AIBU to think I shouldn't have to contribute to this?

[Callistone]

Work recently introduced a dress down day on a Friday with donations for charity.

I WFH on a Friday and am never in the office, so I never get to take part.

My line manager has just emailed me to say that it has been noticed that I haven't given my contribution yet.

I mean, I don't mind in that it's for charity but.. If I'm not actively taking part, why are they assuming that I should? AIBU to say that I am not contributing?

He was a bit cheeky to say 'it's been noted' and being so formal about it. But I'm guessing the getting to dress down isn't that important, it more about everyone donating to the charity so I'd just pay (if money isn't a problem).

EyesAreNeverClosing, piss of out of it. Why on earth should someone be compelled to donate to charity?!

*piss off not piss of

I would completely ignore the email

I think you should combine Reanimated and Norma's responses! Seriously, how dare they approach you about this?

"Dear Boss
Charitable donations are a private matter and are voluntary: they are not part of our job description or covered by our contracts. I am concerned that anyone feels it acceptable to monitor who chooses to contribute or not."
And CC EVERYONE.^

Absolutely do this ^ as reanimated suggests.
It is completely out of order that
a) they are telling anyone the amount they 'need to' donate - they seem to have misunderstood the word 'donate'
b)they are monitoring if any individual has donated, if they wfh / work PT / are off sick / on AL/ on Bereavement or compassionate leave / or even there in the building.

We once had a pay to dress-down day for a charity I really didn't want to support (I didn't agree with how they used their funds). I wore a suit to work that day (and didn't contribute)!

No, you shouldn't have to contribute, OP.

There is something very annoying about the assumption that 'charity' is a free pass to demand money and/or certain behaviours from other people.
Some people object to all charities because the state should be funding the whatever it is the charity is raising funds for (ie charities kind of give the state an excuse for not supporting health care etc.)
Some people object to specific charities on ethical grounds - eg they don't approve of money going to animal welfare when people need help, or they don't approve of some medical charities because they do research on animals, or the chosen charity is dubious as fuck is religiously motivated...
Some people can't afford to give to a charity on a regular basis. No matter what you might know about your colleagues' salaries, you don't know about their financial commitments and you have no right to know.
There's a lot of lazy, complacent coercion around 'charity' especially in the workplace.

I think I would either ignore the email completely or reply with 'can you clarify what you mean?'

It is very rude to point out when someone else has not made a contribution to charity. If you pay now it looks as though you have only 'paid up' because the email sender got you to. So you would be donating but being made to look like a reluctantly donator whilst the rude guy acted like some sort of defender of charity who made you put your hand in your pocket.