Archived Store closing question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
7,385
So, in the new news about the leak, it was announced, "oh, by the way, we're closing 8 stores in May." One of those stores isn't far from mine. It always says in the news that eligible employees will be allowed to transfer. So my question is, are the surrounding stores required to take in more team members/leads than it needs? Or can the stores just take what it has openings for?
 
I suspect the last part is the answer.
They will only take as many as they need and the rest are shit out of luck.'
 
Yes, it is. The one closing near me is not really a surprise, but is definitely disappointing.
 
I had one store close in one of my former districts. And from what I was informed by contacts still around there, Corp has the ultimate decision on when the store will be vacated. From there, the DTL and all district STLs/ETLs will meet and make the MASTER decisions on re-assignment and pace schedule to close the store.

- They will discuss where to re-assign the closing store ETLs. Either within the district or have Corp re-locate them to other stores with available positions. ETLs are nearly guaranteed other positions.
- TLs will decided to see if re-assignment to other district stores is possible. They might assist in re-assignment to nearby districts.

Unless there are some severe reservations about their performance or they cannot relocate them, ETLs and TLs are pretty much kept on.

- TMs are the least guaranteed for positions at other stores. If the immediate district has openings, the most qualified or desired TMs will be re-assigned. For the rest, Target gives them prior notice that the store will be closing and will be no longer employed by Target as of a date. They are given first choice within a certain period for re-hire if positions become available.

Target might assist the displaced TMs in looking for other employment.

But I think it also depends on the state labor laws. Either Target has to find employment for them, or just be able to give TMs prior notice that they are no longer employed.
 
Last edited:
Each TM would have to interview for any open position. At least that is how I have seen things done when Store A closed because store B was built to replace it.
 
It's going to depend. When the Gateway store in Portland closed all of the stores in the area received team members based on either forced reassignment or request if it was reasonable enough. The store received the team members and extra hours to cover for them for about 6 months while the remaining team members were being used to pack up everything and ship out the products to other stores. During those 6 months it was paradise because my store got about 20 team members at about 20 to 40 hours a person and our payroll was not effect unless they were picking up shifts.

By the way, it really, really sucked receiving those products from Gateway because it totally messed up our accumulator. It was to our benefit, technically, but numbers for many items were just screwed up for months until we had our inventory. Apparently all three stores that received the products had similar issues.

Caveats: All the ETLs and STL were given assignments to other stores to either fill or be first in line to permanently take place unless they were on probation. Then they just got the boot. Many team members who were on corrective actions were told that they were just going to get a severance and to, politely, gtfo. Because the store closed in a struggling neighborhood Target guaranteed it wouldn't fight unemployment insurance requests unless the team members were termed for a good reason. And good reason is a nebulous term, btw. I know that it took months for some team members to get their severance, and I remember two of them getting lawyers.
 
When they closed my old store they just had us fill out a form stating which store you wanted to transfer to, and for what position. If the store you wanted didn't have that position available, you either had to choose a different store, or a different position. People on Final Warning couldn't transfer. They upped the new stores payroll for 90 days, if I remember right. After that it was the gladiator pit for hours. Transferring to a new store is a lot like having refugee status (New store doesn't want you there, old store doesn't want to be there), so be nice to the FNG's most of them will be hard workers.
 
Ok, so far this year we have:

Leesburg, FL (Feb)
Morrow, GA (Feb)
Chandler, AZ (Feb)
Chula Vista, CA (Feb)
West Dundee, IL (May)
Las Vegas, NV (May)
North Las Vegas, NV (May)
Duluth, GA (May)
Memphis, TN (May)
Orange Park, FL (May)
Middletown, OH (May)
Trotwood, OH (May)

My guess is the ones that are closing in May were on their way out, anyway. Either way, this entire thing just makes me sick.
 
One of the signs of a company deeply worried about its future.
Instead of trying to fix stores that are struggling they shut them down.

I really feel bad for those TMs.
 
Last edited:
Well, they close a few every year. So the first four sucked, but were part of the normal process. The last eight...there's no way they woke up the other day and said, "hey, let's close some more." This has to have been on their mind for a few weeks. So maybe the breach softened sales enough to push them over the edge a bit sooner for those stores. I don't know. Blah.
 
In my district, the last store was closed, was in a mall with a new Wally World. It had crushed that store.
 
I'm no accountant, but keeping some under-performing stores seems to be the wise thing to do, as it would reduce net income and therefore tax liability.
 
^This.
In some areas many under-performing stores are kept as a "toe in the door" so to speak.
We've had a couple of Wallyworlds that closed but sat on the property for quite some time lest it fall into the hands of a competitor.
 
^This.
In some areas many under-performing stores are kept as a "toe in the door" so to speak.
We've had a couple of Wallyworlds that closed but sat on the property for quite some time lest it fall into the hands of a competitor.

Target has done the same with older properties where they held a lease rather than owned. Better to have an empty building for a few years than sublease to a potential competitor.
 
I'm no accountant, but keeping some under-performing stores seems to be the wise thing to do, as it would reduce net income and therefore tax liability.
But also has the adverse effects of lowering EPS. EPS is one of the bigger things investors look at.

(studying accounting)
 
Last edited:
I'm no accountant, but keeping some under-performing stores seems to be the wise thing to do, as it would reduce net income and therefore tax liability.
But also has the adverse effects of lowering EPS. EPS is one of the bigger things investors look at.

Stock will be something to watch for the next month. Our dividend disbursement date is Feb 14th. Market volume is nearly double its normal average. Outstanding shares fell most of last year.
 
They're desperately trying to trim the fat to improve outlook and, therefore, share price. It makes sense but I feel bad for the TMs effected. The credit breach brought about the closure of some of these stores a little faster, although it was probably going to happen soon. I still can't believe one store near my first store is still holding on, I wait for the day it shows up on the store closing list, although I hope not.
 
Some of the stores listed i know have been ULV for a while, REALLY old prototypes, and old buildings. So they didn't come as much of a surprise. However, according to our guests they asked if it was safe to shop at my store since Target closed 8 stores due to the data breach and those stores are where guests info got stolen.... /facepalm.
 
The misunderstandings of our guests over this doesn't fail to amaze me. I had one guest come through my line who was so thankful she didn't have a REDCard. I kindly pointed out that all cards were affected. She said she heard on the news that REDCards were hit harder. Umm, no. They were all hit the same, the only difference being that the REDCard (save for the Visa one) can only be used at Spot, so the chances for it being used nefariously are a bit less...maybe equal, but certainly not more. Oy.
 
The misunderstandings of our guests over this doesn't fail to amaze me. I had one guest come through my line who was so thankful she didn't have a REDCard. I kindly pointed out that all cards were affected. She said she heard on the news that REDCards were hit harder. Umm, no. They were all hit the same, the only difference being that the REDCard (save for the Visa one) can only be used at Spot, so the chances for it being used nefariously are a bit less...maybe equal, but certainly not more. Oy.

I had a guest come to guest services, asked how she could cancel her RedCard and apply for a new one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top