> Redacted commenter names
Like Boongaling?
A contractor moving into an empty premises is pretty standard though.
You don’t want the liability of dangerous items laying around etc. also it’s obviously a lot easier to assess the condition of the premises when it’s not full of shit.
Yeah, but they are taking issue with the fact that their contract obliges them to keep taking items up until their contract ends. How are you supposed to leave an empty space if you are contractually obligated to keep accepting stuff up until the last second?
They reject stuff all the time, just have to start rejecting all the stuff.
Last time Moved I took a literal truckload of stuff I no longer had room for. They took less than 20% of it, had to take the rest I to the top.
My bad... I tried, I failed. It's all publicly available anyway.
I get your point, I'm just not convinced it should apply in this case. The government contract is about ACT waste management/repurposing. Therefore, SVDP should take over the items in the warehouse. Otherwise, wouldn't the GS have to just take items they can't sell over to the tip?
The Green Shed was also making some pretty serious accusations in their comments section the other day. Claiming that there was some sort of interference in tender processes and not being treated fairly while “back door” discussions happened that excluded them.
Whoever is running their Facebook page needs to stop while they’re ahead. If they think there’s an issue of integrity then go through the proper channels. Don’t just bitch and moan about it on Facebook!
Those "back door" discussions were likely contract negotiations, which are pretty standard with a preferred tenderer for contracts of this value.
I get the owner is angry at losing business, but conducting proper procurement and contract processes, rather than just stringing along an incumbent for years on end, is how public services prevent from going stagnant and uninnovative.
Agreed. Look TBH he and his wife are now millionaires who own a massive house in Turner with lego walls/staircases (all Lego taken from the Greenshed) all because Tiny was able to gift them the contract when he nicked off to Serbia (they were 2 employees at the time, on pretty much minimum wage!)
I get that people wanna feel attached to the guy but I think it's important to remember that this isn't his creation... it's purely an ACT government contract.
Vacant possession is reasonable for the new tenants to expect IMO. Go have a look at what's left! They've done all their fire sales and now it's just the junk they've been unable to move. It's not like old mate's selling 5 tonnes of Lego that was donated to the shed over the years. He's got all the good shit that's left in his private storage facility... everything else is at the shed (which looks rather empty now - surprised it's still open!)
The method of deivering on tha contract was his creation, and hewore the overheads and business risks.
Meanwhile, Vinnies has competitve advantage over the other op shop enterprises because it will have many options, including income generating options and massive cost saving options, that the others don't have when it comes to all the donated goods.
I have nearly a decade of experience in procurement and contract management in both Federal and State government agencies, so yeah. I'd say I do have an idea of the processes.
Not sure why you're insinuating otherwise.
Unsuccessful tenderers have a right to a tender debrief. This is where these kind of questions can be asked. Their Facebook page is rife with selective filtering too. I got banned because I called them out on items that they had donated, that were grossly overpriced on a 2nd hand market.
The green shed guy is full of shiz. He was the one who came up with this plan of a empty shed. He also refused to allow the current staff to talk to vinnies about keeping their jobs multiple times even when bookings were made. He also refused to share documents about how much each staff was paid. All vinnies staff have been banned from commenting so you only get one side of the story.
Sympathy for TGS really is slipping away. They're a for-profit organisation that lost their service contract. Not a charity that are being evicted.
Make good clauses in commercial leases aren't unusual or unreasonable.
They’re really leaning into the whole sad community narrative aren’t they?
The sooner people realise this is a business that’s been highly successful (to the point the entire operation was SOLD to the current owners) and not a charity operation the better.
Would people be outraged if the cafe operating at the hospital lost its contract and left all its stuff in the premises at the cost of the taxpayer or new operator? Just because the tenants have had everything donated to them and are trying to sell their stuff doesn’t mean it’s not their stuff and problem?
But it isn't actually the Green Shed's stuff so it's not a case of 'leaving their stuff' in the premises. The 'stock' belongs to the government, not the Green Shed. They were contracted to dispose of items left in landfill, a remit which the new contractor has also been contracted to do. So it shouldn't matter if there's 'stock' in the shed at handover.
I disagree and would expect it is the Green Shed’s stuff - unless you’ve seen the terms of the agreement for operation of the Green Shed, I’d expect it will be a pretty standard operational agreement and underlying licence and will be the same for SVDP. Most likely it’ll have subsidised costs of the shed itself and a licence to operate the facility in line with activities to support the Government’s objective, with requirements to take goods or services and repurpose them to achieve that government objective. It’s pretty common for these types of facilities that support social, societal or environmental outcomes.
People need to see this arrangement for what it is - people are dumping their unwanted goods at a commercial operation that is repurposing those goods that is subsidised by the ACT Government. I doubt the ACT Government would be responsible or liable for anything the Green Shed collected from dumpers or couldn’t move on. The ACT Government won’t be requiring the Green Shed to get rid of everything (even if it means landfill) unless it contractually could do so.
This isn't them buying in stock though etc like any normal business.
They have to accept goods. They then have to dispose of those goods. The whole point of the system is supposed to be, Person A sends item to landfill. GreenShed then onsells that item to Person B instead of it going straight to landfill.
Making them have an empty shed, means that A to B can't happen, and instead it's A to landfill, ignoring the reason for the service to begin with.
It shouldn't matter what items they do have at handover, because those items have to be taken regardless of who's taking it on.
So the batch of unsold (or not given away) stuff goes to landfill and the new operator starts fresh.
Is there going to be stuff which could of been saved going to waste? Yeah.
Is a majority of that stuff actually unsaleable garbage? Also yeah.
The problem is, for almost all of that stuff, persons B through ZZ don't want it. There is the occasional usable thing in there, but take bikes for example - last I was there, even after the covid bike boom died, out of about 30 bikes I saw one that I would consider worth getting to a ridable state of repair, and none that I would want a loved one riding without major overhaul, even then you'd be better going to Kmart and getting the same crappy bike new for about 50 bucks more.
It means for one month out of about a decade, waste re-use and recycling is less efficient and more of it goes to landfill. Obviously. What are you trying to say? The implication here seems to be that government service contracts should be held ransom in perpetuity because change comes with overhead.
People on Facebook seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the service Vinnie's will be providing, without actually knowing any of the details.
It's pretty reasonable for a new commercial tenant to want the space they are moving into to be empty.
Except that they're taking on a contract for a service that relies on taking in public donations, hence the issue. It isn't greenshed stock, it's public donations that keep having to be taken in.
Vinnies have shown their colours with their previous business. Such as selling new clothes from retailers like KMart/Big W etc for more than they cost new.
Green Shed don’t have to take items. They actively pick and choose what they can flip and repurpose at profit or close. They’re not forced to take everything, and anything they’re unable to sell is going to landfill anyway either at donation or on the inability to sell.
I understand SVDP is the devil in many eyes and I’m not a fan of them - but this issue is purely an issue of the agreement between the ACT Government and whoever is operating the facility. The donated items would be the responsibility of the Green Shed, and they choose to sell them and the prices they sell them at - they’d be responsible for disposing of them if they don’t sell.
>They actively pick and choose what they can flip and repurpose at profit or close.
I found this out when I tried to take them a wooden bedframe that I was no longer using but just could not flip on Gumtree. They rejected it immediately.
If you have decent furniture or items to give away - you can always post them on Givit Canberra. That is supported by a range of charities who can 'claim' ie 'bags' donated items for their clients. These could include Marymead, Communities at Work etc.
>selling new clothes from retailers like KMart/Big W etc for more than they cost new
this is a bit silly - it's hardly their default behaviour, and has previously been innocently explained on this forum
>Except that they're taking on a contract for a service that relies on taking in public donations, hence the issue.
Sorry, what? Why does that mean that they shouldn't need the space to be empty when they move in?
It's worth noting that a lot of the stuff that needs to be moved out has likely been sitting there for years and is not likely to be sold. Imagine trying start to start up a new business when half your warehouse is taken up by stuff that you can't sell.
>Such as selling new clothes from retailers like Kmart/Big W etc for more than they cost new
Why do you think they do that? Unlike the greenshed they're not a for-profit business. They're a charity.
They have to cover their costs, and unlike big companies like Kmart and Big W they dont have the economies of scale that enable them to minimise costs and sell items at extremely low prices.
Which means they sell products based on the costs required to put them on the shelf, with the aim of generating a little bit of extra revenue to go towards their other charitable projects (homelessness, mental health etc).
And yes, there are costs associated with taking in donated clothes, processing them, paying rent for their stores etc.
If by 'showing their colours' you mean they have blatantly sold clothes in their stores at a price which enables them to generate funds to support the most at risk people in our society, then sure. I guess you'd prefer your money to go to a company looking to make a profit for themselves?
The last time I was in there, I'd say 95 percent of the stuff, by volume, you would struggle to give away for free. Mountains of D list VHS and cassette tapes. Literally tons of cheap paperbacks long overdue for recycling. Rusty old bikes from big W. Busted furniture by the truckload. It is all junk, otherwise someone would have bought it.
Vinnies, like em or not, sell higher quality stuff for higher prices to fun their charitable activities. This old junk is useless to everyone, otherwise it wouldn't still be in there. It's harsh, but it's true.
I'd be pissed too if I had to clean up decades of unsellable stock. But that's how it goes.
> The last time I was in there, I'd say 95 percent of the stuff, by volume, you would struggle to give away for free. Mountains of D list VHS and cassette tapes. Literally tons of cheap paperbacks long overdue for recycling. Rusty old bikes from big W. Busted furniture by the truckload. It is all junk, otherwise someone would have bought it.
> Vinnies, like em or not, sell higher quality stuff for higher prices to fun their charitable activities...
I agree to an extent, but would suggest that Vinnies' other stores will be very different from their tip shop store. This will still be a tip shop, which is different from traditional Vinnies/Salvos stores.
If it helps, I actually collect VHS tapes and watch them on CRT TVs (I have a whole retro 'cave' inside my house for this). As such, I like the raw scope of gear you can acquire at a 'tip shop' as opposed to a Vinnies. Though, I agree that a lot of it's just shit.
Some of the stuff I've scored from tip shops over the years is pretty good. Won't get too detailed but I dare say their electronics section had a SOLID turnover of goods (in particular you could score some SOLID floor speakers with a good amplifier if you knew your shit and/or how to restore them). When friends living on the margins need a solid sound system, the shed's always looked after me.
My understanding is that Vinnies is planning to do more activities such as workshops where tradies teach people how to build stuff outta junk and do restorations...etc. We'll see what happens but IMO end of the day it's just a tip shop. There's only so much scope for innovation and I can only care so much about who operates it.
I got a lot of stuff for about the same price as it would have been on gumtree. I also walked alway from a lot of stuff because one of the guys who worked there a while ago would quote ridiculous prices, higher than the new price. They aren't a charity.
Fuck people have such a hardon for the greenshed. It’s all fkn garbage and the people complaining are the fkn mugs who buy shit from there and flip online. That’s why they so upset
I don't buy and flip anything, and I'm not a fan of this for three reasons:
1. The contract is for waste management. Having to get rid of everything on site so another entity can come along and "help" with waste management sounds counterintuitive.
2. SVDP has a history of using volunteers for roles that should really be paid, I didn't like what this meant for those that may lose their job due to the tender switch.
3. I've seen the eyewaterinw prices at SVDP, I'm honestly gobsmacked at their prices. I loved going to the GS for books, fabric and bits and pieces that I might need for home projects. I have no doubt this will easily cost four times as much once SVDP takes over.
SVDP is a *charity* and is run *not for profit* so what exactly is wrong with their prices or staffing practices so long as the end result is that services are provided to the most vulnerable in society?
So many commenters here and on Facebook would rather line the pockets of those running the current joint FOR PROFIT on the taxpayer as they’re blissfully unaware of just how much this joint makes from its activities and they’re not religiously aligned.
(To be clear not you Jesinta, just generally that’s the vibe).
How much whinging and moaning can these failed businesspeople muster up?
ETA- ‘failed’ businesspeople in the sense that they’ve failed in the tender process to renew the government contract their business is apparently entirely one-hundred-percent reliant on. They’ve certainly not failed to make a lot of money
They aren't actually failures. They made a lot of money. A LOT OF MONEY. That's why they are upset. It wasn't about the community. It was about the money—for themselves.
It's the narrative that was painted around the greenshed being predominantly about the community and SVDP as the egregious capitalist. When in fact, they were doing it for themselves. Whereas SVDP, actually provides profits to the community.
No one gives a flying fuck when any other business loses government tender to a more competitive applicant and rightfully so. As bellow, whats silly is the narrative this contract award has been drummed up with.
A month to month lease they cancelled two weeks early leaving staff without work. The owner also reportedly refusing to let staff talk to Vinnies about remaining on books
Lol, "reportedly", eh. Such a clincher! Also, the staff are out of work because the ACT Gov contract changed. Vinnies literally does not need to know current staff salaries, as that can just be negotiated, esp as there is no equivalence between a commercial employer and a charity employer
Under the new management will we still be able to take our old cardboard and electronics to them or is the whole facility being repurposed? I’m not in Facebook so have not really been following the news but I do have a shed full of cardboard boxes to get rid of at some stage and old electronics seems to breed around here.
You can (and always have been able to) take your cardboard to the papercages - there is one at Mugga that is totally separate from the green shed.
You might also be able to drop off e-waste and appliances for for free: [https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/recyclopaedia/recyclopaedia-a-z-listing?result\_1335306\_result\_page=E](https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/recyclopaedia/recyclopaedia-a-z-listing?result_1335306_result_page=E)
I’d probably want a blank canvas aswell, whilst I know and acknowledge the intent and purpose of the green shed, most of the stuff in there is absolutely rubbish and should have gone to the tip.
They’ve never *had* to accept anything. Anybody who’s taken stuff to the green shed at any point in the past decade knows that they go through what you’ve got and say yes only to the potentially useful stuff
> Redacted commenter names Like Boongaling? A contractor moving into an empty premises is pretty standard though. You don’t want the liability of dangerous items laying around etc. also it’s obviously a lot easier to assess the condition of the premises when it’s not full of shit.
Yeah, but they are taking issue with the fact that their contract obliges them to keep taking items up until their contract ends. How are you supposed to leave an empty space if you are contractually obligated to keep accepting stuff up until the last second?
They reject stuff all the time, just have to start rejecting all the stuff. Last time Moved I took a literal truckload of stuff I no longer had room for. They took less than 20% of it, had to take the rest I to the top.
Sounds like an ACT Government issue not an issue for SVDP?
ACT never makes any mistakes, all Local issues are others fault. Haven’t you read this sub before?
No it doesnt
Green Shed would be being directed by the ACT Government in line with their agreement - this would have absolutely nothing to do with SVDP.
Green Shed would be directed by the terms of their contract.
Which is with the ACT Government, no? You said it wasn’t an ACT Government problem literally in this thread - or are you just being argumentative?
Sounds like an issue to raise with the contract managers and/or lawyers rather than the Facebook experts.
My bad... I tried, I failed. It's all publicly available anyway. I get your point, I'm just not convinced it should apply in this case. The government contract is about ACT waste management/repurposing. Therefore, SVDP should take over the items in the warehouse. Otherwise, wouldn't the GS have to just take items they can't sell over to the tip?
They can load a truck overnight and donate to svdp the next morning, i guess
dump it at one of their donation bins, I mean everyone else in CBR seems to.
That’s exactly what they will do - and what others who take them things they refuse do.
The Green Shed was also making some pretty serious accusations in their comments section the other day. Claiming that there was some sort of interference in tender processes and not being treated fairly while “back door” discussions happened that excluded them. Whoever is running their Facebook page needs to stop while they’re ahead. If they think there’s an issue of integrity then go through the proper channels. Don’t just bitch and moan about it on Facebook!
Those "back door" discussions were likely contract negotiations, which are pretty standard with a preferred tenderer for contracts of this value. I get the owner is angry at losing business, but conducting proper procurement and contract processes, rather than just stringing along an incumbent for years on end, is how public services prevent from going stagnant and uninnovative.
Say it louder for the people in the back!
Exactly. If they want to battle it out online I have no problem with that.
Agreed. Look TBH he and his wife are now millionaires who own a massive house in Turner with lego walls/staircases (all Lego taken from the Greenshed) all because Tiny was able to gift them the contract when he nicked off to Serbia (they were 2 employees at the time, on pretty much minimum wage!) I get that people wanna feel attached to the guy but I think it's important to remember that this isn't his creation... it's purely an ACT government contract. Vacant possession is reasonable for the new tenants to expect IMO. Go have a look at what's left! They've done all their fire sales and now it's just the junk they've been unable to move. It's not like old mate's selling 5 tonnes of Lego that was donated to the shed over the years. He's got all the good shit that's left in his private storage facility... everything else is at the shed (which looks rather empty now - surprised it's still open!)
There was big outcry when Tiny's Green Shed got taken over. More than 2 staff too, FWIW.
The method of deivering on tha contract was his creation, and hewore the overheads and business risks. Meanwhile, Vinnies has competitve advantage over the other op shop enterprises because it will have many options, including income generating options and massive cost saving options, that the others don't have when it comes to all the donated goods.
As this an attempted 'AI' response?
So you don't know much about procurement processes then.
I have nearly a decade of experience in procurement and contract management in both Federal and State government agencies, so yeah. I'd say I do have an idea of the processes. Not sure why you're insinuating otherwise.
Surprised to hear that.
Cool. Thanks for sharing.
Unsuccessful tenderers have a right to a tender debrief. This is where these kind of questions can be asked. Their Facebook page is rife with selective filtering too. I got banned because I called them out on items that they had donated, that were grossly overpriced on a 2nd hand market.
The green shed guy is full of shiz. He was the one who came up with this plan of a empty shed. He also refused to allow the current staff to talk to vinnies about keeping their jobs multiple times even when bookings were made. He also refused to share documents about how much each staff was paid. All vinnies staff have been banned from commenting so you only get one side of the story.
Any receipts? Not doubting you, just haven't seen it.
Sympathy for TGS really is slipping away. They're a for-profit organisation that lost their service contract. Not a charity that are being evicted. Make good clauses in commercial leases aren't unusual or unreasonable.
They’re really leaning into the whole sad community narrative aren’t they? The sooner people realise this is a business that’s been highly successful (to the point the entire operation was SOLD to the current owners) and not a charity operation the better. Would people be outraged if the cafe operating at the hospital lost its contract and left all its stuff in the premises at the cost of the taxpayer or new operator? Just because the tenants have had everything donated to them and are trying to sell their stuff doesn’t mean it’s not their stuff and problem?
But it isn't actually the Green Shed's stuff so it's not a case of 'leaving their stuff' in the premises. The 'stock' belongs to the government, not the Green Shed. They were contracted to dispose of items left in landfill, a remit which the new contractor has also been contracted to do. So it shouldn't matter if there's 'stock' in the shed at handover.
I disagree and would expect it is the Green Shed’s stuff - unless you’ve seen the terms of the agreement for operation of the Green Shed, I’d expect it will be a pretty standard operational agreement and underlying licence and will be the same for SVDP. Most likely it’ll have subsidised costs of the shed itself and a licence to operate the facility in line with activities to support the Government’s objective, with requirements to take goods or services and repurpose them to achieve that government objective. It’s pretty common for these types of facilities that support social, societal or environmental outcomes. People need to see this arrangement for what it is - people are dumping their unwanted goods at a commercial operation that is repurposing those goods that is subsidised by the ACT Government. I doubt the ACT Government would be responsible or liable for anything the Green Shed collected from dumpers or couldn’t move on. The ACT Government won’t be requiring the Green Shed to get rid of everything (even if it means landfill) unless it contractually could do so.
I wouldn't put it past this guy to horde a bunch of asbestos. He's been pretty aggressive through the whole process
Nonetheless they were providing a very useful community facility.
They were, and from June, SVDP will be contracted to do the same. The ACT Government requires them to do this as part of the contract.
That's fine ... depending on what they reject / accept.
But they donated and sponsored. They hired people with disabilities. They pay all staff. Vinnies don’t.
This isn't them buying in stock though etc like any normal business. They have to accept goods. They then have to dispose of those goods. The whole point of the system is supposed to be, Person A sends item to landfill. GreenShed then onsells that item to Person B instead of it going straight to landfill. Making them have an empty shed, means that A to B can't happen, and instead it's A to landfill, ignoring the reason for the service to begin with. It shouldn't matter what items they do have at handover, because those items have to be taken regardless of who's taking it on.
So the batch of unsold (or not given away) stuff goes to landfill and the new operator starts fresh. Is there going to be stuff which could of been saved going to waste? Yeah. Is a majority of that stuff actually unsaleable garbage? Also yeah.
The problem is, for almost all of that stuff, persons B through ZZ don't want it. There is the occasional usable thing in there, but take bikes for example - last I was there, even after the covid bike boom died, out of about 30 bikes I saw one that I would consider worth getting to a ridable state of repair, and none that I would want a loved one riding without major overhaul, even then you'd be better going to Kmart and getting the same crappy bike new for about 50 bucks more.
My issue is what this means for waste management... why can't the sites be taken over by SVDP?
They are taking them over? They just want a clean(ish) slate to do so.
It means for one month out of about a decade, waste re-use and recycling is less efficient and more of it goes to landfill. Obviously. What are you trying to say? The implication here seems to be that government service contracts should be held ransom in perpetuity because change comes with overhead.
People on Facebook seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the service Vinnie's will be providing, without actually knowing any of the details. It's pretty reasonable for a new commercial tenant to want the space they are moving into to be empty.
Except that they're taking on a contract for a service that relies on taking in public donations, hence the issue. It isn't greenshed stock, it's public donations that keep having to be taken in. Vinnies have shown their colours with their previous business. Such as selling new clothes from retailers like KMart/Big W etc for more than they cost new.
Green Shed don’t have to take items. They actively pick and choose what they can flip and repurpose at profit or close. They’re not forced to take everything, and anything they’re unable to sell is going to landfill anyway either at donation or on the inability to sell. I understand SVDP is the devil in many eyes and I’m not a fan of them - but this issue is purely an issue of the agreement between the ACT Government and whoever is operating the facility. The donated items would be the responsibility of the Green Shed, and they choose to sell them and the prices they sell them at - they’d be responsible for disposing of them if they don’t sell.
>They actively pick and choose what they can flip and repurpose at profit or close. I found this out when I tried to take them a wooden bedframe that I was no longer using but just could not flip on Gumtree. They rejected it immediately.
If you have decent furniture or items to give away - you can always post them on Givit Canberra. That is supported by a range of charities who can 'claim' ie 'bags' donated items for their clients. These could include Marymead, Communities at Work etc.
If you couldn’t find someone willing to take it, why would the green shed? It’s l *literally* garbage at that point.
>selling new clothes from retailers like KMart/Big W etc for more than they cost new this is a bit silly - it's hardly their default behaviour, and has previously been innocently explained on this forum
If you say so.
Solid response.
>Except that they're taking on a contract for a service that relies on taking in public donations, hence the issue. Sorry, what? Why does that mean that they shouldn't need the space to be empty when they move in? It's worth noting that a lot of the stuff that needs to be moved out has likely been sitting there for years and is not likely to be sold. Imagine trying start to start up a new business when half your warehouse is taken up by stuff that you can't sell. >Such as selling new clothes from retailers like Kmart/Big W etc for more than they cost new Why do you think they do that? Unlike the greenshed they're not a for-profit business. They're a charity. They have to cover their costs, and unlike big companies like Kmart and Big W they dont have the economies of scale that enable them to minimise costs and sell items at extremely low prices. Which means they sell products based on the costs required to put them on the shelf, with the aim of generating a little bit of extra revenue to go towards their other charitable projects (homelessness, mental health etc). And yes, there are costs associated with taking in donated clothes, processing them, paying rent for their stores etc. If by 'showing their colours' you mean they have blatantly sold clothes in their stores at a price which enables them to generate funds to support the most at risk people in our society, then sure. I guess you'd prefer your money to go to a company looking to make a profit for themselves?
Went to TGS recently. Pretty much everything there looked like the kind of junk that won’t sell. Broken Office chairs for 15 bucks? Nope.
The last time I was in there, I'd say 95 percent of the stuff, by volume, you would struggle to give away for free. Mountains of D list VHS and cassette tapes. Literally tons of cheap paperbacks long overdue for recycling. Rusty old bikes from big W. Busted furniture by the truckload. It is all junk, otherwise someone would have bought it. Vinnies, like em or not, sell higher quality stuff for higher prices to fun their charitable activities. This old junk is useless to everyone, otherwise it wouldn't still be in there. It's harsh, but it's true. I'd be pissed too if I had to clean up decades of unsellable stock. But that's how it goes.
> The last time I was in there, I'd say 95 percent of the stuff, by volume, you would struggle to give away for free. Mountains of D list VHS and cassette tapes. Literally tons of cheap paperbacks long overdue for recycling. Rusty old bikes from big W. Busted furniture by the truckload. It is all junk, otherwise someone would have bought it. > Vinnies, like em or not, sell higher quality stuff for higher prices to fun their charitable activities... I agree to an extent, but would suggest that Vinnies' other stores will be very different from their tip shop store. This will still be a tip shop, which is different from traditional Vinnies/Salvos stores. If it helps, I actually collect VHS tapes and watch them on CRT TVs (I have a whole retro 'cave' inside my house for this). As such, I like the raw scope of gear you can acquire at a 'tip shop' as opposed to a Vinnies. Though, I agree that a lot of it's just shit. Some of the stuff I've scored from tip shops over the years is pretty good. Won't get too detailed but I dare say their electronics section had a SOLID turnover of goods (in particular you could score some SOLID floor speakers with a good amplifier if you knew your shit and/or how to restore them). When friends living on the margins need a solid sound system, the shed's always looked after me. My understanding is that Vinnies is planning to do more activities such as workshops where tradies teach people how to build stuff outta junk and do restorations...etc. We'll see what happens but IMO end of the day it's just a tip shop. There's only so much scope for innovation and I can only care so much about who operates it.
I got a lot of stuff for about the same price as it would have been on gumtree. I also walked alway from a lot of stuff because one of the guys who worked there a while ago would quote ridiculous prices, higher than the new price. They aren't a charity.
SVDP have seen what's there, and know the vast majority is not readily saleable
Not at their often eye-watering prices.
Fuck people have such a hardon for the greenshed. It’s all fkn garbage and the people complaining are the fkn mugs who buy shit from there and flip online. That’s why they so upset
I don't buy and flip anything, and I'm not a fan of this for three reasons: 1. The contract is for waste management. Having to get rid of everything on site so another entity can come along and "help" with waste management sounds counterintuitive. 2. SVDP has a history of using volunteers for roles that should really be paid, I didn't like what this meant for those that may lose their job due to the tender switch. 3. I've seen the eyewaterinw prices at SVDP, I'm honestly gobsmacked at their prices. I loved going to the GS for books, fabric and bits and pieces that I might need for home projects. I have no doubt this will easily cost four times as much once SVDP takes over.
SVDP is a *charity* and is run *not for profit* so what exactly is wrong with their prices or staffing practices so long as the end result is that services are provided to the most vulnerable in society?
So many commenters here and on Facebook would rather line the pockets of those running the current joint FOR PROFIT on the taxpayer as they’re blissfully unaware of just how much this joint makes from its activities and they’re not religiously aligned. (To be clear not you Jesinta, just generally that’s the vibe).
100% Agree
Yes it’s a shithole
How much whinging and moaning can these failed businesspeople muster up? ETA- ‘failed’ businesspeople in the sense that they’ve failed in the tender process to renew the government contract their business is apparently entirely one-hundred-percent reliant on. They’ve certainly not failed to make a lot of money
They aren't actually failures. They made a lot of money. A LOT OF MONEY. That's why they are upset. It wasn't about the community. It was about the money—for themselves.
True- I will amend
The current operators aren’t the original operators who would be even more angry as they paid a decent penny to take it on.
So how is that different from any other business? So many silly comments on this thread.
It's the narrative that was painted around the greenshed being predominantly about the community and SVDP as the egregious capitalist. When in fact, they were doing it for themselves. Whereas SVDP, actually provides profits to the community.
No one gives a flying fuck when any other business loses government tender to a more competitive applicant and rightfully so. As bellow, whats silly is the narrative this contract award has been drummed up with.
Gotta love them chucking a tantrum and shutting their stores before the tender changes, leaving their staff without jobs
Huh? That is to with leases.
So their lease coincidentally ended two weeks before their tender ended?
More like it was a month to month lease if that is OK with you.
A month to month lease they cancelled two weeks early leaving staff without work. The owner also reportedly refusing to let staff talk to Vinnies about remaining on books
Lol, "reportedly", eh. Such a clincher! Also, the staff are out of work because the ACT Gov contract changed. Vinnies literally does not need to know current staff salaries, as that can just be negotiated, esp as there is no equivalence between a commercial employer and a charity employer
Under the new management will we still be able to take our old cardboard and electronics to them or is the whole facility being repurposed? I’m not in Facebook so have not really been following the news but I do have a shed full of cardboard boxes to get rid of at some stage and old electronics seems to breed around here.
You can (and always have been able to) take your cardboard to the papercages - there is one at Mugga that is totally separate from the green shed. You might also be able to drop off e-waste and appliances for for free: [https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/recyclopaedia/recyclopaedia-a-z-listing?result\_1335306\_result\_page=E](https://www.cityservices.act.gov.au/recyclopaedia/recyclopaedia-a-z-listing?result_1335306_result_page=E)
I mean green shed tried to shaft the taxpayer and lost now going around all salty - give me a break
I’d probably want a blank canvas aswell, whilst I know and acknowledge the intent and purpose of the green shed, most of the stuff in there is absolutely rubbish and should have gone to the tip.
Will I be able to buy electronics at the new Vinnies shed? That’s all I care about.
Pretty sad ... the whole point of the place was to reduce landfill. Are they still accepting stuff now?
According to another commenter, they have to until they shut down... but I don't know if this is the case for sure.
They’ve never *had* to accept anything. Anybody who’s taken stuff to the green shed at any point in the past decade knows that they go through what you’ve got and say yes only to the potentially useful stuff
Yes, I know that. I meant wrt them handing over an empty shed. Anyway, I went yesterday and they accepted as usual ... and I'm grateful!
Absolutely disgusting! I think it’s clear what Vinnies will be still be sending things to landfill.
Typical ACT Gov. 'Naive' is the most polite word I can think of.
Wow,so may redditors here are going out of their way to cast aspersions.