Archived Canadian boondoggle gets HQ employees fired also.
- Thread starter TSs
- Start date
- Replies 15
- Views 2K
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 108
I would like the post except the severance packages leave a bad taste in my mouth. Golden parachute.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,574
Just because they worked for HQ doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid.
I just wish they had the same respect for all their employees.
Shame that the people getting chopped for bad decisions by the very top are often employees who have been with the company for years.
I just wish they had the same respect for all their employees.
Shame that the people getting chopped for bad decisions by the very top are often employees who have been with the company for years.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 828
I'm sure its a drop in the bucket compared to what the big guys get.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2015
- Messages
- 108
Hopefully with the new CEO and new CIO, both from outside the company, the HQ team members responsible are being termed and not innocents.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 58
the fuck is a boondoggle
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,574
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boondoggle
A boondoggle is a project that is considered a useless waste of both time and money, yet is often continued due to extraneous policy or political motivations.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 184
Their press release is worded in such a way as to imply all 550 employees were tied to Canada operations. If you stop and think about that, they're actively wanting us to believe that they had 550 employees solely (or at least a significant enough portion of their responsibilities) tied to just 133 stores. That is straight up bonkers, and if it is true and they're not just trying to tie the bad news to old bad news then it's very clear why Canada failed, that type of overhead is absolutely crazy.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 19,574
I suspect this was a good excuse to cut more bodies from the already top heavy central office.
That isn't even counting the people they offered jobs to and then rescinded the jobs after the people had uprooted their lives to move to Minneapolis.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,845
Not everyone who works at corporate is bad and highly paid. Willing to bet there are some who are getting laid off that make as much as a store TM and there are definitely some hard workers who are laid off too.
mrknownothing
purveyor of things
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 10,148
The difference is the short supply of workers with the specialized skills and experience for what are arguably very critical roles that impact all of the stores.
Haven't worked at Target HQ, but I have for other retailers. Generally speaking, entry level professionals in an exempt role that requires a college degree or equivalent work experience are compensated similarly to an STL.
Young experienced professionals with around five years of progressive experience, a few professional certifications and affiliations, and an MBA or other advanced masters-level degree is typically compensated similarly to an ETL.
Keep in mind that there are far fewer potential candidates that would qualified for these types of job postings, as compared to the seemingly endless stream of applicants just waiting for any opening. The cost of losing an experienced professional and having to recruit, hire, onboard, and train a replacement is around 150% of the position's salary, easily up in the low six-figures per turn. There is some cost incurred screening, interviewing, and training store applicants, but there are far more generally-qualified candidates than there are store openings.
And you also have to factor in the huge cost of attaining the credentials needed to land those roles at HQ. Not just the 4-6 year head start that those who don't go to college have in starting and advancing their careers, but also the associated income that college graduates weren't earning while in school. Oh, plus the actual cost of the checks you write for the privilege....
I'm sure a vast majority of those being laid off had no way to meaningfully impact the outcome, and are probably looking at 6-12 months out of work and only 3 months of unemployment. 60 days severance is actually a pretty stingy offer, and a lot of them and their families will have a really tough year ahead.
Of course they could what I did and get an hourly job making 1/6 the income, but that still leaves your family trying to get by without 83% of the money that pays the bills and puts food on the table. If you think that is a golden parachute, you're crazy. It's more like a single tissue under you to "soften" the blow.
Hopefully, this is s sign that management simply cannot cut any more hours from the stores because they realize they have reached the limit.
I'm going to guess that HQ hasn't yet tried to operate with a smaller workforce the same way they force stores to try to operate on a skeleton crew. And now those in HQ are to be the newest victims.
I'm going to guess that HQ hasn't yet tried to operate with a smaller workforce the same way they force stores to try to operate on a skeleton crew. And now those in HQ are to be the newest victims.
sigma7
Former ETL-All the Things
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,415
As much as I hate working with a skeleton crew in the store, I would fear even more working for a skeleton crew at HQ. We already have a ton of mistakes, errors, and oversights that contribute to process errors, redundant workload, and countless headaches. I'd hate to see what else could go wrong if HQ was as understaffed as the stores are.
- Status
