Limited opportunity....

talan123

Team Member/Troll
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
652
#1
My store is getting a assessment trip from corporate bigwigs, higher than group leaders is all I've been told. Apparently they like to visit us ULV stores. at least once a decade and go through everything we do. Our DTL visits us at most once a month.

So does anybody want me ask any real questions of 'em?
 

The Mule

Jack Of All Workcenters
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
344
#4
Why, as a corporation who professes to offer a better guest experience, have you continued to reduce payroll, training and resources to the team members who are suppose to be offering said experience?
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
140
#7
If Target is so intent on having people sign up for/use the credit/debit RedCards, why oh why can;t they start coming up with better promotions/deals for those who have them?
:/
Even if it's as simple as, every month (or every other month) sending a holder of a card a coupon for an additional 10% off a single purchase IN ADDITION to their 5% RedCard discount.
 

lovecats

Free At Last!
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
1,109
#8
If Target is so intent on having people sign up for/use the credit/debit RedCards, why oh why can;t they start coming up with better promotions/deals for those who have them?
:/
Even if it's as simple as, every month (or every other month) sending a holder of a card a coupon for an additional 10% off a single purchase IN ADDITION to their 5% RedCard discount.
I like that one!:D
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
91
#9
Trust me, with stores assurance visits, they do all the asking, so you'll be put on the spot. I worked at a store that had a red red red assurance visit because the team decided to F over leaders they did not like, the result was not pretty. You should be receiving a packet of questions that they will ask, your store's stl will distribute this, the visit takes about 3-5 hours.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
30
#10
Trust me, with stores assurance visits, they do all the asking, so you'll be put on the spot. I worked at a store that had a red red red assurance visit because the team decided to F over leaders they did not like, the result was not pretty. You should be receiving a packet of questions that they will ask, your store's stl will distribute this, the visit takes about 3-5 hours.
Was this done the same way the leaders in your store F over team members by giving them tasks they can't complete?
 

FiFoMaster

The "Go-To" Guy
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
44
#12
Like NOP said, they ask the questions, not you. Here's pretty much your only chance to address issues you have a problem with. Corporate Policy will be out of the question though. You'll get stuff like "how to improve morale" and "does this help your team benefit?" type questions. Anything hourly or retarded at a corporate level will be intentionally left out by them. Kinda sucks but what can you do?

We get corporate visits all the time by Above GL status individuals. For some reason they love our store and come by to visit or to show their venturing neighbors (Canada) how this works in Target.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
36
#13
If Target is so intent on having people sign up for/use the credit/debit RedCards, why oh why can;t they start coming up with better promotions/deals for those who have them?
:/
Even if it's as simple as, every month (or every other month) sending a holder of a card a coupon for an additional 10% off a single purchase IN ADDITION to their 5% RedCard discount.
Going along with that, why do they close guest's Red Cards after a few months of non-usage without giving the guest a heads up? I can't tell you how many guests I've asked to sign up for a Red Card who have told me they had one, couldn't use it for x amount of months and it was closed on them without warning/notice/etc. They said that because of that they would never sign up for another Red Card again.
 
OP
OP
talan123

talan123

Team Member/Troll
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
652
#15
Ooh, I like that one.

I'm asking these because we never get a chance to actually talk to the people who run this company. What's the worst that they can do to me? Fire me?
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
100
#16
Our assessment went fairly well, but our instructions were to answer any questions they had and not to challenge them on anything, that we would get the opportunity to address anything later. Not challenging seems to go against the grain with me...

I was told that the assesors were the people who actually wrote the assessment so to expect to get dinged on a lot.

Our logistics processes were listed as a win for our store. YAY! Our opportunities were all in food and HR stuff.

Something I was glad I wasn't there for, my leadership binder was the one that got pulled. Glad it was up to date but I still got a long list of notes from my ETL on what they would like to see... so make sure yours is up to date if you have one!

And good luck on your visit!
 

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
15,887
#17
I'm sure this wouldn't go down well but here goes; why don't you pay your employees a living wage?
Why would anyone working for you on anywhere close to a full time basis have to file for food stamps or temporary unemployment in order to eat?
If, as your president said, you don't consider yourself in anyway like Walmart why do you use there the same techniques they do for keeping wages as low as possible and the employees from organizing?
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
98
#19
As a low volume store, inventory being sent out seems to be distributed based on the overall volume of each store and not based on actual department needs. For instance, why does 2 store (high volume) in the district consistently have 10 or more of a certain video game left over while other low volume stores are already sold out. That not only is an inconvenience to guest experience but also may lead to guest sales going to our competitors.

What will Target do to better distribute items based on department needs and not based on overall store volume?
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
34
#20
Why are they required by HQ to give out a set number of IE team lead reviews?
Team lead reviews are tied directly to the AE score for the store. So, if your store sucks, so will your review, as it should. Starting next review period only 10% of your review is based on your supervisors oppinion of you, so if they drop you much below your AE score, they'll have to explain how exactly it is that you only deserved 1 out of 10 points for leadership. Next year's reviews will be fun.
 

redeye58

Hasta Ba Rista, Baby!
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
18,004
#21
Team lead reviews are tied directly to the AE score for the store. So, if your store sucks, so will your review, as it should. Starting next review period only 10% of your review is based on your supervisors oppinion of you, so if they drop you much below your AE score, they'll have to explain how exactly it is that you only deserved 1 out of 10 points for leadership. Next year's reviews will be fun.
This yr was bad enough. Next yr should be excruciating...
 

Parker51

Senior Team Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
66
#22
I'm sure this wouldn't go down well but here goes; why don't you pay your employees a living wage?
Why would anyone working for you on anywhere close to a full time basis have to file for food stamps or temporary unemployment in order to eat?
If, as your president said, you don't consider yourself in anyway like Walmart why do you use there the same techniques they do for keeping wages as low as possible and the employees from organizing?

What to do about the working poor and how to encourage people to get off a cycle of poverty and dependency, is a key part of welfare reform. One that was only really addressed decisively in the Clinton Administration under W2 or "Workfare", though certainly presidents since at least Nixon have tried (and often villified with false accusations of attempting to "enslave" the poor). Target, IMHO, isn't the enemy here, and arguably is a key ally in this effort.

There is a "wall" or "gap" in standard of living where the lowest rungs of the employment ladder do not pay as much in cash and benefits as just simply staying on the dole and not working. Recognizing that idle hands are the devil's workshop, welfare reform pragmatically approaches this problem by requiring able-bodied recipients of assistance to work at something, somewhere, but then the government will step up with subsidies (SNAP benefits, Section 8 housing, Medicaid) to bring those workers up to a minimum standard of living. These recipients of assistance will get work experience, become reliable employees and contributing citizens, and serve as positive role models to their children to avoid repeating their mistakes, hopefully breaking the cycle of poverty.

It may be that a given worker on assistance may just not be able to contribute (at least at first) enough economic value to their employer, and to society, due to problems like poor education, poor reliability/work ethic, spotty work history, recovering from past substance abuse/addictions, criminal records, etc., to make a "living wage." If you ask many of these working poor, a lot of them will acknowledge these setbacks in their lives, many of them within their control. Looking at only one side of the problem by trying to force a "living wage" on employers may just price these workers out of the market. Subsidies may be less than ideal, but at least allows workers to be able to work at entry-level wages that encourage employers to take a chance on them. Working at Target may be a shallow step up, but could be one of many steps up in people's lives. What if that step wasn't there at all?

Some European countries have chosen to deal with this issue by simply creating and maintaining permanent unemployed subclasses of people on what amounts to a permanent dole. That's really not a good solution, either, and is arguably far worse (see "devil's workshop" comment above). I'm also reminded of a quote from the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher, who said that, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Is Target, and other employers, doing a bad thing by taking a chance with these entry-level workers, with the assistance of government subsidies oriented towards encouraging self-reliance and thus providing a helping hand up?

Executive compensation is an issue, and in some cases is arguably excessive, but is mostly a distractive side-show on the specific subject of how to best help the working poor because 1.) Much of a CEO's compensation is deferred compensation (stock options, etc.) that is tied to the performance of the company, which was actually a key shareholder reform to hold CEO's accountable, and hence may vary greatly from year to year (so saying that the CEO got an "XX% raise" over last year is misleading). and 2.) If you took the CEO's pay and distributed it equally over all employees, they might each get a $500 raise (big whoop). Yeah, $500 isn't chicken feed, but what benefits society, employees, and the economy greater: giving each person $500, or paying competitive compensation to business leaders who can run successful businesses that employ many people and provide much more than $500 of benefit per person?
 
Last edited:

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
15,887
#23
I'm sorry but it seems that if a company that employs a person full time and the government (i.e. us) having to pay for their kids health care or even augment the paycheck in order for the person to keep food on the table then something is seriously wrong.
That is not a case of a company "encouraging people to get off a cycle of poverty and dependency", it is a scam of the highest order whereby a corporation takes the one thing of value the people have to offer and demean it.
By making your work seem like garbage, something they can get anywhere, that is so unimportant they can cut you off and send you home when ever they please then they will always be in control.
With the Koch brothers, Citizens United, Targets anti-union efforts, the efforts by some states to strip all rights to negotiate, your right corporations are never going to have to really pay people what they are worth.

On the subject of executive compensation ... when the people who have unlimited money to create the world they want keep getting that money we are well and truly screwed.
 

Parker51

Senior Team Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
66
#24
I'm sorry but it seems that if a company that employs a person full time and the government (i.e. us) having to pay for their kids health care or even augment the paycheck in order for the person to keep food on the table then something is seriously wrong.

If you don't mind my asking, what specific types of government assistance do you personally rely on to supplement your paycheck in order to be able to work at Target full-time and still be able to support yourself and your family?
 

redeye58

Hasta Ba Rista, Baby!
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
18,004
#25
I personally know of 4 cashiers I work with who are full-time (32+ hrs/wk) that depend on foodstamps, medicaid &/or gov-asst childcare. 2 are single moms with 1-2 kids (no support from baby-daddy or help from state tracking him down); 1 is married w/kids & husband works; other one husband is out of work & takes care of kids. There are others on FS but aren't FT.
Only TMs who promoted have gone to other stores. No opportunities here.
 
Top