Walmart and H&M Douchery

[Raziaar]

Indisputably.

But you must understand that while I truly am a black-hearted soul it seems that I'm the only one ITT who gets why you have to destroy things instead of giving them away. I've already mentioned the relationship between merchandisers and retailers and how they receive credit for unsold goods.

Now, you're still questioning the practice of it, because those of those poor, freezing, needy hobos. I'll refrain from my usual diatribe about those loathsome beggars and instead tell you exactly why shit's destroyed and not left out for these vagrants.

It's called, "I don't want my company to get fucking sued in case something happens because of our cast-off merchandise."

It's also called, "Where in the blue hell am I supposed to take this shit, and how am I going to get there?" It costs time and money to drop that stuff off at a charity. Can you imagine how much stuff a big-ass company like Wal-Mart gets rid of? It's a lot. A LOT. It isn't exactly profitable to take that shit around to these places; you're actually WASTING money on shit you just threw away and are getting reimbursed for. The best you can hope for I suppose would be for someone to come by and pick it up. At least you get some tax write-offs.

And in any case, apparently it IS Wal-Mart and H&M's policy to donate to filthy peasants. Or, you know, they're saying it is because of the backlash from bleeding hearts who give a shit about the homeless one day out of the year, when it's in the news.

You don't have to donate every last article of clothing. After a bit the donation places will tell walmart, "WHOA WHOA, you've given us enough already... we have enough stuff to clothe the homeless and poor for a long time now."

And then nobody would give a shit if the stuff is destroyed... because the needy people who could use it already have their needs met. Plus... donating to shelters and other places I don't see how walmart could possibly be liable if their product is simply a normal clothing garment.

I'm not legally liable when I donate something to the salvation army.

 

[Darkside55]

No, they're liable if bums are digging through their garbage for coats. That's why they slash 'em up before they throw them away. Say they don't, and someone goes through their trash and has, I dunno, some kinda crazy zipper malfunction or some shit, they can sue Wal-Mart. And then you've got a lawsuit because one of your coats killed a transient or something.

If it goes to charity liability passes. It should pass. I'm not going to bother digging out my business law books for this.

Also, what you said just there, "You don't have to donate every last article of clothing," well what about the rest of it? If they shred the rest of it are people still going to bitch and moan? It's like, goddamn, it's really not these companies' job to play good samaritan to these people. Nobody should be crying about it in the first place.

 

[Raziaar]

You'd have more problems with holes in clothing.

I GOT MY HEAD STUCK IN A HOLE IN A COAT! NOW I KNOW HOW DUCKS FEEL!


Instead of just trashing it, I'm sure there could be a more responsible and monetarily beneficial way to get rid of it. Like selling it to different other companies that could recycle the material for some shit.

I dunno.

What I do know though is you're a bad person.

 

[Insano]

I work in a grocery store and have to throw out food all the time, even a little dent in a can makes them throw it out (well not really, but when they deem it unopenable, which is bullshit, a can can never unopenable). This pisses me off so I asked my manager 'why don't you just donate this stuff, or atleast let employees take the stuff home, rather then just throwing it out, it's a really big waste'. Their response? 'My manager tells me I have to do this'.

So then I talk to the manager of the store (I'm not kidding about this whole thing it actually happened), he's the highest up manager there is, and then he tells me 'My boss tells me I have to do it'.

THE ****ING ****?

There's nothing I can do, because I'm like the lowest ranking person there pretty much (my whole department is), it's god damn retarded. I don't want to steal the food because I could get fired for that and I kind of need my job, so I just have to keep throwing out all this perfectly good food. Most of it isn't even because of expiration dates, I can see why they throw something out thats past expiration that makes sense, but most of the time it's stuff that's slightly damaged. For example a box of Ritz crackers - the box is torn open, but the bag holding the crackers inside is perfectly fine, no holes or anything - they just throw it out. All of it.

It's quite obvious. If you let employees take home damaged goods, then they'll damage it themselves. If you let customers buy damaged goods at discounts, they'll damage those themselves.

Trust me. I've seen it happen. I work in a retail shop during the weekends and it isn't pretty what a lot of customers would do for a discount.

The awful truth is that the current system is the one that is economically most viable and thus will remain the standard.

 

[Darkside55]

Instead of just trashing it, I'm sure there could be a more responsible and monetarily beneficial way to get rid of it.

Bro, I can already guarantee you there isn't a more monetarily beneficial way to get rid of that shit. You're talking about a multiBILLION dollar company here. You think they're not doing what's in the best interest for their bottom line? You think they don't have a bunch of suits sitting around going, "Hrm, ahem hum hrm, how can we profit the most with all our defective, overstocked, and unsold merchandise?"

Billions of goddamn dollars. No offense to you, my good buddy, but I hardly think that YOU, or any other fiscal geniuses in this thread on a Half-Life forum, are gonna stumble onto a socially 'responsible' AND profitable solution that hasn't already been proposed in a BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY.

Also, as an aside, 'responsible' to whom? Bums? Dirty, filthy bums who sit on their asses doing nothing but begging and pissing themselves on the streets? Yeah OK, because its the job of the rich to be responsible for the poor. Fuck 'social responsibility,' they're not even pretty words, just a dumb idea by people who think that those in low places should benefit off the work of those who are privileged.

What I do know though is you're a bad person.

Come now, I'm not so bad, am I? Why, the whole point of this thread is because you felt sad for those poor, cold homeless people. If we just killed them all like I propose, none of them would be cold and nobody would get mad at Wal-Mart and H&M. Everybody wins.

 

[Vegeta897]

Darkside is absolutely right. lol at calling him a "bad person" for understanding the facts and realities of the situation. That's just naive.

 

[Insano]

Not to mention that they're billion dollar companies.

 

[Raziaar]

Bro, I can already guarantee you there isn't a more monetarily beneficial way to get rid of that shit. You're talking about a multiBILLION dollar company here. You think they're not doing what's in the best interest for their bottom line? You think they don't have a bunch of suits sitting around going, "Hrm, ahem hum hrm, how can we profit the most with all our defective, overstocked, and unsold merchandise?"

Billions of goddamn dollars. No offense to you, my good buddy, but I hardly think that YOU, or any other fiscal geniuses in this thread on a Half-Life forum, are gonna stumble onto a socially 'responsible' AND profitable solution that hasn't already been proposed in a BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY.

Also, as an aside, 'responsible' to whom? Bums? Dirty, filthy bums who sit on their asses doing nothing but begging and pissing themselves on the streets? Yeah OK, because its the job of the rich to be responsible for the poor. Fuck 'social responsibility,' they're not even pretty words, just a dumb idea by people who think that those in low places should benefit off the work of those who are privileged.


Come now, I'm not so bad, am I? Why, the whole point of this thread is because you felt sad for those poor, cold homeless people. If we just killed them all like I propose, none of them would be cold and nobody would get mad at Wal-Mart and H&M. Everybody wins.

Okay you win. It's not really an argument I care to fight tooth and nail anyway.

I still think clothing for the homeless would be great though. Instead of cutting holes in the worst of spots and cutting the sleeves off, just cut off the very ends of the sleeves or something so that most of the length is there they just look... trashy.

I bet all the Chinese and middle american workers who make all of their products at god awful low wages are thrilled about the prospect of their work simply being thrown in the trash.

Darkside is absolutely right. lol at calling him a "bad person" for understanding the facts and realities of the situation. That's just naive.

lol at calling him "naive" for for joking around with a fellow forum member in a completely non serious manner. That's just silly.

 

[Vegeta897]

I still think clothing for the homeless would be great though. Instead of cutting holes in the worst of spots and cutting the sleeves off, just cut off the very ends of the sleeves or something so that most of the length is there they just look... trashy.

The point is to make them unusable.

I bet all the Chinese and middle american workers who make all of their products at god awful low wages are thrilled about the prospect of their work simply being thrown in the trash.

I bet they couldn't give 2 shits. Do you think they take pride in their work or something? They have these jobs to survive, not to feel good about making clothes. Don't make me laugh.

lol at calling him "naive" for for joking around with a fellow forum member in a completely non serious manner. That's just silly.

lol at calling him "silly" for you're a poopy face.

 

[Insano]

lol at calling him "naive" for for joking around with a fellow forum member in a completely non serious manner. That's just silly.

Don't call him "silly" for taking this thing seriously, because he knows how it works in the real world. That's just absurd.

 

[Raziaar]

lol at calling him "silly" for you're a poopy face.

Okay Cptstern.

poopy face... that's so cptstern.

I bet they couldn't give 2 shits. Do you think they take pride in their work or something? They have these jobs to survive, not to feel good about making clothes. Don't make me laugh.
.

I bet they'd do a double take.

"You're paying me barely enough to live on and you're trashing something that if I could get a hold of I could turn a profit more than I make in a couple months."

Pay a guy 2 bucks a day to build cars... and then ask him how he feels that the cars are just junked.

How would he react? Would he simply go, "I don't care... I'm just paid for doing my job.", or would he act like a real human being and go, "YOU'RE DOING WHAT? I COULD USE OR SELL THAT THING TO BENEFIT MY FAMILY!"

I haven't changed my view on it... and I won't. The **** do I care if it's more financially beneficial to walmart to trash the stuff. I hate 90% of the financially beneficial stuff walmart does to screw over their employees and product quality. I don't care about Wal-Marts financial success.

 

[Vegeta897]

No this is CptStern:

ya... :upstare:

"YOU'RE DOING WHAT? I COULD USE OR SELL THAT THING TO BENEFIT MY FAMILY!"

Um, except this is completely silly because it's not like the factories INTEND to manufacture goods that are going to be wasted. It's not like they can give the workers a free sample of the products they make off the assembly line in every batch or something to preemptively account for waste.

 

[Polaris]

Don't buy clothes at Walmart guys, OK?

 

[Solaris]

Raziaar, you shouldn't blame Walmart when it is our society that makes them act like that.

What this story shows us, I think. Is how easily and cheaply we could feed the poor and clothe the poor if we had industry owned and run by the state whose purpose was to make goods for use for those who need it, not profit.

I see no reason state owned businesses cannot operate like this within a free market framework.

 

[Darkside55]

Okay Cptstern.

poopy face... that's so cptstern.

Oh shit bro I thought you were gonna die. I read that and scrolled down and I was like, "Vegeta is going to murder him. There will be a murder and we'll all be witnesses. And then Vegeta will be on the run and we'll have to hide him out, but he'll have to constantly be on the move and he'll have to forage through Wal-Mart dumpsters for warm clothes but they'll all be shredded and it'll be a hard life."

Don't buy clothes at Walmart guys, OK?

WORD.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh shit bro I thought you were gonna die. I read that and scrolled down and I was like, "Vegeta is going to murder him. There will be a murder and we'll all be witnesses. And then Vegeta will be on the run and we'll have to hide him out, but he'll have to constantly be on the move and he'll have to forage through Wal-Mart dumpsters for warm clothes but they'll all be shredded and it'll be a hard life."

lol.

I call Vegeta Cptstern all the time. One of the few things I can wound him with.

 

[Vegeta897]

Um, sorry, but that doesn't and didn't wound me at all.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But you must understand that while I truly am a black-hearted soul it seems that I'm the only one ITT who gets why you have to destroy things instead of giving them away. I've already mentioned the relationship between merchandisers and retailers and how they receive credit for unsold goods.

Now, you're still questioning the practice of it, because those of those poor, freezing, needy hobos. I'll refrain from my usual diatribe about those loathsome beggars and instead tell you exactly why shit's destroyed and not left out for these vagrants.

It's called, "I don't want my company to get fucking sued in case something happens because of our cast-off merchandise."

It's also called, "Where in the blue hell am I supposed to take this shit, and how am I going to get there?" It costs time and money to drop that stuff off at a charity. Can you imagine how much stuff a big-ass company like Wal-Mart gets rid of? It's a lot. A LOT. It isn't exactly profitable to take that shit around to these places; you're actually WASTING money on shit you just threw away and are getting reimbursed for. The best you can hope for I suppose would be for someone to come by and pick it up. At least you get some tax write-offs.

Obviously these measures are utterly sensible for a large corporation to take, given the nature and purpose of such a body and the environment it operates in. Surely that's the problem.

What you're basically saying is "this is how shit works, so what". That's nice and all but of course in a bad system that incentivises bad actions people will take those actions - and when that happens there is something wrong with the whole scheme. Yes, people are naive if they think this is a story of two specific companies doing anything out of the ordinary. But no, it's not okay that everyone does this (and are given good reasons to do this) all the time.

Someone already has to take all of Wal-mart's enormous waste to a landfill or recycling facility or whatever. It would cost the same money and the same effort to take it all to a mass charity dump (if such a thing was set up); from there the material could be distributed to smaller centres where people who need the clothing could drop by and pick it up (this would be legally classified as charity, so no lawsuits). I imagine that simply 'poor people' rather than just 'homeless people' is the issue, but even with the latter I'm not sure how a homeless person would be less obnoxious just because he's freezing cold. If the clothing was piling up and not being used then perhaps a government aid budget could stretch to finding a place for it, or perhaps it could be recycled, or perhaps it could then go to waste as it would have done anyway. This distribution might not even require much government money; you could just distribute in partnership to volunteer charities like the Salvation Army.

I'm very aware how much of retail policy is focused on making sure your employees don't steal from you (unless it means paying them better?) and aware that any 'credit and donate' scheme would probably end up with an enormous amount of material on ebay. But the point is there are or can be solutions, quite possibly ones that take the recycling of 'waste' out of the hands of individual and corrupt employees. It's not that they don't exist, and there aren't many reasons why they should not except for that they would undermine the market by giving people things for free. Well, boo hoo. Currently solutions are not being sought only because as far as anyone making decisions is concerned, the-way-things-work is benefiting them. So there "isn't a more beneficial way of getting rid of that shit" within the current system? If that means anyone is harmed (you may say this is a big 'if') then the system should be different, and if companies are only going to do what they have an incentive to do then they should at the very least be given an incentive to do better.

Because yes, at the end of the day "those in low places" SHOULD "benefit off the work of those who are privileged". The key word is 'privileged' - it's not only an adjective, but a verb. They have been privileged. There is a system. There are causes and effects. Those in low places are not all there because they were lazy or morally lacking and even if they were that would not mean it was okay that they were denied wellbeing, liberty or opportunity.

As for this:

Also, I enjoy seeing these threads where everybody suddenly gives a shit and becomes bleeding hearts when BIG MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES aren't helping out those in need and it's such a WASTE and a SHAME and a CRIME but I bet the number of you who actually help out the poor on a regular basis--hell, not even help out, the number of you who actually even GIVE A SHIT on a regular basis--could be counted on one hand.

Surprise, people will care more about common issues when they are momentarily brought to their attention. Nobody can keep track of everything all the time, and as you keep pointing out, not everyone was aware that this practice is so ubiquitious. And just because someone doesn't volunteer at a soup kitchen that doesn't really invalidate their argument if it's a good argument. What you're doing is just diversionary guilt-tripping, as if it should actually affect the issue. Even if it did, well, don't we all give small monthly amounts to the red cross? Take our old clothes down to the charity shop rather than the landfill? And still, the fact that we live in a society where 'charity' is necessary is itself quite unpleasant. You should not be able to undermine someone's moral ground by pointing out how seldom they go out of their way to help the poor or homeless, because the welfare of the poor and homeless should not have to rely on anyone going out of their way. The idea that they should is to my mind fundamentally mad.

Come on. "None of you actually care so your points are invalid?" That argument is nonsense and you must be able to recognise it.

 

[Raziaar]

Um, sorry, but that doesn't and didn't wind me at all.

Why would it wind you? Only Kathy does that.

 

[Vegeta897]

Come on. "None of you actually care so your points are invalid?" That argument is nonsense and you must be able to recognise it.

I really don't think that's what he was saying. It was just an aside.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well frankly I just can't see its purpose and THERE ARE NO ASIDES AND DIGRESSIONS EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT EVERYTHING IS POLITICS

THERE IS NO FUN

FUN IS AN IDEOLOGICAL FICTION OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY

Even so, it's not really reasonable. Of course most people go on living our lives without all too much care for anyone else but our immediate friends. In most cases it seems unfair to ask them to do more, and it's unfair that anyone's welfare requires people to do more.

 

[Vegeta897]

Also Sulk, it's quite hypocritical of you to take a stance against Darkside on this issue.

Look at your avatar.

How many santa hats have you wasted!?

Poor people could use those. Homeless folk need santa hats.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Whoah, whoah, hey, when that santa hat drops off the bottom of the screen it falls right onto the head of a waiting poor person. He's situated right above a Depression-era bread line. By the time each new one falls the next person has stepped into place.

Perfect and regular, like a factory for the production of welfare.

 

[Vegeta897]

Perhaps you would like to argue with this live video feed?

http://www.mtpostmore.com/junk/santahats.swf

Idea mostly thanks to raz

 

[Maestro]

Perhaps you would like to argue with this live video feed?

http://www.mtpostmore.com/junk/santahats.swf

Not gonna lie that was pretty funny.

 

[Raziaar]

LOL. You recreated our idea perfectly.

 

[Darkside55]

Someone already has to take all of Wal-mart's enormous waste to a landfill or recycling facility or whatever. It would cost the same money and the same effort to take it all to a mass charity dump (if such a thing was set up); from there the material could be distributed to smaller centres where people who need the clothing could drop by and pick it up (this would be legally classified as charity, so no lawsuits).

I did say that it was a possibility to have someone come pick up unsellable clothes for donations. However, you should also note that you're only allowed to write off so much as charity...after a certain limit you no longer get tax breaks, and actually if I'm not mistaken you simply CAN'T keep giving away all of your unwanted merchandise, even under the label of 'donations.' So, there's that.

Plus, you run into the same question of who's going to take care of it: the garbage company comes and picks up the trash, there's maybe another company that picks up recyclables if the garbage company doesn't provide that service as well...who's going to set up the charity dump? How much is that going to cost? Is Wal-Mart going to have to put out another separate bin for clothes that can be reused? Who's going to run the smaller centers? Who pays for that?

I'm not sure how a homeless person would be less obnoxious just because he's freezing cold.

Oh, they wouldn't be. But, maybe they'll freeze to death, which is a big plus.

If the clothing was piling up and not being used then perhaps a government aid budget could stretch to finding a place for it, or perhaps it could be recycled, or perhaps it could then go to waste as it would have done anyway. This distribution might not even require much government money; you could just distribute in partnership to volunteer charities like the Salvation Army.

'Not much' government money is still some government money. Money which could be allotted elsewhere. I mean, not like the government is fiscally responsible or anything, but really, I don't think we need to shovel more money into an aid program.

If I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure there are places that recycle clothing. I think that actually exists already, and I'm pretty sure some of that goes toward charity.

...there aren't many reasons why they should not except for that they would undermine the market by giving people things for free. Well, boo hoo.

YOU CAN'T "boo-hoo" THE MARKET! :angry:

...at the end of the day "those in low places" SHOULD "benefit off the work of those who are privileged". The key word is 'privileged' - it's not only an adjective, but a verb. They have been privileged. There is a system. There are causes and effects. Those in low places are not all there because they were lazy or morally lacking and even if they were that would not mean it was okay that they were denied wellbeing, liberty or opportunity.

We're going to strongly disagree here because I am staunchly of the opinion that people who don't do anything shouldn't benefit from people who do. I can recognize that there are some people who are where they are because of circumstance rather than character. I'd even fully agree with you that those kinds of people shouldn't be denied "wellbeing, liberty, or opportunity," especially the latter; I don't want to situation-drop here but if it wasn't for the latter many many years ago when my parents and I were homeless we might not've gotten out of it. It was hard work coupled with opportunity.

That being said however I've become intensely jaded about bums. It's hard for me to remain impartial in discussions like this because of it. I mean aside from the factual points of how the system currently works, I simply don't care for the idea that people should be getting free shit without doing anything for it. Living in a city where the homeless population is over 6000 really colored my opinion on that, because for every person who ISN'T lazy or morally lacking there's like another 40 who are. These people act, on a daily basis, as though they're just entitled to things. They don't get a free coat that isn't slashed up and it's in the news and everybody's going nuts and there's blogs and twitters and forum posts about it, about how it's such a shame that a company is protecting itself and profiting, and the homeless aren't getting their jackets.

Nobody should be DENIED wellbeing, liberty, or opportunity, but they shouldn't just be handed it, either. The privileged are there because they DID something--even those who were born into privilege, someone, somewhere along the line, did SOMETHING that entitled them to that, and it just got passed down. I don't think there's some necessary responsibility of one person to look after another because they have more. It's social Darwinism--you shouldn't be helping along the weak just because you're strong. There's no reason for it.

In the case of people who are simply poor, who aren't homeless but could benefit from new-yet-discarded clothing, well I'm hesitant to say that THEY should be entitled to anything either, but I mean certainly more than bums are. Poor people generally work. I still don't really think they should be getting shit for free either though. If you're working you're working for money; you can buy discount stuff if need be. So those people don't need to worry overmuch about clothes being cut up and thrown out.

Come on. "None of you actually care so your points are invalid?" That argument is nonsense and you must be able to recognise it.

I never said their points were invalid because of that. I'm perfectly capable of rendering their arguments invalid without having to resort to that.

I mentioned it simply because, as I said in my first post, I truly find it enjoyable to see people suddenly caring when it otherwise wouldn't cross their minds. In this case the homeless problem is "out of sight, out of mind" until OH EM GEE BIG CORPORATIONS AREN'T GIVING TO THE HOMELESS THAT'S WASTEFUL AND NEEDLESS AND SICK AND WRONG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE IT I'M GOING TO WRITE A THREAD ABOUT IT AND EVERYONE WILL GET UP ON THIS SOAPBOX HERE AND WE'LL BE ANGRY ABOUT IT but then like next Tuesday fuck the homeless I've got my own shit to worry about. Also these shoes are old and I need new ones I'm gonna throw these out.

Like you said, that's just how people are. They only care about things when they're put right in front of them. Otherwise, they simply don't give a shit.

THERE IS NO FUN

FUN IS AN IDEOLOGICAL FICTION OF CAPITALIST SOCIETY

http://www.mtpostmore.com/junk/santahats.swf

Haha, that's pretty funny.

OUTLAWED!

 

[Warped]

making habits are bad, imagine if every company did this. no one would buy anything. they would just dress up like a hobo and get free shit all the time. also this country takes care of its homeless with soup kitchens, donations, events, Extreme Makeover: House Edition, etc

/sarcasm