"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."
Story continues:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/h-m-and-wal-mart-destroy-and-trash-unsold-goods-562909/
They paid for the merchandise and have the right to do whatever they want with it. They're not in business to give stuff away.
That is true JMac.............but the tax write off would more than pay for those items and the advertising and good will would really go far to enhance their image in the world! Kinda short sighted of them if you ask me!
wow...i never new that. Honestly i would expect that from H&M, but wal-mart? I thought they were supposed to be the "All-American" superstore, who valued family and community. Clearly...both stores can afford to take the time to donate. :-\
Quote from: CS Foltz on January 08, 2010, 11:22:20 AM
That is true JMac.............but the tax write off would more than pay for those items and the advertising and good will would really go far to enhance their image in the world! Kinda short sighted of them if you ask me!
CS, FYI, if they destroy the items or give them away, the tax write off is the same. They paid $x for the item and got nothing for it so its already a 100% loss. The value of the write-off would be equal to the tax rate times the amount of the write off. So, if they destroy or donate $100 in products and their tax rate is 35%, they recover $35 of their $100 loss. Still a loss, just the pain is moderately eased. Generally, no one gets rich on tax write-offs, just less poor. ;D
I think the suggestion that the good will has value is the plank to walk on here.
In fairness, in the article, Wal-Mart implies this was not in accordance with their policies:QuoteWal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, acted surprised that these items were found, claiming they typically donate all unworn merchandise to charity.
The article also quotes H & M as saying, henceforth, they will donate such items to charity:QuoteAfter 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.
A silver lining perhaps to this cloud. ;)
stjr............thanks.....I stand corrected as to the tax side of things! Goodwill end is invaluable and there is not tax or dollar amount that can cover that aspect!
I hate Wal Mart because they have 20 registers in their store and have only 2 open at all times.
So... it really isnt another reason to hate Wal Mart. The Wal Mart spokesman clearly said in the article that what happened was not typical. I suggest this is another reason to hate the store manager not our favorite corporate whipping boy...
Quote from: copperfiend on January 08, 2010, 01:18:37 PM
I hate Wal Mart because they have 20 registers in their store and have only 2 open at all times.
AMEN Brother.... Same goes for Super Target. Seems like wasted space to me.
Quote from: copperfiend on January 08, 2010, 01:18:37 PM
I hate Wal Mart because they have 20 registers in their store and have only 2 open at all times.
Maybe they went by "If you build it they will come" theory?
Quote from: copperfiend on January 08, 2010, 01:18:37 PM
I hate Wal Mart because they have 20 registers in their store and have only 2 open at all times.
that happened to me just today! I swear I was 10 seconds from just putting the stuff down and walking out when someone opened up another register, for this reason alone I only shop there when it is absolutely necessary, like today.
Guess what, restaurants throw away food every night. There is a large amount of waste from mom & pops all the way up to large corporations.
While this is a sad thing to happen I've heard of being done before, brands will do this so the prestige of the brand wont get diminished. They would rather destroy their clothes them have some needy people wearing their brand.
On a side note when I worked at Panera Bread years ago maybe 2 nights a week a food bank would collect the days baked goods. The rest of the time it went straight to the trash if a non-profit didn't pick it up. I always thought there would be more non-profits coming to collect free food.
Target is better.
Wal-Mart isn't my cup of tea either, but I don't think deserve the demonization they get from so many people.
I wonder how many people who are all broken up about this news article had anything to say when thousands of perfectly good cars were destroyed for the asinine Cash for Clunkers program?
Its a sad day when the value of what is destroyed gets more headlines than what it cost in human suffering to manufacture it and bring it to market is pushed aside. We have poor, but the people who manufacture these items are unlike any poor most have never seen. They live on about 1 dollar a day.
That's so true about the cash for clunkers, and IMO, there was just no reason to have destroyed those vehicles.
People just look for reasons to hate places like WM...of which I just don't get. The fact is, the vast majority of stores do this, it's common practice. It has been and probably always will. Instead of sending the stuff back to their warehouse to be donated, or even sold at drastically reduced prices, they throw the stuff out and write it off. Some stores have outlet stores as part of their chain, where they will make an effort to sell items at reduced prices...but even then, there's a great deal that's just thrown out.
Take a look at the school system, all of the food and mild that is thrown out daily. Unopened food and milk that could easily be donated, but it's not...so why isn't there the hatred for all school systems? Restaurants are also guilty of throwing out perfectly good food, so why isn't there an outcry about them not donating to the shelters?
Good questions Springfielder.................and I got no answer! Schools should be able to recycle or atleast make a phone call for pickup and same for restaurants!
I wonder if the caterers in town donate their uneaten food? When we had catered events at sales meetings or conventions we always stipulated that any leftovers would go to local shelters. Of course caterers already have a means of transporting stuff that restaurants don't.
Dog Walker........I don't know! Most shelters have some sort of transportation don't they? If so, then one phone call should do the trick I would think, If not they maybe JTA or one of the Independent Agency's could provide transport of anything left over to the closest one! Something that maybe the City could do, not sure but it would be nice instead of just round filing consumables!
http://www.gleanersdispatch.org/
QuoteOur Mission
To challenge hunger by responsibly gathering (gleaning) fresh food and distributing (dispatching) it to people in need. Gleaners is committed to volunteerism, building relationships and improving the quality of life for the community.
We accomplish this by:
Bringing hunger relief to people on fixed but inadequate incomes, especially single parent families, senior citizens, handicapped, the under-employed, and/or those between jobs.
Salvaging excess food from wholesale and retail vendors who would otherwise dispose of their excess, which is needed by so many.
Providing help, guidance and spiritual encouragement to those receiving the food, as well as those who volunteer their services in this People Helping People business of caring.
From my experience, while there is great demand for food, it's not always just any food that is desired. Refrigerated and frozen food is especially difficult to donate because many charities don't have any or adequate refrigerated spaces and vehicles to handle it. It's far more expensive for them to operate a refrigerated facility than a dry warehouse.
Often, the food being donated is not what the charity beneficiaries need for their diets (too many baked goods or bacon?) or will eat (do your kids pig out on veggies?) so matching can be an issue. Another problem can be that donors often worry about liability and/or bad PR should someone get sick from the donated food. Timing is still another issue. The charity can't use the food when it's offered (warehouse full, no volunteers available to pick it up, no unmet needs at the moment) or it's not offered when they need it. Some charities only want the food if you bring it to them as they don't have a delivery system to retrieve it themselves. Restaurants, caterers, and other foodservice facilities usually have little to no storage beyond their immediate serving needs so if you don't take the leftover food as soon as the meals are served, they must throw it away. Not many charities can come by on demand at a midnight closing or the end of a catered party and pick up the leftovers. Food may only have a day or two shelf life remaining and the charity can't distribute it quickly enough so they turn down the donation. Then, there is the cost to both the donor and the charity to special handle all this. It may be cheaper just to buy the food than to deal with "recycling" it.
Overall, even with the very best of intentions, it's not always as simple as it looks. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be willing to donate things if it could be done conveniently, with little to no additional costs, and not put them at additional risk or disruption to their business. But, it is often like threading a needle to make it all work.
Quote from: stjr on January 09, 2010, 11:00:25 AM
...or will eat (do your kids pig out on veggies?)
They will if they are starving.
Another reason to hate....the New York City Police Department? Look who destroyed 12 trailer loads of new clothing!QuoteJanuary 13, 2010
Closing Pipeline to Needy, City Shreds Clothes
By JIM DWYER
New York City officials destroyed tons of new, unworn clothing and footwear last year that had been seized in raids on counterfeit label operations, abandoning a practice of giving knockoff garments to groups that help the needy.
Last summer, the Police Department rented an industrial shredder to destroy a dozen tractor-trailer loads of bootleg goods after they were no longer needed as evidence in legal proceedings. It also has been shipping truckloads of garments to an incinerator in Hempstead, on Long Island, where the city pays about $150 a ton to burn them. The lost clothing includes winter jackets, shirts, pants and underwear.
“All the disposal is done under the supervision of law enforcement,†said Kathy Dawkins, a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Sanitation. “It is called a witnessed burn.â€
Until last April, the city had turned over some of the seized goods to not-for-profit organizations, including World Vision and the New York City Clothing Bank, which removed labels and defaced the counterfeit trademarks, then distributed the clothing to aid groups across the city.
A spokesman for the Police Department said that no one asked for the knockoffs in 2009 â€" an explanation that was bewildering to the operators of the clothing bank, who run a warehouse that supplies clothing to needy New Yorkers. They said they had made many requests.
“It would be hard to justify taking a truckload of perfectly good clothes and incinerating them, but that’s what’s happening,†said William Montana, a commercial real estate adviser who is on the board of the clothing bank. “The people who had control over giving us that stuff had been really good to us. Now the pipeline has dried up. Whatever the reasons, we hope that practical heads prevail. We can do this and save the city money, help people who need it, and reduce the carbon footprint.â€
One result of the mass destruction has been a dire shortage of goods for needy men in the clothing bank, which relied heavily on knockoffs for men’s garments. The shelves of women’s garments are replenished more often because of frequent changes in fashion; unsold items are donated to the bank by legitimate retailers and manufacturers.
The office of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg referred questions about the clothing destruction to Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the Police Department. In an e-mail message, Mr. Browne said that the Police Department last provided knockoff clothing to the Department of Homeless Services in December 2008 and had received no requests since then.
The department will continue to supply the clothing “whenever requested and cleared by the courts,†Mr. Browne said.
He was asked how much the city spent on shredding, and how many tons it burned, but did not answer.
Another government agency that confiscates large volumes of pirated clothing, United States Customs and Border Protection, donated $78 million in such goods last year. The donations are made only with the consent of the trademark holder, and are limited to essentials like clothing and shoes; they do not include fake Rolex watches or Gucci handbags.
In Los Angeles, shoes that would otherwise have been destroyed were given to Samaritan’s Feet, said John Saleh, a spokesman for the customs agency. Other ports that have participated are Detroit, El Paso and San Francisco. In New York, customs officials recently began working with World Vision.
“Usually the holder of the intellectual property rights allows us to do it,†Mr. Saleh said. If the trademarks can be removed, the goods are given to organizations near the ports, Mr. Saleh said. If they can’t be, they are shipped abroad.
Until recently, New York had a similar policy. In 2006, Mr. Bloomberg announced that the city would send shipments of knockoffs to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina. In that case, said Jason Post, a spokesman for the mayor, the city had the assistance of World Vision in sorting through the materials, a daunting task â€" but one that World Vision and the clothing bank say they still do.
Many major fashion brands have their headquarters in New York City, and Mr. Bloomberg has made prosecution of trademark infringement a priority for his administration. The companies also take actions in civil court against the pirates, an expensive process, to protect the designers’ names.
“These are people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, some of them millions, to get counterfeit goods off the street,†said Robert Tucker, a lawyer with the firm of Tucker and Lafiti, whose fashion clients include Chrome Hearts, Steve Madden, Zac Posen and Ed Hardy. “Everyone wants to feed and clothe the homeless. But how are you going to spend all this money and then put it back on the street?â€
A special enforcement unit, reporting directly to the mayor, goes after landlords who knowingly rent to counterfeiters. Separately, the fashion and licensing industries are major financial supporters of the New York City Police Foundation, which has financed investigations of trademark infringement by a squad of police officers.
Mr. Montana of the clothing bank said his organization was eager to maintain a good relationship with the city. “This is a case of people with good intentions creating an incredibly wasteful and heartbreaking outcome,†he said. “If we can get people to work together, we can do a lot of good in the world.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/nyregion/13about.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Please? Trademark infringement and fake items, why allow that to go on? Good for the police. It is illegal to sell unlicensed items, I guess all those bootleggers of films are OK, since what would Warner Brothers Studios miss if they lost a few dollars of revenue here and there?
Mtrain, read the article. The tags are defaced and/or removed. This practice has to be, and has been, approved by the trademark owners. It's a win-win. Counterfeiters lose the product and get prosecuted, products kept out of their targeted marketplace, and the needy get clothing. What's wrong with that?
STJR - They changed the policy, plain and simple. Who are you to argue with a change in policy, probably to protect themselves from being sued. Imagine if Wayne Weaver allowed counterfit Jag jerseys to be donated, would that diminsh the value of the credible items on the market? It destroys the brand that the NFL has on everything created with the official NFL partners.
Quoteunworn clothing and footwear last year that had been seized in raids on counterfeit label operations
Billions worth of counterfit items are destroyed every year, and rightly so. You say it makes no sense, but to the owners of the brand, it is cheapening the value of their product to those who buy their items the right way. Same with your DVDs that are stolen, perhaps its OK to steal and give to kids, showing them its OK to steal a brand item.
Quote from: fsu813 on January 08, 2010, 11:12:16 AM
"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."
Story continues:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/h-m-and-wal-mart-destroy-and-trash-unsold-goods-562909/
This is certainly no reason to hate Walmart.
I worked at Sears for a short time while in college and got into trouble for not destroying some items I threw into the dumpster. I would imagine all large retailers do this to prevent people from returning unsellable items for the cash.