Stores Caught Dumping Items That Could Be Given To Charity.

[mom'sfolly]

Again, if I know those manufacturers or businesses are doing this, I will choose not to buy those products. Some manufacturers are so concerned with brand dilution, or losing their upscale image that they would rather destroy goods than donate them. The more image related a product is, the more likely that product will be destroyed rather than donated. I suspect more Jones New York gets destroy than JC Penney's store brand. Patagonia coats will be destroyed, but the no-name brand won't be.

These kind of companies don't want homeless people wearing their product.

 

[deb1]

Quote:
I would think that if a big cooperation started to loose money because of public attention that they will quickly give out the names of manufacturers that don't allow them to donate items. A big chain like Home Depot isn't going to let itself loose money. Their PR will kick in under the pressure of public disapproval and they will explain themselves.

One of the reasons that I am not for Goverment interference in this issue is that sometimes laws tend to hurt the innocent along with the guilty.

I know that people who work for retail often have horror stories about such waste. It would be great to start a website devoted to bringing such stories to light but I am pretty certain that I would get sued. Plus, I would have no way to verify the stories and might do more harm then good.

 

[deb1]

Quote:
I heard from a reliable source that her particular store throws out items. I think that sometimes the higher ups in big chains have no idea what is actually going on in many of their stores.

I wonder if there is a reasonable way for certain big chains to police their individual stores?

 

[teach1rusl]

Along those same lines...

I was flabbergasted last year about our Food Services department getting up in arms over making sure that our school kids took NOTHING with them from the cafeteria. I worked in a high poverty school where I know some kids didn't get much food at home. The food services folks were adament about making sure that an apple, a package of crackers, NOTHING was to go home with the students. What wasn't eaten from the tray was to be dumped in the trash. They sent a big legal document to all of the teachers, explaining it all (and I guess expecting us to enforce it???)...about it being a government funded program..blablabla. They would rather dump the food in the trash than let some kid have it??? The tax payers are the ones who foot the bill for these governement programs, and I doubt many tax payers would think it better to throw food in the trash than let a child take it home for him/herself, or someone else in their family. I'm sure this policy was put into place originally to prevent abuse/theft, but they sure go overboard on these things...

 

[thechickenchick]

Quote:
This is heart wrenching

I am a tax payer and I would rather see the child leave with a pocket FULL of apples and know that he/she was not starving when they went home.

 

[onthespot]

I don't think it is any different than people on BYC who sell hatching eggs, and scramble up and feed back to the girls what they don't sell. There is no moral imperative to give away what can't be sold. It would take away the incentive to buy, and would probably disrupt their price base, people would quit buying and just wait for the freebies. Not trying to make light of people who are in need, or the problem of over filling landfills, or any of the above posts, which I did not read them all, but it is just a cost of doing business, and I think it is their business how they dispose of extras. They may have contracts which REQUIRE that the inventory not be given away. You don't know how their contract reads, and neither do I, but I would think it likely that they are contractually bound to destroy the inventory.

 

[Prettiest Frog]

Quote:
It is not difficult to get information on which manufactured don't allow donations without having to punish the big corporations that may be otherwise doing the right thing. If nothing else, you could always go to the store manager and ask what they donate to charity and what they do not. The only wal-mart around here even has a big bulletin board in the front of the store that posts what was donated and who got the donations.

Better to choose your target correctly rather than punish everyone. The backlash could do more harm than good if the big corporations take a 'darn if we do, darn if we don't' point of view and cease the donating altogether.

A lot of items can also be recycled and thus still have profit in them for the manufacturers. Damage the stuff to prevent theft, then they come pick it back up and reuse it. Also, some things may not be donate-able due to the policies of local charities on what they will and won't accept for donations. I tried to donate a lot of gently used baby clothes to one local charity and was refused because they only accept 'new' stuff.

Some of the stuff being tossed may also already be damaged and thus considered to dangerous to donate. A car seat that was a display unit may be damaged and messed with, do you think they should donate that to some unsuspecting person or just destroy it?

 

[deb1]

Quote:
Feeding the eggs back to your chickens is not a waste. Dumping perfectly good food into a dumpster is a waste. I


Again, no one is suggesting that companies be forced by the government to act in an ethical manner. I do not want any laws enacted to force business to act responsibly, any more then I want laws created to make certain that my neighbors act kindly to others.

Giving items to a respected charity will not make items available for free to the majority of people.

As far as contracts are concerned, if public pressure is applied to the bigger stores then they will rat out the business that are demanding that they throw items away. Or they won't do get involved in those businesses.

It is the businesses right to decide how they dispose of their merchandise and it is our right to take that into consideration, along with other factors, when we decide where to shop.

Just for the record, I am almost crazy in my Libertarian philosophy. If I ever suggested that the government make laws then an alien life form as killed me and taken over my keyboard. Please call the proper authorities immediately.

 

[Prettiest Frog]

Quote:
This attitude just strikes me as giving the entire class detention because one student shot a rubber band at the teacher's backside.

The idea might be to get the rest of the class to talk, but think about it, what happens to the student who talked?

In the world of the big stores, they will lose out on the bigger, nicer vendors who have plenty of other places to sell their wares, or the vendors will raise their prices which will get passed on to the consumer.

It's easy to find the information on vendors who won't allow their merchandise to be donated. You just ask and observe. It's really that easy.


Also, as I mentioned, the problem may not be the store, it may be the charities. Some charities won't take donations. Some charities won't pick-up and the store isn't able to organize deliveries (they may not even have trucks of their own). Some charities require items to be pre-sorted, and the store may not have the manpower to do that. Or the store may trash items but regularly donate large sums of money to various charities.


Some call it waste, but on the flip side, why is anyone entitled to the leftovers? If someone really wants to feed the homeless so much, they can volunteer to pay higher taxes to pay for welfare and heath care programs. I would hope that everyone involved in putting such pressure on the big companies is also making charitable donations of their own, either of goods or of time, rather than being those who expect to benefit from such donations.

 

[deb1]

Quote:
Of course not. But as long as the government is not involved in the process, most people will understand the difference between a damaged car seat and a purposely torn up child's shirt.

As far as the darned if they do or darned if they don't philosophy...Succesful businesspeople have to be smart and savvy. The ones who aren't, don't become successful. No smart business is going to take such a philosophy. If they did, they would have a successful chain in the first place-nor woudl they deserve to be succesful. Capitalism is great and I fully believe the best system for a free people. Any business that took such a stance would deserve to fall apart so that better run businesses could take its place.

Besides how is it different to take the stance that a person won't buy from a company that is known to throw out goods then it is too shop at a business for any reason at all, including that it is too far away from you? Maybe it hurts the business people who put their place on top of a steep mountain if people decide to use their prerogative not to shop there. Why should decisions on a business' ethical practice be more harmful then any other reason that we choose not to patronize certain stores?