Archived Likely a dumb question, but...

[LadyCynide]

No it's not, you should learn the definition of discrimination before trying to give advice. If a team member is listed at non rehirable to a sister company that has contracts with said company, they can legally deny employment. An employee listed as non rehirable is a great reason not to interview someone. Obviously the applicant acted in an inappropriate manner to be listed as non rehirable.

Actually, it IS discrimination. Being marked not rehirable literally means nothing. It just means that you can't work for that company again, which is what happens after you leave 99% of companies, fired or not. You legally CAN NOT dismiss an applicant due to this. And actually, LEGALLY, a previous job is not allowed to say anything negative about you. If they have nothing positive to say, they must say that they either have no comment or that the employee in question was released due to a disagreement or the such.

My uncle works for the Department of Workplace Discrimination. I even asked him about this. The person doing the hiring would have to have a VALID reason for dismissing this application, and being marked not rehirable isn't one.

You don't have to have behaved inappropriately to be marked that way, and Target's hirable (or not) status is actually not privileged information to outside employers.

 

[RedorBlue]

Actually, it IS discrimination. Being marked not rehirable literally means nothing. It just means that you can't work for that company again, which is what happens after you leave 99% of companies, fired or not. You legally CAN NOT dismiss an applicant due to this. And actually, LEGALLY, a previous job is not allowed to say anything negative about you. If they have nothing positive to say, they must say that they either have no comment or that the employee in question was released due to a disagreement or the such.

My uncle works for the Department of Workplace Discrimination. I even asked him about this. The person doing the hiring would have to have a VALID reason for dismissing this application, and being marked not rehirable isn't one.

You don't have to have behaved inappropriately to be marked that way, and Target's hirable (or not) status is actually not privileged information to outside employers.

Then im Sorry but your uncle is wrong. Discriminating against an applicant means You dismissed there application due to their; race, religion, martial status, gender and age. The manager would literally have to write down that they didn't want to hire you because you are a female, or because you are Jewish. So it's hard to prove.

If I didn't like an applicant or a previous job was dumb enough to tell me that the applicant was a bad employee, I would pass on there application and my reason would be "I found a better applicant". This could easily be done. Do you have any mobile experience? I'm sure you'll go up against applicants from target electronics, best buy, stand alone mobile stores, laid of radio shack employees and even walmart electronics employees. ALL who have ample amount more experience and would be a legit reason to pass on your application.

Just an FYI. It's not discrimination on target mobile to decide to pass on you because they got the "inside scope" on you from another job. Now if you found this info out, then you could sue for damages on previous company. But again it's not discrimination.

 

[LadyCynide]

Then im Sorry but your uncle is wrong. Discriminating against an applicant means You dismissed there application due to their; race, religion, martial status, gender and age. The manager would literally have to write down that they didn't want to hire you because you are a female, or because you are Jewish. So it's hard to prove.

If I didn't like an applicant or a previous job was dumb enough to tell me that the applicant was a bad employee, I would pass on there application and my reason would be "I found a better applicant". This could easily be done. Do you have any mobile experience? I'm sure you'll go up against applicants from target electronics, best buy, stand alone mobile stores, laid of radio shack employees and even walmart electronics employees. ALL who have ample amount more experience and would be a legit reason to pass on your application.

Just an FYI. It's not discrimination on target mobile to decide to pass on you because they got the "inside scope" on you from another job. Now if you found this info out, then you could sue for damages on previous company. But again it's not discrimination.

So my uncle, who actually works for this sector of the government, is wrong, but you, who do NOT work for them, magically know better? No. Workplace discrimination encompasses much more than the basics.

And you're right, it's easy to cover up, but covering it up does not equate to it not existing. That's like saying murder isn't murder if no one finds out. It's still wrong, and ILLEGAL, even if you don't get caught.

 

[RedorBlue]

So my uncle, who actually works for this sector of the government, is wrong, but you, who do NOT work for them, magically know better? No. Workplace discrimination encompasses much more than the basics.

And you're right, it's easy to cover up, but covering it up does not equate to it not existing. That's like saying murder isn't murder if no one finds out. It's still wrong, and ILLEGAL, even if you don't get caught.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Example how many ETLs do you know of that knows the ins and outs of their job 100%? Or just anyone who is employed.

Maybe your uncle does know what he's talking about and you misinterpreted it. But what you wrote above is wrong.

My credentials: Area HR manager/legal department (Wally world), being an employment consultant for 3 years and had to partner up with multiple lawyers on how to wind through all the cracks of major corporations in order to win my client unemployment benefits, then assisted in finding them new employment.

Not saying I know everything, but this is one subject I do know a decent amount and I can spot BS a mile away.

 

[LadyCynide]

Example how many ETLs do you know of that knows the ins and outs of their job 100%? Or just anyone who is employed.

Horrible example. Comparing shitty executives to government employees is hilarious.

Maybe your uncle does know what he's talking about and you misinterpreted it. But what you wrote above is wrong.

Nope. Pretty much word for word from what he said.

being an employment consultant for 3 years and had to partner up with multiple lawyers on how to wind through all the cracks of major corporations in order to win my client unemployment benefits, then assisted in finding them new employment.

And yet you don't know how workplace discrimination truly works.

I can spot BS a mile away.

You're SPOUTING BS.

 

[RedorBlue]

Ever gone to a DMV? Shitty government employees. I can't rationalize with stupid. Again, you and I have butted heads before on posts. All I can say there is a reason why I am where I'm at and there's a reason you are in your position. Maybe get some HR/legal experience before give advice.

Stick to what you know...

 

[babysitrmk]

@GSAhole I say apply for target mobile! I don't recall hearing anything about tm not being able to apply for target mobile. We have an ex target employee who is the supervisor for target mobile at our target. He left target because he kept getting passed up for promotions. Good luck! I hate that you got fired for some bills hit ,because it was absolutely bullshit!

 

[LadyCynide]

Ever gone to a DMV? Shitty government employees. I can't rationalize with stupid. Again, you and I have butted heads before on posts. All I can say there is a reason why I am where I'm at and there's a reason you are in your position. Maybe get some HR/legal experience before give advice.

Stick to what you know...

That was literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. I'm where I am because I'm paying my own way through school so I can open a homeless shelter without having to deal with loans weighing down my options. And good job judging! I was HR and head management at the restaurant I worked at for 3 years. Except I had empathy and an understanding of humanity. So I'll stick to helping people and doing everything in my power to make sure things are equal and fair for all, and you can stick with thinking you're better and belittling others to make yourself sound better.

 

[commiecorvus]

[warning= Take It Down A Notch! ] Let's have this conversation without getting personal! [/warning]

 

[BullseyeBabe]

At my store, Target Mobile applicants have to pass a rigorous background check. It's made it difficult to find people to hire. If you are interested in working for them it can't hurt to try. Good luck!

 

[andy2014]

the problem with it is that whether it's Mobile or Target, when Target HR pulls your social and full name for a POS ID to create their profile, the name and SSN will prompt as a duplicate before it even reaches the store level and if you are listed as non-rehirable, it means you left on "bad" terms.

It is not illegal or against the rules to rule out a candidate for any reason other than protected classes (age sex race etc), factors that would possibly have an impact on whether the candidate is a good fit. Things like getting termed for NCNS.

The most recent instance this happened, the candidate cleared recruiting and told us she left Target on good terms, then when her profile was submitted to corporate HR, it popped up as non-rehirable and the HRBP emailed me to inform me of that fact and to recommend us not continue with onboarding. If she had left on good terms or at least as rehirable, it would have been a completely different story. This candidate was not even from a Target in the same district.

I'm not saying you definitely wouldn't get hired, but just that there are a couple hurdles to get over, especially if you don't disclose you are listed as non-rehirable.


Yes I'm very aware mobile is a different company but Target is our sole client in this program and Target STL and BP's can prevent certain hires for legitimate reasons and even remove them after hiring with a business partner letter of removal. You are absolutely welcome to apply, to maximize your chances at overcoming the non-rehirable status, you should mention that up front with a coherent explanation, because it will 100% come up during the onboarding when they submit your name and social.

 

[BlueSide]

So, lately I've been seeing a lot of ads in my area hiring for Target Mobile. Out of curiosity, being that Target Mobile employees aren't actually employed by Target (from what I understand), what if a person (like me) who was terminated from Target applied for Target Mobile? If you're ineligible for rehire at Target, would it apply to Target mobile too? I mean, I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but, I still want to hear what you think.

We have someone in that situation working for mobile right now. I guess it's not the same everywhere, but he's had no issues so far in like six weeks.

 

[GSAhole]

the problem with it is that whether it's Mobile or Target, when Target HR pulls your social and full name for a POS ID to create their profile, the name and SSN will prompt as a duplicate before it even reaches the store level and if you are listed as non-rehirable, it means you left on "bad" terms.

It is not illegal or against the rules to rule out a candidate for any reason other than protected classes (age sex race etc), factors that would possibly have an impact on whether the candidate is a good fit. Things like getting termed for NCNS.

The most recent instance this happened, the candidate cleared recruiting and told us she left Target on good terms, then when her profile was submitted to corporate HR, it popped up as non-rehirable and the HRBP emailed me to inform me of that fact and to recommend us not continue with onboarding. If she had left on good terms or at least as rehirable, it would have been a completely different story. This candidate was not even from a Target in the same district.

I'm not saying you definitely wouldn't get hired, but just that there are a couple hurdles to get over, especially if you don't disclose you are listed as non-rehirable.


Yes I'm very aware mobile is a different company but Target is our sole client in this program and Target STL and BP's can prevent certain hires for legitimate reasons and even remove them after hiring with a business partner letter of removal. You are absolutely welcome to apply, to maximize your chances at overcoming the non-rehirable status, you should mention that up front with a coherent explanation, because it will 100% come up during the onboarding when they submit your name and social.

Probably the best and most honest, detailed, and objective input yet. This is the type of response I was looking for. Thank you so much for your input you've been super helpful.

 

[BlueSide]

@GSAhole doooooo iiiitttt. Just do it.

 

[GSAhole]

Disturbing image of shia lebouf in my head atm. ..

 

[BigEyedPhish]

Yeah, they're basically like the vendors that do demonstrations. Another company supplies them.

Worst company every

 

[LadyCynide]

Worst company every

What do you mean? Target or the concierge company? Because I love my concierge. She always helps me whenever she can, and she's always great with the guests.

 

[BigEyedPhish]

What do you mean? Target or the concierge company? Because I love my concierge. She always helps me whenever she can, and she's always great with the guests.

Sunflower.

 

[Retail Girl]

Actually, it IS discrimination. Being marked not rehirable literally means nothing. It just means that you can't work for that company again, which is what happens after you leave 99% of companies, fired or not. You legally CAN NOT dismiss an applicant due to this. And actually, LEGALLY, a previous job is not allowed to say anything negative about you. If they have nothing positive to say, they must say that they either have no comment or that the employee in question was released due to a disagreement or the such.

My uncle works for the Department of Workplace Discrimination. I even asked him about this. The person doing the hiring would have to have a VALID reason for dismissing this application, and being marked not rehirable isn't one.

You don't have to have behaved inappropriately to be marked that way, and Target's hirable (or not) status is actually not privileged information to outside employers.

There is no law saying another job cannot say anything negative about you. We have freedom of speech in this country, and that law would never fly. But, most companies are not going to say anything negative because they are afraid of legal repercussions from the job candidate who might sue if they found out the first company said something bad about them.

 

[LadyCynide]

There is no law saying another job cannot say anything negative about you. We have freedom of speech in this country, and that law would never fly. But, most companies are not going to say anything negative because they are afraid of legal repercussions from the job candidate who might sue if they found out the first company said something bad about them.

Actually, the law is within the workplace safety laws. Safety laws cover more than just physical safety, and if a business is caught saying something legitimately negative about a candidate, they can be fined thousands of dollars. The problem is that it's hard to find out about companies that are bad-mouthing previous employees. Most people won't file a report if a previous manager tells them something negative about the candidate because it technically benefits them, despite the fact that they should not have that information.

 

[Retail Girl]

Actually, the law is within the workplace safety laws. Safety laws cover more than just physical safety, and if a business is caught saying something legitimately negative about a candidate, they can be fined thousands of dollars. The problem is that it's hard to find out about companies that are bad-mouthing previous employees. Most people won't file a report if a previous manager tells them something negative about the candidate because it technically benefits them, despite the fact that they should not have that information.

No...there is no law....as long as they aren't lying or saying the person is the biggest moron in the entire world, a business is free to tell the truth.

 

[RedorBlue]

No...there is no law....as long as they aren't lying or saying the person is the biggest moron in the entire world, a business is free to tell the truth.

From my understanding there is no "law", but a person can sue previous company for bad mouthing them to a potential employer. I don't know the exact wording, but it's like not allowing someone to gain employment. When companies use to call me for reference checks, I would make sure I don't say anything outside of what my company allows, however it's all about the tone of voice: "oh her".

 

[redeye58]

No...there is no law....as long as they aren't lying or saying the person is the biggest moron in the entire world, a business is free to tell the truth.

Which is why spot tends to document out the wazoo if they're performacing someone out.

From my understanding there is no "law", but a person can sue previous company for bad mouthing them to a potential employer. I don't know the exact wording, but it's like not allowing someone to gain employment. When companies use to call me for reference checks, I would make sure I don't say anything outside of what my company allows, however it's all about the tone of voice: "oh her".

Does that fall under libel or slander or does it compare?

 

[RedorBlue]

Which is why spot tends to document out the wazoo if they're performacing someone out.

Does that fall under libel or slander or does it compare?

It's comparable to them, however libel/slander usually is something that is false or fabricated that ruins a persons reputation. The person can sue the previous company, but first they have to prove it and it doesn't mean they will win. Say a person is fired for excessive tardys, and the employer gives that info out during a reference check. Even if the person can prove that this was said, a judge might throw it out and tell the person to get an alarm clock. Just like libel and slander, this is a hard case to win in court.

 

[Retail Girl]

From my understanding there is no "law", but a person can sue previous company for bad mouthing them to a potential employer. I don't know the exact wording, but it's like not allowing someone to gain employment. When companies use to call me for reference checks, I would make sure I don't say anything outside of what my company allows, however it's all about the tone of voice: "oh her".

Yeah...that's what I basically said in my first response to this. But if a company says, "they were the slowest carpenter on the team and had a hard time keeping up with the others," if that is factually true, they are welcome to say that. There isn't any law that would stop them. Sure, the person could try to sue, but then they would have to prove it was untrue. In the end, most former employers just simply aren't going to bother with a bad reference just to be safe, but no one is going to find a law that says they will be fined by OSHA if they give a bad reference.