• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
rated:
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/h-m-and-wal-mart-destroy-a...

I know this one for fact, I worked at a store once and was told to throw the stuff away. they also locked their trash dumpster. should that stuff go to the needy. or do you throw away to maintain a price

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.
/ Brings back memories of reading the DD thread /

I saw that on Yahoo this morning also. It's horrible that they do this, but I can also see the view of the store. If they flood the charities and thrift stores with their leftover clothes, it could come back to haunt them. Escpecially Wa1mart, a store that has many customers who also shop at thrift stores. They would do better lowering the price drastically if things don't sell; at least they would get something.
As for coats, they should always be donated rather than destroyed.

i saw that as well. i figure they could make $ on it by selling it to places like ross and marshall's. and if they don't wanna go that route then donation to salvation army or something. if they're afraid of it going on the rack at the salvation army, they could give the stuff to homes and specify it's not to be resold. then they could do the whole "WalMart cares" bit and get good publicity.

If you cannot get someone to come pick it up in a timely manner, it has to be thrown out to make room for either a. new merchandise b. more donations.

It is also possible, don't know, that the merchandise may have been contaminated in some way. I don't know about H&M but Wal-Mart carries lots of chemicals. Could be the merchandise was exposed and for insurance/safety reasons, had to be trashed. They deface it to try and prevent exactly what happened, someone picking it up and using it. Cause if it was exposed to something nasty, who do you think is gonna get sued if someone gets sick? The lady who took it out of the garbage? Nope. The Goodwill that sells it or charity that distributes it? Nope. Wal-Mart? Ding Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner!

Could a designer that supplies clothes to the stores have a clause in their contract that nothing is to be clearanced or donated? Could be since some labels don't want their brand diluted by cut-rate pricing.

Am I saying that's what happened in this case? I don't know. Just showing that it's possible one or both retailers had reasons for it. But they should have been smart enough to dump the stuff in a locking container to prevent dumpster divers from getting to it.

It would be very nice of them to donate the clothing, but there are some real business reasons not to do so. Since they are a business, I don't think they have a strict moral obligation to donate surplus merchandise.

KayK said: / Brings back memories of reading the DD thread /

thats an aseswome thread, my gut hurt from laughing

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/deal-discussion/89106/?start=0

My husband used to manage a Radio Shack and they had to break things people returned because someone would get them out of the dumpster and try to return them again.

Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.

It's their stuff, they can do what they want with it. If they donate it somewhere and it gets resold, then they are losing sales to themselves - people will buy it off eBay or from goodwill instead of from their store.

While it's probably not the case here since it's clothing, some companies require that items be destroyed for credit for unsold merchandise - publishers will have bookstores tear off book covers and send them back for return credit.

When I worked for Hallmark (privately owned) in WalMart, their policy was that nothing could be taken from the stores, not even empty cartons. Hallmark's policy when crediting a store was that we could keep or toss the merchandise at my discretion (they didn't want the store to retrieve and sell what had already been credited nor did they want dumpster divers getting their products or requests from charitable organizations for products); WalMart's policy was that all credited products were to be destroyed on premises. The WalMart employees tended to be negative and particularly unhelpful so I quit. My sales territory covered from almost the northern border of CA-OR to the SF Bay Area. bleah.

I was in Panera one late evening just before closing. There were a couple large garbage bags full of breads, croissants, cookies, etc, on the floor. I asked them what they were gonna do with them. They said those were to be picked up by homeless shelters.

I love Panera anyways.

A letter writing campaign may be in order?

Robson Walton
Chairman of the Board
WalMart Stores
Bentonville, Arkansas
72716

Michael T. Duke
President
WalMart Stores
Bentonville, Arkansas
72716

KayK said: Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.
When I worked at Tim Hortons all the old donuts were saved in a large Rubbermaid
bin and given to the local food shelter to serve for breakfast the next day.

when i worked for cracker barrel, they smashed the gift shop merchandise to little pieces. otherwise, people would dig through the dumpster and try to return broken merchandise.

I worked retail for slightly over 10 years (at the same place, amazingly).

Some of our merchandise was returned to the vendor for credit.

Other stuff, the vendors gave us credit automatically and then we had to send back a signed form saying it was destroyed. If we were to donate it or anything, there would be a financial obligation to the vendor.

I always thought it should be donated, too. :-\

From the business point of view, why would a costumer buy something if they know they can get it almost free from the thrift stores if they wait long enough?

Restaurants do the same thing, they throw away food that is left over. Heck Mcodonals is notorious for doing this.

Perhaps the solution to this should be that they do not mass produce a product. It will save them on cost and increase demand on items that sell.

I mean we complain when something is not available so we want it plenty of it in stock.
But if we have too much of it and it doesnt sell, it appears we want it to be given to the needy.

Business are out to make money, they are not out to please the public.

I knew a guy that worked for Target that destroyed return merchandise - anything that they couldn't return to the manufacturer or distributor for credit. He told me that Target said it was a liability for them to resell a potentially known defective or tampered item, so they destroyed it.

you can find tar get merchandise in goodwill, but goodwill PAYS for that merchandise. goodwill usually marks it much higher than the clearance price you could have bought it for at tar get.

eat'n park restaurant here is open 24 hours. there are 1 or 2 days a year that they close. about 1/2 hour before closing they either reduce the baked goods or give them to people dining in. i think it's local manager decision. i've seen them do it both ways.

pecanpie said: you can find tar get merchandise in goodwill

I bet you can.

HolyBanana said: From the business point of view, why would a costumer buy something if they know they can get it almost free from the thrift stores if they wait long enough?

Restaurants do the same thing, they throw away food that is left over. Heck Mcodonals is notorious for doing this.

Perhaps the solution to this should be that they do not mass produce a product. It will save them on cost and increase demand on items that sell.

I mean we complain when something is not available so we want it plenty of it in stock.
But if we have too much of it and it doesnt sell, it appears we want it to be given to the needy.

Business are out to make money, they are not out to please the public.
And there are too many greedyass people who will try to return items for full price, etc. Sadly, it is not cost-effective to give away items.

CapEx said: pecanpie said: you can find tar get merchandise in goodwill

I bet you can.


you've never been to goodwill? i bought a whole set of sterling silver flatware for less than $20.
anything that i buy there has to be something that can be cleaned thoroughly though. i used to wash everything with clorox, but i ruined a few antiques that way.

"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, mens jackets, slashed across the body and the arms. The puffy fiber fill was coming out in big white cotton balls.


Grad student.....researching for a paper on what stores toss out or was SHE dumpster diving?? If she was diving, she just dried up a lot of merchandise by sharing the news of what she found! Maybe she is a disappointed diver? If she wasn't diving, then what was she doing behind those stores?

i believe she graduated magnus cum laude

KayK said: Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.

I'm not suprised, no enforcement of product quality or safety has forced consumers to protect themselves. We learned long ago business don't give a rats ass about safety of consumers, only the profits. We pay for Gov industry watchdog agencies only for them to end up cuddling up with businesses. KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!

FrugalFreak said: KayK said: Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.I'm not suprised, no enforcement of product quality or safety has forced consumers to protect themselves. We learned long ago business don't give a rats ass about safety of consumers, only the profits. We pay for Gov industry watchdog agencies only for them to end up cuddling up with businesses. KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!And some consumers will jump on anything they can to sue, even when they are responsible for their own injury. Think the McD's hot coffee in the lap lawsuit.

Bottom line FF, is that each case must be looked at individually to honestly see who is responsible for illness, injury, or death. It should not be an attitude of consumers suing just because corporations have deep pockets ("KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!") nor an attitude of "business not giving a rats ass about safety of consumers, only the profits." After all, aren't you the person who believes we should not discriminate or make blanket judgments? It sounds like you are condoning it in your post.

KayK said: / Brings back memories of reading the DD thread /
Dunkin Donuts does this? I'm gonna be fat.

momgoingbroke said: FrugalFreak said: KayK said: Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.I'm not suprised, no enforcement of product quality or safety has forced consumers to protect themselves. We learned long ago business don't give a rats ass about safety of consumers, only the profits. We pay for Gov industry watchdog agencies only for them to end up cuddling up with businesses. KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!And some consumers will jump on anything they can to sue, even when they are responsible for their own injury. Think the McD's hot coffee in the lap lawsuit.

Bottom line FF, is that each case must be looked at individually to honestly see who is responsible for illness, injury, or death. It should not be an attitude of consumers suing just because corporations have deep pockets nor an attitude of "KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!" After all, aren't you the person who believes we should not discriminate or make blanket judgments? It sounds like you are condoning it in your post.


sorry, but I see no other way for consumers to put themselves first when it comes to consumers vs business. when it is david vs goliath, you do what you have to. broken Bike ring a bell? you have to admit, product lasting time has decreased, warranty decreased, and alot of times when there is a warranty, it becomes a nightmare to get it enforced. businesses are not honorable or ethical anymore.

FrugalFreak said: sorry, but I see no other way for consumers to put themselves first when it comes to consumers vs business. Bike ring a bell?That was clearly a case of the assembly beong wrong and the store was held accountable. They paid up, as they should have. Your post makes it seems that consumers should be lawsuit happy and that businesses are always at fault and should be sued as often as possible to deliver a message. That's just not true!

momgoingbroke said: FrugalFreak said: sorry, but I see no other way for consumers to put themselves first when it comes to consumers vs business. Bike ring a bell?That was clearly a case of the assembly beong wrong and the store was held accountable. They paid up, as they should have. Your post makes it seems that consumers should be lawsuit happy and that businesses are always at fault and should be sued as often as possible to deliver a message. That's just not true!

no I don't think all suits are good, but the only thing holding businesses up to any quality nowadays is the THREAT of they might get sued. if it was made where we could not file lawsuit or it was near impossible, it would get worse for consumers because businesses would get lax on doing the right thing and not care because they wouldn't fear repercussions for bad quality/unsafe conditions.

I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.

But this is how businesses work:

President of Co to Chief Engineer: How much would it cost to fix the flaw?

Engineer: $5B.

President to Chief Safety Engineer: How many fatalities if we do not recall?

Safety Engineer: 5 a year.

President to Legal Council: How much would we lose in court?

Legal Counsel: $2B

President: No recall!

======
I am not even blaming the co for the above. That is their job. In fact that is what I expect from a co in which I have stocks in. OTOH, we as a society must make sure the life of a person is precious enough that companies will not refuse a recall just to save say $10,000 per lost life.

It is cute to declare you are against the ability of consumers to sue for damages until your loved one is a victim.

FrugalFreak said: momgoingbroke said: FrugalFreak said: sorry, but I see no other way for consumers to put themselves first when it comes to consumers vs business. Bike ring a bell?That was clearly a case of the assembly beong wrong and the store was held accountable. They paid up, as they should have. Your post makes it seems that consumers should be lawsuit happy and that businesses are always at fault and should be sued as often as possible to deliver a message. That's just not true!

no I don't think all suits are good, but the only thing holding businesses up to any quality nowadays is the THREAT of they might get sued. if it was made where we could not file lawsuit or it was near impossible, it would get worse for consumers because businesses would get lax on doing the right thing and not care because they wouldn't fear repercussions for bad quality/unsafe conditions.


i do agree with that statement.

katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.

But this is how businesses work:

President of Co to Chief Engineer: How much would it cost to fix the flaw?

Engineer: $5B.

President to Chief Safety Engineer: How many fatalities if we do not recall?

Safety Engineer: 5 a year.

President to Legal Council: How much would we lose in court?

Legal Counsel: $2B

President: No recall!

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

kamalktk said: ...
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.


am i just slow or what? who is jack?

katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.I didn't notice FF even suggesting that businesses are ever right!


aka CapEx
Disclaimer
pecanpie said: kamalktk said: ...
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.


am i just slow or what? who is jack?
Jack

momgoingbroke said: katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.I didn't notice FF even suggesting that businesses are ever right!Wow! We agreed twice in as many days. Wow!


katx said: momgoingbroke said: katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.I didn't notice FF even suggesting that businesses are ever right!Wow! We agreed twice in as many days. Wow!



wow! and i agree that you both agree too!

pecanpie said: katx said: momgoingbroke said: katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.I didn't notice FF even suggesting that businesses are ever right!Wow! We agreed twice in as many days. Wow!

wow! and i agree that you both agree too!
Please don't say we have to sing Kum-by-yah (I can even spell the name of the song so you know I can't sing it!)

momgoingbroke said: katx said: I did NOT notice anyone suggesting that businesses are always wrong.I didn't notice FF even suggesting that businesses are ever right!

There may be some businesses that hold ethics, Because Those FEW are also being a minority and that doesn't make me wanna give a blanket of acceptance either. YOU EARN Trust with me when it comes to business. It is not GIVEN until business shows commitment to it's customers and honesty and ethical standards over the dollar is proven.

I have found 2 businesses that meet this criteria in my area. and no they are not Big boxes, they are two small mom & pop type places but are honest and will actually try to deliver good service and put customer as most important to them.

Skipping 9 Messages...
FrugalFreak said: momgoingbroke said: FrugalFreak said: KayK said: Dunkin Donuts (and I'm assuming othe food places too) throw away food when it's even remotely old. That food very well could be used to feed homeless.. but they dont on fear of being sued. Sometimes sickens me how "sue friendly" U.S. is.. people suing for even the tiniest things.I'm not suprised, no enforcement of product quality or safety has forced consumers to protect themselves. We learned long ago business don't give a rats ass about safety of consumers, only the profits. We pay for Gov industry watchdog agencies only for them to end up cuddling up with businesses. KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!And some consumers will jump on anything they can to sue, even when they are responsible for their own injury. Think the McD's hot coffee in the lap lawsuit.

Bottom line FF, is that each case must be looked at individually to honestly see who is responsible for illness, injury, or death. It should not be an attitude of consumers suing just because corporations have deep pockets nor an attitude of "KEEP SUING until business is held accountable and Government puts CONSUMERS FIRST!" After all, aren't you the person who believes we should not discriminate or make blanket judgments? It sounds like you are condoning it in your post.


sorry, but I see no other way for consumers to put themselves first when it comes to consumers vs business. when it is david vs goliath, you do what you have to. broken Bike ring a bell? you have to admit, product lasting time has decreased, warranty decreased, and alot of times when there is a warranty, it becomes a nightmare to get it enforced. businesses are not honorable or ethical anymore.


and prices have gone down as well.

Consumers whiners like you want it both ways: Cheap, & Good. You pay the cheap price, but then bitch about the quality.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014