The petty arguments in this thread demonstrate why it may not be the best idea for hugely profitable companies to allocate part of the shareholders' money to charities selected by other people, be they management or rank and file employees. The Delta employees just received $1.5 billion dollars of DL's 2015 profits, equal to about 20% of the corporation's profits. The employees get to do whatever they want with their money. Management probably shared the wealth with their bonuses as well. What's left, of course, belongs to shareholders. And now, with the news that DL will be charitable with about $37 million of Other People's Money, DL employees have already asked "Will employees have a say in the spending of that OPM?" It might be reasonable for Delta's shareholders to say "Maybe DL should stick to doing what DL does best (running a reliable and profitable airline) and then leave the philanthropy to the owners of the capital." I'm not anti-charity; I'm just not convinced that corporations should make charitable gifts. Many here probably believe that corporations and unions should not spend money influencing politics (yep, Citizens United), and I put charitable giving in about the same category.