I was recycling them in the local supermarket bottle bank before this. Today I brought my bag of cans "rejected" "rejected" "rejected". Queue forming behind me, I thought 'F this' and left putting bag of cans back in boot. I'm going to get my money back one way or the other but I'm not going to be buying any more products involved in this scheme.
False equivalence. Are you saying it is impossible to have a Re-turn scheme that does not take into account the needs of minorities? Why is it on the one hand the rights of the minorities versus the needs of the majority? And I'm sure a case could be made that we have many laws and regulations already on the books that give minorities rights over the 'needs' of the majority, if you define either loosely enough.
And again, you ignore the point that the scheme needs to get to 90%. It's simply not good enough to be writing off so many "minorities".
So to advocate for a Re-turn scheme that needs to get to 90%, while also arguing we don't need to accomodate minorities and make the scheme workable for them too, is entirely self defeating.
This is a non-runner. Retailers aren't interested and I can understand why.
All of the above for 2.2 cent per item. Not a chance.
Have to say, I've yet to encounter a machine that hasn't taken 100% of my items. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe I've developed the knack quickly.
What I don't understand, and I'm no fan of this scheme, is the petulance on display when multiple posters say they will purposely put recyclables in the wrong bin at home. An utterly pointless show of "revolt" which only harms yourself and your descendants.
The only reason I shared the article was because I was interested in the comments made by Re-turn. I've no real interest in the woman's story. And since you haven't read it there's no point in discussing it.
Your comments about inconveniencing a minority and how democracy works are odd. We wouldn't have accessibility legislation if it was OK to ignore minorities in the name of democracy.
Anyway the scheme doesn't just inconvenience minorities. Producers, suppliers, retailers and consumers are all inconvenienced to varying degrees.
Yes we have laws for minorities rights, in fact I'd argue we don't have enough of them. But we don't and shouldn't have laws that give the minorities rights over the needs of the majority of the population.
Sounds like requiring people who do the deliveries to take any used bottles/cans from the previous delivery and credit the customer's account would be the way to go in the case of vulnerable people who get their groceries delivered.
The scheme needs to get to 90%. The scheme needs minorities to meet those targets. If it was just about a majority, we wouldn't need this scheme at all.
And yes, we frequently modify laws, and when drafting new laws, to take into account the needs of a minority. We don't have laws that just help the majority. That is not how a democracy works if it wants to survive and honour its constitution and the rights of its citizens.
While I completely agree that it's auful these two ladies are too sick to bring bottles to the supermarket and (I didn't read the article fully but assume) they don't have anybody on hand that can assist them. With that being said we can't be modifying laws that help the majority because it inconveniences a minority, it's simply not how a democracy works or should work
The shop does pay the distributor…. I work for one such distributor and we have had to introduce invoicing for the DRS charges to the retailer.
I hate this poxy charge, it just encourages you to 'store' cans in the boot of the car or in bags around the house.
And I was recycling them in the estate bin area anyway so WHY do I now have this crap to manage.
Likewise. It's amazing how much of my recyclable waste has 'accidentally' ended up in the black bin since this scam was introduced.
I use a funnel. I find it works reasonably well as long as I don't get distracted mid pour.
No real alternative remedy comes to mind.
It's something the shops are getting away with because we are too nice 🙂
That's not the After Hours spirit :)
You must treat that 60 cents as if it is €60.
This is the problem, I'm not bothered over 60 cents or something to go and argue. And I love a good argument!
Both women have health problems which probably make the 5 litre bottles difficult to handle.
Arthritis in the hands/arms can make lifting and pouring from containers weighing 5 kilo full almost impossible.
I recall that some years ago there was a tap attachment available that fit the 5 litre bottles. I don't know if they are still on sale.
I misread his statement. I thought the price went from €16.20 to €18.20 which would be suggestive of 25c deposits. That's my bad!
Interestingly the Guinness nitrosurge can is 558ml so an 8 pack of that would have attracted a €2 deposit
The article mentions:
Jane’s mother is not able to lift five-litre bottles of water – which are exempt from the scheme – as they are too heavy.
I didn't read about a woman who has to buy all her water? She should buy 5 litre bottles. No deposit on bottles over 3 litres. And it would work out cheaper than the base price of any volume covered by the deposit scheme. I presume this was mentioned in the discussion, as it is so obvious?
The woman paying 2% of her income on deposits is obviously paying multiples of that for the actual bottles; and should put the effort that was put in to complaining about this in to complaining about her water supply.
If the story isn't absolute gubbins, that is; cause there's other details that scream shaggy dog story.
Today's IT article.
As someone else said earlier in the thread you can't really judge things based on one person's experience but thought a couple of points from the article were worth highlighting.
Interesting to note though that Re-turn are again saying that people who experience difficulty using the scheme should contact them. We know this is bogus from this thread.
If individuals have any challenges in engaging with the scheme, please contact Re-turn. We are eager to assist you and your mother to find solutions to make it work for you both.
In addition I found the following quote from the Re-turn statement at odds with what we've been told the funding model is. I think there needs to be greater clarify on how unclaimed deposits are treated.
Re-turn is a non-profit organisation funded solely by beverage producers and suppliers. While unclaimed deposits will be reinvested into the scheme and used to fund Re-turn initiatives, we highly encourage consumers to return their drinks containers to get their deposit back.
Aldi owe you 60 cent.
They shouldn't have charged the deposit.
If you have a receipt maybe try to get your money back.
That's how the scheme is funded, deposits charged and not being redeemed.
What I'm saying is, I have beer cans from Aldi in the house that there isn't even a barcode on, let alone a logo, but they charged me a deposit. How can (pun not intended) I return a can that I paid a deposit on, if there's no barcode?
I'm not going to bother the gardai, I don't think they can do anything.
You're implying illegality then. Report them to the Gardaí, if you can find them.
Could be out on their 30 mins daily roads duty or protecting our politicians from local protestors.
But if the shop is charging a deposit, where they didnt pay one to the distributor..
I don't believe it's the shops pocketing the difference. Rather it's the Return quango and the system set up by the state who benefit from the gap between deposits paid and those given back. It's a pretty good business model. I suppose a lot of it gets used up oiling the wheels of the scheme, subsidising machines, collection, expenses, salaries and benefits like pensions & health care and so on.
I was in my local Aldi and the machines were out of order with bottles packed up in the slot. Inconsistency is alarming.
Some thoughts as this goes on. I've tried another time to use the machines, fitting it in around my normal life, and I'm up to 60-70% of scanned items accepted. I've paid deposits on 100% of them. Shops pocketing the difference.
Also, the total price should be displayed. Display a breakdown if you want but the law here was always the full price should be shown to the customer (so you can't advertise ex VAT prices to a consumer, or put up the price for fuel without duties etc).
Any of my bottles/cans that get rejected go in either the black bin at the shop or the black bin at home. Call it malicious mal-compliance if you will but I'm not putting them in my green bin.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b8ae648a49243bb158a50819bf0ea368.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d38dadd4e9049f636f3a15f844846484.svg)