Talk:Goodwill Industries

"Movie Tie-In"???

The section "movie tie-in" is completely irrelevant. What we have are three goofy paragraphs that summarize the movie, and only one minor reference to Goodwill Industries. Was Goodwill actually mentioned in the movie? And what does the movie's MPAA rating have to do with anything?

Perhaps if this movie really does mention Goodwill, and if we could find some others, we could make a section called "References to Goodwill Industries in popular culture." Apatterno 04:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I concur, and have removed the section. Two Halves, who despite his good intentions, did not log in yet again

Criticisms

I remember the Portland scandal (I'm in Seattle), and while I don't recall the exact dollar figures, I do remember thinking that the salaries were WAY out of line (approaching pro athlete territory). So... while the corporation might be non-profit, clearly somebody is profiting rather nicely. Should the entire organization be discredited? Well, since were talking about the head honcho... yes. Belchfire (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It has become just another greedy corporation. What it does is take donations, including cars it claims it gives to needy people, and sells them at their online ebay like auction site for hefty profits.

It was started as a real "goodwill" idea, but now it has become nothing more than a money making scam praying on the do-gooder soccer mom donating her "useless" stuff to them.

Despite its good work, I know Goodwill came under criticism in Portland, OR, for very high salaries for some executives, and other practices not seem fitting with its' image.

Cany anyone create and elaborate on this? Redneb 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just to say that what happens with one division doesn't reflect on the whole organization as a whole...Schnauf 04:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• • To make generalized statements like "Goodwill is a greedy organization" is pretty presumptious. Goodwill Northern New England still sticks to the original values set by Rev. Edgar J. Helms. Just because some greedy executives infiltrated a regional office, it doesn't reflect on the overall goals of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.230.243 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was employed by Goodwill in New England, in fact, and unfortunately it was not my experience that this LARGE location did not "stick to the original values set by Rev. Edgar J. Helms." Upon entering Goodwill, I was under the impression that my thoughts and ideas were wanted and encouraged in order to make the quality of the program better. After my time there I realized that the management team was not interested in improving the program, nor were they interested in my ideas to make the program what it was supposed to be. Instead of teaching prevocational skills in order for the program participants to move towards greater independence, many very capable human beings are stuck doing mindless tasks that will not increase their ability to function in the real world. Our staff to participant ratios were false-- as the supervisor and nurse barely spent time in the "training" rooms. The staff turnover rate at the particular location that I was employed was phenomenal- maybe they should concentrate on why this is happening so they do not have to spend so much money on training and they can concentrate on the targeted population they are meant to serve- the disabled and the community...

Unfortunately, the only thing I learned from my experience at Goodwill (besides working with the MR population is AMAZING) was that you have to be at the top to make a difference, but the only way to get to the to is to be willing to let go of your own ideas and conform to management's views. I am not one to let go of my beliefs and values and realized there was no growth potential for me in this mirage of a non-profit, and have since found a place were my ideas are respected and put into practice. It is very unfortunate that this widely known company is doing such a disservice to the population it’s supposed to be serving, as well as the little people that go in for interviews who share the original mission that no longer drives the business…La1984 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My girlfriend used to work for Goodwill in Oregon and came across a behemoth of unfair practices which would fill a book or film. From the routine illegal monitoring of employees on and off the premises, to the scandal of paying disabled 'employees' only $1 or $2 an hour for doing the same tasks as regular employees earning minimum wage, this is a horribly corrupt and evil corporation which could easily be labelled the Walmart of Thrift Stores... Here is a link to an article about the salaries:

• http://www.ncrp.org/AR-122005-Oregonian-GoodwillChief.asp

devolution

Each individual regional Goodwill is a fully autonomous agency. Something about one regional Goodwill, if it were written, really needs to be on a separate page. And like any business with customers, there will be customer complaints. And all businesses have employee complaints. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a complaint box. There are sites for that. This is meant to be an Encyclopedia. --69.153.241.162 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above writer's IP address (69.153.241.162) is from Mers / Missouri Goodwill Industries, and therefore they probably should identify themselves as having a non-objective interest in this article. Clearly, criticism does have a place in an encyclopedia, if it is properly supported. This article currently reads like something out of a company's prospectus. Anyone else noticing this? 76.202.118.217 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is the exact reason that led me to the talk page. The article should include these criticisms. Paolorausch 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how talking about the executives being overpayed, considering they are not for profit, is a customer complaint. Should definately contain a controversy section. I don't understand the phrase "individual regional".

This article seems a little slanted in Goodwill's favor. All information should be presented if this article is to remain objective. This includes the wide range of complaints about misrepresented items being sold on the auction site as working, and especially unusually exorbitant shipping charges. I was charged $18 in shipping to ship a barbie from one state away. These widely published reports need to be noted if this article is to remain true and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.89.237 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with above paragraph - the lack of any soft language (about "controversial practices") early in article, has the by-product of moving the readers mind towards the idea that Goodwill is an altruistic business and are better then average corporate citizens. (and I am going on casually informed, but long standing intuition here) They are not, they have just wrapped themselves in the friendly marketing innocence of altruism. My belief is that moving some language of "controversies" closer to the beginning gives more balance and presents more equality of truth. Crazybitterunicorn (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It should go without saying that this entry should not be politicized or subject to rumor mongering. Nicmart (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Photos

Would a photo of the logo and/or a Goodwill store be appropriate?Schnauf 04:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it would. You got a good one? Be bold!Ranieldule 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had added a free drawing to represent, but as an employee of Goodwill, I felt it necessary to have the true logo. Unfortunately, I don't know how to size it. Can someone fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivory99 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs Citation

Edited this out until someone finds a citation. Never heard of this. It is, perhaps, used in the editor's hometown or such, but is in no dictionary. Retain it here so it can reinserted after the cite is added.

(the success of the stores has led to the term "Goodwill" being genericized - entering the English lexicon as the generic term for the second-hand resale shop)

---

... "entering the English lexicon as the generic term for the second-hand resale shop" May be localised USA usage, but not used in Australia 60.242.247.177 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard Goodwill used as a generic term for charity shops in the US. Proof required. Nicmart (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Operations section

The sentence "More than 84 percent of Goodwill’s total revenues are used to fund education and career services, and other critical community programs." is misleading.

The education,career services, and other critical community programs mentioned are either self contained within the Goodwill Industries organization or indicate an investment in those programs which become a source of revenue for Goodwill Industries.

It's all there for the reading at http://www.goodwill.org.Goodpaster 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The above information is not accurate. Goodwill is a registered not-for-profit and 84% of the profits from Goodwill stores are indeed used to fund the mission, which is to provide education and career services for persons with disabilities and disadvantages. Every regional Goodwill fulfills the mission differently by focusing on the programs deemed most effective in its region. In northern Florida, we provide computer skills training, hospitality training, clerical skills training, GED prep, financial literacy training, training programs for ex-felons, and housing for persons with disabilities. We provided clothing vouchers, training, placement services, and housing to 9000 individuals in 2012. All of our services are free to the public. Some Goodwills charge a fee to offset the cost for certain programs, but throughout the country by and large most Goodwill programs are funded through Goodwill donations, grants, and contracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.49.93 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Forbes reporting of IRS documents, the percentage was 89 percent in 2018. Nicmart (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Need Citations tag

I believe the need-citations tag can be safely removed. If you concur, please remove it. Wageslave (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

POV citation tag

The article contains mostly facts (financials and such). The article seems like there isnt much POV at all, mostly statements of fact (history and such). If you concur, please remove it or discuss.

Wageslave (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is, not claims

See WP:AVOID. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 'founding' date?

The article lists the founding date as 1902, but the Massachusetts Goodwill web site lists the founding as 1895, and that the name on founding was "morgan memorial goodwill industries". cite: http://www.goodwillmass.org/about_history.html Rmd1023 (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Edgar J. Helms took direction of Morgan Chapel in 1895, serving "as minister of a rundown chapel in a disintegrating neighborhood." The chapel was razed in spring of 1900, and Helms had a new building erected, Morgan Memorial, in 1902. Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries uses the date that Helms first took direction of the chapel, while Goodwill Industries International uses the date that Morgan Memorial was erected. Cite: Goodwill For the Love of People, by John Fulton Lewis, 1977. [1] Ivory99 (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Astroturfing

It has come to my attention that a couple of anon edits [2][3] removed verifiable criticism from the article without explanation or discussion. I am restoring this content and advise editors to be wary of this in the future. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name

I am removing the "Origin of name" section. The referenced article [4] doesn't say anything about it. In fact, a Google search of the whole [5] site doesn't turn up anything on the subject.

Goodwill was founded in 1902 (or 1895—see above) with "Goodwill" in its name, but Abraham Vereide was born in 1886 and didn't emigrate to the U.S. until 1905. In addition, the section is religiously biased and non-NPOV. Davemck (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this, Davemck. I knew the section didn't belong in the Abraham Vereide article, and I thought the editors of this article would have the resources and interest to check whether it was verifiable or not.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

shopgoodwill.org

shopgoodwill.org is a web site operated by one of the regional Goodwills, not the parent Goodwill Industries International. I believe it is operated by the Goodwill agency in Orange County, CA, and offers its services (for a fee) to the other Goodwills in the organization. It is recognized by Goodwill Industries International, but is not the only Goodwill to offer online shopping. rather than totally bias my comments as a Goodwill employee, I'll suggest editors simply do a Google search for other Goodwills that have online stores not related to shopgoodwill.org.

Also, many Goodwill actively participate in sales on eBay and Amazon. Afrayer (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) www.shopgoodwill.com is known for shill bidding auctions many push for class action law suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:155:101:74F7:11E4:E987:55A7:77EC (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

84 Million pounds of Food is false

The reference that Portland Goodwill stores received 84 million pounds of foods is false. Goodwill has never accepted food donations or given out food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.155.87 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a non-profit

Oddly enough, the citation that purports to indicate that Goodwill is a non-profit says the opposite. It claims that Goodwill is a "Social Enterprise". I suspect the S.F. chapter is a "B corp," explained here: http://www.innov8social.com/2011/09/2-social-enterprise-bills-in-california.html which could probably still be considered for-profit. Non-profit is pretty vague anyway.

However, that citation is only applicable to the S.F. chapter, as far as I can tell.

I know this is a little nit-picky and is bound to be divisive. Maybe there is a more neutral way to phrase this. "A group of independent, regional charities," perhaps?

70.103.72.210 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

International Affiliations?

Is there any listing available of these? 60.242.247.177 (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodwill is evil

They are wolves in sheep's clothing who look down with contempt on those they pretend to be helping and demand people take debilitating psychiatric drugs and see psychiatrists in community clinics before they will give any "aid". 2602:306:C518:6C40:94EE:7466:FCBE:4662 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That might be true, and you might want to provide a credible source for it. Nicmart (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Differences between Goodwill organizations?

It looks to me like Goodwills are actually separate, independent organizations that don't always abide by the same policies or even agree with each other.

For example, the whole subminimum wage thing. It turns out Goodwill SWFL doesn't pay subminimum wages but still tries to defend the practice, while Goodwill NNE outright opposes the legislation that makes the practice possible and supports its repeal.

(That's only 2 out of 165 organizations, though. Heck, I don't even know where to find a list of all 165 "independent Goodwill organizations" or "member agencies" or "headquarters" or whatever you call them.)

So, uh, what can or should we do with regard to these differences, exactly? Does something like this deserve to be noted in this article (seeing how Wikipedia seems to be a first stop for information nowadays)? ukuereh (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Another notable difference between the different Goodwill organizations is in the stores themselves. For example, the Goodwill Industries of the Columbia-Willamette has been aggressively building brand new stores with a standard design throughout Oregon and Southwest Washington, while Tacoma Goodwill generally locates stores in existing buildings after remodeling, although the design can vary depending on the building's layout. There are many differences in store design between these two organizations alone, including interior colors, and Goodwill Industries of the Columbia-Willamette also does not use the well-known Goodwill logo in any of its store signage, while the Tacoma organization uses the logo along with localized signage for the town where the store is located.Cascade1988 (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Cascade1988

Goodwill in popular culture

Goodwill was mentioned in Macklemore & Ryan Lewis's song Thrift Shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.26.161 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Abraham Vereide

His own article clearly states that he was the founder of Goodwill, and yet this article not only lists another man, but Vereide's name is nowhere to be found. Is there any good reason for this? Trilobright (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps he founded the Goodwill in Seattle only. According to the article he arrived in America three years after the organization was founded in Boston. Added a cite tag in his article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Dated

This article is seriously out of date. I’ve updated some fiscal info per Forbes, but much more revision is needed. Nicmart (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Edgar J. Helms

I'm wondering, is the founder of Goodwill notable enough for his own Wikipedia page? The only page for him is a redirect to the Goodwill history section. Untitled.docx (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Confusion, Genericide or Smart? Causing chaos with the legal term (word)

This article and the organization represents a confusing and ambiguous trademark "GOODWILL" and the wordmark or trade name "GOODWILL" because they directly impede good search results and because the organization's associated intentionally dominate the term interfering with the English language and perhaps others where the trademark is translated into a term; trademarks do not gain meaning by translating them (nor is it legal); but they do confuse people and ambiguate the term into its original meaning making it too generic to serve as a trademark. Anyone can use the terms: GOODWILL, Goodwill, goodwill or good-will descriptively and legally; by adding a secondary meaning to the word, adding another word creating a new term, through the fair-use statute or without anything at all as long as the writer is talking about the defined idea and not the company. In writing the trademark of "Goodwill Industries" it must be written with the registered symbol Goodwill® or written out as Goodwill Industries. Goodwill® is Goodwill Industries representative of the organization and corporation, the short version of Goodwill Industries is not "Goodwill" there is no legal short or assumed name for Goodwill Industries, writing a check to "Goodwill" is the same as writing "Cash" or "Donation" on your check, anyone can cash it. Because of poor (non-headquartered) intellectual property management and inexperienced editors caused by independent individual organizations overreaching and misunderstanding their trademark rights the corporation is both intentionally interfering with the rights of others through poor IP management among associates and confusing the public to become their target for the sentimental activity of demonstrating goodwill by donating to them.

Goodwill Industries has 3,200 retail locations plus they have regional centers that bear their name, like Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, Inc., Goodwill Industries of Greater Detroit, etc, etc, etc... this is a good and correct way to display their name, no confusion, but other locations use names like "Goodwill of Western & Northern Connecticut" which is where the corporation is permitting ambiguous and confusing descriptive language to dominate the term. The corporate headquarters says "Goodwill organizations are locally controlled and operated ... they're really owned by the community.", but they should have said, [Goodwill Industries' organizations are...] or [Organizations using the Goodwill trademark are ...]. Some stores are based on state, region, city, county or metropolis; some locations have a web presence, some do not and not all collection centers have retail stores; all of them reverberate the word "goodwill" as if they owned it. Actually the image trademark is good, but the rules of genericide must also apply to the wordmark which will result in cancellation of it. Goodwill without the (R) is not Goodwill Industries, it must be clearly disambiguated and demoted in search engines because its use by the trademark owner is being abused and risks misappropriation of the public domain and language. Problemsmith (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)