View Full Version : H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods
Big Boss
01-08-2010, 05:13
Found this to be quite disturbing...
H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods
January 7, 2010
by Joanna Douglas, Shine Staff
This week the New York Times reported a disheartening story about two of the largest retail chains. You see, instead of taking unsold items to sample sales or donating them to people in need, H&M and Wal-Mart have been throwing them out in giant trash bags. And in the case that someone may stumble on these bags and try to keep or re-sell the items, these companies have gone ahead and slashed up garments, cut off the sleeves of coats, and sliced holes in shoes so they are unwearable.
This unsettling discovery was made by graduate student Cynthia Magnus outside the back entrance of H&M on 35th street in New York City. Just a few doors down, she also found hundreds of Wal-Mart tagged items with holes made in them that were dumped by a contractor. On December 7, she spotted 20 bags of clothing outside of H&M including, "gloves with the fingers cut off, warm socks, cute patent leather Mary Jane school shoes, maybe for fourth graders, with the instep cut up with a scissor, men’s jackets, slashed across the body and the arms. The puffy fiber fill was coming out in big white cotton balls.”
The New York Times points out that one-third of the city's population is poor, which makes this behavior not only wasteful and sad, but downright irresponsible. Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, acted surprised that these items were found, claiming they typically donate all unworn merchandise to charity. When reporters went around the corner from H&M to a collections drop-off for charity organization New York Cares, spokesperson Colleen Farrell said, “We’d be glad to take unworn coats, and companies often send them to us."
After several days of no response from H&M, the company made a statement today, promising to stop destroying the garments at the midtown Manhattan location. They said they will donate the items to charity. H&M spokeswoman Nicole Christie said, "It will not happen again," and that the company would make sure none of the other locations would do so either. Hopefully that's the final word.
source: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beau...LjKJnimOydobqU5
I got two thoughts on this.
One is property rights - the other is the warm and fuzzy.
Just how far should we take the warm and fuzzy? Do the people making the most noise donate as well? I'll bet not. Well, maybe used underwear.
Walmart pays most suppliers using the "pay by scan method". they pay the supplier after the product has been scanned and sold. Also, it may have changed, but years ago the shoe departments were run by a different company which paid walmart a fee for the space. More likely some supplier to Walmart is destroying the merchandise because it didn't get sold.
If someone were to look in my garbage they'd sometimes find vegetables that I bought, paid for, brought home, and then never ate (hey, I keep telling myself I'm going to start eating more veggies, and it doesn't always work out that way..) They'd also occasionally find clothing that I bought, wore once, and decided didn't look good. Sure, it'd be the "nice" thing to bother to find a Goodwill or a shelter every time I was about to throw away a bag of carrots or an out-of-style shirt...
But I get very afraid when people (usually liberals, just saying) start telling others how to spend their money or what they "should" do with money or things they rightfully own. Sure, it'd be kinda dumb, but if I want to take half my paycheck every week and buy clothing and food to do nothing with it but bring it home and throw it in the trash, that's not "bad" and I don't think you should tell me not to do that any more than I should look at your video game purchases and tell you you should have given that money to charity instead..
Team Sergeant
01-08-2010, 09:17
But I get very afraid when people (usually liberals, just saying) start telling others how to spend their money or what they "should" do with money or things they rightfully own.
I agree 100%.
It's their stuff, they paid for it and they and only they have the right to dispose of it by any means they see fit.
I'm getting real tired of "giving" my money away to those that don't want to work, who don't want to pay their mortage, who want 16 kids but want others to pay for thier needs, or to keep a "union" retirement fund viable.
Unlike "lisam" I am not afraid, I'm mad as hell. Just today Arizona wants to start a 2% FOOD TAX!
Go watch this video, it shows what happens when liberals give things away (wealth redistribution) to those that do not want to work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw
TS
I agree with TS and lisam in regards to wealth redistribution to lifelong losers who don't want to work. But I am hoping this does not extend to that percentage of those who live off charity that really need our support. Abused children, for example.
Companies such as Walmart can responsibly donate their unused goods to charities that support orphanages, foster homes, abused family shelters, etc.
I think you can, and should, donate to those less fortunate, I just don't consider the cracked up meth addict popping out babies and living off the system as someone I want to support. However, her unfortunate children, who by no fault of their own are now wards of the state or "in the system," need our good will. Don't they?
....I think you can, and should, donate to those less fortunate, ......
And many of us do.....but not because we're told to.
Companies such as Walmart can responsibly donate their unused goods to charities that support orphanages, foster homes, abused family shelters, etc. Responsibly being the operative word...I am not sure giving away all unsold merchandise is responsible...
And if you feel strongly about corporate charity, make it a part of your shopping strategy...personally, I don't buy anything Levi Strauss sells because I have strong reservations about their corporate political agenda...
rubberneck
01-08-2010, 10:05
Why buy by clothes from Wal-Mart. Just wait until they have to get rid of their inventory and then you get it for free. When I was in college to make ends meet I worked at a book store. Does anyone know what they do with books, newspapers or magazines when they go unsold? They are cut up so they can't be used or resold by someone else. Why do people think that corporations are morally obligated to give away their products, even the ones that don't sell? Don't get me wrong I think it's cool when they do but I can't feign moral indignation when they don't.
Advertise a BIG sales event (Memorial Day and Veterans Day are two of the annual biggies) - give the unsold stuff away as a GWP (Gift with Purchase) item for any purchase over $20 - people love to get FREE stuff whether they can use it or not - they'll spend $$$ and carry it away with a grin to either use it, re-gift it, throw it away, or donate it to a charity for a tax benefit - solves all kinds of blogospheric issues and hyperbolistic postulating - a WIN-WIN situation for everyone but the e-pot stirring crowd. ;)
Just a thought...and so it goes...
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Pretty much what others have said, "Not my property, not my business."
Responsibly being the operative word...I am not sure giving away all unsold merchandise is responsible...
Agree. Would be interesting to see if they are just turning over all the bags to whomever shows up at the back door or doing responsible, targeted gifting. (I probably already know the answer.)
And if you feel strongly about corporate charity, make it a part of your shopping strategy...personally, I don't buy anything Levi Strauss sells because I have strong reservations about their corporate political agenda...
That goes along with this Best Buy thread. Because of their holiday ads which celebrated a muslim holiday greeting over "Happy Thanksgiving," many said they wouldn't be shopping there anymore:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26258&highlight=buy+thanksgiving
I secretly hoped Best Buy would have thousands of emails objecting to their ad campaign, and as a result suffer terrible 4th quarter/Christmas sales. Alas, this doesn't seem to be the case.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100108-708230.html?mod=WSJ_earnings_MIDDLETopHeadlines
Team Sergeant
01-08-2010, 10:26
And many of us do.....but not because we're told to.
BINGO.
How much would you like to bet these two stores are doing what they are doing because of Lawyers.
Let me explain. I know of a couple of local area restaraunts that tried to donate their leftover food every night to one of the homeless shelters, and were told no thank you, we can't afford to get sued if someone gets sick. So the restaraunts throw out the food.
My bet is, someone would get this "donated" clothing, find something wrong with it, and wind up sueing someone.
Part of the "get rich quick" schemes so many have become accustomed to. Instead of saying thank you, they say "I want more, something better, etc..."
Not only did someone decide not to sell, make profit on goods, they destroyed goods so somone else could not make a profit. I tend to believe that the damaeg was done by contractor who felt they were not going to be paid by Walmart. But if in fact it was Walmart who destroyed the goods, then they are really stupid. They spent dollars, labor, to have (employees) cut up the property.
Nothing like tripping over dollars to pick up dimes.
In their efforts to save money, by detroying money/property, it would have been cheaper to just leave it out side, or call a shelter to pick up.
Wait, having to make a call, is an inconveniece. What was I thinking?
...
My bet is, someone would get this "donated" clothing, find something wrong with it, and wind up sueing someone.
Tort reform, anyone?
Or, better yet, instead of having it be our first instinct to run to the government for protection from everything, maybe this could be handled privately. Say I'm a shelter--I could say, Hey, WalMart, if you donate your unsold clothes and close-to-the-expiration-date tortilla chips to us, we'll sign a waiver stipulating that we won't sue you, maybe unless there's some explicit intent to harm going on, such as razor blades placed in the guacamole by some disgruntled WalMart employee.
Joanna Douglas, Shine StaffFor those interestied in getting a sense of Ms. Douglas's broader concerns, she can be found on Twitter here (http://twitter.com/joanna_douglas). If you click the link, you assume responsibility for your ensuing affective state and any and all damage to your computer hardware.:D
MOO, if a 'journalist' like Ms. Douglas wants to raise our level of social awareness, why not cover the underlying story of how retail establishments use controversial labor practices that maximize profits at the expense of workers' wages and thereby contribute to the dynamic that has resulted in a broken immigration system?* Or she could turn her critical discerning eye on the fashion industry and ask how consumers like her contribute to the sexual objectification of women.**
Then again, both of those story lines would require her to look in the mirror and that certainly isn't a part of her agenda. She only wants everyone else to look at her.
__________________________________________________ __
* These issues are discussed from the perspective of activists and workers in the film, Made in L.A. (2007).
** Make no mistake, if a woman wants to express her femininity by dressing like she's about to work a shift at a strip club, that's not a problem. My specific concern is the number of youngsters far from adult hood, out with their parents, dressed like Gwen Stefani.
Sigaba, please don't tell me you buy into that whole "the poor worker" BS. In many of these third world countries, if these corporations weren't there, these people wouldn't be working, period. And a shit wage is better than no wage at all.
When in was in Honduras, my hooch maid worked for 5 of us, each paying her $30/month to clean and do laundry every day. She had 10 family members living with her downtown, to include a handicapped father, and one of her sons and his 4 kids. I decided to give her a raise to $40 a month. No skin off my nose.
Holy cow, you would not believe the trouble that ensued. The other hooch maids were up in arms with the Honduran Base Commander, that I gave her a raise, and she was making so much more money than everyone else. IN the end I had to go back to paying her $30/month lest she would be banned from working on base any longer.
We may think that some of these companies are taking advantage of the third world workers, but if they came in and paid what we Americans saw as a "living wage" we could quite possibly topple their economy. The wages for some rise, which means the price of goods rise with it. So what happens to those that don't have a job with these corporations, with the better wages?
Sigaba, please don't tell me you buy into that whole "the poor worker" BS.Afchic--
And here I thought I left myself some wiggle room when I wrote the following.These issues are discussed from the perspective of activists and workers in the film, Made in L.A. (2007).
Viewers can judge for themselves what they think of Forever 21's labor practices and the activists and workers who sought to get the company to change its ways.
In regards to "'the poor worker' B.S." and the extent of my buy in, I would make three comments. (One of which is so long winded that you'll regret asking the question.:p)
First, much of my training as an academic historian came at the feet of practitioners of the "new social history." Then as now, I disagreed strongly with many of these scholars' political viewpoints and historical conclusions. (Not the least because sometimes the former drove the latter. But then, show me a historical work without bias and I'll show you an unformatted HDD.) Even so, when one studies nineteenth and twentieth century Germany's "history of every day life (Alltagsgeschichte) and American history "from the bottom up" you're going to come across a lot of examples where the owners of the means of production royally screw over the middle classes and the working classes. Acknowledging these experiences doesn't mean I'm not a proponent of democratic capitalism and personal responsibility. It simply means that I recognize that, as the saying goes, "It's complicated".
Second, empathy is not sympathy.
Third, if my views are beyond the pale to some, then they may not want to study too closely the life and thought of Theodore Roosevelt.
greenberetTFS
01-08-2010, 18:13
Not only did someone decide not to sell, make profit on goods, they destroyed goods so somone else could not make a profit. I tend to believe that the damaeg was done by contractor who felt they were not going to be paid by Walmart. But if in fact it was Walmart who destroyed the goods, then they are really stupid. They spent dollars, labor, to have (employees) cut up the property.
Nothing like tripping over dollars to pick up dimes.
In their efforts to save money, by detroying money/property, it would have been cheaper to just leave it out side, or call a shelter to pick up.
Wait, having to make a call, is an inconveniece. What was I thinking?
Makes sense to me!................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Dozer523
01-08-2010, 18:14
No pleasin' some people. Fredrick and Nelson went under in Seattle (late 90's) they passed out mink coats to street people. same sort of stink raised.:rolleyes:
I tried to find a cite, honest! It' true, I read it in the PI!