ForumGarden

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.

Story Link: H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods - Fashion + Beauty on Shine

The economic driver of Western society is consumption. The more that's consumed, the more gets made and stocked for sale. The people making and stocking earn money which they then use to buy, completing the circle. If the shops give away what they can no longer keep on shelves then the pressure to buy eases, the turnover drops, the manufacture diminishes, the economy nosedives, the masses face starvation.

One way of driving up the economy is to have a huge wasteful armed force sucking in produce without satisfying any customer demand. Another is trashing what's no longer profitable to stock. I have a feeling the commercial trashing is less harmful.

Charities do receive money from various sources. Its not enough really but clothing is actually the least needed items for charities. My girls have given so much in the way of clothing to charities. sometimes I think thats what they do instead of washing the stuff after only one wearing.

If I were running a charity and needed clothing I'd go negotiate with the retailers as follows:

Instead of throwing these things away, I'll pay you 5 percent of what you paid. As a company you still get to claim the loss (just not as much) and I get new cloths for my orphans. Plus I'll be sure that everyone knows what good souls you folks are If they didn't want to negotiate then I'd call the NY Times and report to them this outrageous behavior of throwing out new unused clothing by retailers.

Nothing wrong with recycling it either. Makes more jobs by taking out stitches. There. problem solved.

Many many retailers do this.

They mark it down to zero then dispose of it.

I dont understand it but it is what it is.

Plus the insurance companies will reimburse them...it is what it is...selfish companies & all they care about is the bottom line.

qsducks;1280740 wrote: Plus the insurance companies will reimburse them...it is what it is...selfish companies & all they care about is the bottom line.


The insurance companies will reimburse them for what?

In the late eighties when I was a manager for a McDonald's store, their foods were prepared much differently than today.

-they had predictions for each breakfast, lunch and diner hours pending on the weather, the day of the week and much more.

everything was made at one time, each time called by a manger.

ex: -6 Bic Macs

-6 cheeseburgers

2 fish filet

you get the drift.

sometimes we would only call for one mac, or 2 bacon-cheeseburgers pending.

We had timers of 30 minutes that went into the bin as each sandwich/s were cooked.

when that food wasn't eaten in 30 minutes, it then was taken out of the bin, checked off as waste, as we had to account for it for inventory, and then thrown out.

all stores world-wide worked the same.

no one had any idea just how much food was thrown out.

It infuriated me as it could have gone to the homeless shelters, people who had no money for food etc.:-5:-5

and why was it thrown out? because they were not allowed to give it to anyone as it expired by McDonald's policies.

When I worked the late and final shift until 2am when the store closed?



- I told the staff to take home what was wasted, as we knew it was still good, so why waste it?a

spot;1280281 wrote: The economic driver of Western society is consumption. The more that's consumed, the more gets made and stocked for sale. The people making and stocking earn money which they then use to buy, completing the circle. If the shops give away what they can no longer keep on shelves then the pressure to buy eases, the turnover drops, the manufacture diminishes, the economy nosedives, the masses face starvation.



One way of driving up the economy is to have a huge wasteful armed force sucking in produce without satisfying any customer demand. Another is trashing what's no longer profitable to stock. I have a feeling the commercial trashing is less harmful.
Good post :-6

Odie;1280817 wrote: It infuriated me as it could have gone to the homeless shelters, people who had no money for food etc.:-5:-5


How would it have got there while still safe to eat? I'm sure the cost of transporting it would have been more than the cost of the items fresh from the supermarket.

Or are you suggesting a second queue of the homeless at each branch, waiting for the discards?

spot;1280857 wrote: How would it have got there while still safe to eat? I'm sure the cost of transporting it would have been more than the cost of the items fresh from the supermarket.

Or are you suggesting a second queue of the homeless at each branch, waiting for the discards?


It could have been set up for just after lunch and dinner hour, 1 pm and 6 pm when the most products were thrown out, organizations who already help out, would have picked it up from the stores.

It's still safe, who hasn't had leftovers even the day after?

Ones who have no money for food, should be grateful for what they receive, just heat it up, its simple, I heat up leftovers.



Some here on welfare, are quite able to work, they chose not to, they attend the food banks daily and other free food places.:rolleyes:



I've seen this myself.

Speaking of Dumpsters.....

This could go side by side with PETA dumps dead animals ....

I think....

BTS;1280925 wrote: Speaking of Dumpsters.....

This could go side by side with PETA dumps dead animals ....

I think....


Obama, in a statement, said he received a phone call from the Senate majority leader, and that while Reid’s comments were “unfortunate,” he accepted the apology “without question.”

“I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart,” Obama said yesterday. “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”

Reid, 70, also issued a statement calling the remarks “improper” and a “poor choice of words,” apologizing “for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans.”

Full story link: Obama Accepts Reid?s Apology for Racial Comments - Yahoo! News

Jazzy;1280941 wrote: Obama, in a statement, said he received a phone call from the Senate majority leader, and that while Reid’s comments were “unfortunate,” he accepted the apology “without question.”



“I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart,” Obama said yesterday. “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”



Reid, 70, also issued a statement calling the remarks “improper” and a “poor choice of words,” apologizing “for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans.”



Full story link: Obama Accepts Reid?s Apology for Racial Comments - Yahoo! News




Kool, aren't they just so touchie feelie.....

Now he needs to save his political life and pull off a upset win.



Poll: Harry Reid 's approval rating at 33 percent in Nevada‎ - 6 hours ago



By AP LAS VEGAS — Fifty-two percent of Nevadans had an unfavorable opinion of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and 33 percent had a favorable view, ...