• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it Ok for store to destroy & trash unsold merchandise?

Is it Ok for store to destroy & trash unsold merchandise?

  • It's a smart business decision in a free market!

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Is it any different from paying farmers not to grow food?

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • It sounds wastefull and environmentally unsound

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • It's immoral! These items could be given to the poor or sent abroad!

    Votes: 13 39.4%

  • Other, please explain

    Votes: 7 21.2%

  • I'm not surprised Walmart is involved. They are a tool of Satan...

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Total voters
    33
MyOwnDrum

MyOwnDrum

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
1,374
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's the story: H&M and Wal-Mart destroy and trash unsold goods - Fashion + Beauty on Shine

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
Click to expand...

What do you think? Is this moral? Is this ok to do?
 
This is a regular practice in a system where scarcity is inherently necessary. Once again I find myself quoting Mandel, who probably describes this contradictory phenomenon the best:

It is in the economic crises that the contradiction between the progressive socialization of production and the private appropriation which serves as its driving power and its support, breaks out in the most extraordinary way. For capitalist economic crises are incredible phenomena like nothing ever seen before. They are not crises of scarcity, like all pre-capitalist crises; they are crises of overproduction. The unemployed die of hunger not because there is too little to eat but because there is relatively too great a supply of foodstuffs.

At first sight the thing seems incomprehensible. How can anyone die because there is a surplus of food, because there is a surplus of goods? But the mechanism of the capitalist system makes this seeming paradox understandable. Goods which do not find buyers not only do not realize their surplus value but they do not even return their invested capital. The slump in sales therefore forces businessmen to suspend their operations. They are therefore forced to lay off their workers and since the laid-off workers have no reserves, since they can subsist only when they are selling their labor-power, unemployment obviously condemns them to the starkest poverty and precisely because the relative abundance of goods has resulted in a slump in sales.

The factor of periodic economic crises is inherent in the capitalist system and remains insurmountable. We shall see further on that this remains equally true in the neocapitalist regime in which we are now living, even if these crises are now called “recessions.” Crises are the clearest manifestation of the fundamental contradiction in the system and a periodic reminder that it is condemned to die sooner or later.
-Ernest Mandel
Click to expand...

As for whether or not it is moral, I don't really feel like addressing that question aside from the fact that what you are really asking in your question is whether or not capitalism itself is moral or immoral, and not simply the actions of a few firms.
 
It's ok for them to do it, it's their property and they can do with it as they seem fit. At the same time though, it does seem needlessly wasteful and if they were going to trash all that stuff it seems to me that it could be put it practical use rather then being cut up and thrown out. But it's not like we can force them to do it outside of consumer pressure. And that requires a lot of people to act socially responsible to forgo their Walmart discounts or whatever keeps people going to that **** hole to apply consumer pressure to the company.

Socially irresponsible, greedy, waste of resource? Yes. Well within their rights to do regardless? Yes.
 
I agree with Ikari.

Legally they can do what they want with their stuff, but it is highly immoral.
 
I selected "other" because there wasn't an option that I agreed with.

I think that they have every right to do whatever they want with their merchandise. However, I am glad that their actions were exposed and this way American consumers can make an informed decision whether to patronize them.

Was it their right? Absolutely. Is it right? No. They should have donated these items. It wouldn't hurt their business to give the items to individuals who wouldn't have the funds to buy the items themselves.
 
Though they have the right to do whatever they want, socially it is immoral and creates bad PR.

There is no reason to destroy the product when you can easily donate to organizations willing to distribute the product for you free from liability.
 
Just a quick comment on the poll. It isn't asking whether or not the stores have the legal right to destroy their own merchandise. Obviously, in the eyes of the law, they are free to do so.

The poll is questioning your opinion of this action ethically/morally.
 
I have worked at stores that canceled donation policies for similar reasons. If you heard that Wal-Mart donated all open dog food to a local animal shelter, logically that means that going to Wal-Mart and poking a hole in a bag saves the life of a dog and costs you nothing. (I know, costs are passed along to the customers, but most people don't get that fact, and you are always free to shop elsewhere.) That creates an incentive for people to do economic damage to your company. Similarly, if people thought not buying clothing at Wal-Mart helped homeless people it could encourage them to shop elsewhere. Granted, this story is also bad publicity, but I still say the reasoning behind such policies are valid.
 
Instead of reasons such as encouraging more "damage" I think the real reason a lot of this is done is probably some legal liability sort of thing. That tends to be why companies are motivate to do anything. Or, of course, they could just be a bunch of asses.

In the end, I do think it is morally and socially irresponsible to destory perfectly good products which could find better use.
 
What's more amazing is that anyone could read this article and actually believe this is a common business practice at Wal Mart. Not only does the article specifically state that the items were actually dumped by a Wal Mart contractor, but it notes that Wal Mart's policy is to donate or resell unworn items. And maybe even more interesting is that common sense would dictate that Wal Mart would be better off selling these goods to either a deep discount retailer like TJ Maxx (who's entire business is dealing in excess clothing like this) or to some 3rd world retailer somewhere.

In this case, the contractor likely risked some kind of contractual violation if it delivered these to anyone other than Wal Mart. It's an unfortunate situation, but the writer (and most of the readers) clearly have an agenda here.
 
I see it as exactly the same as paying farmers not to grow food. It is immoral to not feed those who could use it by growing it, and wrong morally not to donate clothes that are to be discarded.
 
My 'agenda' was to bring the subject up for discussion, and gather a general sense of the opinions of others by posting a poll. I tried to offer what I thought might be a likely spectrum of points of view on the subject at hand.
 
I see nothing wrong with the poll, makes sense in that you are asking moral opinion.
 
Of course they can destroy their property if they want. But why would they want to? What possible economic advantage is there to doing this instead of giving the items to charities?

I'm very glad their socially irresponsible actions were exposed. I never shop at WalMart, but I am a huge fan of H&M and was very surprised the Swedish company was involved in such practices. They said it's an isolated incident against company policies and that they'd make sure it wouldn't happen again.
 
It's their stuff -- they can do what they want with it.
Its no more or less moral than you buying something and then destroying it.
 
I think it is wasteful and stupid, but I understand why they do it. It's a liability issue.

A few years ago, I worked for a hospital, and one Sunday morning, I went to buy breakfast a few minutes before the cafeteria was to close. There was a huge pan of bacon still left, and I was buying a couple of strips. The woman working behind the counter told me to get whatever I wanted, because they were going to throw the rest away. When I asked why they didn't give it to poor or homeless people, she said that it was a legal issue. If food was not kept at a minimal temperature, and they gave leftover food away, then someone became ill after eating that food, the hospital could be sued.:shock:

In another instance- a couple of years ago, I was checking out my stuff at Walmart, and the cashier had a gallon of milk at the register that someone had decided they didn't want. I asked her why they didn't put it back in the milk section to be sold and was informed that some types of perishable foods can't be re-stocked- same reason as the hospital cafeteria worker gave me for throwing away leftover food.

It's extremely wasteful, but we are living in a litigious world these days, so lots of stuff is thrown away rather than being used for good and sensible purposes.
 
It is most certainly not OK; it is extraordinarily wasteful and socially irresponsible, and it would cost them very little to donate the items instead.

And must every single person on this thread preface their answer with "They have the right to do what they want" (or for those who are intellectually lazy, have that be the full extent of their response)? Isn't that just assumed? :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
It is most certainly not OK; it is extraordinarily wasteful and socially irresponsible, and it would cost them very little to donate the items instead.

And must every single person on this thread preface their answer with "They have the right to do what they want" (or for those who are intellectually lazy, have that be the full extent of their response)? Isn't that just assumed? :roll:
Click to expand...


Hint:

It's their property, and they're under no obligation to be anyone's charitable clothier.

At least that's how things work in free societies.

You wouldn't trash it before trashing it? That's nice. It's their stuff, they get to do what they want with it.

If, by shredding the garments I could keep the local bums and winos out of my dumpter, I would do so.

No, that they have the right to buy garments and then shred them before throwing them out is not subject to debate.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hint:

It's their property, and they're under no obligation to be anyone's charitable clothier.

At least that's how things work in free societies.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing that. Do you not understand the difference between "Is it OK?" and "Do they have a legal obligation to not do this?" Of course you don't. You're a moral absolutist. Have you ever had an idea of your own, that didn't originate in The Gospel According to Ayn?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You wouldn't trash it before trashing it? That's nice. It's their stuff, they get to do what they want with it.
Click to expand...

Since you are just parroting the same stupid **** over and over instead of actually addressing the question, I'll just ignore it. What a wonderful business leader you'd make. :roll:

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Should we acquire our rival firm next year?
SCARECROW: It's your money, you can do whatever you want with it.

INVESTORS: Do you think it's wise for Kraft to pursue Cadbury so aggressively?
SCARECROW: It's their company, they can do whatever they want with it.

CFO: Do you think we should take out a loan or issue more stock shares to cover our operating expenses?
SCARECROW: The company should do whatever it wants.

DIVISION MANAGER: Looks like we had a bad quarter...how many people should we lay off?
SCARECROW: zomg whatevr you want government is evil atlas shrugged ron paul lololol

:doh

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If, by shredding the garments I could keep the local bums and winos out of my dumpter, I would do so.
Click to expand...

Or you could just give it to charity so they wouldn't have to root around your dumpster in the first place.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
I think it is wasteful and stupid, but I understand why they do it. It's a liability issue.

A few years ago, I worked for a hospital, and one Sunday morning, I went to buy breakfast a few minutes before the cafeteria was to close. There was a huge pan of bacon still left, and I was buying a couple of strips. The woman working behind the counter told me to get whatever I wanted, because they were going to throw the rest away. When I asked why they didn't give it to poor or homeless people, she said that it was a legal issue. If food was not kept at a minimal temperature, and they gave leftover food away, then someone became ill after eating that food, the hospital could be sued.:shock:

In another instance- a couple of years ago, I was checking out my stuff at Walmart, and the cashier had a gallon of milk at the register that someone had decided they didn't want. I asked her why they didn't put it back in the milk section to be sold and was informed that some types of perishable foods can't be re-stocked- same reason as the hospital cafeteria worker gave me for throwing away leftover food.

It's extremely wasteful, but we are living in a litigious world these days, so lots of stuff is thrown away rather than being used for good and sensible purposes.
Click to expand...

Okay, I can understand the liability issue when what we're dealing with are perishable items. However, these are clothes and shoes we're talking about. It's very different. If the items are good enough to sell without risk of being sued, then it's safe to say they're good enough to donate as well.
 
Corporate managers have really one responsibility above all others: make the most profit for the shareholders as they legally can. That is what these corporate managers are doing.

If we don't like how corporations behave, then we should change the system to have different incentives.

But, sure, yah, go ahead and hope that people won't patronize them because of their 'immoral' behavior. That will have about, hmmm, zero effect.
 
Kandahar said:
No one is disputing that.
Click to expand...

That's the only qualitative issue present.

If it's their property, they can do as they would with it.

Your personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Kandahar said:
Do you not understand the difference between "Is it OK?" and "Do they have a legal obligation to not do this?"
Click to expand...

Yes.

It's OK AND legal.

If it wasn't OK, it wouldn't be legal.

What part of "theirs, not yours" did you fail to understand?


Kandahar said:
Of course you don't. You're a moral absolutist. Have you ever had an idea of your own, that didn't originate in The Gospel According to Ayn?
Click to expand...

Yes, I"m a moral absolutist.

It's morally wrong to murder babies, and morally neutral to destroy one's own property.

Perhaps you can come back when you can use logic effectively in arguments so you won't have to resort to such silly attacks?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's the only qualitative issue present.

If it's their property, they can do as they would with it.

Your personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The poll question asked if it was OK. If you want to talk about something else, start a different thread. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What part of "theirs, not yours" did you fail to understand?
Click to expand...

The "zomg they can do what they want" turd is just a substitute for actually thinking about the subject at hand.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
If we don't like how corporations behave, then we should change the system to have different incentives.
Click to expand...

Better yet, but stock in the company and vote your shares. If enough peopel do that, suddenly Wal Mart is losing money and going out of business, which, as far as I can tell, is the goal of the socialists in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom