As I have already said, only of the items have already been put out for the general public.
Even a small shop may have a volunteer workforce of maybe 60 or more people. Many elderly volunteers only want to work half a day shift. Being on your feet all day is tough.
If you want two people out back sorting, labelling, ironing etc and two out front, till, rack and shelf replenishment, changing room duty etc you need eight staff per day x six days a week plus back-ups for holidays and other absences.
If you have sixty people of all shapes and sizes taking first dibs on stock before it goes out, it serious depletes the stock available to the public.
If you ascribe to the philosophy that charity shops provide an opportunity for people with lower incomes to buy, then allowing a first dibs policy is effectively denying those people the opportunity to see the full range of saleable donations - and that isn’t right or fair.
I think the arrival of eBay in 1995, Vinted in 2008 and other online outlets for sellers plus the growth of Primark, IKEA and similar cheap retailers has put the charity shop sector in a difficult position over pricing.
Too expensive and people say they can buy new goods cheaper; too cheap and shops become the haunt of people looking for goods they can sell on for personal profit. And that isn’t right either if donors give expecting goods sold on their behalf to raise as much money as possible for the cause.
If I can see that a shop has a maximum price policy, whether it’s £5 or £10, I simply won’t donate quality items to them. I’d rather sell them on eBay for the proper market value and donate the cash; or send them to Oxfam online who do price sensibly.
Again, returning to the Mary Portas series, it was clear that elderly staff at Save the Children did not know one label from another and would put a current season Jimmy Choo handbag on the shelf for £5. Rich pickings for sombody.
Big charities all have heads of retailing and area managers. I do wonder what they think their job is - whether they think they have any responsibility at all for training staff, brand awareness or even what the law is on charitable donations.
To be clear: The charity has a legal obligation to offer the donor the right to claim the proceeds of sale. On that basis how does it explain that goods that were donated to be sold have been given away?
Hopefully, matters have improved in the fifteen years since the series but from the variety of posts here, it seems that practice is far from standard and the goodwill of donors is being abused.