# promoted me to guest for getting too many redcards



## amply (Mar 9, 2015)

​
okay i exaggerated. my name is *****, im from store ******* and on March 6th 2015, J  let go the GSA/SBTM that was responsible for 64% of the entire stores redcard sales in 2015. 48% in 2014. Please don't attack me telling me how stupid i am for revealing this personal information. I WAS FIRED and i left NOT ON GOOD TERMS. Before J took over as the red-kool-aid sucking STL of the **** store AKA ****, the rules were very different. DO. WHATEVER. IT. TAKES. TO. GET. APPS. my best week i had 36 redcards (we are a B volume store). my worst week was 17. i carried the district. I was by far the most requested team member by our guests. I've been personally told by many of my SBUX regulars and target shoppers that the only reason they still shop here after the breach is because of myself and the team i built. Our scores were unmatched. Guest satisfaction was never below 95% except for the week i went on vacation and the other GSTL and our GSAs aloud it to plumet below 60% with guest comments comparing us to walmart.

On friday. I was fired by J and the DTL AP B, with threats that they could call police. Why? because i allowed my team to honor the 5% savings for guests who applied for a redcard but were not immediately approved. An important part of guest service is that when you promise 5% savings to a guest for applying for a credit card, but instant approval is not granted for whatever reason, you MUST DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE IT RIGHT FOR THE GUEST. IF NOT they feel scammed. They ran their credit (likely hurting their credit score) in hopes of saving, only to be told it was pointless because he or she was not instantly approved.

Under previous leadership i was aloud to give a free grande latté or frapuccino for an application. I was able to give the guest a $5-$10 discount on top of the 5% (depending on order total) for even an application.

But no. Now I am banned from T2161 for life and must pay for every discount i ever gave to our guests willing to apply for a target credit or debit card, and for every drink i gave away under jakes management.

I am appalled. Confused. Heartbroken. and so is my team. I know I am cocky. I used to think of myself as the target 2162 celebrity. But this i am not making up. Since my termination, 2 GSAs put in their 2 weeks. Our Starbucks TL straight up quit. Two plano TMs won't speak to management. My boyfriend is there only there.....can't speak on this sorry. I know this will get to him but I can't let my downfall hurt anyone else. 4 cashiers have no showed since and 1 other has put in her 2 weeks notice. Our HR TM is appalled. A particular SR TL of a department is actively looking for a new job.

Because they know if I was fired, no one is safe. They made me out like a thief. I am banned from my store that I slaved over for 2 years. I know Im not the target jesus but with constant contact with my ex-coworkers. I know this is the final straw.

AE15. Target will close its doors by 2021. Costcos coming soon. right across the street next to walmart. An ETL-Logistics who I adored whose been with the company 18 years left a few months ago for a position at a promising clothing store. Right across the street. Target will be Walmart at best.

I loved it there when it was good but now i know its the downfall of Target. And the downfall started just a few years before the breach. The breach was the biggest needle in the coffin. AE14 dug it in deeper. But AE15 will be worse. and i guarantee. By 2021 Target will be less relevant than Kmart. Willing to bet on it.


​


----------



## commiecorvus (Mar 9, 2015)

[warning=ATTENTION]
You posted this twice so I killed the other one.
I understand how frustrated and pissed off you are.
I was fired for unreasonable and stupid reasons as well.
Can you do me a favor though and take the names of the ETL out of your post?
This site has been attacked by Spot in the past and I'd really rather not have them come after us for any reason.
I want to give you a platform to vent but at the same time I want to protect the site.[/warning]


----------



## oath2order (Mar 10, 2015)

I have a handful of questions, @amply 

Are you on good terms with your old STL?
Did your old STL leave Target on good terms?
Do you have absolutely any form of verification that you were allowed to give out the Starbucks drinks/$5-$10 extra?
Are they pursuing legal action against you to force you to pay for every RedCard bonus and Starbucks drink, or have they just said "give us this money"?


----------



## Kartman (Mar 10, 2015)

Damn!


----------



## TargetOldTimer (Mar 10, 2015)

A bit too much information about your friends still working at the store...  Please edit for their sake.


----------



## BullseyeBabe (Mar 10, 2015)

I am so sorry to read this. It should be a warning to us all.


----------



## Nauzhror (Mar 10, 2015)

This thread you claim your best week ever was 36, your last thread you claimed to have gotten 42 the week prior to posting it. At best one if those two statements can be true. I also find it rather amusing that when you made the last thread and bitched about lack of recognition that I posted that if you weren't pulling numbers out of your ass that the lack of recognition was because you were doing something shady that AP was monitoring.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2015)




----------



## CanuckTM (Mar 10, 2015)

From an earlier (self-described "rant")





			
				amply said:
			
		

> For some reason I'm good at selling unnecessary 24.99% apr credit cards to soccer moms and I don't know why I keep doing it


At a guess it helped that they got 5% off, and $5-10 off, and a free drink for applying. Someone also suggested the reason you didn't get recognition was that AP was building a case - seems like that was right.

In September, you said you were strongly encouraged to take the SBTL post but felt it was a trap, I presume based on the GSA/SBTM verbage, you declined? In which case I'm not sure 





amply said:


> i allowed my team to honor the 5% savings for guests who applied for a redcard


 is accurate - more like you encouraged your co-workers to give discounts in violation of policy. If the authorisation to do that, going above & beyond the normal redcard discounts was written, you need to present it to the STL/DAP, and if not then you were always being set up to be thrown under a bus. If you're told to go against policy and it's not written, you can bet your ass someone's making a mental note.

I'm sorry you've been fired, you're obviously upset. Try looking at the upside - you felt unappreciated, you weren't in your first choice workcentre, and if you were as good as you felt, the store will suffer. You're now out of all that.


----------



## PugMuffin (Mar 10, 2015)

Maybe the reason your previous leadership is _previous leadership _is because they were encouraging these types of discounts that are against policy.


----------



## Flabbergasted (Mar 10, 2015)

Ok so I think this is ridiculous, even if it is _technically_ against policy. My store has given out the 5% even to guests who are not approved ever since I started working there (and way before that), which was nearly a year ago. We still do it to this day and no one has said anything. Our AP is aware of it and they have not said anything. I know of other stores that do this very thing. If corporate wants to enforce this, they can have the DTL coach the STL about it, who can then inform the GSTLs/GSAs to stop giving out these discounts. But if the entire store is convinced this is acceptable, as mine and many others are, you cannot just fire people for it. That's rude and I'd even say evil.


----------



## Nauzhror (Mar 10, 2015)

I would bet it was all the other additional discounts or that the STL had already said enough is enough and was ignored.


----------



## sigma7 (Mar 10, 2015)

A lot of what you were doing sounds shady. Like someone else said, if the former STL approved all these techniques then that could be part of the reason why they are the former STL. The company would not and has not endorsed any of these tactics. The only thing guests are promised is 5% off when they use a REDcard. They aren't guaranteed 5% off just for applying, plus $5-10 off and a free Starbucks drink. It sucks you got caught up in this. Hopefully you learn to cya next time and not dip into the company coffers, even if you weren't stealing anything for yourself.

And let's be honest with ourselves; You weren't promoted to guest for getting too many REDcards... You were fired for stealing from the company.

That said, something seems suspect. If this was the culture concerning REDcards under your previous STL, I can't imagine that the new leadership would come after you and only you without first addressing the unauthorized methods to get REDcards with the entire store and the front end team.


----------



## Hardlinesmaster (Mar 10, 2015)

Learn from it, too. Costco is going strong.
Also, it sounds like you work in Starbucks. There will other opps for you there.


----------



## Leonhart621 (Mar 10, 2015)

Do you want us to call the store and give them a piece of our minds? Tell them why the **** they let Target Jesus go?


----------



## buliSBI (Mar 10, 2015)

Now whose policy was it to give 5% discounts to guests no matter what...I wish you were still working at Target so I could get FREE MONEY.


----------



## Mhugh220 (Mar 10, 2015)

Advice: Follow corporate policy only, regardless of what the STL approves. This goes for all workcenters. If the STL gets sacked, they'll also look at the TMs who followed. The POS records every discount given and records TMs who give the most frequent discounts and a report is generated for AP. What you did was against policy. It's like faking metrics to make the store look green, but if you get caught then someone has to pay the piper Anything involving money or discounts is monitored. 

Our neighbor STL got fired for hiding merchandise in the electrical room because the flow team rolled two trucks in a row after having two 2500+ trucks and only 10 TMs to push each (End of month cuts). During a DTL/VP visit, they inspected every room and found tubs of freight hidden everywhere. She never came back. 

I'm sorry you got termed like this. But if management ever tells you to do something against policy - you accept to take the risk or become the whistle-blower


----------



## Ofde (Mar 10, 2015)

While I don't really believe this guys story, is it really fair to say that giving 5% off to someone who applied for the credit card is _stealing _from the company? That's absurd. 

First off, the company, via having the redcard itself, is basically saying 5% doesn't matter to us and our bottom line. And yes, I realize the redcard transaction fees are nonexistent for debit, and either none or very low for the credit card, along with free marketing research information on every card holder is worth something to them, and the alleged guest loyalty(I've always thought, a good number of people who would want a redcard are probably already loyal frequent shoppers  to target anyway, so now we give them a discount for buying what they'd be normally buying here anyway(also I think guest loyalty is a sham, people shop, in order of priority by 1) Price/Best Value(costco bundles anyone?) 2) Location(closeness to my home/drive to work)/ease of access(ie online stores) 3)How likeable the store is(clean store/nice website layout/customer service/is it "in")). 

Secondly, at my store at least, most every transaction begins with the line "Would you like to save 5% off _*today*_ and every day by signing up for the target redcard?" This implies  that by signing up today they will receive 5% off their order, whether approved or not. Have you ever shopped at another store with a normal rewards/loyalty program? Quite a few offer a 5-20% off the first order just for signing up. It's not ridiculous as the guest to expect that 5% off for attempting to sign up. Also, doesn't it seem to go against target policy to screw a guest out of 5% for having to wait to be approved? What happens if they are approved after? Don't you think they'll remember not getting the 5% off that big TV they bought? Or that vacuum cleaner? Or that $150 grocery order? They're gonna open that approval letter, and be reminded of that negative feeling. They're going to be reminded being told no, we don't actually care about you. All we care about is that stupid card and patting each other on the back for that "profitable sale" and "increased basket size" we got off of you. They'll be thinking how Target scammed them out of money. Target needs to change their phrasing then if they don't want to give 5% to everyone, even the ones who are told to wait for further review. I bet you, in a state like California, they would be fined and forced to give that 5% just for signing up(assuming no change in phrasing from what I said above).


----------



## Flabbergasted (Mar 10, 2015)

Well now I'm getting concerned for myself and my own team, because this is something we do all the time. However, it is encouraged by the GSTLs and store AP is aware of it. Would our jobs be on the line if they decided to crack down on it?


----------



## buliSBI (Mar 10, 2015)

It doesn't matter what the guest perceives if Target is scamming them or not.  Its if you, your team, or store is following company policy and procedure.  If the company thinks you are cheating the company, then you will be coached or termed.

If the guest was always right, then Target would be closed.


----------



## Mhugh220 (Mar 10, 2015)

@Flabbergasted - jobs would be on the line if an investigation was opened on your store. Target doesn't trust anyone, so they have backup for backups. AP may not care but that doesn't mean his boss(es) don't care and are monitoring your store's actions. Each group has a monitoring team that works remotely. They also monitor cameras and POS transactions. If they see something bad, don't report it, then they risk their boss finding something and so on. Typically the management staff will be the first to get let go. If you continue this practice after they are termed then you would be next on their list and anyone else that continues doing it.

This is what happened to @amply. He/She (Ryan Duffy) continued a practice under previous leadership. The new leadership followed BP and an investigation was opened. I would defend that giving the 5% off for just an application should follow VIBE expectations but this is really a grey area. Throw in $5-10 off and/or a free starbucks drink and now it looks even more suspicious. Again, 5% off isn't killing Target and if the team is doing it for everyone, I don't see a big issue.

The pressure Target puts on RedCards sales is ridiculous. They set expectations too high(although it seems now each store has individual goals rather than company wide conversion rates). If Target wants guests to have RedCards, and 5% off increases that chance, then @amply shouldn't be condemned for getting the store RedCards.


----------



## Flabbergasted (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm just going to be beyond pissed if I come into work someday and am told I'm getting fired for bad discounts, when it has been approved by all leaders in the building. Their heads better be rolling first.


----------



## Mhugh220 (Mar 10, 2015)

Investigations can be hit or miss. Usually happens during a transition from one manager to another at either the store level or district/group level. New in position folks tend to be rule followers and determined to right the ship, even when that ship is sailing fine.


----------



## dannyy315 (Mar 10, 2015)

My store also takes 5% off when they get declined for a RedCard.


----------



## Targetron (Mar 10, 2015)

Welp.  Sounds like that stores going to see an instant sales # increase


----------



## sigma7 (Mar 10, 2015)

"Would you like to save 5% on all of your purchases today and everyday by signing up for using your Target REDcard?"

Fixed that issue.


----------



## sigma7 (Mar 10, 2015)

Ofde said:


> While I don't really believe this guys story, is it really fair to say that giving 5% off to someone who applied for the credit card is _stealing _from the company?



Yes. Yes it is. Unauthorized discounts = stealing. If you gave your friends and family 5% off every time you rang them up, would that be stealing? It doesn't matter if you're stealing to benefit yourself, your friends and family, or total strangers just to make your numbers look good.


----------



## POGguy (Mar 10, 2015)

My store will vibe and give the 5% off. But the rest sounded real shady and over the top to be honest.


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 10, 2015)

You mentioned that you have to pay back all the discounts you gave.  I take it that was because you signed their civil demand?  Did you have any charges brought against you?

In either event, they can be really shady with those civil demand letters they force people into signing.  Do yourself a favor and do some research.  You might also want to look into some legal aid services in your area to get someone to look at the letter and advise you.

I only read the form letters back when I was an APL, which was a few years before I went to law school so it's hard for me to remember the legal implications of those letters.  What would likely happen if you never paid it would be that Target would attempt to sue you in civil court, possible conciliation/small claims court.  However, I'm not sure how often they actually go through that process because of the expense.  Then even if they were able to get a judgment against you, which might be difficult under these facts, they would still have to go about collecting their judgment, which is a whole other can of giant worms and pain in the butt for them.  My personal belief is those civil demand letters are more to scare people than anything.

From what you've told us though, you might have a solid argument in court that you were given implied authority to give those discounts based on your past conduct.  The fact that it went on for so long without them telling you not to do it is actually a VERY important factor in whether or not you actually had the implied authority to act in that matter.  If they really knew about it for such a long time and did nothing about it, you could possibly win on an argument that you had the implied authority to give discounts and other perks to red card applicants.

Please, do yourself a favor and try to find an attorney who might be able to help you.  From the facts you've given us, Target certainly seems to be in the wrong here and it seems as if you've fallen under the heel of an overly ambitious ETL AP (or APL if that's what your store has).


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 10, 2015)

sigma7 said:


> Yes. Yes it is. Unauthorized discounts = stealing. If you gave your friends and family 5% off every time you rang them up, would that be stealing? It doesn't matter if you're stealing to benefit yourself, your friends and family, or total strangers just to make your numbers look good.



That's the thing though, Target has opened themselves up to this kind of thing with their "Vibe" initiative.  They told us over and over and over again to do whatever we had to do to make it right for the guest.  The part they seemingly didn't take into account is the legal ramifications of this.

Now, I handled a discounting case when I was an APL and it was pretty clear that it was theft.  We're talking 2 friends who consistently were giving each other massive discounts on their items.  We're talking totals marked down from $100 to less than $10.  

That was very clear abuse of discount authority.  This?  Nah, this is a gray area, at best.  We all know how much Target has pushed Red Cards and we all know how much  "empowerment" they wanted to initiate with "Vibe".  The problem, as I stated in my previous post, is that this gives team members a wide latitude into what exactly their implied authority is.  There's just no clear direction, this is a problem Target has created themselves.

Is there more to the original poster's story?  Maybe, but the facts he's given us make it a very plausible situation in which this team member was drawn and quartered for continuing a policy which started under previous leadership and was continued in subsequent leadership.  Rather than address the situation head-on they chose to be sneaky about it and build a case against him.


----------



## kyle petty (Mar 10, 2015)

My fiancee got a shaving cream vibed to free because the cashier didn't want to check. Now i'm paranoid cause I was with her when it happened.

Whenever i price match in mobile, i do it at GS with accurate information. If i get guests snacks while they wait, I have the LOD approve it and notify sb/fa themselves so I'm not part of it.


----------



## commiecorvus (Mar 10, 2015)

PullMeBackIn said:


> You mentioned that you have to pay back all the discounts you gave.  I take it that was because you signed their civil demand?  Did you have any charges brought against you?
> 
> In either event, they can be really shady with those civil demand letters they force people into signing.  Do yourself a favor and do some research.  You might also want to look into some legal aid services in your area to get someone to look at the letter and advise you.
> 
> ...




I sure hope you refused to sign anything.
It's too late if you already have but the fact is they can't force you to sign anything.
In a situation like that your safest bet is to not sign a damned thing, end of story.
They can threaten you all they want, but just don't do it.


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 10, 2015)

commiecorvus said:


> I sure hope you refused to sign anything.
> It's too late if you already have but the fact is they can't force you to sign anything.
> In a situation like that your safest bet is to not sign a damned thing, end of story.
> They can threaten you all they want, but just don't do it.


Like I said, they're really shady about the stuff they tell you regarding those civil demand letters.  You're definitely right though, no one has to sign those letters, but nevertheless they almost always get them signed.  It's all about intimidation and guilt-tripping.


----------



## oath2order (Mar 10, 2015)

commiecorvus said:


> I sure hope you refused to sign anything.
> It's too late if you already have but the fact is they can't force you to sign anything.
> In a situation like that your safest bet is to not sign a damned thing, end of story.
> They can threaten you all they want, but just don't do it.



@amply plz respond i curious


----------



## oath2order (Mar 10, 2015)

commiecorvus said:


> I sure hope you refused to sign anything.
> It's too late if you already have but the fact is they can't force you to sign anything.
> In a situation like that your safest bet is to not sign a damned thing, end of story.
> They can threaten you all they want, but just don't do it.



@amply plz respond i curious


----------



## qmosqueen (Mar 10, 2015)

find a lawyer, TV lawyer or whatever and sue sue sue.  "No money unless we get money for you"


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 10, 2015)

qmosqueen said:


> find a lawyer, TV lawyer or whatever and sue sue sue.  "No money unless we get money for you"


That's usually personal injury because they take 1/3 of whatever you win and that's their pay day.

Where OP is at would be employment law and unless he can fall under a statute that awards attorney fees, no private attorney is going to take the case for free. With the civil demand letter there's even less likelihood of a private attorney representing for free.


----------



## RCKing (Mar 10, 2015)

i would be willing to bet that 90% of stores give out the 5% discount upon a denied application or "needs further review" application. There is a best practice to not do it, but then Vibe comes into play and "manage your business" comes into play. The amount of money that Target loses from Vibe(automatic price adjustments on challenges, returns) should be more for a concern then giving out a 5%. I would love to give a person a $5.00 discount on a $100.00 purchase over changing the price of a Keurig from $140.00 to $80.00 because the guest was "confused"


----------



## thatcashierdude (Mar 10, 2015)

buliSBI said:


> If the guest was always right, then Target would be closed.


That's what the VIBE says right? The guest is pretty much always right, so do whatever they ask. Oh wait we want to fire you? Well you were giving unauthorized discounts.


----------



## suzieQ (Mar 10, 2015)

Flabbergasted said:


> Well now I'm getting concerned for myself and my own team, because this is something we do all the time. However, it is encouraged by the GSTLs and store AP is aware of it. Would our jobs be on the line if they decided to crack down on it?


I'm thinking the same thing now but free starbucks is what gets a lot of our apps...


----------



## RedDog (Mar 10, 2015)

I agree get a lawyer.  If you can show that your leadership and it appears other leadership have created this unofficial policy you may have the making of a class action lawsuit.  And if you just want to stick it to your old store write a letter to the editor with your tale.


----------



## evilSF (Mar 11, 2015)

This thread has made me cautious jumping up for backup on the lanes. Sometimes I have a problem guest that knows better but just sucks. I'll call a gstl over, explain and they'll tell me to cave. I hate doing that. The guest still acts like a jerk and now I look like I'm giving someone favoritism. 

I could see how this went all wrong. Every one is pressured to meet the red card goal, to vibe it up and then later told they were wrong. 

5% isn't much. If a guest legitimately gets denied, they should still receive it. If the same person is doing it, then no. The system should deny someone signing up for a second time within 3 months, but give them the discount if it's the first time.


----------



## Nowolf (Mar 11, 2015)

on giving guests starbucks or free giftcards for applying;  just coming from a perspective with a good amount of front lanes exposure. your paying people to apply. that's also a slippery slope, could you be giving "gifts" to people you know who are applying, etc. repeat appliers. are cashiers applying or telling friends to apply for free money/drinks? this would have been something to question and definitely check up on with your AP ETL before doing so, even if your STL/ETL said ok. 

one thing i will say though, i know of stores who openly give the %5 discount even if a red card application fails to go through. that isn't a very rare practice and usually can be found at stores that perform strongly with red cards. the practice has always been a bit worrying due to coupon rules, yet... its something I've seen done very openly during my time with target. in most cases it seems to make sense to fully appease a guest who applies. few people would openly ding their credit report to get %5 off, you could just get the debit card as easily.


----------



## Hardlinesmaster (Mar 11, 2015)

Some background on our op.
http://www.thebreakroom.org/index.php?threads/should-i-take-sbtl-even-though-its-a-trap.9274/


----------



## oath2order (Mar 11, 2015)

I hate it when OP abandons thread


----------



## iVibe (Mar 11, 2015)

Sounds fishy, but I blame spot for making us do whatever it takes to get red cards.


----------



## dcline414 (Mar 11, 2015)

It was consistently explained to me by all levels of management at the store where I worked that the result of the application doesn't matter at all.  Win, lose, or draw, the guest gets the promised 5% off and TM gets recognition for the redcard (and any incentives or perks offered).  Once the guest says yes to the pitch, the deal is done.  The bank's decision is completely irrelevant.

I never doubted that this was the official corporate policy the entire time I worked at Target.  Quite honestly, I am shocked that reneging on the 5% discount offered would even be allowed, much less considered best practice by any sane person.

The redcard discount is a loyalty driver.  If you've sold a guest on applying, they must feel loyal to Target.  If the application is denied (or worse, approved after further review), the guest is probably embarrassed and disappointed, perhaps even worried or irritated.  And then you would be so cruel and heartless to refuse the discount that you offered to bait them into this unpleasant situation?  

Sounds like the perfect way to make sure an otherwise loyal customer has a memorable bad experience to keep them from wanting to come back.


----------



## Nauzhror (Mar 11, 2015)

Bait them? They know if they have lousy credit before applying. Most people that get rejected expected to be rejected before applying.

Not letting them get away with their attempt to scam Target is not cruel or heartless. It's smart, and discourages guests from wasting the stores payroll to get undeserved discounts and discourages stores from encouraging fraud (same people applying over and over, or people applying with false information).


----------



## sigma7 (Mar 11, 2015)

I don't understand where anyone has ever read that guests get 5% off just for applying. That's a perk of using the card, not an application for a card. Even before the "5% off every time you use your redcard" strategy and guests saved 10% off their purchase when they opened a redcard, they only saved the 10% off if they were approved.

If I pitched the redcard to a guest as "Do you want to save 5% today by signing up for a Target REDcard?", then I would of course honor what I said and give them a 5% discount regardless of whether or not they were actually approved.

But it seems that by the logic a lot of the arguments here are using, if a cashier pitches the REDcard by saying "Would you like to save 5% off today and everyday by signing up for a Target REDcard?" (which I have personally heard cashiers say at other stores), then that guest should save 5% every time they shop at Target after they sign up whether or not they use a redcard or are even approved!

The problem isn't with giving them 5% off no matter what depending on how you pitch it. The problem is pitching it in a way that obligates you to give unapproved applicants 5% off.


----------



## Mhugh220 (Mar 11, 2015)

If your state is an "at will employment" state then I don't see how this would be a valid lawsuit. Yes, you can sue for anything however they can hold the policy you broke against you. If your boss took money from the register and everyone else took money from the register, does it make it legal? 5% isn't much, and everyone did it, but taking a penny a day is also stealing and adds up. So...I wouldn't waste your money on a lawyer for a case you will lose. Hell, I bet you'd even lose the unemployment case. Our store has about a 98% success rate in unemployment cases.


----------



## Nauzhror (Mar 11, 2015)

Sounds overly pedantic, in fact reminds me of an asshole guest we had. He asked if he signed up for the card if todays purchase would be put on it. Cashier said yes. His application was denied; he then tried arguing he should get the stuff for free because she didn't clarify, "Yes, if you are approved".


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

Sorry. I wrote this on quite a bit of xanax or I wouldn't have been so dramatic. Most of what I said is true except I don't think as many people quit as I said. I know of just 3 for sure...SORRY! Thanks for all the feedback. Got offered a job at cvs, interview at Starbucks later today. Still pissed tho I loved my store and my guests.


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

commiecorvus said:


> I sure hope you refused to sign anything.
> It's too late if you already have but the fact is they can't force you to sign anything.
> In a situation like that your safest bet is to not sign a damned thing, end of story.
> They can threaten you all they want, but just don't do it.



I was totally against signing but I feel like if I didn't sign they woulda called the police and I don't think there's anything more embarrassing than getting escorted out of your job in handcuffs


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

Hardlinesmaster said:


> Some background on our op.
> http://www.thebreakroom.org/index.php?threads/should-i-take-sbtl-even-though-its-a-trap.9274/


Lol I wish I woulda taken Starbucks....would still have a job there


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 11, 2015)

Mhugh220 said:


> If your state is an "at will employment" state then I don't see how this would be a valid lawsuit. Yes, you can sue for anything however they can hold the policy you broke against you. If your boss took money from the register and everyone else took money from the register, does it make it legal? 5% isn't much, and everyone did it, but taking a penny a day is also stealing and adds up. So...I wouldn't waste your money on a lawyer for a case you will lose. Hell, I bet you'd even lose the unemployment case. Our store has about a 98% success rate in unemployment cases.



You can sue for being terminated from your job in spite of being an at will employee but it's pretty narrow.  Basically, if you're terminated because you're part of a Title VII protected class (race, gender, religion, etc.) but it has to be because you're terminated for being one of those classes.  So, if your boss walked up to you and said "you're fired because you're a man/woman/muslim/christian" then you'd have a civil rights act claim against them.  It's never that blatant though which is where the minutiae of proving up the reason you were fired was because you were a man/woman/etc. comes into play.  Now, sometimes there's state laws that add additional protected classes but the biggies are the federal protected classes and there's nothing to indicate he was fired for being part of a protected class.

I give him pretty good odds on an unemployment case.  If he can actually show up that he had the implied authority to act in the way he did and continued to act in that way under the new leadership, without them making any attempt to correct it, he has a decent shot.  He could likely call witnesses (not sure about Ohio's unemployment process though) including his old leadership that allowed him to give the discounts and show that not only was it permitted previously but potentially even encouraged.

As far as people saying he should sue, just to sue, or start a class action, that's not gonna fly.  The biggest reason why it's not gonna fly is because he'd have to prove up damages.  When you're an at will employee, you don't have damages for losing your job.  Now, if we're talking systemic civil rights violations like I talked about above, well then yeah you got yourself a class action ready to go.  Here, nah, nothing that would indicate a class action.

Now, where an attorney does come into play for OP is in protecting him against them attempting to collect on that civil demand letter he signed.  I'm not sure how much money they made him sign for but we're potentially talking hundreds to thousands of dollars.  He can, and should, seek the advice of a lawyer to see what his options are in spite of signing that civil demand letter.

As far as bringing an action to recover damages though?  Nah, nothing much really.  What it's about for OP at this point for contacting a lawyer is trying to protect himself from losing money from signing that civil demand letter.  Hell, if I was licensed in Ohio (at least I think his store is in Ohio, based on the store number he gave) and near there I'd be willing to meet with him in person and review his situation for nothing but I'm not so I can't help personally.  I'm actually a little incensed that they did this to him as the situation seems to be.  I'd love to fight them on this one but I can't because I'm nowhere near there and not licensed in Ohio.



amply said:


> I was totally against signing but I feel like if I didn't sign they woulda called the police and I don't think there's anything more embarrassing than getting escorted out of your job in handcuffs



The decision to call the police is NEVER dependent on whether you sign the civil demand letter at Target.  If they think they have enough for criminal charges against you, they will ALWAYS call the police to escort you out, regardless of whether you've signed the civil demand letter.  Any promise/threat they made you to get you to sign that civil demand letter was almost certainly a lie.

Furthermore, I'm a little surprised at the process they used to terminate you.  Back when I was an APL, unless an employee was explicitly stealing for themselves, it was considered an HR term.  Basically, it was only an AP internal termination if we were calling the police and pressing charges against someone.  It sounds like they went through the internal investigation process, including bringing in the APBP but they didn't actually go through with calling the police and pressing charges.


----------



## RhettB (Mar 11, 2015)

You may want to take your photo off as well.  Your hacked up debit card still clearly displays your name.


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

PullMeBackIn said:


> You can sue for being terminated from your job in spite of being an at will employee but it's pretty narrow.  Basically, if you're terminated because you're part of a Title VII protected class (race, gender, religion, etc.) but it has to be because you're terminated for being one of those classes.  So, if your boss walked up to you and said "you're fired because you're a man/woman/muslim/christian" then you'd have a civil rights act claim against them.  It's never that blatant though which is where the minutiae of proving up the reason you were fired was because you were a man/woman/etc. comes into play.  Now, sometimes there's state laws that add additional protected classes but the biggies are the federal protected classes and there's nothing to indicate he was fired for being part of a protected class.
> 
> I give him pretty good odds on an unemployment case.  If he can actually show up that he had the implied authority to act in the way he did and continued to act in that way under the new leadership, without them making any attempt to correct it, he has a decent shot.  He could likely call witnesses (not sure about Ohio's unemployment process though) including his old leadership that allowed him to give the discounts and show that not only was it permitted previously but potentially even encouraged.
> 
> ...




it was a very weird termination. i was in my stls office (he brought me there telling me he just wanted to talk real quick...of coarse). he dropped me off with the district ap, our new in training APTL and a neighboring stores AP. only the district ap talked...for like an hour he went on and on about the specifics of what an AP actually does... for a minute i thought he was almost trying to recruit me for an AP position but obviously that made no sense. yeah then he told me i was caught doing something they consider theft, that its in my best interest to pay the $150 back, and its in my best interest to sign the form admitting to theft. i was so afraid of going to jail i just did it lol. then i asked DTL AP if this means termination and he said he doesn't know. 10 minutes later my STL walks in and says 'you're fired. obviously. don't even try to explain yourself, i saw the tapes'.

 but i actually have a really good lawyer who works with big corporations all the time so i know im not paying them that $150 bucks thats literally just a collection of all the discounts i gave away to drive there frickin credit card.

thanks for all the advice


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

flexible fullfillment is NOT clear. uh oh, looks like i have to go in!


----------



## Nauzhror (Mar 11, 2015)

Why hide name but not order #? We can look up your identity via MyGo with the order number.


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

Nauzhror said:


> Why hide name but not order #? We can look up your identity via MyGo with the order number.


lol im not horribly concerned


----------



## oath2order (Mar 11, 2015)

amply said:


> I was totally against signing but I feel like if I didn't sign they woulda called the police and I don't think there's anything more embarrassing than getting escorted out of your job in handcuffs


please say you read everything before signing it


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

oath2order said:


> please say you read everything before signing it


yeah it said i admit to being a thief and agree to pay it back


----------



## oath2order (Mar 11, 2015)

Did it actually state how much you owed them?


----------



## Xanatos (Mar 11, 2015)

amply said:


> lol im not horribly concerned



Plus you already showed us your name, and a quick search on Facebook came up with you as the first result.


----------



## amply (Mar 11, 2015)

Xanatos said:


> Plus you already showed us your name, and a quick search on Facebook came up with you as the first result.



i dont care



oath2order said:


> Did it actually state how much you owed them?



yes $150


----------



## BckRmBeast (Mar 11, 2015)

Over $150?  They couldn't remove the thief part?  


amply said:


> yeah it said i admit to being a thief and agree to pay it back


----------



## oath2order (Mar 11, 2015)

$150? That's it? I mean, I thought it'd be a lot more.

Seems pretty shady


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 11, 2015)

Nauzhror said:


> Why hide name but not order #? We can look up your identity via MyGo with the order number.


Im sure they can track order #'s you look up too  Honestly anyone who looks up this person by order # and then finds him is kind of stalkerish. And thats using Customer information for personal gain which is against Target rules. Inatant Term may apply if found. Be careful when trying to do something like this.


----------



## thedudeabides (Mar 11, 2015)

When I worked for target, My store did the same thing, we were very discount happy! I was a gsa and we pretty consistently gave the 5% on a declined app. No discount beyond that though. We also took back all merchandise even if we had to cheat the system. The only thing that people consistently got fired for was keeping the promotional gift cards.


----------



## PullMeBackIn (Mar 11, 2015)

oath2order said:


> $150? That's it? I mean, I thought it'd be a lot more.
> 
> Seems pretty shady


Nah, the amount isn't important.  You can be termed for a lot less theft.  One of my Starbucks consumption cases (had to end up being an HR term, like I talked about before) had only taken about $20-30 of Starbucks food/drinks and she got termed as well.

What I do find surprising is that if these discounts were going on for a long time, I expected it to be a much higher amount.


----------



## commiecorvus (Mar 11, 2015)

PullMeBackIn said:


> Nah, the amount isn't important.  You can be termed for a lot less theft.  One of my Starbucks consumption cases (had to end up being an HR term, like I talked about before) had only taken about $20-30 of Starbucks food/drinks and she got termed as well.
> 
> What I do find surprising is that if these discounts were going on for a long time, I expected it to be a much higher amount.




I'm pretty sure the amount was random.
It was a shady way to set up a case and keep from having to pay unemployment.
They knew he was just  continuing the policies of the previous STL so the only way to term him was to make it look like he was a thief.


----------



## awbuckit (Mar 11, 2015)

Tonight at work, it was whoever gets a redcard the TM gets a $10 giftcard. 
Target does what they want. They allow what they want. 
Every store has their own "rules". 
I'd get me a lawyer and fight this.


----------



## POGguy (Mar 12, 2015)

The $150 amount seems like a guess. I still think the gift cards and drinks is what did it. I never would have did that. With the number of red cards you say you got, there had to be a lot of declines also.


----------



## pellinore (Mar 12, 2015)

I work at the same store as "amply" does.
Just want to say that there is a lot more to this story.


----------



## oath2order (Mar 12, 2015)

pellinore said:


> I work at the same store as "amply" does.
> Just want to say that there is a lot more to this story.



plz elaborate


----------



## POGguy (Mar 12, 2015)

I think it's best they don't....


----------



## pellinore (Mar 12, 2015)

Just go with the thought that there is much more to this story than is being presented by amply.

There are many TMs who have been speaking to our HR and our STL. Many things have been shared that has painted a none too flattering picture of amply. I'm doubting that amply will believe what we would tell.
There is an overabundance of specific issues that have been able to be documented by other TMs.
The information gathered between TMs and guest surveys is enough to have amply released from Target. Also, STL,ETL-HR, and others have enough information to remove amply from the store......and there is enough evidence of fraud.

By the way, this has been an ongoing issue for months.....they've got enough to remove amply forever.


----------



## BullseyeBabe (Mar 12, 2015)

I still think this should serve as a warning to us. At my store there is a completely set of rules depending on who is there, what time of day it is or what mood they are in. It is next to impossible to get a straight answer about anything from anyone. It can _seem _like there is an anything goes attitude. If they turn against you though, the things you and maybe everyone else has been doing can suddenly get you in big trouble.


----------



## SFSFun (Mar 12, 2015)

pellinore said:


> Just go with the thought that there is much more to this story than is being presented by amply.
> 
> There are many TMs who have been speaking to our HR and our STL. Many things have been shared that has painted a none too flattering picture of amply. I'm doubting that amply will believe what we would tell.
> There is an overabundance of specific issues that have been able to be documented by other TMs.
> ...


The plot thickens...


----------



## commiecorvus (Mar 12, 2015)

It seems like it might be best to leave this where it's at.
I'm going to lock it up now.


----------

