry me. When they tell to piss off or refuse for the tenth time to marry me, I say “Well, now you can understand how you people make me feel like when you keep pestering me day in day out.”
I feel a but guilty doin that, but not for long.

Codders111 said :

Impressive quoting, good work. Anyway I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. My main objection revolves around chuggers’ methods: unlike people handing out free samples, they aim to provoke and capitalise on feelings of guilt and inadequacy. To me this seems unethical.

That’s not really that different to a lot of advertising, most advertising tries to appeal to simple emotions.

The recent Westinghouse ad for dishwashers stating that hand washing only heats water to 45c versus dishwashing that heats to 65c for example, finished with a line about keeping your family safe is a decent example, ticks all the boxes. Plays into natural fear of disease and sickness, last line in particular plays into protective instinct of women, who tend to use the kitchen and make decisions on whitegoods purchases typically. It also plants the seed of guilt that if you don’t use their product, you’re endangering the family.

Codders111 said :

Impressive quoting, good work. Anyway I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. My main objection revolves around chuggers’ methods: unlike people handing out free samples, they aim to provoke and capitalise on feelings of guilt and inadequacy. To me this seems unethical.

Really? You don’t think that a gym using fit and attractive young men / women to hand out free visit passes is designed to make anyone feel guilty or inadequate? Coca-Cola using attractive people? Every cosmetics company ever? Happy families going to Maccas?

Guilt and inadequacy are at the core of sales and advertising, for a huge number of things. They may use terms such as ‘aspirational’, but it all boils down to the same thing. You don’t think that World Vision ads, showing malnourished children, while imploring for just ‘a dollar a day’ are playing on guilt?

I’ve got to agree with howeph. ‘Ethics’ just clouds and distorts this whole topic. I don’t give a shit about the ethics of it all – I just want to be able to walk through a public area without being personally harassed. By anyone – chuggers just happen to be the most offensive of the lot, not because of their cause, but their tactics.

howeph said :

Further to my last, it appears that FIA does have a code of conduct and a complaints process:

http://www.fia.org.au/pages/principles-standards-of-fundraising-practice.html

If you all truly want to see change happening in this area, then I would encourage you to use it and let us know how you get on here at The Riot.

Industry codes of practice are useless as are the bodies who administer them.

Further to my last, it appears that FIA does have a code of conduct and a complaints process:

http://www.fia.org.au/pages/principles-standards-of-fundraising-practice.html

If you all truly want to see change happening in this area, then I would encourage you to use it and let us know how you get on here at The Riot.

Codders111 said :

Impressive quoting, good work. Anyway I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. My main objection revolves around chuggers’ methods: unlike people handing out free samples, they aim to provoke and capitalise on feelings of guilt and inadequacy. To me this seems unethical.

My only gripe is with aggressive “chuggers”.

So long as once I make my intention clear – by saying “no thanks”, or ignoring their advance – they back off completely, all is good.

Those not following the above practice are giving their own, and other charities through association, a bad name.

A solution, if it doesn’t already exist, might be for a code of conduct for the industry administered by a peek body such as Fundraising Institute Australia. The public should be able to submit complaints to that body with respect to the code of conduct. Charities seeking fundraising could check the record of the company they are contracting against the complaints it has received and how those complaints have been dealt with.

But there is nothing unethical in “face-to-face fund-raising” (as the industry seams to call) per say. And we should all keep things in perspective. Dealing with “chuggers” is not a real problem. An orphaned children in a third world country has real problems.

Codders111 said :

My main objection revolves around chuggers’ methods: unlike people handing out free samples, they aim to provoke and capitalise on feelings of guilt and inadequacy. To me this seems unethical.

I think the chuggers also rely on having marks assume that they’re donating their time to collect donations for the charity, and that 100% of the money they collect will actually go to the charity. I’ve never given them money, but I assume they don’t explain that a significant portion goes to them and their employer. That is my biggest gripe with their questionable ethics.

howeph said :

Hopefully I’ve got the quoting fixed up (I haven’t had a lot of luck with that today).

Codders111 said :

howeph said :

zorro29 said :

… and that the people aren’t genuine advocates for the charities and are just commission-based workers. It undermines the whole thing and their role…

Again how is this unethical. Charities, should use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to raise funds to maximise their ability to perform their work. You can argue if using commission-based workers is efficient and or effective, but that is not an ethical argument.

I’m not sure you can say the end justifies the means. Would it be ‘ethical’ if someone set up a ponzi scheme and donated the proceeds to charity?

This comment beggs the question. It pre-supposes that soliciting for donations on the street is unethical like a pozi scheme certainly would be. If “chugging” is not unethical then your comparison doesn’t make sense.

So going back to your previous comment where you claim that it is unethical:

Codders111 said :

I’m all for charities, but chuggers’ methods ARE unethical. Leaving aside the issue of how much money actually reaches the charities, their entire strategy is built around manipulation. They manipulate people into stopping and talking to them, and guilt trip people into donating. If you look at their manuals you’ll see things like “strategies for stopping people: pick a standout feature of a passer by’s outfit and compliment them on it.” Not to mention, of course, the ol’ hand shaking routine.

How is this different from advertising? I’m no fan of advertising either, but it is either voluntarily endured in exchange for a service (tv, radio) or can be passively ignored (posters, etc). Chuggers are far more invasive.

I don’t think that you have demonstrated how soliciting for donations is any different to marketing. You’re right, it is harder to ignore a person than a poster – that’s why marketers also hire attractive young people to hand out product samples in the street. Is this unethical too?

Just because you don’t like something, that does not make it unethical.

But “the ends justifying the means” is an ethical argument. Surely if we as a society are prepared to tolerate the manipulation of marketing to make the investors in Coca-Cola and Apple richer we should also tolerate those, using the same tools, who are trying to address more worthy causes?

Impressive quoting, good work. Anyway I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. My main objection revolves around chuggers’ methods: unlike people handing out free samples, they aim to provoke and capitalise on feelings of guilt and inadequacy. To me this seems unethical.

The chuggers have been getting around Fyshwick recently too.

Hopefully I’ve got the quoting fixed up (I haven’t had a lot of luck with that today).

Codders111 said :

howeph said :

zorro29 said :

… and that the people aren’t genuine advocates for the charities and are just commission-based workers. It undermines the whole thing and their role…

Again how is this unethical. Charities, should use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to raise funds to maximise their ability to perform their work. You can argue if using commission-based workers is efficient and or effective, but that is not an ethical argument.

I’m not sure you can say the end justifies the means. Would it be ‘ethical’ if someone set up a ponzi scheme and donated the proceeds to charity?

This comment beggs the question. It pre-supposes that soliciting for donations on the street is unethical like a pozi scheme certainly would be. If “chugging” is not unethical then your comparison doesn’t make sense.

So going back to your previous comment where you claim that it is unethical:

Codders111 said :

I’m all for charities, but chuggers’ methods ARE unethical. Leaving aside the issue of how much money actually reaches the charities, their entire strategy is built around manipulation. They manipulate people into stopping and talking to them, and guilt trip people into donating. If you look at their manuals you’ll see things like “strategies for stopping people: pick a standout feature of a passer by’s outfit and compliment them on it.” Not to mention, of course, the ol’ hand shaking routine.

How is this different from advertising? I’m no fan of advertising either, but it is either voluntarily endured in exchange for a service (tv, radio) or can be passively ignored (posters, etc). Chuggers are far more invasive.

I don’t think that you have demonstrated how soliciting for donations is any different to marketing. You’re right, it is harder to ignore a person than a poster – that’s why marketers also hire attractive young people to hand out product samples in the street. Is this unethical too?

Just because you don’t like something, that does not make it unethical.

But “the ends justifying the means” is an ethical argument. Surely if we as a society are prepared to tolerate the manipulation of marketing to make the investors in Coca-Cola and Apple richer we should also tolerate those, using the same tools, who are trying to address more worthy causes?

copy pasted definitions AND links to meme definitions….it’s really educational here today.

If a big corporation (say McDonalds or Coca Cola) employed students and foreign backpackers on commission-only salaries and stood them on the streets with the objective to stop as many people as possible, badger them and get them to hand over their credit card details in order to get Coke delivered to their house each month….what would you think of that? Is it the company behind it that makes the practice OK or are you cool with the practice no matter who is doing it or for what purpose?

Based on your argument, you would have to say the latter as you don’t think it’s at all an unethical way of soliciting donations from people. Charities are businesses too and should have some respect and restraint when positioning themselves in the market and making people aware of them/trying to get donations.

Anyway, hope this conversation was as boring for you as it was for me.

howeph said :

zorro29 said :

…

“Again how is this unethical. Charities, should use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to raise funds to maximise their ability to perform their work. You can argue if using commission-based workers is efficient and or effective, but that is not an ethical argument.”

I’m not sure you can say the end justifies the means. Would it be ‘ethical’ if someone set up a ponzi scheme and donated the proceeds to charity?

familydude72 said :

I wonder if the charities realise how much damage these guys do to their brand?

I think they take the “a little of something is better than something of nothing” approach. For them it’s a constant revenue stream, so they can plan ahead better. But yes, i agree it tarnishes their brand/cause.

I got hit up by one at Kippax today.

This officially makes it an invasion

howeph said :

zorro29 said :

… While we can apply ethics according to some guidelines and structures, there is always room for judgement and the “reasonable person” test…the grey areas. This is one of them (hence I said “verges”).

Deref (through his/her rhetorical question and for which your comment was required for context) and patrick_keogh made no such caveat in their comments. It is to them, not you, that my challenge was directed. Your caveat of “verges” recognises that such an argument can not readily be made.

zorro29 said :

The fact that the methods are coercive and badgering…

Marketing and advertising could be described as “coercive and badgering”. Is that unethical too?

zorro29 said :

… the donations they’re asking for are ongoing …

Yes. How is that unethical? You don’t have to make an ongoing donation or any donation at all. A simple “No thanks.” is polite or you can just ignore them.

zorro29 said :

… and require collection of personal information (not least of which, credit card details) …

So does every credit transaction you have ever made. How is this unethical?

zorro29 said :

… and that the people aren’t genuine advocates for the charities and are just commission-based workers. It undermines the whole thing and their role…

Again how is this unethical. Charities, should use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to raise funds to maximise their ability to perform their work. You can argue if using commission-based workers is efficient and or effective, but that is not an ethical argument.

zorro29 said :

… [the] commission and the % that goes to the charity isn’t made clear.

This is the closest you have come to making a statement on ethics. I agree that making those details transparent during the transaction would be more ethical.

zorro29 said :

They also make people very uncomfortable and edgy (as you can see here).

Diddumbs. As I said “Because it annoys me” is not a logical or ethical argument.

zorro29 said :

Sorry you feel that first world people can’t have opinions or problems.

I never said that first world people can’t have opinions or problems. I implied that this issue is a first world problem.

zorro29 said :

You pointing that out and whinging here, would also, by your logic, fall under that category. You can’t have it both ways pal.

My pointing out that those commenting here, have their priorities so far out of whack, think that the small discomfort they feel, when momentarily confronted with the serious issues, gives them a license to denigrate those who are trying – however imperfectly – to deal with those issues is not a trivial “first world problem”. It is a comment on the trend towards an ever more self centred and selfish society, abstracted away from the realities of life for so many other people.

Apologies for the huge quote, I don’t know how to edit it down. Anyway I’m all for charities, but chuggers’ methods ARE unethical. Leaving aside the issue of how much money actually reaches the charities, their entire strategy is built around manipulation. They manipulate people into stopping and talking to them, and guilt trip people into donating. If you look at their manuals you’ll see things like “strategies for stopping people: pick a standout feature of a passer by’s outfit and compliment them on it.” Not to mention, of course, the ol’ hand shaking routine.

How is this different from advertising? I’m no fan of advertising either, but it is either voluntarily endured in exchange for a service (tv, radio) or can be passively ignored (posters, etc). Chuggers are far more invasive.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

there is not much particularly morally incorrect with chugging (apart from perhaps being unclear on the % of the donations the charity actually receives) /quote]

That I find unethical indeed and I think it is the main reason why people are that outraged about their methods. If all the money would go to charity and they were simply volunteers, one might be more forgiving of rude tactics.

I once had a WWF chugger yell “Oh, so you don’t care if endangered species go extinct then, do you?”. That kind of stuff reeks of extreme manipulation and makes me so angry I am lost for words. Until about an hour after I’ve walked away from them!

These days I stop them in the middle of their greeting with “If I decide I want to donate, I’ll find your website and do it that way.” and walk off. I do donate to charity. Regular, long-term donations and the occasional ‘extra’ one. Especially the ongoing one, I would never, ever decide on whilst standing on a footpath with a pushy person trying to prevent me from thinking it through.

I wonder if the charities realise how much damage these guys do to their brand?

When i was asked for money by World Vision workers at Lyneham Shops, I handed them a $20 donation. They refused to accept it and instead would only accept my details for direct debit.If they don’t need the money, I can think of plenty of other organisations that would accept it.

Do charities realise that staff or those who are recruited to represent their organisation actually do a lot of damage to their brand – not just by turning away donations but also by the way in which they interact with members of the community?

I’ll skip the personal attacks. I feel no need to justify what I do to you.

zorro29 said :

Without getting in to your ridiculous and petty argument (which is just as illogical and unfounded on ethical grounds as anything else on here), …

If not, then shut the hell up. … Your points have added nothing to the conversation. …

I don’t like ad hominem arguments but you’re really pushing it mate.

To summarise: you decline to engage in the discussion at hand. That’s fine. I hope that you recognise that you don’t have a logical argument to support your opinion.

zorro29 said :

If I find these methods unethical, I am entitled to.

No you are not.

I’m not saying that you aren’t free to think the methods are unethical, nor am I denying your right to express your opinion.

However I am saying that you don’t have the right to have your opinion respected.

Once you have expressed your opinion in a public forum, such as this, you’ve invited that opinion to be challenged and criticized. It’s not my fault that you find such criticism uncomfortable.

zorro29 said :

If I find these methods unethical, I am entitled to.

But that’s the thing. There’s a difference between unethical and something you simply don’t like or find distateful/objectionable.

unethical:
adjective: not morally correct.

All howeph has pointed out is that there is not much particularly morally incorrect with chugging (apart from perhaps being unclear on the % of the donations the charity actually receives) though there is much that people might dislike or object to about their practices on a number of other grounds other than ethics.

Without getting in to your ridiculous and petty argument (which is just as illogical and unfounded on ethical grounds as anything else on here), I might ask when was the last time YOU did anything that would register as service or assistance to “issues we’re not confronted with” (or whatever you said)? Are you currently delivering aid to those affected by the typhoons? Are you saving endangered species from poachers in Kenya? Are you on a tour of active duty in any nation?

If not, then shut the hell up. You’re as useless as 99% of the first world. Get over your preachy attitude and put your money where your mouth is. Being deliberately obnoxious and argumentative just to go against the flow of the conversation is tedious. Your points have added nothing to the conversation. Giving a credit card donation (which I am sure you don’t even do) isn’t really changing the world is it hero??

I don’t like ad hominem arguments but you’re really pushing it mate. If I find these methods unethical, I am entitled to.

astrojax said :

you could tell them you’ve got an incurable malady, have only months to live, but have already made your will and will be leaving it all to your goldfish…

usually, they smile and have their opening gambit of, ‘how are you today?’ – i just say, ‘busy’. and keep going. sometimes i say ‘suicidal’ but they never seem to pick that one…

lol!

I am so going to use the ‘suicidal’ response. Might occasionally throw in a ‘homicidal’ too.

zorro29 said :

… While we can apply ethics according to some guidelines and structures, there is always room for judgement and the “reasonable person” test…the grey areas. This is one of them (hence I said “verges”).

Deref (through his/her rhetorical question and for which your comment was required for context) and patrick_keogh made no such caveat in their comments. It is to them, not you, that my challenge was directed. Your caveat of “verges” recognises that such an argument can not readily be made.

zorro29 said :

The fact that the methods are coercive and badgering…

Marketing and advertising could be described as “coercive and badgering”. Is that unethical too?

zorro29 said :

… the donations they’re asking for are ongoing …

Yes. How is that unethical? You don’t have to make an ongoing donation or any donation at all. A simple “No thanks.” is polite or you can just ignore them.

zorro29 said :

… and require collection of personal information (not least of which, credit card details) …

So does every credit transaction you have ever made. How is this unethical?

zorro29 said :

… and that the people aren’t genuine advocates for the charities and are just commission-based workers. It undermines the whole thing and their role…

Again how is this unethical. Charities, should use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to raise funds to maximise their ability to perform their work. You can argue if using commission-based workers is efficient and or effective, but that is not an ethical argument.

zorro29 said :

… [the] commission and the % that goes to the charity isn’t made clear.

This is the closest you have come to making a statement on ethics. I agree that making those details transparent during the transaction would be more ethical.

zorro29 said :

They also make people very uncomfortable and edgy (as you can see here).

Diddumbs. As I said “Because it annoys me” is not a logical or ethical argument.

zorro29 said :

Sorry you feel that first world people can’t have opinions or problems.

I never said that first world people can’t have opinions or problems. I implied that this issue is a first world problem.

zorro29 said :

You pointing that out and whinging here, would also, by your logic, fall under that category. You can’t have it both ways pal.

My pointing out that those commenting here, have their priorities so far out of whack, think that the small discomfort they feel, when momentarily confronted with the serious issues, gives them a license to denigrate those who are trying – however imperfectly – to deal with those issues is not a trivial “first world problem”. It is a comment on the trend towards an ever more self centred and selfish society, abstracted away from the realities of life for so many other people.

I’m amused by the dolly-bird chuggers as they smile at the males with just a hint of coyness and a slight batting of the eyelids. Practicing for the future, the little tarts.

In the street I say “Sorry. I only give to Vinnies / the Sallies. You should join them” and keep walking.
On the phone I usually say the same. Click.

Sometimes I listen briefly to their spiel then say “Can you excuse me a moment” put the phone down and come back to it much later.

But when those people from India call about a problem with my computer I tell them I have been having problems since installing a web-cam. I ask “Do you have a web-cam? No? (pause) What are you wearing? And they hang up.

howeph said :

Deref said :

zorro29 said :

I think the whole thing verges on unethical

Verges on?

I think …

Please provide your logical argument the explains why you think soliciting for donations to charity is unethical. Note: “Because it annoys me” is not a logical argument.

patrick_keogh said :

Yes, it is unethical. Most of them operate on a “profit sharing” deal like this: the deals vary a bit but the general structure is typically:
– you sign up to give $x per month.
– in the first year, ALL the money goes to the commercial operator, less the amount that goes to the backpacker.
– in the second year, if you are still paying, it is split with the charity.
– in the third and subsequent years if you are still paying the charity gets it.
…

Source? Evidence? Otherwise I call a distorted, over exaggeration of the truth or just plain made up B.S.

To everyone commenting here, do you realise how shallow whinging about your petty first world problems makes you look? Grow up.

Oh my goodness, I didn’t realise we were all in the presence of the expert on logics and ethical practice.

Wait, no we’re not. While we can apply ethics according to some guidelines and structures, there is always room for judgement and the “reasonable person” test…the grey areas. This is one of them (hence I said “verges”).

The fact that the methods are coercive and badgering, the donations they’re asking for are ongoing and require collection of personal information (not least of which, credit card details), and that the people aren’t genuine advocates for the charities and are just commission-based workers. It undermines the whole thing and their role, commission and the % that goes to the charity isn’t made clear. They also make people very uncomfortable and edgy (as you can see here).

Sorry you feel that first world people can’t have opinions or problems. You pointing that out and whinging here, would also, by your logic, fall under that category. You can’t have it both ways pal.

Nice try though.

TheBusDriver said :

My mate has a nice tactic for dealing with these guys. He wears a suit, so they target him a lot. He pulls out his wallet, flashes some ID and says “So you can guess which department I’m from. Can I see your 501 visa?” He also pulls out his phone, rings home and says “I think we have another one, can you get the van to the corner of……”
Some run away, some stand their ground. To those he says “Look I’ll cut you a break, just run and if you’re still here in 5 minutes we’ll be taking you to Villawood.”
I have told him he can get into trouble for this but he is young and dumb and does not care. He told me of how a particular persistant chugger had pestered his girlfriend three times in one day so him and a couple of mates turned up in a car with suits and dark glasses. One pointed at the chugger and yelled “That’s the guy.” The other yelled “There he goes!” Then the third “Get him!”
The chugger turned tail and ran off.
The three guys got back into their car and drove off without having stepped more than a foot out of the car.
Sometimes I feel sorry for them, but not for long.

That’s gold!

I’ve seen the paralympics chuggers set up again at a few local shops lately too. I once tried to give them a gold coin donation and the result was that I now give them a very wide berth. Because someone asking a stranger getting a carton of milk to commit to donating $10,000 on the spot must have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock.

My mate has a nice tactic for dealing with these guys. He wears a suit, so they target him a lot. He pulls out his wallet, flashes some ID and says “So you can guess which department I’m from. Can I see your 501 visa?” He also pulls out his phone, rings home and says “I think we have another one, can you get the van to the corner of……”
Some run away, some stand their ground. To those he says “Look I’ll cut you a break, just run and if you’re still here in 5 minutes we’ll be taking you to Villawood.”
I have told him he can get into trouble for this but he is young and dumb and does not care. He told me of how a particular persistant chugger had pestered his girlfriend three times in one day so him and a couple of mates turned up in a car with suits and dark glasses. One pointed at the chugger and yelled “That’s the guy.” The other yelled “There he goes!” Then the third “Get him!”
The chugger turned tail and ran off.
The three guys got back into their car and drove off without having stepped more than a foot out of the car.
Sometimes I feel sorry for them, but not for long.

you could tell them you’ve got an incurable malady, have only months to live, but have already made your will and will be leaving it all to your goldfish…

usually, they smile and have their opening gambit of, ‘how are you today?’ – i just say, ‘busy’. and keep going. sometimes i say ‘suicidal’ but they never seem to pick that one…

I tell all the chuggers, that the charity they are chugging for is now on my black list and will not donate a cent to that charity anymore. I doubt it makes a difference as the real unethical ones are those running the chugging companies and taking advantage of charities and backpackers.

at least by voicing my concern and protest the chuggers themselves might realise they are doing what i consider a non desirable job. The problem is they advertise on the websites that WHV backpackers visit and get them signed up before they even arrive here.

I’ve always found that giving them a big smile and saying hello whilst still walking usually stuns them into silence. The confused looks on their faces is priceless.

I must say the chuggers that set up camp on the Northbourne Ave/Alinga St nature strip thingy are usually the most annoying.

Deref said :

zorro29 said :

I think the whole thing verges on unethical

Verges on?

I think …

Please provide your logical argument the explains why you think soliciting for donations to charity is unethical. Note: “Because it annoys me” is not a logical argument.

patrick_keogh said :

Yes, it is unethical. Most of them operate on a “profit sharing” deal like this: the deals vary a bit but the general structure is typically:
– you sign up to give $x per month.
– in the first year, ALL the money goes to the commercial operator, less the amount that goes to the backpacker.
– in the second year, if you are still paying, it is split with the charity.
– in the third and subsequent years if you are still paying the charity gets it.
…

Source? Evidence? Otherwise I call a distorted, over exaggeration of the truth or just plain made up B.S.

To everyone commenting here, do you realise how shallow whinging about your petty first world problems makes you look? Grow up.

Deref said :

zorro29 said :

I think the whole thing verges on unethical

Verges on?

I think the answer’s simple: write to any charity who uses chuggers and tell them that you’ll never give them a red cent until and unless they start using ethical means of soliciting.

They would never get a red cent from me anyway. My partner and I have direct debit arrangements set up with a few charities but they’re the ones we have chosen to support. Agree with the idea but it seems to work too well for them to stop. 🙁 It does make walking around popular shopping strips etc very annoying.

Also, too true Bimbo_Geek – it does seem bizarre that /anyone/ would give credit card details on the street! I never carry my wallet around unless I am specifically out to buy something so psych!!

Wide eyed, I smile broadly…… and I loudly say ‘No Thanks’ and abruptly turn and walk.

Telesales are a good source of fun for me. Just act REALLY interested and keep them going however you can for as long as you can. Then after about 45 minutes when they think the sale is in the bag, tell them that you’re 13 and ask if that’s a problem.

Also a good cure for boredom hehehe

I didn’t even break stride. This guy somehow managed to pretty well put it in my hand as I was walking past. Hell I didn’t even realize what it was until about 100 metres later!

How about it being a bad idea to give out your credit card number to strangers in the street? They can take all those digits and go shopping at the end of their shift, hop on a plane and be in a different country before you ever notice anything is wrong. Don’t give credit card numbers to anyone who phones to offer you a free trial or guilt trips you in the street.

Instant Mash said :

I had one force a Jesus pamphlet on me the other day before I could even react. If there is one thing that seriously pisses me off about religion, it’s the ones who take it upon themselves to force it down my throat because it’s obvious that I’m not interested.

I’m just gonna start carrying my own pamphlets for Satanism.

Yes, it is unethical. Most of them operate on a “profit sharing” deal like this: the deals vary a bit but the general structure is typically:
– you sign up to give $x per month.
– in the first year, ALL the money goes to the commercial operator, less the amount that goes to the backpacker.
– in the second year, if you are still paying, it is split with the charity.
– in the third and subsequent years if you are still paying the charity gets it.
– from the charity’s perspective, they have no risk, no outlay, but not much return.
– from the giver’s perspective, think “yes I’d like to give to that charity” and then as soon as you get home go to their own website and donate there: that way they do get almost all of the money.

The most obvious thing to do is to make sure that they make as little money as possible. If you have the time (just out for a lunchtime walk or something), then keep them engaged in conversation for as long as possible. Ask for more information, ask for proof of where the money goes or whatever. It all comes down to dollars per minute so you can drive down the number of chuggers merely by wasting their time. Same strategy works for telesales such as “your PC has a problem” calls from India.

If you don’t have time, then just don’t fall for their lame-ass tactics. Do not break stride. Do not change direction. Do not shake hands. Do not take leaflets etc. Com’on, we’ve been dealing with this since the Hare Krishnas in the ’80s or maybe earlier. Talk by all means, but don’t slow down. If they step into my path then I end up running into them. Oh well.

I had one force a Jesus pamphlet on me the other day before I could even react. If there is one thing that seriously pisses me off about religion, it’s the ones who take it upon themselves to force it down my throat because it’s obvious that I’m not interested.

I’m just gonna start carrying my own pamphlets for Satanism.

This is where being bilingual is helpful.

I can respond tell them in broken English with an Italian accent. They soon accept I can’t speak English and I move on. Hopefully I never come across a chugger who speaks Italian.

My mate in a wheelchair never gets approached. Perhaps that’s another solution….

Chugging obviously works. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t have multiplied like flies over the last few years.

zorro29 said :

I think the whole thing verges on unethical

Verges on?

I think the answer’s simple: write to any charity who uses chuggers and tell them that you’ll never give them a red cent until and unless they start using ethical means of soliciting.

Pitchka said :

HannahMontana said :

A lot of them are young, attractive and have really exotic accents. My friend has already signed up to two charities because she thought two of the guys were cute! They may be really annoying but it works!

Well in that case you could:
1) ask them for a root/
2) tell them to fark off, which is my preferred approach (i get laid enough).

No one likes a bragger……

I only donate after winning a game of ram shambo, of course I go first, then just walk off.

And who said EFTPOS is not accepted in Canberra?

zorro29 said :

I think the whole thing verges on unethical. Gone are the days of passionate volunteers putting on a bakesale or something. This is highly organised, strategic and commission-based work.

The ethical argument is a bit of a grey area, one of them once claimed 80% of the money you donate through them goes to the charity, so on the one hand that 80% is money the charity may not have gotten at all, but on the other hand, that’s a tidy overhead not going to the charity and you’d be better of giving directly. At the end of the day people should investigate the charities and check their overall percentages to make sure their altruism is being used effectively.

You’re right though about the nature of the work, they’re largely FIFOs, typically students from Sydney who will come down and get put up in a hotel for a week or so to chug by a company that is engaged by the charities. Some of the chuggers seem to take it more seriously than other. The Greenpeace ones for example who stake out Northbourne, with the dirty feet and tribal necklaces, but most are so obtuse they could be selling anything from Amway to AIDS research and you wouldn’t know the difference.

HannahMontana said :

A lot of them are young, attractive and have really exotic accents. My friend has already signed up to two charities because she thought two of the guys were cute! They may be really annoying but it works!

Well in that case you could:
1) ask them for a root/
2) tell them to fark off, which is my preferred approach (i get laid enough).

HannahMontana said :

A lot of them are young, attractive and have really exotic accents. My friend has already signed up to two charities because she thought two of the guys were cute! They may be really annoying but it works!

Your friend is a bloody idiot.

Arrgggh ! These people are so annoying to deal with. I used to get stuck with them 4 times a day, morning and afternoon in the bus interchange, twice at lunch when they would hang around the Canberra times fountain and often block that entrance to the Canberra Centre.

I once yelled at a guy who grabbed me by my arm to get my attention outside the Maccas in the bus interchange. Told him to leave me alone as I was trying to run to catch my bus that just pulled up.
Before he let go I got to watch my bus take off without me. Normally not an issue but I was rushing to catch the bus to get to an appointment.

Same guy got another mouthful the very next morning when he tried it again.

I think the whole thing verges on unethical. Gone are the days of passionate volunteers putting on a bakesale or something. This is highly organised, strategic and commission-based work.

As someone with social anxiety, I really dislike them. I will change route, turn around or dangerously cross a road to avoid them. Harden up maybe, or maybe I can enjoy my life without intrusive people badgering me.

Also, props for “chuggers”…not heard that one

A lot of them are young, attractive and have really exotic accents. My friend has already signed up to two charities because she thought two of the guys were cute! They may be really annoying but it works!

Foolproof tactic for avoiding them is feigning to yawn. Have you ever interrupted someone in the middle of a yawn? Of course not. And neither will they.

I seriously wish they’d just fuck off. There is some serious charity fatique going on with these douches hassling everyone who walks past. I might even donate if they’d accept a single donation, you’re not getting my credit card details though, and I wont set up a direct debit either. I’d rather give some money to the old salvation army bloke in the Canberra Centre.