Our total backroom hours got cut by 60% for the first wave, and they've continued to drop. At first the weakest members of our team were the only ones that got hit, but now even the best of us have went from 40 all the way down to 25. I'll never be able to understand how Target is willing to let their best workers leave just to save the tiniest bit of money. Seriously, you're not willing to retain the people that do 3-4x as much work as your average worker?
the good people tend to be the longest tenured. meaning they make the most meaning they are expensive to keep around meaning they eat payroll. so according to the red and khaki monster they must go. target only cares about the numbers if they look good you are good.
it does not matter whether or not it gets done properly only that it gets done fast.
the man would rather employee two cheap no nothings than one person who costs them more payroll.
This is just wrong, IMO. Availability has to be approved so you should not be punished for it. It should be a percentage. If there is a 60% cut in hours, cut everyone 60%. That is fair.At the store level we pay no attention to payroll dollars anymore, only hours. We do not take pay into consideration (and therefore HQ has no tool to apply pressure for us to do so either). However, when hours do get cut, we are supposed to cut evenly based solely on total availability. If everyone is wanting 40 and is open availability in the example above, there were 7 getting 40 hours. Now they should be 7 getting 20. However, if somebody is pickier on the team (I can't work Saturdays), they should be cut more (say down to 16) and the others get slightly higher.
So if there's only 48 hours between 3 TMs, it would be fine to give 16 hours each to the two TMs with open availability and 16 to the TM who can only work Monday nights, Thursday mornings, and Saturday between 10am and 7pm?This is just wrong, IMO. Availability has to be approved so you should not be punished for it. It should be a percentage. If there is a 60% cut in hours, cut everyone 60%. That is fair.
This is just wrong, IMO. Availability has to be approved so you should not be punished for it. It should be a percentage. If there is a 60% cut in hours, cut everyone 60%. That is fair.
I disagree. If there is a need for a tm during their availability the hours should be distributed to all of the tms. I just don't think that a tm should be cut more than the others on their team when that availability was approved. Cuts in hours should be equitable. If a tm1 is available for 40 hours and tm2 is available for 30 and hours are being cut by 60%, then I think that tm1 should be scheduled for 16 hours and tm2 for 12 hours. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
If the purpose for having TMs is to get stuff done then you have to factor in performance. I have a second job. I'm available one night a week. I get scheduled that one night a week, it's a pretty coveted shift. It's mine for as long as I want it because I work my guts out when I'm there. When I want more shifts there mine for the taking. I guess my point is cuts are cuts and sometimes you gotta make them but try to take care of the guy that produces 30 hrs of workload in the 20 hrs he is available. Payroll sponges are abundant, schedule them around your top performers. Is my viewpoint HR friendly? Maybe not. In this case, don't care. I guess there is a certain freedom from having two jobs, you can walk away from one or the other if they piss you off.