PDA

View Full Version : H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods


Quasimodo
08-01-10, 11:13
Rather than donate unsold goods to the needy, some clothing stores have taken to cutting holes in shoes and clothing before throwing them away. What a strange and wasteful practice!

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/h-m-and-wal-mart-destroy-and-trash-unsold-goods-562909/

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.

NemesisxAngelus
08-01-10, 11:19
Wow I never expected H&M to operate like this. Last update I read was H&M was taking action regarding this, I hope they stay true to their words.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 11:21
Well, it is a waste, but they bought the goods. They're entitled to what they want with them.

Dustie
08-01-10, 11:25
Well, it is a waste, but they bought the goods. They're entitled to what they want with them.

It's about common sense. We can't all just do what we wish with things we own or 'own'.

I hope that was a case of single stores behaving irresponsible. H&M constantly brags about its CSR, pro-environmental an pro-human-rights approach.

rowanlim
08-01-10, 11:28
It's the same like restaurants throwing away food instead of donating to the poor.

Shame.

Reggie
08-01-10, 11:28
Well, it is a waste, but they bought the goods. They're entitled to what they want with them.
Oh come on. Its unethical whichever way you look at it.

Trigger_happy
08-01-10, 11:28
Maybe they were seconds or something? You know that there are loads of rules about clothing quality and selling don't you?

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 11:32
It's about common sense. We can't all just do what we wish with things we own or 'own'.

I hope that was a case of single stores behaving irresponsible. H&M constantly brags about its CSR, pro-environmental an pro-human-rights approach.So? They're not breaking any laws.

Also, I find this article somewhat biased. "Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, acted surprised that these items were found.." Acted surprised? That certainly implies that she already knew of this practice, when she certainly may not have.

@Reggie: It's wasteful, but I wouldn't call it unethical.

Lavinder
08-01-10, 11:32
Maybe they were seconds or something? You know that there are loads of rules about clothing quality and selling don't you?

But are there rules about giving them away to charities? I'm sure an unfortunate person would not mind a pair of jeans with a small fault or out of fashion. :(

Dustie
08-01-10, 11:32
Maybe they were seconds or something? You know that there are loads of rules about clothing quality and selling don't you?

You've got a point here, but H&M - according to information about their product path - tests goods and when something's off they simply have to be sent back, not cut and thrown in a trash bin.

So? They're not breaking any laws.
Is there always an argument to justify for things that collectively do cause harm? Is it always that hard to see a bigger picture, look at things from a perspective?

Trigger_happy
08-01-10, 11:35
You've got a point here, but H&M - according to information about their product path - tests goods and when something's off they simply have to be sent back, not cut and thrown in a trash bin.

I guess it might be easier to bin them then send them back? Or just send them to TKMax. Like all their clothes are ruined some how: never got anything nice from TK.

Dustie
08-01-10, 11:39
I guess it might be easier to bin them then send them back? Or just send them to TKMax. Like all their clothes are ruined some how: never got anything nice from TK.
There's procedures for garments that are faulty and some of them can be faulty in a way that poses health risks, so they can't just throw them away. Damaged or otherwise unsellable goods also have to be sent back to distribution centers.

ShadyCroft
08-01-10, 11:43
Its true what MadTony says that its not against the law and they have the right to do whatever they want with them seeing as they paid for them in the first place. Its not unethical, but more like not compassionate.

It all goes back to your conscious and whether you could give em away to people in need instead of throwing them away to waste.

Its a pity indeed that they didn't give them away. As Jo said, there are people who could be in need of a pair of jeans.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 11:47
Is there always an argument to justify for things that collectively do cause harm? Is it always that hard to see a bigger picture, look at things from a perspective?Doing this does not cause any harm.

Peanut
08-01-10, 11:49
Thats weird.. :confused:

I like H&M. :(

Reggie
08-01-10, 11:51
@Reggie: It's wasteful, but I wouldn't call it unethical.
So being wasteful when its unnecessary and has no real purpose isn't an unethical action to take? Not being compassionate is unethical surely. Its still 'ethical' in the capitalist sense I suspect...

Greenkey2
08-01-10, 11:55
So? They're not breaking any laws.

It's wasteful, but I wouldn't call it unethical.

To my mind, being wasteful IS highly unethical.

To quote: 'Laws change, but justice is justice'.


It's a disgrace. An utter, needless disgrace; especially in this day and age when the rich/poor divide is as overwhelming as our need to stop using landfill.

Reggie
08-01-10, 11:56
To my mind, being wasteful IS highly unethical.

To quote: 'Laws change, but justice is justice'.


It's a disgrace. An utter, needless disgrace; especially in this day and age when the rich/poor divide is as overwhelming as our need to stop using landfill.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm glad someone else here agrees. :)

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 11:58
So being wasteful when its unnecessary and has no real purpose isn't an unethical action to take? Not being compassionate is unethical surely. Its still 'ethical' in the capitalist sense I suspect...Nope, I don't think it's an unethical action. I wouldn't call it ethical either though. The thing is, these goods were bought buy the companies. Providing they don't break the law, they can do what they like with them. There shouldn't be any laws forcing the companies to give unused products to charity.

To my mind, being wasteful IS highly unethical.

To quote: 'Laws change, but justice is justice'.


It's a disgrace. An utter, needless disgrace; especially in this day and age when the rich/poor divide is as overwhelming as our need to stop using landfill.The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.

Greenkey2
08-01-10, 12:05
Doing this does not cause any harm.

Apologies, I didn't read this on my first viewing. I'm bound to ask why someone as well-informed as yourself is ignorant of the mountains of rubbish currently moulding in landfill, unrecycled and forgotten except as an explosive/toxic/unsightly pox on our planet... Or the millions of people having to dig through said mountains just to find enough to eat, let alone afford half-decent clothing.

Is it really so much to ask for multi-billion dollar corporations to recycle what they don't sell in a more responsible manner? I think not.The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.

Are you referring to the parts of England where you live, or the entire planet?

Lee croft
08-01-10, 12:06
What about that person who got a ps3 when ps3s first came out and smashed it up and called art? (they were soo blatently an x-box 360 fan) ¬_¬

Reggie
08-01-10, 12:09
Nope, I don't think it's an unethical action. I wouldn't call it ethical either though. The thing is, these goods were bought buy the companies. Providing they don't break the law, they can do what they like with them. There shouldn't be any laws forcing the companies to give unused products to charity.

The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.
I don't believe ethical actions should be measured against the social contracts of the law. The fact that waste on a massive scale is allowed to happen everyday like that is just one reason why.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 12:12
Apologies, I didn't read this on my first viewing. I'm bound to ask why someone as well-informed as yourself is ignorant of the mountains of rubbish currently moulding in landfill, unrecycled and forgotten except as an explosive/toxic/unsightly pox on our planet... Or the millions of people having to dig through said mountains just to find enough to eat, let alone afford half-decent clothing.

Is it really so much to ask for multi-billion dollar corporations to recycle what they don't sell in a more responsible manner? I think not.Individual people waste loads every day. Instead however, it's the big companies that get the blame. After all, it's easy to blame the all the world's problems and social injustices on them.

Are you referring to the parts of England where you live, or the entire planet?Mainly the western world as a whole.

@Lee Croft: They did it with all three consoles.

interstellardave
08-01-10, 12:13
Nope, I don't think it's an unethical action. I wouldn't call it ethical either though. The thing is, these goods were bought buy the companies. Providing they don't break the law, they can do what they like with them. There shouldn't be any laws forcing the companies to give unused products to charity.

The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.

No, there shouldn't be a law to force them to give these clothes to charity... but they should damn well be shamed into doing so. It's not illegal what they're doing but it still shouldn't sit right with any socially-conscious person.

To throw out brand new items of clothing that could be of use to people is just ridiculous. They actually go out of their way to make the items useless! Think about that. That's just spiteful.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 12:14
No, there shouldn't be a law to force them to give these clothes to charity... but they should damn well be shamed into doing so. It's not illegal what they're doing but it still shouldn't sit right with any socially-conscious person.

To throw out brand new items of clothing that could be of use to people is just ridiculous. They actually go out of their way to make the items useless! Think about that. That's just spiteful.Believe me, I don't agree with what they're doing.

Lee croft
08-01-10, 12:15
@Lee Croft: They did it with all three consoles.

Ah ok my ex friend only told me about the ps3 ¬_¬ shes evil hinting at the ex part :p

Reggie
08-01-10, 12:16
Believe me, I don't agree with what they're doing.
Neither do I. So why argue that its ethical if it doesn't sit right with your conscience!? >.<

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 12:18
Neither do I. So why argue that its ethical if it doesn't sit right with your conscience!? >.<Re-read what I have said in this thread. I said I don't think it's ethical, but at the same time I wouldn't call it unethical.

Reggie
08-01-10, 12:20
Could you elaborate on what that means then?
I mean, on what basis do you not agree with such policy?

Confuzzled I am.

interstellardave
08-01-10, 12:28
What Wal Mart and other companies should do is open a chain of low-overhead warehouse type stores to sell the merchandise that goes unsold at their main stores. Sell everything at literally a fraction of the cost so that working poor get great deals and the parent company doesn't take a complete loss. It also would create a few more jobs in the process.

Quasimodo
08-01-10, 12:32
They actually go out of their way to make the items useless! Think about that. That's just spiteful.
Exactly!
What Wal Mart and other companies should do is open a chain of low-overhead warehouse type stores to sell the merchandise that goes unsold at their main stores. Sell everything at literally a fraction of the cost so that working poor get great deals and the parent company doesn't take a complete loss. It also would create a few more jobs in the process.
Or, unless I'm mistaken, they could donate the unsold clothing and enjoy not only a tax write-off but good PR.

Johnnay
08-01-10, 12:57
Nope, I don't think it's an unethical action. I wouldn't call it ethical either though. The thing is, these goods were bought buy the companies. Providing they don't break the law, they can do what they like with them. There shouldn't be any laws forcing the companies to give unused products to charity.

The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.

the rich now are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer

meaning the opposite

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 13:05
the rich now are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer

meaning the oppositeProof?

I hate it when you jump to conclusions :)

Fact is, compared to 100 years ago, the gap between the rich and the poor has narrowed immensely.

MattTR
08-01-10, 13:06
:vlol: For a second I thought you were talking about Hannah Montana.

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/people/img/16840_hannah%20montana%20on%20show.jpg

Anyways, that's rough.. wish they'd settle down.

interstellardave
08-01-10, 13:11
Or, unless I'm mistaken, they could donate the unsold clothing and enjoy not only a tax write-off but good PR.

Yep. That's the assumed course of action, so I was just offering another option. If your cool with throwing things away then almost any other idea would be better, not only for the public but the company as well.

Johnnay
08-01-10, 13:13
Proof?

I hate it when you jump to conclusions :)

Fact is, compared to 100 years ago, the gap between the rich and the poor has narrowed immensely.

Oh

climate change, Natural disasters all of that is widening the gap and just imagine if the whole world fights for water it will truly show this gap aye:)

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 13:17
Oh

climate change, Natural disasters all of that is widening the gap and just imagine if the whole world fights for water it will truly show this gap aye:)Proof?

The gap is not widening. If you look back into history you'll see this.

Dennis's Mom
08-01-10, 13:28
It's certainly wasteful, but I too wouldn't label it unethical.

However, they simply cannot give clothes away. They sell clothes to make a living.

If they feel they cannot donate the clothing locally, I would recommend that the clothes be sent to an overseas location for distribution to the poor where the "free" goods do not reduce their market.

patriots88888
08-01-10, 13:32
It's the same like restaurants throwing away food instead of donating to the poor.

Shame.

I worked in a bakery for a few years and couldn't believe when I saw the amount of perfectly fine and edible goods and products they ended up tossing away only because they were past their selling date. When I inquired about it and asked why they didn't donate the products their response was that they didn't want to risk any legal action in the, albeit unlikely, event someone became ill from consuming them.

This is diffent however as I fail to see how anyone can become ill or harmed from any non-perishable items.

ozzman
08-01-10, 13:35
it's a shame, i'v always hated places that wast resources, as a cook in training, i know not to wast anything as everything has a use, shame they don't see things the way i do

remote91
08-01-10, 13:37
As anybody ever noticed clothes from H&M are usually quite damaged anyway?

I've had to take items back quite a few times because they've had holes in that I haven't spotted when buying.

voltz
08-01-10, 13:43
Waaaaaallly Woooooorrld..... where your $!#@ comes cheap.

From what I read, this is both immoral and rather stupid considering that donations to the needy also account for some rather nice tax breaks. I just don't understand how the company as a whole would be so thoughtless as to do this. Maybe if I look at this store's history coming from who the ownership passed down to throughout the years.... maybe I will.

Rai
08-01-10, 13:57
How wasteful. I wouldn't say unethical either, the stores would have paid for the clothes and other items. But what the store pays for the items is probably a fraction of what the customers pays on individual items, so if they can afford to throw perfectly good clothes away, they can afford to give to charity instead. Maybe make a deal with charity shops so that they can still make a small profit on clothes that are being sold.

Supermarkets are just as wasteful, throwing away perfectly good food just becasue the packaging is open or the sell-by date has approached (different to the use-by date).

Large stores like this could easily donate their unsold products. Food and clothes can be given to charities for the homeless etc.

Alex Fly
08-01-10, 14:04
It's really a shame !

Mr.Burns
08-01-10, 14:10
Very wasteful indeed. And such an action implies that at some level in the management food chain, someone doesn't want those items to be given out because of lost chance for profit. Especially right now with this cold snap, people could use whatever they can get their hands on. Sure there is nothing wrong with this legally, but everyone in the public view are succeptable to a public shaming and shunning. Case in point, Tiger Woods. He screws up and his sponsors drop him. If this issue was pushed big time, Wally world would have a PR nightmare on their hands. Best to stop what they're doing before it hurts their consumer's confidence in them.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 14:15
What's wally world?

voltz
08-01-10, 14:23
What's wally world?

What's "tators" precious??

patriots88888
08-01-10, 14:23
Supermarkets are just as wasteful, throwing away perfectly good food just becasue the packaging is open or the sell-by date has approached (different to the use-by date).

Large stores like this could easily donate their unsold products. Food and clothes can be given to charities for the homeless etc.

I refer you back to my earlier post.

I worked in a bakery for a few years and couldn't believe when I saw the amount of perfectly fine and edible goods and products they ended up tossing away only because they were past their selling date. When I inquired about it and asked why they didn't donate the products their response was that they didn't want to risk any legal action in the, albeit unlikely, event someone became ill from consuming them.

This is diffent however as I fail to see how anyone can become ill or harmed from any non-perishable items.

I think they're just afraid that in these sue-happy times we live in someone might get the crazy notion to seek damages (even if not warranted) if they see a viable opportunity.

Mr.Burns
08-01-10, 14:26
What's wally world?

Haven't I been smacking you for three years now to google something you don't know? :smk:

It's a nickname for Walmart. :p

voltz
08-01-10, 14:26
oh sure, go and ruin the fun why don't ya? :mad:

Dustie
08-01-10, 17:44
Doing this does not cause any harm.

Individual people waste loads every day. Instead however, it's the big companies that get the blame. After all, it's easy to blame the all the world's problems and social injustices on them.

It does cause harm to the environment, collectively. Garbage doesn't just fly away.

Of course we're all responsible, not just that single H&M store in New York City. But that specific situation brought attention and it's great to have people notice. If we just walk past the story thinking 'Whatever, there's no law that says help the poor, clean up and sort the garbage to give a good example, after all' there's no chance any individual will change their attitude. Corporations might be a minority, but they make the greatest impact on people's perception.

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 17:53
It does cause harm to the environment, collectively. Garbage doesn't just fly away.I was referring to them rendering the clothes unusable.

Aranara
08-01-10, 18:08
And I liked H&M clothing...Oh well, reorienation is a part of human nature.

Azerutan
08-01-10, 18:34
When my family does not need used clothing anymore, what we generally do is to give our clothes (used, but in good quality) to the poor nearby.

I grew up extremely poor and I understand the feeling of having clothing, food and other essential needs from charity. Fortunately, I no longer need those due to my high-level education and work, however I still give my clothing to the poor. My shirts, my pants, my coats I no longer use, because they no longer fit me or simply because I can't stand them (:p), I just give them to my mother and she usually gives them to some poor families in my city and others nearby.

So, I do find this disturbing. Yet, I cannot really disagree with what Mad Tony writes - it's more a moral question, than legal actually. H&M and Wallmart are not doing anything legally wrong, but morally questionable. It's up to you to decide how you want to perceive this situation.

I still do my part as an individual :) No wonder my area is politics and human rights...

viper456
08-01-10, 18:55
Seen some of the crap H&M sell? It would be unethical to give them to charity! Haven't they suffered enough?!

[/light hearted post to ease tension]

:p

Love2Raid
08-01-10, 19:17
What a waste!

I see they don't want poor people to walk around in their 'exclusive' clothes, or that others could collect them and sell them cheap(er). I understand it could harm their place in the market, depending on how many items they would give away. But destroying something other people need so much and would be very happy with, that's just wrong! Couldn't they stock the items up and wait some time (until they're out of fashion, which means not long) and give them to charity then? There are alternatives to this!

This story will definitely not do them much good. Ah well, the majority of what they sell is ugly anyway, and the quality is usually poor (H&M).

So these shops have been exposed. What about others?

SamReeves
08-01-10, 20:31
Hmmm, I wonder about the validity of the story. There's eBay and outlet stores which get this kind of inventory all the time.

Aranara
08-01-10, 20:41
When we don't need our clothes anymore, we give them to an orphanage. Also 10% of my parent's salary goes to the same orphanage because we've seen them and they are really good kids who deserve more from this life.

xXhayleyroxXx
08-01-10, 21:19
That's terrible. They should donate un-sold goods to charity shops or charities in general.

tlr online
08-01-10, 21:23
Glad to see both companies backed down and applied some common sense.

Catracoth
08-01-10, 21:23
Rather than donate unsold goods to the needy, some clothing stores have taken to cutting holes in shoes and clothing before throwing them away. What a strange and wasteful practice!

Scandalous!

NemesisxAngelus
08-01-10, 22:40
I don't think applies to every H&M store, though. I'm quite a well-known and loyal customer at one of the two stores of H&M here. They eventually sell their unsold goods after the sale season for very low prices, being 2EU the max.

Love2Raid
08-01-10, 22:43
I don't think applies to every H&M store, though. I'm quite a well-known and loyal customer at one of the two stores of H&M here. They eventually sell their unsold goods after the sale season for very low prices, being 2EU the max.

But what happens with the left-overs from that?

Bonez
08-01-10, 23:10
The rich/poor divide is far smaller than it used to be.

No it's not. The gap between MEDCs and LEDCs is *huge*.

It's a huge huge waste to just throw these clothes out, and I'm surprised that action from the people who had to destroy them was taken. There are thousands of people who could have greatly benefited from these clothes, and these companies know this.

Minty Mouth
08-01-10, 23:11
Scandalous!

:ton:

I have a funny image of you sat at your computer all: :ohn:

Mad Tony
08-01-10, 23:20
No it's not. The gap between MEDCs and LEDCs is *huge*. There always has been. Just because the gap is huge doesn't mean it's widening.

Personally though I'd hate a world where there were no gaps. We'd lose so much. Of course, this doesn't mean I like poverty.

NemesisxAngelus
11-01-10, 00:24
But what happens with the left-overs from that?

They (the store clerks) pick out their favorites and the rest gets put on eBay or the more well-known Dutch website Marktplaats. I heard that before this controversy.

robm_2007
11-01-10, 00:59
what i bought 1,000,000 polio vaccines, and decided to destroy them? thats my right, but that doesnt make it right.

Tommy123
11-01-10, 01:08
But what happens with the left-overs from that?

lol i was thinking that too

Eleana
11-01-10, 01:15
Its sad, but this kind of thing isn't uncommon at all.

I don't know the full details, but a friend explained to me that the EU has far more food than it possibly consume before it rots or spoils, due to the - Common Agricultural Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy)

Farmers in the EU get subsidised to keep their businesses running, which means they keep producing and we end up with far too much than we can use (which is where the terms "Butter Mountains" and "Milk Lakes" crop up)

In 2007 in response to a parliamentary written question the UK government revealed that over the preceding year the EU Public Stock had amassed "13,476,812 tonnes of cereal, rice, sugar and milk products and 3,529,002 hectolitres of alcohol/wine”, although the EU has claimed this level of oversupply is unlikely to be repeated.

In January 2009 the EU had a current store of 717,810 tonnes of cereals, 41,422 tonnes of sugar and a 2.3 million hectolitre 'wine lake'. The EU will also purchase and further subsidise the export of 30,000 tonnes of butter and 109,000 tonnes of powdered milk to the third world

I think this is a new movement, because before this, the food that couldn't be sold simply rotted.

I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but there are people who are in need of clothes and food, and they are just destroying them? Even more annoying when you think it was probably a factory in either a developing country/third world who made the clothes in the first place. :mad:

January_Snow*
11-01-10, 01:35
This reminds me of the situation when our goverment destroyed around 1 million of fake nike sneakers... It was a really horrible thing, considering how much poor people there are, I guess they couldnt have used them for charity since nike owns the rights...

Melonie Tomb Raider
11-01-10, 01:55
Doesn't surprise me. A lot more stores do this than people realize.

I used to work at a home decorating store (Kirkland's), and everytime we got rid of something, we had to shatter it or break it before putting it in the dumpster. They do this so people won't "steal" their garbage, but I personally think it's a selfish and asinine thing to do. They could donate this stuff to charity, or at least to Salvation Army so the less fortunate could buy some nice things at a better price.

Eddie Haskell
11-01-10, 02:01
Its sad, but this kind of thing isn't uncommon at all.

I don't know the full details, but a friend explained to me that the EU has far more food than it possibly consume before it rots or spoils, due to the - Common Agricultural Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy)

Farmers in the EU get subsidised to keep their businesses running, which means they keep producing and we end up with far too much than we can use (which is where the terms "Butter Mountains" and "Milk Lakes" crop up)



I think this is a new movement, because before this, the food that couldn't be sold simply rotted.

I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but there are people who are in need of clothes and food, and they are just destroying them? Even more annoying when you think it was probably a factory in either a developing country/third world who made the clothes in the first place. :mad:

Back when I was much younger the farmers of this country dumped milk out of tankers to maintain the price. Also, they did the same to oranges and orange juice. Imagine living in a place where you had nothing to eat or drink and you hear about that. It's sad, but that's capitalism.

larafan25
11-01-10, 02:06
well that is not nice, they are but holes if you ask me:)

why waist them when there are people in the world that don't have cloths??? o.O

Draco
11-01-10, 04:12
Oh come on. Its unethical whichever way you look at it.

Are you one of those people who likes telling other people what they can or can't do with their own possessions?

Little-Lara
11-01-10, 04:36
Doesn't surprise me. A lot more stores do this than people realize.

I used to work at a home decorating store (Kirkland's), and everytime we got rid of something, we had to shatter it or break it before putting it in the dumpster. They do this so people won't "steal" their garbage, but I personally think it's a selfish and asinine thing to do. They could donate this stuff to charity, or at least to Salvation Army so the less fortunate could buy some nice things at a better price.

True. I used to work in Vons, and everynight I saw them throw out cart fulls of cakes and cookies so that the employees (or anyone else) can't eat them. Broke my heart everytime. :(

Ward Dragon
11-01-10, 05:14
It's certainly wasteful, but I too wouldn't label it unethical.

However, they simply cannot give clothes away. They sell clothes to make a living.

If they feel they cannot donate the clothing locally, I would recommend that the clothes be sent to an overseas location for distribution to the poor where the "free" goods do not reduce their market.

I agree. If their main reason for destroying the clothing is that they don't want to jeopardize their sales when people could get the clothes for free, then why not give the clothes away in foreign countries where they have no business anyway? Walmart is hardly high-quality or worth knocking off, so I can't imagine people would go to the effort to collect donated clothes overseas, ship it back here, and try to sell it.

Mad Tony
11-01-10, 12:22
I thought that warehouse outlet idea somebody in this thread proposed was a good idea.

interstellardave
11-01-10, 13:02
I thought that warehouse outlet idea somebody in this thread proposed was a good idea.

Thanks; that was me. :)

Dustie
11-01-10, 14:47
Are you one of those people who likes telling other people what they can or can't do with their own possessions?

How about giving people a sense of responsibility? Or even a slightest bit of empathy?

MiCkiZ88
11-01-10, 15:08
Are you one of those people who likes telling other people what they can or can't do with their own possessions?Telling someone that something is unethical is barely telling them to do something. Giving advice on how to make this world a bit better place to live, for an example, being less wastefull is not taking your freedom away. You are still free to do whatever you want with your waste.

Me and Reggie are just one of those nutjobs who recycle I suppose.

Bein an idealist.. hah, this world doesnt need idealists. As long as the western world is happy, everything is good.

Dustie
11-01-10, 15:11
I think Draco is a kind of person who just wouldn't mind if we all blew each other up... or would you, Draco? It feels like that's the kind of approach you have.

Mad Tony
11-01-10, 15:12
As long as the western world is happy, everything is good.Why the anti-western sarcasm?

MiCkiZ88
11-01-10, 15:12
Why the anti-western sarcasm?Why picking on my thoughts? You never understand my point of view.

But incase you do want to know. The developed world doesnt really care about developing countries, except for cheap labor force. Who would be crazy enough to send goods in to those countries for sale?

Mad Tony
11-01-10, 15:36
Why picking on my thoughts? You never understand my point of view.

But incase you do want to know. The developed world doesnt really care about developing countries, except for cheap labor force. Who would be crazy enough to send goods in to those countries for sale?I'm not picking on your thoughts. And yes I do. :confused:

If the developed world cares so little for developing countries, then why do they continually send billions in aid over there? Apparently compared to other western countries the British government doesn't spend as much on foreign aid, yet this year they're planning to cut or freeze spending on everything at home but they're increasing foreign aid spending.

Anyway, what else more do you think we should do?