Archived late to orientation - rejected

[60SecondsRemaining]

We don't know if the same verbal direction was given to the rest of the group. It could have been different.

I'm almost 30, and I can tell you that whenever someone tells me to be some place "between X and Y", I automatically assume that I have a window of time in which I'm expected to show up. Always. It's been that way with every appointment I've ever had in my life. For appointments where I need to show up at a specific time, I'm always told to show up at a specific time -- never "between X and Y".

You guys seem to think it's reasonable for the two kids to not be given a second chance, yet neither of you seem to think it's strange that someone who is already employed at Target as HR can't give verbal directions that aren't easily misinterpreted to begin with.

If anything, the two should have been given a second chance and the person who called them should have been given a warning. They already work for Target, they should be held to an even higher standard.

I don't disagree. They should have been given a second chance. But I also think it's a great opportunity to teach.

 

[Starswilldiex]

The OP did state the one child has auditory processing disorder so it is a disability and it is clearly defined as "a disorder in affecting the ability to understand speech".

I think not being up front with the ETL-HR because they are afraid of not getting the job or not being treated fairly which will be illegal and unfortunately by not being up front about it - it came back to bite her in the ass. Now, if the son doesn't have a disability and was just going by what his sister was going to do- he can't and hopefully this has taught him that.

either way, good luck! disabilities suck and I never realized just how much until I started dealing with it on a daily basis. I am always up front about it, even if it will cost me friendships, relationships, or in the future a job because unfortunately it is a part of my whole life.

 

[HRLady]

You guys seem to think it's reasonable for the two kids to not be given a second chance, yet neither of you seem to think it's strange that someone who is already employed at Target as HR can't give verbal directions that aren't easily misinterpreted to begin with.

If anything, the two should have been given a second chance and the person who called them should have been given a warning. They already work for Target, they should be held to an even higher standard.

I have worked in HR for awhile already and observed that you can tell someone something multiple times (clear, basic, step-by-step, elementary-level instructions included) in hopes that the person will understand for it to just fly over their head. Others nearby get irritated on my behalf when I have to explain the same thing like ten times. They are like, "She told you ______. Go do it already." lol

With that said, I probably would have given them a second chance. If they told me that my instructions were confusing due to this specific wording and I thought, I can see where you are coming from, then I would use this as feedback to avoid future confusion. During the next call, I would tell everyone that orientation is at [start time] and to arrive 15 mins earlier." If the kids were late to the second one, then I would rescind their offer. No more excuses. I gave you guys a chance and you blew it.

With that also said, OP's store HR probably gets people giving them half-a**ed excuses all the time and are mostly over it. I know I am and so are the other breakroom HRs. It is legally up to HR's discretion to accept the kids' reason, especially if they had no prior knowledge of the disorder before turning them down. Unfortunately for the kids, their chosen store gives no second chances.

Like @60SecondsRemaining said, this is a learning opportunity. Hope things work out better for them at their next orientation.

 

[Kompa]

Ok buddy, just cause its been used since 1820, does not make it right or correct. My point went over your head. So I’ll put it in simple terms. To say that should of and should have are the same is stupid. It’s incorrect. You are trying to justify something that is false. Instead of just saying “ oh haha, I meant “should have”, you went and did a google search to justify your use of a meaningless phrase. Just admit to the mistake you made , we all make mistakes.I hope this was not only just a lesson in the correct use of “should have” but also a lesson in accepting your short comings and owning up to them.
Have a blessed day now.

Lol no one did a google search. Everyone learns this in school. Once again I didn't make a mistake because I used it on purpose due to modern usage. You might think you're smart but not smart enough to know meanings and phrases are not definite and change with usage all the time. Only shortcoming is your inflated ego by being a grammar nazi on a retail forum where everyone speaks casually

If you knew "I meant could have" as you suggested then why didn't you ignore my post or just take my answer? You obviously seen people use it this way before otherwise you wouldn't of suggested a proper way. You just wanted to take a shot at someone when you should really grammar check your own posts first lol


step off your high horse. You work at Target with the rest of us lmao

 

[Kompa]

I don't quite understand. Why would they think they need to ask for clarification if they thought that the hours given were a window and not a duration? .

Because no real job holds orientations every minute.

What if they showed at 3:59?

Common sense says get their at the earliest

This is probably they were unemployed this whole time lol

 

[CTLGR8]

Lol no one did a google search. Everyone learns this in school. Once again I didn't make a mistake because I used it on purpose due to modern usage. You might think you're smart but not smart enough to know meanings and phrases are not definite and change with usage all the time. Only shortcoming is your inflated ego by being a grammar nazi on a retail forum where everyone speaks casually

If you knew "I meant could have" as you suggested then why didn't you ignore my post or just take my answer? You obviously seen people use it this way before otherwise you wouldn't of suggested a proper way. You just wanted to take a shot at someone when you should really grammar check your own posts first lol


step off your high horse. You work at Target with the rest of us lmao

Hmm excellent point. Keep up the good work

 

[Kompa]

The first job I had did something like that. You were given a window of time in which you had to show up, and you were given paperwork and shown the workplace in the order that you came. It was done on a one-on-one type deal because it involved very little. The day you started working your first real shift is when the majority of things were explained and you watched videos on safety, workplace violence, etc.. The reason for the window was because HR wasn't involved at all, and the specific department actually had a person scheduled to handle everything for the first half of their day before going back to what they usually did. It was a manufacturing plant, so there was a fence around the place and anyone who showed up past the window wasn't allowed in.

If you've never had a job and have no real expectation of what an "orientation" is, it's highly unlikely you would have known to ask for more details. It's only because we've all already gone through orientation or have had those details explained that we know better.

I could see if it was like a 1 hour gap but 4 is way too big to think this was the case. It's half a shift

 

[signingminion]

Because no real job holds orientations every minute.

What if they showed at 3:59?

Common sense says get their at the earliest

This is probably they were unemployed this whole time lol

unless training is involved its fairly common to have a window of time hr is available to process entry level paperwork, check id, etc. Basically the crap we do while they watch videos. Many retail brands have those welcome training things on your first full shift.

 

[OverworkedHRTM]

We don't know if the same verbal direction was given to the rest of the group. It could have been different.

I'm almost 30, and I can tell you that whenever someone tells me to be some place "between X and Y", I automatically assume that I have a window of time in which I'm expected to show up. Always. It's been that way with every appointment I've ever had in my life. For appointments where I need to show up at a specific time, I'm always told to show up at a specific time -- never "between X and Y".

You guys seem to think it's reasonable for the two kids to not be given a second chance, yet neither of you seem to think it's strange that someone who is already employed at Target as HR can't give verbal directions that aren't easily misinterpreted to begin with.

If anything, the two should have been given a second chance and the person who called them should have been given a warning. They already work for Target, they should be held to an even higher standard.

First of all, it’s an orientation not an appointment. The 25 year old should’ve known that orientations last a couple hours and involves more than just signing a few papers. The 17 year old probably was his first job so might’ve cut him some slack.

Second of all, the HR’s instructions were clear assuming that everyone else in that orientation showed up on time. The OP even said that the 17 year old thought they were supposed to be there at x time and it would last until y time, but his sister convinced him they could show up whenever. Most likely she misunderstood bc of her disability not a lack of communication on the HRs part. Had the HR known of the disability she could’ve sent an email or given other accommodations. And I highly doubt that the HR highly alters the way she gives instructions to new hires. When I call people to confirm I say the same thing every time “can you make orientation on x date? Okay it’ll be at 10am plan to be here at least 4 hours. Come dressed in dress code and remember to bring the correct forms of ID from the list I gave you.” And no matter how many times I say it I still have people show up late, not show up at all, or show up without their IDs.

Lastly, most of us are sympathetic to this situation and have said if it were us we probably would’ve given them a second chance especially the 17 year old.

I understand not wanting to disclose a disability for fear of discrimination (I have a hearing disability, I get it) but if you don’t disclose it and don’t ask for any clarification or for someone to repeat themselves then who’s really to blame if you don’t understand?

 

[HRZone]

You guys seem to think it's reasonable for the two kids to not be given a second chance, yet neither of you seem to think it's strange that someone who is already employed at Target as HR can't give verbal directions that aren't easily misinterpreted to begin with.

Then ask for clarification?

 

[HRZone]

Actually I'm going to call b.s. on this whole situation. When you job offer someone (as my fellow hrtms) would know you write down an orientation start time on the actual job offer (unless it's to be announced)

 

[imared]

I've kept my mouth shut on this thread up until now.

Mom, stop fighting your kid's battles for them. I'm a parent. I understand. But your store HR seems to have made the decision (based on the information they had at the time) and you should respect it.

They've both learned a lesson here.

The 17 year old with the disability has learned now that in the future, they should indicate, after hire, that they have an auditory processing disorder, and might require certain info to be shown to them in writing. Also to ask questions and seek clarification.

The 25 year old has learned that they should seek clarification when in doubt, and to follow up if something isn't clear.

Yes, I believe in 2nd chances. However, the leadership may have implemented the zero tolerance policy for a reason. The fact that even though they're relatives of a current TM and the ETL-Hr didn't reconsider demonstrates that.

 

[sleepystrawberry]

I can understand why.... if they can't even show up to orientation on time with a logical answer/explanation then why should they be hired? Sounds like they don't care.

 

[HRLady]

They've both learned a lesson here.

The 17 year old with the disability has learned now that in the future, they should indicate, after hire, that they have an auditory processing disorder, and might require certain info to be shown to them in writing. Also to ask questions and seek clarification.

The 25 year old has learned that they should seek clarification when in doubt, and to follow up if something isn't clear.

This. @imared, nicely summarized.

 

[Kompa]

Your kids probably lied

probably told 12 to 4 and they took it wrong way

 

[commiecorvus]

My job is helping people with disabilities get into the workforce.
The timing of when you should disclose is tricky at best.
A learning disability is one that needs to be disclosed early on so that you can get instructions given to you in a manner targeted to your disability.

I agree they should have been given a second chance.
If DVR had been involved with your daughters case, my counselor would be on the phone with the HRTL in a heartbeat but we would have also made sure the disclosure was made.

 

[SoCalMama]

Actually I'm going to call b.s. on this whole situation. When you job offer someone (as my fellow hrtms) would know you write down an orientation start time on the actual job offer (unless it's to be announced)

I call BS for a completely different reason.
I still don't understand how her kids got hired at her store, and they did not discuss this at all? That does not sound right to me at all.
Yes, I know how orientation works. I went through it. When my kids got hired, they told me when they had orientation. We talked about it. Why would a parent not talk to their kid when they got hired at the place that they work? If you knew that your kid had any sort of issue, why not follow up? I follow up on my kids a lot because life doesn't always give you second chances.

 

[CTLGR8]

Like someone else said , the leadership made a decision based on the facts they had at the time. Case closed.

 

[HRZone]

When told to show up between 12 and 4pm

Hold on there

Huge difference between saying

"Orientation is between 12 and 4." And "Orientation is from 12 to 4"

And

"Show up between 12 and 4."

 

[LUR99]

I have a 12 year old daughter with the same disability, she has an IEP. She is fully aware of her disability (along with her other disability) and has figured out what she needs to do in order to succeed in school. If she is unsure, she will ask the same question a few times until it is clarified, she makes herself notes and she has to put in a lot more effort and determination to be on the same level as her peers. I understand the struggles and difficulties that come with the disability.

As a mom and Target team member I would have asked my kids about orientation. You as a target TM had an orientation at some point and knew that it wasn't a "stop by between then and then thing". When you have kids with a disability, you have to give them a little more guidance sometimes.

I feel bad for the 17 year old, not so much for the 25 year old. This will be a learning experience for them even though they will be very disappointed.

 

[OverworkedHRTM]

"Orientation" isn't universal for a 4 hour appointment that has a specific starting time. Orientations can be anything.

You're assuming HR gave the exact same instructions to each individual. We don't know what was said to the others, we only know what was said to the two kids.

I don't think the disability has anything to do with this. When told to show up between 12 and 4pm, I would think that means anytime between 12 and 4pm. Otherwise, I would expect them to tell me to show up at 12pm and expect to leave at 4pm.

.. except it was clear. "Show up between 12 and 4pm." Clearly, that means to show up between 12pm and 4pm.

That's basic English. "Between" references a span between two points. It doesn't reference a single point in which to show up.

Why would you expect the 25-year-old to ask for clarification if there was no reason for them to be in doubt because the instructions they were given were plain wrong? They had no reason to think they should ask for clarification. They never did the orientation. They had no way of knowing it was going to be a 4 hour long session because that isn't how it was explained to them by HR.

Again you’re assuming that they were told between 12-4. We don’t know what they were told. The mom only heard what her kids reported to her. She didn’t hear the conversation. And we all know kids don’t always give their parents the whole story

 

[OverworkedHRTM]

I also know how unfair HR and TLs can be. We've had numerous people passed over simply because the TLs doing the interview didn't think they looked like they'd be able to do the job, and we've had HR make wildly unfair calls because they were stressed out. All while we keep employees who practically do nothing because they're "friends" with those same TLs and HR.

I work at Target, and I'd still gladly give these kids the benefit of the doubt over Target/HR.

I work at Target as well. In HR. Just because HR sucks at your store doesn’t mean it’s like that every. I will say I think it’s crazy that Target will put whoever into the HR ETL/TL role with out proper qualifications which leases to crappy HRs. And if people show up late to orientation or don’t bring the right forms of ID I send them home. I give them the opportunity to show up to the next orientation I’m having and if they mess up that one they don’t get a 3rd chance. I’ll agree that our interview process sucks because you could miss out on a great TM because they don’t interview well. But that’s life most jobs require an interview and that’s how the decisions are made and if you know you need help with your interview skills that’s up to you to seek that help

 

[HRZone]

I also know how unfair HR and TLs can be. We've had numerous people passed over simply because the TLs doing the interview didn't think they looked like they'd be able to do the job, and we've had HR make wildly unfair calls because they were stressed out. All while we keep employees who practically do nothing because they're "friends" with those same TLs and HR.

I work at Target, and I'd still gladly give these kids the benefit of the doubt over Target/HR.

Your bad experience with a store is not the gospel with how the store should run.

For the most part my stores leadership is very fair.

I also call B.S. on your store not hiring people because they don't look like they could do the job. Anyone who has been at Target any time knows darn well that a good team member has no specific look , age or profile.

Whether you believe it or not we get a lot of applicants who smile to our face and end up being complete duds. I try to weed through as much as I can. At the end of the day this is a business not a charity case.

When we hire minors at my store we make the expectations very clear you need to grow up. We aren't going to hold your hand just because you're 17

 

[Kompa]

No one is going to waste time filing all that paperwork just to first two workers over miscommunication.

 

[HRZone]

. Do you really find it hard to believe that a TL would refuse to want someone hired because they don't look the part

Ask any TL on this website, they don't care if their team looks like the hunchback of Notre Dame if they can service a guest, push a caf, ptm an area, purge the backroom etc.

TLs know ineffective team members mean more work for them.

If you meant firing them, this place has made it pretty clear that getting rid of someone in the first 90 days is dreadfully easy.

It's a waste of hours to put someone through orientation who isn't going to last. We have tms desperate for hours that no I'm not going to put through a complete bum just to say we had numbers.