This isn't terribly fair. Spending 12.5% of profits on charity seems pretty laudable to me. The article complains about $57.3 million in bonuses, but the link

This isn't terribly fair. Spending 12.5% of profits on charity seems pretty laudable to me. The article complains about $57.3 million in bonuses, but the linked article neither gives that figure nor provides a timespan. Half a million per year — a number from a different linked article — for CEO compensation seems pretty fair for a national ogranisation. Agreed that shipping stuff to third-world nations is bad for their industries, but what's the alternative? The article also complains that Goodwill throws out garbage. The complaints about the wage paid to the disabled are misplaced, I think. I don't believe anyone can seriously write, 'Disabled people aren’t inherently less productive employees,' as does a linked Huffington Post article. It seems pretty reasonable that the choice is between low-paying jobs for the disabled or no jobs at all. Likewise, I think 'people with disabilities are not a burden' could only be written by someone who's never dealt with the mentally disabled. The complaint about unsafe work places lacks context. Any workplace is potentially dangerous (even we office workers must worry about electrocution!). The key unanswered question is how does Goodwill compare to other organisations? If they're worse, that's bad — but if they're not, then what exactly is the problem? The complaint about performance quotas could be turned around: perhaps those explicit expectations are necessary in order to provide jobs to low-IQ workers. The concern about tax subsidies applies to every charity. Note that this campaign appears in part to have originated at the Socialist Worker, which would like to see the State take responsibility for all charitable endeavours — all under the expert guidance of the well-compensated, empensioned civil service. That's merely trading one set of well-compensated managers for another.