What. The. Eff?

[wfooshee]

^^^ Still illegal. The only person who got paid is the guy that stole them from the garbage. Nobody involved in actually producing the book got a dime.

PM me your shipping address, I've got some more trash for you. . . . . . Chicken bones, dog poop from when I didn't get home in time to let him out, stuff like that.

 

[niky]

^^^ Still illegal. The only person who got paid is the guy that stole them from the garbage. Nobody involved in actually producing the book got a dime.

That's the original retailer's fault, unfortunately. If you can't sell them all, you shouldn't order 100,000 copies of Sidney Sheldon's latest book. (well, if you have 100,000 copies of that crap, it would make a pretty nice bonfire... I think those will go unsold till Armageddon)

On a sidenote, despite being a discount book junkie, I only have two or three books like this, picked up for pennies at various stores. Haven't bought one for years, since I prefer my books with covers. Although having bought several copies of "Stranger in a Strange Land" already, as well as some of his books as brand-new, including "Starship Troopers" (yes, before the awful film), I think I've made my contribution to Heinleim's estate, already.

And these weren't plucked out of the garbage. most of these are ex-library books. I don't know what laws you have regarding ex-library books... but if it's illegal to buy them, sorry... you can't really tell the difference between one of those and regular surplus... especially after they tear out the borrower's card.

-

Actually... re: Heinleim: while the assertion that music piraters are music buyers is pretty bogus... discount book buyers really are more likely to buy brand new books. When I buy a new book, it's usually an anthology or a new book by an author I fell in love with via reading his old works. Funny... we have two copies of the LOTR trilogy... our first was bought way before the films in some obscure shop... the second copy after the movie when they started reprinting... as we didn't want to damage the old copies by re-reading them again.

Funny how that works out... actually having to pay pennies for something makes you want to go out and pay dollars for more work by said author. It's because you learn to value it. If online music distribution were the same... say... with cheap but not free downloads of some songs by an artist... it would encourage people to pay the extra to get the whole set.

PM me your shipping address, I've got some more trash for you. . . . . . Chicken bones, dog poop from when I didn't get home in time to let him out, stuff like that.

C'mon... don't you have anything better? If I wanted compost, I could go over to my mother's.

Japan has some fabulous garbage. Nearly brand-new TVs, bicycles (recycled Japanese bicycles are a big business in the rest of Asia), cars...

 

[Omnis]

^^^ Still illegal. The only person who got paid is the guy that stole them from the garbage. Nobody involved in actually producing the book got a dime.

They did when they published and distributed the book. That's not the issue-- the issue would be a fraudulent claim of destroyed property. And even then it's the claimant's problem and not the person who has possession of the coverless book.

 

[wfooshee]

They did when they published and distributed the book. That's not the issue-- the issue would be a fraudulent claim of destroyed property. And even then it's the claimant's problem and not the person who has possession of the coverless book.

Not quite. Royalties are based on copies sold, and uncovered books (covers sent back for credit) are not "sold" books.

Off-topic to Niky: Heinlein, cool! I discovered him back when I was 12 or 13 years old. I actually haven't read any of him since high school, I should dig some out and go through it again. I'm on an Asimov kick right now. Did all the Foundation books, again, and I think I'll do the Robots novels again after that.

BTW, When I was 12 or 13, Starship Troopers was only 10 or so years old, and I'm sure I didn't appreciate it for what it was meant to be.

 

[niky]

That's the fault of the retailer for not claiming them or not being willing to absorb the loss for over-ordering. But yeah, royalties are important.

I love Asimov, but my tastes lean more towards hard-sci-fi than the philosophical and often "who-dun-it"-ish books of Asimov.(major OT)

It's interesting, though... if the media raises enough of a ruckus about it, if this causes the government to force retailers to at least recycle unsold items...

I don't have any problems with retailers destroying unsold goods... as it's their spent capital and they can do with their stocks as they see fit... but it's a waste, in more ways than one, and given how much emphaiss is being placed, nowadays, on eco-friendly business practices, I doubt that it will be long before someone in the government catches onto this.

 

[Northstar]

It's interesting, though... if the media raises enough of a ruckus about it, if this causes the government to force retailers to at least recycle unsold items...

The only thing is, how do you recycle clothing? If you actually think about it recycling isn't really an option for most items as they just can't be recycled.

Yes it would be nice to have it donated to charity, but as has already been covered it would just result in people waiting for it to wind up at Goodwill for half the price.

 

[Tornado]

And for that matter, how do you force the retailer to recycle goods that they technically own anyways?
To say nothing of the iffy implications as to whether recycling is actually any more environmentally friendly than simply throwing things away.

 

[niky]

That's the thing... you can't force them to. It's their stock, it's their business.

Paper can be recycled, easily. As for clothing... I don't know how you have it there now, but old clothes is easily recycled into rags and rugs here, even after it's shredded. It's actually big business here, with clothing factories selling scraps and excess cloth to rug makers.

 

[Jay]

I know supermarkets often just throw away food (like cooked chickens) if they don't sell (after end of day discounts), rather than giving them away.

This doesn't suprise me a bit.

 

[Mermadium]

They could send them to poor countries where people lack shelter and clothing, in these days when places like wal-mart make record profits, that wasteful attitude is morally wrong.

 

[mafia_boy]

I know supermarkets often just throw away food (like cooked chickens) if they don't sell (after end of day discounts), rather than giving them away.

This doesn't suprise me a bit.

Not to mention they PADLOCK the bins after they put them out at night to stop the homeless doing the dumpster dive to get those same chickens. The reason behind it is because they used to do dumpster dives a lot in the old days, and one person got food poisoning (surprise surprise!) and after recovering, sued the supermarket and WON!! They got a nice 5 figure settlement for that one, enough to pull them out of poverty so to speak.

 

[Northstar]

They could send them to poor countries where people lack shelter and clothing, in these days when places like wal-mart make record profits, that wasteful attitude is morally wrong.

I already mentioned this earlier, but I guess I have to do it again.
Read this, yes it's from 2007 but I doubt things have changed much. It's funny though because the same people that criticize big stores for doing things like this, are normally guilty of doing the same thing.

 

[wfooshee]

Apparently it also hasn't been made clear that it's not the store that takes the loss on these destroyed items. Most of it is documented, either through tags, labels, inserts, whatever, and the store is credited for the unsold stuff. The distributor/wholesaler doesn't want it back, they just want an accounting.

Also, at the store level, they aren't really given much choice about what to carry in the store. The buying happens at a national or even higher level, and the stores are told what merchandise they will keep on hand. It's important to keep track of actual sold items versus unsold stock when they go to buying for the next season. The store is not at risk for the unsold items, the distributor or wholesaler is.

If the you ask the chains to absorb unsold stock losses at the store level, they're absorbing a higher proce point, which would raise prices on everything else in order to cover those losses.

Destroyed stock gets documented to the source, the source credits the store, probably passes the loss back up the food chain to their source. Nothing immoral in any way about it.

 

[Mermadium]

I already mentioned this earlier, but I guess I have to do it again.
Read this, yes it's from 2007 but I doubt things have changed much. It's funny though because the same people that criticize big stores for doing things like this, are normally guilty of doing the same thing.

Well, i see your point, but in my opinion there is more wrong doing from that company that the charities they offer, there are some interesting sites regarding this, how accurate they are i really don't know,but if is true, is pretty sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6AgKG-f4Tw&feature=related

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/#taxpayers

 

[Omnis]

Why do some people always have to complain about companies that make life so much better for millions of people?

 

[Mermadium]

Why do some people always have to complain about companies that make life so much better for millions of people?

Do they really? i'm not saying they don't but if you look at the youtube video i posted it really makes you think

 

[KSaiyu]

Apparently it also hasn't been made clear that it's not the store that takes the loss on these destroyed items. Most of it is documented, either through tags, labels, inserts, whatever, and the store is credited for the unsold stuff. The distributor/wholesaler doesn't want it back, they just want an accounting.

Also, at the store level, they aren't really given much choice about what to carry in the store. The buying happens at a national or even higher level, and the stores are told what merchandise they will keep on hand. It's important to keep track of actual sold items versus unsold stock when they go to buying for the next season. The store is not at risk for the unsold items, the distributor or wholesaler is.

If the you ask the chains to absorb unsold stock losses at the store level, they're absorbing a higher proce point, which would raise prices on everything else in order to cover those losses.

Destroyed stock gets documented to the source, the source credits the store, probably passes the loss back up the food chain to their source. Nothing immoral in any way about it.

Speaking as a layman wouldn't the option of donating unsold stock instead of simply destroying, but still reporting to the source be a valid one? The retailer, I presume, wouldn't take a hit and the difference between disposal and "recycling" would be irrelevant in terms of receiving credit.

By donating I'm not implying charity shops, since that could interfere with the chains' business practice.

 

[wfooshee]

Would you buy anything from them if you knew you could get it nearly free just by waiting????

 

[Max Powers]

Not to mention that the items that went unsold and were destroyed were surely put on clearance beforehand for a greatly reduced price anyway. People had their chance to get them cheap, and they didn't want them... I don't see any problem here.

 

[Joel]

Agreed. While sure, it's wasteful, what's the company supposed to do? Donate a shirt that should cost 20 bucks to the Salvation Army where it will be sold for 3$?

 

[Northstar]

Speaking as a layman wouldn't the option of donating unsold stock instead of simply destroying, but still reporting to the source be a valid one? The retailer, I presume, wouldn't take a hit and the difference between disposal and "recycling" would be irrelevant in terms of receiving credit.

By donating I'm not implying charity shops, since that could interfere with the chains' business practice.

In order for the store to get credit they either have to send it back or destroy it themselves and just send the label/packaging back(depends on the company). If they were to send the label back and not dispose of the product they could face heavy fines and even possibly lose their business license due to fraudulent activity.

This is at least how grocery stores work, so I would assume it's similar for dept. stores.

 

[TVC]

It's easier and possibly cheaper.

Someone earlier in the thread brought up the fact they do some of this so they do not get sued. In that case who's fault is it that they do this?

 

[Pupik]

While I think it's rather silly to not donate them, you have to figure two things:

1) It ruins a business model to give away lots of stuff.
2) Re-sellers also ruin business models.

I've worked (and still do work at) at many companies that destroyed outdated/expired merchandise; there's also lawsuits and the like. Even two decades ago when I worked for a supermarket, they threw out all the baked goods, for fear of a lawsuit. Another example: Technicians are supposed to destroy (render unrepairable) a tire after putting a brand new on one a car, so as to prevent lawsuits from used tire companies form reselling an old tire, and allowing a potentially defective tire to go back on a car. Even "new" tires that are past their 5-year date of manufacture are sent back to be recycled, for safety reasons.

At the end of the day, these companies have lawfully purchased the goods, and have a right to do whatever they want with them, so as long as it is not breaking the law by disposing them. If it were me, I'd donate them, as there are plenty of goodwill instances where this is helpful and my positronic brain does not appreciate rampant waste (I donate all my unwanted durable goods).

 

[Public'sTwin]

My positronic brain does not appreciate rampant waste (I donate all my unwanted durable goods).

On that note, who wants a free Toshiba TV? It's in my living room, but you'll have to pick it up or pay for shipping.

 

[zed300]

If I was to hear of the retailer and wholesaler combining there efforts to reduce "waste", I maybe more inclined to use them when I want to make a purchase.
If the destruction is just for accounts, then the volume of waste is an inefficiency. This would be against most wholesalers protocol surely.
The media is powerful, look at what it has done in this thread alone. Their power could be put to better use by these corporations, to enhanse their position by exposing their intentions to make less waste and be noted for goodwill. This would be far more economically efficient.

Everybody wins at the same price.

 

[DK]

http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/#taxpayers

Oh. Emm. Jee. Wal-Mart are absolute 🤬! I'm never shopping there if I ever go to the States! Too bad that if Wal-Mart employees demand better workers' rights, the management are going to call them "commies" and make them feel like crap. Then, the public hear about the workers' demands and Wal-Mart are going to feed them a lot of bullcrap about their workers, distributed via Fox News. The customers are going to give the employees a hard time, and after a few weeks the people behind the campaign are fired.

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh. Emm. Jee. Wal-Mart are absolute 🤬! I'm never shopping there if I ever go to the States! Too bad that if Wal-Mart employees demand better workers' rights, the management are going to call them "commies" and make them feel like crap. Then, the public hear about the workers' demands and Wal-Mart are going to feed them a lot of bullcrap about their workers, distributed via Fox News. The customers are going to give the employees a hard time, and after a few weeks the people behind the campaign are fired.

You may want to calm down before you believe a propaganda hit piece like that, the You Tube video, and the NYT article that started this whole thing. In particular, the video and that Web site are all a part of a campaign where unions want in Walmart, but Walmart will not allow unions in. The people that made these things very likely do not care about the employees of Walmart, but they care about the union dues (subtracted from employee wages) they will get from the 1.7 million Walmart employees.

When I see attacks on Walmart, that have nothing to do with the shopping experience, I see certain groups attacking them:
1) Unions that want their employee's money
2) Local business owners that couldn't compete
3) Former employees
4) An ignorant public that bought into the half-truths of the above groups.

 

[Jay]

Technicians are supposed to destroy (render unrepairable) a tire after putting a brand new on one a car, so as to prevent lawsuits from used tire companies form reselling an old tire, and allowing a potentially defective tire to go back on a car. Even "new" tires that are past their 5-year date of manufacture are sent back to be recycled, for safety reasons.

All tyre shops here sell used tyres.

 

[Northstar]

All tyre shops here sell used tyres.

They have to meet certain standards though before they can re-sell them.

 

[Mermadium]

You may want to calm down before you believe a propaganda hit piece like that, the You Tube video, and the NYT article that started this whole thing. In particular, the video and that Web site are all a part of a campaign where unions want in Walmart, but Walmart will not allow unions in. The people that made these things very likely do not care about the employees of Walmart, but they care about the union dues (subtracted from employee wages) they will get from the 1.7 million Walmart employees.

When I see attacks on Walmart, that have nothing to do with the shopping experience, I see certain groups attacking them:
1) Unions that want their employee's money
2) Local business owners that couldn't compete
3) Former employees
4) An ignorant public that bought into the half-truths of the above groups.

Some of the things you said could be the truth, however there are lawsuits documented on the web regarding various cases such as hiring illegal immigrants, judges ruling in favor of workers due to violation of wage-and-hour laws, and info at the department of labor where their workers claim benefits because they are below the poverty line, and therefore cost taxpayers money.Those are not "half-truths"and if the public is ignorant please enlighten us with your knowledge about it.