Submitted by DaddyBobMN t3_zyyaru in vermont
Comments
TheTowerBard t1_j2994t4 wrote
Might help with litter too. Growing up in the 80s in VT, we were constantly collecting cans around town, from river banks, etc, to cash in so we could buy comics and candy at the locally owned drug store.
Ciderinsider86 t1_j28ta2b wrote
Unfortunately, this would have the effect of raising a twelve pack of seltzer, soda, or beer by the equivalent amount. Remember that the amount redeemed is prepaid at the time of purchase.
TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j28tjwn wrote
Yes, and it had the same effect when the law was implemented in 1972. Unfortunately it wasn't indexed to inflation back then, but better late than never.
Loudergood t1_j29e97g wrote
As someone who drinks a few more cans than he should I'm not seeing the downside here.
[deleted] t1_j292e4c wrote
[deleted]
AKAManaging t1_j29bpnh wrote
As someone that takes their cans to the redemption center because it's been a routine for ages now, do people generally just put their redeemables out on the street to be picked up? Do they not get the redemption this way?
BrigAdmJaySantosCAP t1_j29ki2l wrote
I used to work with someone that would just recycle and not bother redeeming it. I can see this habit change, however, if it was 35 cents vs 5 cents.
WhatTheCluck802 t1_j2a4p1m wrote
It’s not worth my time to bring our cans in for the return. We put them in a separate can beside our recycling bin for our trash hauler, who takes the returnables in for himself.
Ambitious_Ask_1569 t1_j29v4mm wrote
Casella in VT has been doing zero sort recycling for ages around burlington. Everything...one can.
GaleTheThird t1_j2e80c5 wrote
I don't have too many empties so I just throw them in the recycling
Websters_Dick t1_j2dlhtl wrote
You know, I like the index to inflation, but I think we should round it down to the nearest 10 cents. Keeps it from changing too often since a lot of these places are run manually and that would give people time to adjust. Just my 10 cents
AKAManaging t1_j29bjnz wrote
I've talked to MULTIPLE employees at this location.
They are all very vocal about the fact that their employer is very abusive, and not at all a good boss to work for. One of those "Employees are lazy, nobody wants to work" type of people.
Just as an aside. There's a reason why they struggle to keep employees.
5teerPike t1_j29w13r wrote
That's always half a sentence too
"Nobody wants to work" for someone who abuses their employees for dirt pay.
squidsquidsquid t1_j28zp6k wrote
The most arbitrary redemption center I've ever been to. The stuff that was rejected was bizarre, and the amount I got back didn't make any sense to me either.
I put stuff in the recycling bin now rather than deal with the Hartford Redemption center/ transfer station. Once was enough.
pkvh t1_j28uvdd wrote
We should just remove the redemption deposit.
Vermoters already recycle. Without the deposit they'll just put cans on the recycling.
It made sense when recycling wasn't really that big of a thing. But now days most people will recycle.
ARaoulVermonter t1_j28grj4 wrote
It doesn't make sense that the rate is the same as it was in 1972. 5 cents back then was worth much more than it is now. It should be at least a quarter.
lantonas t1_j2ca29c wrote
Raise it to $100 per can, doesn't matter to me, I buy in New Hampshire where I don't have to deal with the hassle
alwaysmilesdeep t1_j28htsq wrote
So when I buy a 12 pack of coke it adds 3 dollars on? Have you seen how much they sell a 12 pack of coke for lately.
Russian_Rocket23 t1_j28sf46 wrote
The refund is supposed to be an incentive to have people return their empties. That would certainly provide an incentive (and maybe have people drink less soda).
realize-finiteworld t1_j2ch5na wrote
Deposit/redemption is a great program for hard to recycle materials. Aluminum cans are one of the easiest materials to collect, separate, and recycle. Glass is another story. If we could collect ALL glass beverage containers and separate them by color, it would be a huge win for the redemption system.
ARaoulVermonter t1_j28iy1b wrote
You'd get it back when you return the cans. It would be like paying 5 cents a can in 1972, accounting for inflation.
Wageslavesyndrome t1_j28k4nm wrote
😂 Companies can’t have this happen. Then people would eventually realize that they’ve been getting fucked for years now with wages not going up as much as everything else has around them all these years.
DragBunt t1_j29n74h wrote
You get all that money back though when you return the cans.
AtomicWaffle420 t1_j2aizgx wrote
That's literally the point, to get people to return the empties to get their money back.
[deleted] t1_j28riqi wrote
[deleted]
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j28se36 wrote
We have mandated recycling, so cans and bottles should just go into the blue bin. Then the revenue from the valuable recycled products could be used by the solid waste districts to reduce their costs and expand recycling and composting efforts.
Putting all recycling in the blue bin would eliminate all the costs of spent time, gas and CO2 associated with returning cans to a separate location to get $3.
This will never happen though because the legislature has “claimed” all the nickels not returned and dedicated the spending of that “revenue” to other environmental needs.
So we’re stuck with an antiquated system that wastes resources and costs all Vermonters a ton of time, cash and CO2 emissions just so we can sustain the progressively failing status quo.
That sounds about right for Vermont. smh
lantonas t1_j2cazbe wrote
> Putting all recycling in the blue bin would eliminate all the costs of spent time, gas and CO2 associated with returning cans to a separate location to get $3.
And then the distributors have to drive around to all the redemption centers and collect their empty cans. God knows where they go after that.
realize-finiteworld t1_j2chqyb wrote
This is definitely true for the easy to recycle materials. However, a redemption program is ideal for collecting clear glass bottles and other materials that lose value when they are co-mingled at the curb/blue bin.
HappilyhiketheHump t1_j2exs2f wrote
No. The redemption program costs unnecessary time, money and CO2.
Put the glass in the bin and it can be sorted at the recycling facility like all the other items.
Additionally, the value of recycled glass, even clear glass is very low.
realize-finiteworld t1_j2f9oho wrote
It only gets crushed into mixed glass in VT and never gets recycled back into glass items. The only valuable glass to glass recycling programs keep colors separate
DaddyBobMN OP t1_j2a0e22 wrote
Vermonters aren't redeeming/recycling at a higher rate than places without deposits and recycling is strong here for things without deposits so the program is past its usefulness and should probably just go away.
For now I just consider every nickel a donation and my.cans and bottles go in the blue bin with everything else. Unredeemed deposits are sent to the state's Clean Water Fund. It's less than $1 per week out of my pocket.
Awagner109 t1_j28la8g wrote
I don’t return mine. I just crush them and put them in the recycle bin. The bottle redemption was created before we started recycling
edwardsamson t1_j2a3ys8 wrote
10 years ago living in Burlington with a house full of people into drinking. We would have massive bags of cans and bottles for redemption. It would net us like $9. Wasn't worth it then and that was before the economy was absolutely fucked.
Leeebs_OG t1_j2abyht wrote
Look at the lobbyists that represents coke and Pepsi for the reason redemption value haven't increased
vtinpgh t1_j2borbn wrote
THIS
[deleted] t1_j2ama12 wrote
Dying trade? The place probably pays an unlivable wage
Websters_Dick t1_j2dl8z3 wrote
Redemption prices need to go up. It's been a nickel since it's original inception, and that's just not worth it for a lot of people to even sort out their cans. I think it should go up to at least a quarter.
MarkVII88 t1_j28ndyy wrote
It's not like this kind of work is going to attract any "cream of the crop" employees. If you can stand, you're basically qualified. $15/hour seems generous. I'd hardly call it a "dying trade", surely not like valuable plumbers or electricians who actually have to go through some serious training and apprenticeship before they can be certified.
Sorry, not sorry.
raz0rsnak3 t1_j28whf6 wrote
I did this work back in the early 90's when I was 15 for $5 an hour...
What do people expect working as a "bottle boy?"
MarkVII88 t1_j28z2j1 wrote
Clearly they expect to be paid a living wage, and probably have paid vacation with cheap health insurance. After all, "bottle boy" is no longer something you hire high school kids for. It's a full-blown trade and career, don't you know. Even then, it's not like the quality of employee would dramatically increase.
EDIT: Even though the full-time position includes paid vacation and paid sick leave, after the 1st year, apparently it's too much to expect anyone to be able or willing to work that long.
AKAManaging t1_j29c0m4 wrote
The fact that you're trying to "ironically own" people for wanting a living wage is both hilariously disgusting, and wildly pathetic.
"Haha look at those losers trying to pay their heating bill."
MarkVII88 t1_j29p1j6 wrote
Per the article: The full-time position at Hartford Redemption pays $15 an hour and after one year of employment includes one week of paid vacation, paid federal holidays and paid sick time, Trombley said. Part-time employees make minimum wage, which in Vermont is $13.18 an hour.
Also per the article: But in recent months, the center has struggled to maintain a full-time employee. Trombley had to fire one employee for stealing from the cash register, he said. Another hire showed up for only two days. More recently, “a couple of weeks ago,” Trombley found a Hartford center employee “slumped over inside his car” from what appeared to be a state of intoxication.
So the issue is finding people to work who aren't thieves or no-loads, for a job that pays $15/hour. Maybe someone could make more money at a place like McDonalds, but do you think an employee who acts like what Trombley describes in the article is going to last any longer at a moderately higher paying job, where there's probably more responsibility? There are people who want to work and those who don't.
Now I wonder, why I don't feel any sympathy or empathy for people who, as you say, just want to pay their heating bill, yet they steal from work, show up hammered, or otherwise drugged-up.
AKAManaging t1_j2bg4nn wrote
I'll post to you the same thing I posted elsewhere in this topic.
>I've talked to MULTIPLE employees at this location.
>They are all very vocal about the fact that their employer is very abusive, and not at all a good boss to work for. One of those "Employees are lazy, nobody wants to work" type of people.
>Just as an aside. There's a reason why they struggle to keep employees.
If you're well known in the area for being abusive to your employees and don't pay properly, you're going to continually get lackluster employees. Pay more and you can pick whomever you want.
Websters_Dick t1_j2dlx1c wrote
Yeah, and look at that after one year. You want to work a full year without sick time or vacation time? Then you go ahead and take that job
MarkVII88 t1_j2e9lq9 wrote
You can take time if you're sick or want a vacation, just not paid. Boo fucking hoo that a bottom of the barrel job doesn't have full benefits from day 1.
Websters_Dick t1_j2ep276 wrote
I forgot, my bills stop existing when I get sick! Thanks for the reminder. It's wild that every other industrial nation can provide guaranteed vacation, sick and parental leave yet we can't here in the USA.
MarkVII88 t1_j29igel wrote
Yes, by assuming they can or should be able to live decently off working at a redemption center. Who'd have thought?
AKAManaging t1_j2bfv4d wrote
If a job can't afford to pay people a living wage, the job shouldn't exist.
MarkVII88 t1_j2bmeqf wrote
Some jobs are simply not worth $18-20/hour. In fact, tasks like this, at the redemption center, are probably perfect candidates for being automated. Take the person out almost entirely. Then you can free up these employees to pursue the real, meaningful work they were destined for.
AKAManaging t1_j2bmnio wrote
If a job can't afford to pay people a living wage, the job shouldn't exist.
MarkVII88 t1_j2ecvfq wrote
This job is not worth $18-20/hour. Maybe that sucks, but that's reality. I don't give a shit if this redemption center can't afford to pay people more. Maybe they shouldn't be open anymore. Great. That just means one or two fewer jobs out there for people who have basically no experience or qualifications or qualities
AKAManaging t1_j2ef684 wrote
If a job. Cannot afford to pay people. A living wage. The job shouldn't exist.
It sounds like we might be agreeing on that?
Bradcopter t1_j2c9dz2 wrote
Well maybe you're right! But so far, those jobs haven't been automated, so they damn well better make sure to pay people well.
TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_j28ptjo wrote
5 cents per can when the redemption act was passed in 1972 would be 36 cents today. Source. (Good god, it was 34 cents when I checked this stat nine months ago.)
Could you imagine redeeming two 12-packs worth of empties and having enough money to get yourself a small lunch? That's what it was like when the act was passed.
This kind of stuff needs to be indexed to inflation. It pains me that it never is. How hard would it be to add a clause to the bill stating that the redemption values printed on cans shall increase each year (or every 5 years, or whatever) at the rate of inflation over the same time frame, rounded down (or up) to the nearest cent.
It would be so easy. Just raise the redemption price and include an inflation-indexing clause and this would be future-proofed.