ETL confrontation!!

[Barcode]

I've just never understood the whole diversity over talent argument. It's a very weak one if you ask me. Affirmative action is straight up racism and discrimination. The NFL is a fine example of that. They have the Rooney rule which means an NFL team is forced to interview a minority candidate before making a final decision. That is completely racist toward minorities and whites. For example, let's say that the Browns were 100 percent without a doubt that they were going to hire a coach that they liked and wanted. Guess what the coach is white. Oh no, they can't hire the guy without having a bogus interview with a minority candidate. It's a waste of time and disgrace for the minority candidate to even participate in the interview when there is no chance that the Browns will hire him since they have already made their minds up on a particular candidate. Why put that minority candidate through that crap? Why make the white candidate wait through the hiring process because some people a long time ago thought that certain people needed a helping hand because they have been prejudged without even given a say or chance. Affirmative action does not help minorities. It makes people especially white people resent them and some minorities because some minorities don't fit the affirmative action demographic. Yes, it's true. And yeah I'm an evil white guy so my opinion on this means nothing. But hey this is America. I am entitled to this opinion.

And again, I'm a poor white straight male from a protestant upbringing. I can't get any help because I've already been prejudged just like minorities are. You can call me a cry baby or that I have white privilege. Whatever. If I'm going to have white privilege, I want to at least be middle class.

Again, racism is towards an oppressed race, white people ate not oppressed.

@Barcode not documenting poor performance because you like someone better , with the other patterns given in this example with racial gaps would be considered discrimination. You ate entitled to your opinion; however, the facts tell a much different story. The courts care about facts, not subjective opinions about personality and team perception. If she's messing up in the c/o, her performance is not stellar. GSA 2 has been given more responsibility than GSA 1 on order to make her look bad. If GSA 2 is messing up in the c/o, she should be removed from having that responsibility as well. GSA 1 should have been coached, even if they removed her from the c/o. It looks like they kept GSA 2 in the c/o so they could coach her as she failed. If both GSAs are failing, both need to be coached. I have substantial HR knowledge, and this would NEVER fly in court, ever. EEOC would come in and request documents, notice the Discrepancy and would interview the team and leadership.... it would be very very bad

Who says gsa1 wasn't verbally coached? You don't need to write someone up for every little thing. We don't know how many times GSA 1 and 2 were talked to, or even possible circumstances where Cca would have been inappropriate in GSA 1s circumstance. It will be difficult to prove discrimination if it's a documented performance issue. I repeat, lack of write up does not mean GSA 1 was given a free pass, they were probably formally coached just no written Cca.

The op says GSA 2 was "aggressive", a trait that doesn't bode well as a GSA.

 

[Barcode]

@greydot There are a lot of reasons why public schools in big cities have more minority children and the well to do go to private schools. There are cultural differences vs black and whites, which statistically has proven we have different family structure. Black families are the highest % of single mother run families in the country, the men knock them up then leave, which in many cases leads to poverty and reliance on public assistance. I saw (percentage wise) far more black mothers coming through my old Target using WIC and EBT than any other group.

There are 4.8% of blacks in prison vs 1.9% Hispanics and .9% whites. Is it because of discrimination (in sure it might happen here and there) or is there a cultural problem? Why statistically do black men leave their women more than any other race?

I'm trying to back up everything I say with statistics, so please refrain from calling me racist. I've had the privilege of being friends with people of many minority groups and know statistics don't speak for EVERYONE.

 

[commiecorvus]

@greydot There are a lot of reasons why public schools in big cities have more minority children and the well to do go to private schools. There are cultural differences vs black and whites, which statistically has proven we have different family structure. Black families are the highest % of single mother run families in the country, the men knock them up then leave, which in many cases leads to poverty and reliance on public assistance. I saw (percentage wise) far more black mothers coming through my old Target using WIC and EBT than any other group.

There are 4.8% of blacks in prison vs 1.9% Hispanics and .9% whites. Is it because of discrimination (in sure it might happen here and there) or is there a cultural problem? Why statistically do black men leave their women more than any other race?

I'm trying to back up everything I say with statistics, so please refrain from calling me racist. I've had the privilege of being friends with people of many minority groups and know statistics don't speak for EVERYONE.

I think the thread is quickly getting derailed here but I can address a couple of points here.
My wife taught in an urban school for more than 15 years.
She would be quick to tell you that in the sixties the town divided up creating the districts (also known as white flight).
As to the difference in 'family structure', sure she had tons of kids whose parents work 3 jobs just to pay the bills so they can't read to their kids or help them with their homework.
The numbers that they use for single parent families are a bit skewed because they don't count cohabiting couples which from what I understand would drop the number down quite a bit.
As to public assistance, nationally the primary group on assistance are white.

The higher number of black men in prison may have something to do with the way laws are enforced.
Interesting that crack cocaine for years had guaranteed prison sentences while powder did not.
One is largely a black crime the other white.
They've proven that black men arrested for first time marijuana possession have a higher chance of doing time than a white man.

Percentages do not tell the entire story.

 

[Dreamwolf31]

Husband showed this to me a few weeks ago. It's an extremely touching video and shows that there really is still racism.

 

[commiecorvus]

Sorry, gotta repeat this one more time.

Prejudice is not racism.

 

[Guest]

Bu explain to me why I was basically SOL when it came to scholarships? Why was a minority more deserving and needing of help than me? That is the thing that annoys me. This myth that every white person has a great life and never suffers and does nor need help. That is completely racist and false. Minorities can be just as racist as white people. I laugh and smirk when people say otherwise. If a black person hates a person because they are white, that is straight up racism. Please don't make excuses. I was a white guy that wasn't good at sports so I was basically screwed when it came to scholarships. If I had been a minority of some sort, my college experience would have been a lot cheaper. Thank you.

 

[commiecorvus]

Bu explain to me why I was basically SOL when it came to scholarships? Why was a minority more deserving and needing of help than me? That is the thing that annoys me. This myth that every white person has a great life and never suffers and does nor need help. That is completely racist and false. Minorities can be just as racist as white people. I laugh and smirk when people say otherwise. If a black person hates a person because they are white, that is straight up racism. Please don't make excuses. I was a white guy that wasn't good at sports so I was basically screwed when it came to scholarships. If I had been a minority of some sort, my college experience would have been a lot cheaper. Thank you.

Once again, the thread is getting hijacked on subjects that have nothing to do with the original point but I'll take a shot at it.

As a teacher my wife worked hard to find scholarships for her better kids.
I promise they were every bit as SOL as you were if not more so.
You know what the most common scholarship is for black students?
Sports, so if you can't run, jump or throw a ball, you are screwed.

When it comes to college acceptance you know what the real Affirmative Action is for college acceptance?
It's legacy.
If your daddy went to the school you're guaranteed a spot no matter how average your grades were.
That's how privileged people keep the system going.

The fact is you have more in common with poor black people than you do with the rich.
This stuff is being used to divide us and we need to see that.

 

[redeye58]

Who says gsa1 wasn't verbally coached? You don't need to write someone up for every little thing. We don't know how many times GSA 1 and 2 were talked to, or even possible circumstances where Cca would have been inappropriate in GSA 1s circumstance. It will be difficult to prove discrimination if it's a documented performance issue. I repeat, lack of write up does not mean GSA 1 was given a free pass, they were probably formally coached just no written Cca.

The op says GSA 2 was "aggressive", a trait that doesn't bode well as a GSA.

The point of this situation is that GSA1 was pulled out of CO else she would've made enough mistakes that corrective action would've been inevitable. OP even stated that he fought AGAINST her getting a coaching.
GSA2 wasn't given that option. She was coached & told that she'd be demoted. If she'd been given the same opp as GSA1 (removal w/o coaching or demotion), she could've demonstrated that she was up for the challenge of GSA.
As to an "aggressive" trait, depending on who you talk to it can be purely subjective. It's considered a preferred trait for leadership.

 

[Barcode]

Who says gsa1 wasn't verbally coached? You don't need to write someone up for every little thing. We don't know how many times GSA 1 and 2 were talked to, or even possible circumstances where Cca would have been inappropriate in GSA 1s circumstance. It will be difficult to prove discrimination if it's a documented performance issue. I repeat, lack of write up does not mean GSA 1 was given a free pass, they were probably formally coached just no written Cca.

The op says GSA 2 was "aggressive", a trait that doesn't bode well as a GSA.

The point of this situation is that GSA1 was pulled out of CO else she would've made enough mistakes that corrective action would've been inevitable. OP even stated that he fought AGAINST her getting a coaching.
GSA2 wasn't given that option. She was coached & told that she'd be demoted. If she'd been given the same opp as GSA1 (removal w/o coaching or demotion), she could've demonstrated that she was up for the challenge of GSA.
As to an "aggressive" trait, depending on who you talk to it can be purely subjective. It's considered a preferred trait for leadership.

Someone who is aggressive usually does not relate well to others. An important trait for working leadership positions at Target.

Also he never said he didn't want GSA1 to be coached, he just said he didn't want GSA1 to have a record -- totally different things. What he meant was he didn't want GSA1 getting Corrective Action which goes on your record. Doesn't mean they weren't coached for their shortcomings. Also depending on exact circumstances Corrective Action might not even be appropriate.

I'd like to remind everyone how hypothetical all of this is, its really impossible to even THINK this is racism from the small amount of proof that we have. The whole GSA situation COULD be an example of racism, but there is just as much reason that it isn't. Who knows.

 

[daninnj]

The problem is, in order for her to prove racism she has to show what is called *disparate treatment*. In other words, if she came in with a white TM and they both did not say hello but only the black TM was coached... that goes in the "paper trail of racism" file. But it is not enough.... you have to show a pattern of disparate treatment of people who are similarly situated. So, it can't be "white TM was not written up for being late" but "black TM has written up for pushing 40 carts at a time". It has to be the same (or very similar) situations and people of one race were treated differently than the others in the same situation.

This is correct and reminds me of the EEOC case against Target a decade ago where four black applicants for ETL positions were denied interviews and/or positions. You can read the six-page document [url=news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/target/eeoctarget020802cmp.pdf‎]here[/URL]. One black woman didn't get an interview when she submitted her resume even after she called. She submitted the same resume with a white-sounding name and removed reference to a black sorority, and had a white person call and that person immediately got an interview. A black man got higher scores than his white counterparts but did not get an interview while the whites did. For more information on court cases, see here.

If I see a white guy walk in wearing a hoodie and carrying a skateboard, I'm probably going to keep a close eye on him in Elec. Same thing with a black guy.

If I see a white guy walk in wearing a suit and nice shoes, I will probably think nothing of it. Same thing for a black man.

That's not always the case with everyone, most people rather. The APA very recently published a study where black boys are seen as older and less-childlike than white boys. As per the abstract: "We find converging evidence that Black boys are seen as older and less innocent and that they prompt a less essential conception of childhood than do their White same-age peers. Further, our findings demonstrate that the Black/ape association predicted actual racial disparities in police violence toward children. These data represent the first attitude/behavior matching of its kind in a policing context. Taken together, this research
suggests that dehumanization is a uniquely dangerous intergroup attitude, that intergroup perception of
children is underexplored, and that both topics should be research priorities." The article is in full here.

I'm a white boy living in a chocolate city in a neighborhood which is quoted as close to 80% black. Virtually all my friends are black, my coworkers are pretty much all black at Target, and my boyfriend is black. If I'm walking down the street and I see a group of 15 year old black men walking towards me, might I cross the street? Probably. 15 year old white men? Probably not. Am I racist (or prejudiced?) I'm not sure. What I am sure is that it probably is a self-esteem issue on my part rather than an issue with the 15 year olds.

I work in a middle school in a middle to upper-middle class suburb. I've noticed that the black men act out and get yelled at more than the white men. Are they acting out because they are black? No. Skin color does cause certain actions. Why can they be acting out? Maybe they feel like they have to act out because they are in the minority. Maybe they get more attention from the (mostly-all white) staff just because they are black and that just feeds into their ego (what middle schooler does not just crave attention) and thus starts a cycle. Maybe they come from a bad home

My boyfriend came from the white suburbs where his parents were strict and watched their kids every move. Thus he is a very responsible person (financial issues aside) and has never really entered the culture that black men are "expected" (and this is meant to be stereotypical) to be in such as listening to rap, stealing, drugs, or plain acting out. In my city, many black children come from broken homes (My friend 's brother has six children from six different moms), go to shitty schools, eat shitty food, have shitty parents, etc and they look to friends for support. They rebel from all their brokenness, have a grim outlook in life, and start trouble. Is it their fault? I would say mostly no. Of course, this is not everyone and I know black PhD candidates, nurses, writers, etc who have come from broken homes but have been able to support themselves.

Anyway I'm rambling and tired so let me just stop before I get less coherent.

 

[babytrees]

Is the OP for real?! I can't imagine any ETL -- at least in my store -- acting, thinking, speaking the way all of the people in this scenario are purported to have acted.

No ETL would let a TM stand outside for 30 minutes, no one would ever get coached for not saying 'hello' to an ETL (maybe for insubordination if they passively aggressively refused a task), no ETL would EVER DARE call a team member a 'monkey' regardless of the circumstances. And there would certainly be no discussion among TM, TL and ETL about coaching team members unless it was need to know.

And IF any of this had happened, the integrity hotline would be lit up like a Christmas tree.

I doubt the veracity of any of this story. It just wouldn't fly in my store or my district.

ETL's have in the past and continue to make team members wait outside for upwards of 30 minutes
A TM was coached for not saying hello to a ETL....said TM was a friend of mine and I saw him less than 5 minutes after the coaching.(This happened over a year ago and integrity has been called so many times on this particular ETL that they ask if the reason for the call is ETL "ABC")
In my store coachings aren't always talked about but they do sometimes....especially the tardiness and attendance coachings.

Honestly, my store is a jacked up mess with rampant sexism, racism, favoritism and a lot of other isms. Only recently has HQ stepped in. The only thing we haven't had is a monkey incident....other than me saying a trained monkey could do my job.

 

[Guest]

A team member should not be disciplined if they don't say hello to an ETL. That would be like fining someone if they didn't say "thank you". Team members and ETLs aren't suppose to be buddies. With that being said, ETLs should be professional and shouldn't act like immature brats.
I can definitely agree that a monkey could do my job. An actual real life monkey could do my job.

I'm sorry for my rant and I can agree in some ways that poor white people are disadvantaged like some minorities when it comes to college. I think college is one of the biggest scams in America. Poor people should not have to put themselves tens of thousands if not a 100 grand or more in debt to get a piece of paper that says they are a college graduate. I worked my butt off in college and I shouldn't have had to put myself in debt for a piece of paper.

 

[willthisbeonthetest]

Is the OP for real?! I can't imagine any ETL -- at least in my store -- acting, thinking, speaking the way all of the people in this scenario are purported to have acted.

No ETL would let a TM stand outside for 30 minutes, no one would ever get coached for not saying 'hello' to an ETL (maybe for insubordination if they passively aggressively refused a task), no ETL would EVER DARE call a team member a 'monkey' regardless of the circumstances. And there would certainly be no discussion among TM, TL and ETL about coaching team members unless it was need to know.

And IF any of this had happened, the integrity hotline would be lit up like a Christmas tree.

I doubt the veracity of any of this story. It just wouldn't fly in my store or my district.

ETL's have in the past and continue to make team members wait outside for upwards of 30 minutes
A TM was coached for not saying hello to a ETL....said TM was a friend of mine and I saw him less than 5 minutes after the coaching.(This happened over a year ago and integrity has been called so many times on this particular ETL that they ask if the reason for the call is ETL "ABC")
In my store coachings aren't always talked about but they do sometimes....especially the tardiness and attendance coachings.

Honestly, my store is a jacked up mess with rampant sexism, racism, favoritism and a lot of other isms. Only recently has HQ stepped in. The only thing we haven't had is a monkey incident....other than me saying a trained monkey could do my job.

It seems like turnover their would be astronomical -- and that's a red flag that the company watches. I just can't even imagine my DTL tolerating that. I can't imagine them hiring any ETLs that were that unprofessional. There are things about certain ETLs that get my goat, so to speak, but at the end of the day they're all competent and professional. TLs couldn't even get away with that behavior in our district.

 

[willthisbeonthetest]

there, not their...oops.

 

[Barcode]

When it comes to college acceptance you know what the real Affirmative Action is for college acceptance?
It's legacy.
If your daddy went to the school you're guaranteed a spot no matter how average your grades were.
That's how privileged people keep the system going.

The fact is you have more in common with poor black people than you do with the rich.
This stuff is being used to divide us and we need to see that.

No. Black people and other minorities have way more scholarship opportunities just because of their skin color (and affirmative action).

Also unless daddy is a board member, hes more than likely going to have no influence on getting you into college. Why would admissions care that you're the son of joe schmo who graduated there 25 years ago? Lol.

The fact is affirmative action gives minorities far more opportunities than a White Male in their 20s. When affirmative action is gone, I'll agree that everyone has an equal shot.

 

[commiecorvus]

When it comes to college acceptance you know what the real Affirmative Action is for college acceptance?
It's legacy.
If your daddy went to the school you're guaranteed a spot no matter how average your grades were.
That's how privileged people keep the system going.

The fact is you have more in common with poor black people than you do with the rich.
This stuff is being used to divide us and we need to see that.

No. Black people and other minorities have way more scholarship opportunities just because of their skin color (and affirmative action).

Also unless daddy is a board member, hes more than likely going to have no influence on getting you into college. Why would admissions care that you're the son of joe schmo who graduated there 25 years ago? Lol.

The fact is affirmative action gives minorities far more opportunities than a White Male in their 20s. When affirmative action is gone, I'll agree that everyone has an equal shot.

You gotta know I don't say these things without backup.
Interesting article on legacy preference.
https://chronicle.com/article/10-Myths-About-Legacy/124561/

While some colleges and universities try to play down the impact of legacy preferences, calling them "tie breakers," research from Princeton's Thomas Espenshade suggests that their weight is significant, on the order of adding 160 SAT points to a candidate's record (on a scale of 400-1600).
Likewise, William Bowen, of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and colleagues found that, within a given SAT-score range, being a legacy increased one's chances of admission to a selective institution by 19.7 percentage points.
That is to say, a given student whose academic record gave her a 40-percent chance of admissions would have nearly a 60-percent chance if she were a legacy.

And that's just the beginning, what works for Jews also works for other minorities.

In fact, as Peter Schmidt, of The Chronicle, notes, legacies originated following World War I as a reaction to an influx of immigrant students, particularly Jews, into America's selective colleges.
As Jews often outcompeted traditional constituencies on standard meritocratic criteria, universities adopted Jewish quotas.
When explicit quotas became hard to defend, the universities began to use more-indirect means to limit Jewish enrollment, including considerations of "character," geographic diversity, and legacy status.

And here's a per reviewed paper on the distribution of scholarships between minority and white college students.
Your premise is wrong. It's a PDF so I can't do a quote but white students get three times as many merit based grants and private scholarships.
http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf

Affirmative Action is used as a boogyman that only scares people who don't understand a need for changes in a system that is broken.

 

[greeneggsandham]

Who says gsa1 wasn't verbally coached? You don't need to write someone up for every little thing. We don't know how many times GSA 1 and 2 were talked to, or even possible circumstances where Cca would have been inappropriate in GSA 1s circumstance. It will be difficult to prove discrimination if it's a documented performance issue. I repeat, lack of write up does not mean GSA 1 was given a free pass, they were probably formally coached just no written Cca.

The op says GSA 2 was "aggressive", a trait that doesn't bode well as a GSA.

The point of this situation is that GSA1 was pulled out of CO else she would've made enough mistakes that corrective action would've been inevitable. OP even stated that he fought AGAINST her getting a coaching.
GSA2 wasn't given that option. She was coached & told that she'd be demoted. If she'd been given the same opp as GSA1 (removal w/o coaching or demotion), she could've demonstrated that she was up for the challenge of GSA.
As to an "aggressive" trait, depending on who you talk to it can be purely subjective. It's considered a preferred trait for leadership.

Someone who is aggressive usually does not relate well to others. An important trait for working leadership positions at Target.

Also he never said he didn't want GSA1 to be coached, he just said he didn't want GSA1 to have a record -- totally different things. What he meant was he didn't want GSA1 getting Corrective Action which goes on your record. Doesn't mean they weren't coached for their shortcomings. Also depending on exact circumstances Corrective Action might not even be appropriate.

I'd like to remind everyone how hypothetical all of this is, its really impossible to even THINK this is racism from the small amount of proof that we have. The whole GSA situation COULD be an example of racism, but there is just as much reason that it isn't. Who knows.

If you lose GSTL keys it's a final warning. If you misplace and someone finds it, that's a counseling... GSA 1 LOST her keys, keys to the equipment cabinet.... change fund.....huge negligence and financial liability if those get into the wrong hands. It requires some recoring (not the whole store, but some).... trying to convince HR not to put her on CCA speaks volumes, especially when GSA 2 is coached for mistakes.

Verbally coaching one person and documenting another is......wrong not to mention very stupid. I imagine being asked about the discrepancy in court in front of a jury would go something like

"well... what had happened was.. we really liked GSA1's personality more than GSA2, so we didn't document her mistakes" #fail

Either way, lost keys, mistakes in c/o to the point of removing GSA1... doesn't equate to stellar performance on her part.

 

[Barcode]

Who says gsa1 wasn't verbally coached? You don't need to write someone up for every little thing. We don't know how many times GSA 1 and 2 were talked to, or even possible circumstances where Cca would have been inappropriate in GSA 1s circumstance. It will be difficult to prove discrimination if it's a documented performance issue. I repeat, lack of write up does not mean GSA 1 was given a free pass, they were probably formally coached just no written Cca.

The op says GSA 2 was "aggressive", a trait that doesn't bode well as a GSA.

The point of this situation is that GSA1 was pulled out of CO else she would've made enough mistakes that corrective action would've been inevitable. OP even stated that he fought AGAINST her getting a coaching.
GSA2 wasn't given that option. She was coached & told that she'd be demoted. If she'd been given the same opp as GSA1 (removal w/o coaching or demotion), she could've demonstrated that she was up for the challenge of GSA.
As to an "aggressive" trait, depending on who you talk to it can be purely subjective. It's considered a preferred trait for leadership.

Someone who is aggressive usually does not relate well to others. An important trait for working leadership positions at Target.

Also he never said he didn't want GSA1 to be coached, he just said he didn't want GSA1 to have a record -- totally different things. What he meant was he didn't want GSA1 getting Corrective Action which goes on your record. Doesn't mean they weren't coached for their shortcomings. Also depending on exact circumstances Corrective Action might not even be appropriate.

I'd like to remind everyone how hypothetical all of this is, its really impossible to even THINK this is racism from the small amount of proof that we have. The whole GSA situation COULD be an example of racism, but there is just as much reason that it isn't. Who knows.

If you lose GSTL keys it's a final warning. If you misplace and someone finds it, that's a counseling... GSA 1 LOST her keys, keys to the equipment cabinet.... change fund.....huge negligence and financial liability if those get into the wrong hands. It requires some recoring (not the whole store, but some).... trying to convince HR not to put her on CCA speaks volumes, especially when GSA 2 is coached for mistakes.

Verbally coaching one person and documenting another is......wrong not to mention very stupid. I imagine being asked about the discrepancy in court in front of a jury would go something like

"well... what had happened was.. we really liked GSA1's personality more than GSA2, so we didn't document her mistakes" #fail

Either way, lost keys, mistakes in c/o to the point of removing GSA1... doesn't equate to stellar performance on her part.

OP Never said it was GSTL keys though, he just said keys. Could be service desk keys or something less serious.

 

[FlowingandWaving]

At my store all sets of keys are treated the same. Lose them = final...no questions asked. Our GSA and I are buddies outside of work...she's on a final for losing SD keys. I'm on a final for losing BR keys. But, we both eventually found them sometime later

 

[Barcode]

Our Photo TM brought the keys home on accident once lol. They brought them back right away though! Not sure if the higher ups would have been mad but I kept quiet lol.

 

[stardust]

some things in this thread make me really uncomfortable. a couple points:

a.) white women are the primary beneficiary of affirmative action & white students still receive the majority of scholarship money.

b.) the hair comment was racist on its face. it might just "seem mean" on a surface level but there is more to it than that. hair is a big deal to black people and black women in particular. "kinky" is a natural hair texture that is coded as black. it is also commonly coded as "unprofessional," among other things, which is why many black women relax/straighten their hair as they are often penalized socially and professionally if they do not. "good hair" is straight hair -- having hair texture similar to a white person's, basically. so what was going on in that conversation was someone literally saying "i hope my baby doesn't have hair texture like a black person's."

and yeah, race issues aside, i do feel this was handled very poorly. if i went to one of my ETLs with concerns and was treated that dismissively it would greatly diminish the trust i put in store leadership. i am very lucky to have great ETLs at my store and the things i hear from friends at other stores and have read here makes me worry about moving out of town.

 

[commiecorvus]

Good post @stardust

Welcome to The Break Room.

 

[Guest]

Target is a proud supporter of affirmative action and the LGBT community. Just sayin'.
Well, that's what we are told in the silly training videos. Why isn't there an S in LGBT? Shouldn't it be LGBTS or something of that sort? I mean if the LGBT community is going to be tolerant and open minded, shouldn't they include straight people to the community as well? And no, I'm not trying to start anything. I am just curious about the exclusion of straight people when it comes to LGBT. I don't care who you screw. Well, I guess you have to have a little common sense and make sure every person in the bed is 18 and older and consenting and not a blood relative.

 

[commiecorvus]

Target is a proud supporter of affirmative action and the LGBT community. Just sayin'.
Well, that's what we are told in the silly training videos. Why isn't there an S in LGBT? Shouldn't it be LGBTS or something of that sort? I mean if the LGBT community is going to be tolerant and open minded, shouldn't they include straight people to the community as well? And no, I'm not trying to start anything. I am just curious about the exclusion of straight people when it comes to LGBT. I don't care who you screw. Well, I guess you have to have a little common sense and make sure every person in the bed is 18 and older and consenting and not a blood relative.

I guess we've given up on the original point of this thread entirely.
I'm sure there are people here who could do a better job of answering this question but WTH.
I know folks have taken to using the much more unwieldy LGBTQIA.
Which pretty much covers everybody, lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, queer, intersex, ally.

But really it was really never about covering everybody.
It's about the politics.
These were people who had been marginalized and even killed for generations.
Killed even now, sometimes by their parents.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/dad-killed-daughter-lesbian-lover-gay-mom-article-1.1722103

Communities around the world felt there had to be a better description than just 'gay'.
So early in the 80's they started using LGBT and used it when they fought the AIDS epidemic.
LGBT worked even in countries like France.
The allies were kind of a given.
The founder of PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Jeanne Manford marched in the first gay parades.
She was an amazing woman, really worth reading about.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/12/169223070/remembering-pflag-founder-and-mother

 

[Guest]

We need to stop separating people with all of these organizations and associations in my opinion. We recognize diversity way too much while at the same time alienating and dividing people. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging diversity but being different or diverse should not equate superiority or being unique. A simple acknowledgement is the way I would go with it. We need to unite or if not at least being able to get along and tolerate people. You don't have to agree with people's sexual preferences or preferences of any sort but you shouldn't go out of your way to be mean to them because you don't like their behavior and/or lifestyle. Just be nice and simma down now.