unknowingly bought fakes from charity shop

hollydays

http://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2011/nov/22/charities-exploit-young-people-unpaid-work

Charities exploiting the unemployed

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

If the % does not reach the charity then you are taking money away from the charity in one respect, because they are no longer getting money which they were going to get.

I don't disagree about the charity (POTENTIALLY - it can't be determined without a professional check of the items) breaking the law and the fact that OP may have normal SOGA rights. My point, and I wish you'd read, is that OP made themselves out to be a charitable person who donates items and money regularly. I am questioning to what extent OP is charitable based on their initial motivation for purchase and their strong desire to gain a refund. I have no beef with the legality of the situation, of which I do not disagree with you.

The Purse analogy is wide of the mark too. Please make relevant comments if you wish to discuss my points.

"OP made themselves out to be a charitable person who donates items and money regularly" - so what? A charitable person chooses when to donate and what to donate. It doesn't mean they're a mug who lets a charity take advantage of them. I'm a charitable person, but I'm not going to let my preferred charities choose what to take from me!

"I am questioning to what extent OP is charitable based on their initial motivation for purchase" - You made up their initial motivation. It's a complete work of fiction inside your head. Yet now you've decided to take it as fact.

"and their strong desire to gain a refund" - You think a desire to follow the law means you're not a charitable person? Really?

"The Purse analogy is wide of the mark too" - Do explain how. In both cases the charity shop isn't entitled to the money. Yet in the OPs case you seem to think the charity should get to keep it. Why the difference?

ThumbRemote

hollydays wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2011/nov/22/charities-exploit-young-people-unpaid-work

Charities exploiting the unemployed

To be fair, the charities here are in a no-win situation. Pay salaries and get criticised for the amount you spend on overheads. Don't pay and get criticised for exploiting volunteers.

For many charities they need volunteers who can show a good level of commitment. Before they start doing anything useful they'll have to be inducted and trained, all at a cost to the charity. The volunteers will need to commit to certain hours. It can easily end up costing a charity more to manage poor volunteers than the amount those volunteers contribute. I don't see anything in that article that says anyone was forced to work for the charity.

missbiggles1

hollydays wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2011/nov/22/charities-exploit-young-people-unpaid-work

Charities exploiting the unemployed

Most charities are largely staffed by volunteers; would you rather they spent most of their donations on salaries?

Leo2020

This thread has slightly gone off topic but I will add my experience of working in a charity shop.

I volunteered in one for about 6 months, no problems. Then a new manager started - she was lazy and I mean lazy - she could sit on the same chair all afternoon without getting up once. In fact she did so little work that she would have her friend and her 12 month old daughter round every Friday afternoon. I only worked Fridays but I did hear that she had friends round during the rest of the week too.

Whilst she sat their she would happily chat away with us volunteers as we were working. But she didn't do any work herself.

The friend used us volunteers as a baby sitting facility whilst her and the manager would have a good natter. One time both of them left the back room leaving me alone with the 12 month old. They did not ask me if this was OK, they just wandered off. I'm not even sure she knew I was still in the back, so I think she thought it was OK to leave the child on its own. Anything could have happened - there was large boxes/bags piled everywhere which could fall down (they had done in the past), the whole back room was very disorganised. We didn't know what was in these boxes/bags until they had been sorted. Now I know some on this forum complain when people use ifs and buts and might have happened. But the manager should have been thinking about what might happen from a health and safety point of view - did she want something to happen to her friends child? I something did happen would the shop's insurance pay out? I would have thought the insurance company would have said that the policy didn't cover children being left on their own in the back room.

The charity had a policy where complaints were dealt with confidentially. So I complained as I thought that paying a manager to have a chat with her friends was not financially in the charity's best interests and having a small child in the back is a bad idea for various reasons.

The charity response was to pass my complaint straight to the manager who duly told me not to come back to the shop. Its nice to think when you donate to charity that your money goes to a good cause and I'm sure in most cases it does. But this experience opened my eyes to charities - they are not all for the good cause they claim to be for. These shops are a business and should be treated as such.

hollydays

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most charities are largely staffed by volunteers; would you rather they spent most of their donations on salaries?

I'd rather they stopped supporting benefits claimants getting sanctioned if they don't agree to work there for nothing. That's not volunteering it's slave labour.

daytona0

hollydays wrote: »

I'd rather they stopped supporting benefits claimants getting sanctioned if they don't agree to work there for nothing. That's not volunteering it's slave labour.

What kind of claimants? Those not fit for work shouldn't really be sanctioned or pressured to work.

Those fit for work could do with the experience so they can show other employers that they can do a job well despite their disability.

Those on JSA are looking for work, and a stint in a charity shop (gaining retail/cashier experience) is insanely more productive than [insert something a JSA claimant does after refusing work experience].

hollydays

I'm

daytona0 wrote: »

What kind of claimants? Those not fit for work shouldn't really be sanctioned or pressured to work.

Those fit for work could do with the experience so they can show other employers that they can do a job well despite their disability.

Those on JSA are looking for work, and a stint in a charity shop (gaining retail/cashier experience) is insanely more productive than [insert something a JSA claimant does after refusing work experience].

Unions have fought to prevent exploitation and I believe this is exploitation .

Companies like b & m stores for example do it too. Use someone free for a few weeks -this avoids b & m having to pay someone to actually do the job-disgusting.