Advocating a Nonprofit Strike Is ‘Unseemly and Disturbing’

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

Amid a cacophony of rhetoric, an opinion article by Robert Egger asks: “Can a Nonprofit Organization Strike?” (My View, June 1). The answer is, quite naturally, “Yes.” However that rather simplistic question begs a far more important one: “Should a nonprofit strike?” The answer, an unequivocal “No.”

St. Paul reminds us: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”

People drawn to service in the nonprofit field do so to make a difference. They do it to make a change. Most do it without desire for public recognition or honors. They do it for many reasons. And, thankfully, those reasons are rarely so indulgent as to include external respect or as ungenerous as to be based on projected increases in funding by the government or private donors.

As with most human endeavors, most charitable actions speak louder than charitable words. Nonprofits that would withhold vital services to people in need and cease to fulfill their stated mission are not engaging in charitable action, but rather uncharitable inaction.

The original question about whether nonprofit groups can strike might make for an amusing parlor game or after-hours nightclub chatter. But the 1.5 million nonprofit groups working to advance answers to our nation’s problems demand more elevated and serious thinking. The people and communities served deserve applied solutions, not dissolution.

At what point can a nonprofit decide to withhold services? Should this include volunteer fire departments? How about the emergency room at a nonprofit hospital? Perhaps disaster-response organizations could arbitrarily decide to take hurricane season off this year? Certainly not.

Advocating that nonprofits “strike” is not really so controversial as it is unseemly and disturbing. It is a surprisingly callow response for a sector that seeks to be more innovative and results-driven, and for one that asks its leaders to be more focused and responsible. Simply, it runs contrary to the definition of charity versus fee-for-services programming or contractual agreements for benefits rendered.

Real charity, which inherently fosters an abiding honor of those we exist to serve, is never weighed and found wanting. As stewards of the public trust we cannot abdicate the work we are mandated to supply based upon identified public demand. Charity does not persecute those at greatest risk due to differences of opinion or outlook. It certainly does not boycott. There are three very powerful words that will endure longer than any idée fixe: “Charity never faileth.”

Erick L. Swenson
Washington