I have seen many comments similar to the one above and I have incorporated the Tucson Weekly article into my blog: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com, I know it is kind of a pain in the rear to click on to an unknown blog site, so here is some of what I have just posted there FYI and before I forget it, here is another site you might want to check out http://targetccguidelines.blogspot.com/, this HR info is what T. is using to get rid of employees they call 'blockers':
Cut backs and downsizing continue at Tarbutt
Tarbutt is making a major company wide effort to eliminate FT employees in favor of minimum wage PTers. Long serving 'career' employees are discharged for bogus reasons.
The Tucson Weekly story a few posts down the blog is about a long serving employee getting let go for absurd made up reasons, who alleged in a civil suit that this was done to get rid of her so that other lower paid workers could be used thus saving the company money.
Below is a teaser of what a new post on the Consumers Union web site has on this same topic. The direct link to it is found at:
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/target-is-s… and the original article was at: http://consumerist.com/2010/02/target-empl…
"We have quite a few team members, like me, that are trained in every possible section of the store (sales floor, cashier, backroom, food court, carts, instock). We even closed a few nights as team leads. For a year I've been getting 40-45 hours. For the last 3 weeks, I have got 18 and was told it will not go back up anytime soon, if at all. There is no excuse for this since I can work in any part of the store and should have hours somewhere. . . Also, a lot of higher paid people have been disappearing. At least two I confirmed were fired, but for the most silly and minor reasons. . . A note about the specialists situation. They did in fact get rid of all specialists and will replace them with lower paid minimum wage workers (I checked the pay grade). For example, what a single $12-15 person did will now be split between 3 people for minimum wage."
Target Makes Layoffs at Minneapolis Headquarters
Direct link at: http://kstp.com/news/stories/s1222326.shtm…
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Retailer Target Corp. has decided to cut some 85 marketing jobs, representing about 8 percent of its 1,100 employees in that department.
The move was part of Target's normal practice of evaluating all areas of the company to make sure they are effective, the company said in a statement Thursday.
The affected employees all are located at its headquarters in Minneapolis, where some 12,000 Target employees work, Target said.
Target has been cutting staff, tightening consumer credit card underwriting, and limiting inventory in the recession.
Although discount retailers have benefited from consumers switching to cheaper stores and focusing on necessities in the recession, Target has been hurting because much of its revenue comes from fashionable nonessentials like home decor and clothing.
Two weeks ago you had an article about Target and how they seemed to have a policy of firing longer serving workers to save money by hiring new workers at a much lower pay rate. It was a good article and I hope you keep up with what is going on there with that civil suit filed by the fired employee Lavonne Beckford. I saw that the story was picked up by the national Consumer Union site http://consumerist.com and a small anti-Target blogger at http://targetfiling.blogspot.com, so keep your readers informed on what is going on with this Tucson case.
I have a copy of what was probably the set of rules/regulations which were used to fire those people. Titled "Corrective Action Guidelines", it is about Coaching and Corrective Action. I put it onto a blog site and you can take a look at them or download them FYI. See: http://targetccguidelines.blogspot.com It covers unsatisfactory performance and unacceptable conduct and defines Gross Misconduct, Serious Offenses, Minor Offenses and the typical 4 steps to termination. It is from their HR Department.
I think you will find that the info in those 17 pages outlines just what you need to do if there is a supposed violation, it is sort of a step by step progression of how to escelate something to the point where you can fire someone.
I was pleased to find that thisexcellent Tucson Weekly article was picked up by the Consumers Union web site and featured on that blog. It is great to get local attention in the Tucson area, but you can't beat getting onto this blog which has over a million hits a day. Hopefully from this site it will now be picked up by other mainline media outlets and Tarbutt will get a load of unfavorable publicity.
Target HQ was onto the story the first day it was up, probably every HR TL in the Tucson market immediately emailed the story to Minneapolis HQ. Here is the link and lead in to their post: http://consumerist.com/2010/03/target-empl…
Target Employees Say They Were Shooed Away Due To High Salaries
By Phil Villarreal on March 4, 2010 10:28 AM
"Target says it's not into saving on salaries by demoting and laying off longtime workers, but the Tucson Weekly reports a bunch of fired longtime Target employees believe the company discriminated against them because of their ages, among other reasons.
From the Tucson Weekly story, in which the former employees say Target's upper management took a year to fling baseless accusations at the workers in an effort to drum up reasons to let them go."
The blog takes 'comments' so feel free to go there and let them know what you think about the way Target treats their employees. I hope the Tucson Weekly follows this case with updates in their paper. It is in the 'deposition' phase at the moment and these cases typically run on for years, then there will be the usual appeal if/when Target loses, so it will be around for awhile.
John Doe/Target Sucks
and of course a plug for my blog at:
I know from experience that it is virtually impossible to get anything but a generic form letter reply from the Target Customer non-service people. Calling their listed phone number in Minneapolis and asking to speak to someone in the Executive Office is a waste of time, they just transfer you to CS, letters to the President/CEO are NOT going to reach them, they also go to CS. Target has no interest in any input directly to the 'officers' of the company.
From various sources I have a few direct email addresses that a customer might try, do NOT expect a reply, but as far as I can determine as of today the below email addresses are open. You might note that if you can determine the first and last name of someone at Target you can easily put a . between the first and last name and just add @target.com and you have a pretty decent chance of reaching that persons mailbox.
The first two people on the below list are the Pres/CEO and his private secretary. Of course you can just highlight and paste these addresses into your outgoing email to all of them, sort of an 'executive email bomb', if they get enough incoming complaints those folks in the ivory tower in Minneapolis just 'might' do something, yeah it is a long shot but at least they will get some negative feed back.
Target HQ is well aware of the Tucson Weekly article and they will and probably already have, post favorable comments about Target and how this article is 'incorrect' etc.
You might well wonder how I would know that Target HQ is aware of this article. It was in fact Target HQ that led me to the item when they went directly from the comment section here via a direct link that one of your readers posted saying that I had a good blog and it was worth looking at, so Target HQ clicked on, went to my blog, my sitemeter recorded it and I later backtracked and read the article myself and also posted it on my own blog where a lot of people from Tucson have come to view it. Target HQ has half a dozen ISPs and they show up as follows:
IP Address 220.127.116.11 Target Corporation
Country United States
ISP Target Corporation
Obviously if they come from a floating (home) ISP it only records the city and state. But the point I'm making here is that you can expect that there will be company 'shills' who come on this site and post favorable comments about Target and slam those mentioned in the article saying variously, that they 'knew' the people, that they were troublemakers etc. So be aware of that when you read this comments section.
John Doe/Target Sucks
If you want to look at the 7 page Lavonne C. Beckford v. Target Corporation case, filed initally in Pima County Superior Court and quickly removed to U.S. District Court on 6/16/08 you can take read it at:
It complains of 'Employment Discrimination, Wrongful Discharge and Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964'. The 3 page Civil Docket for the case is also provided, the case is in the deposition phase at present.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation