Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Predicting the demise of Sears & Kmart since 2017!
ClownLoach
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 441
Joined: April 4th, 2016, 10:55 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by ClownLoach »

veteran+ wrote: October 26th, 2021, 8:34 am San Francisco has probably over reacted with this scheduling thing.

But...............................this over reaction is 100% the retailers' fault and I have no pity for them.

For decades and decades they have diminished the work life balance of their employees and in tandem helped to destroy labor unions (unions were not perfect of course).

I have worked at many levels of management and clearly remember the "directives" from above. They were intentional and anti employee. I tried hard to resist these directions, which did not help me with corporate politics, though the "results" of my resistance produced higher rates of productivity, morale and by defacto very happy customers.

Btw, my store, district or region always seemed to be the training location for career minded employees.

All of this is connected. ;)
I would like to say that these retailers deserved the schedule law, but the reality is that such a minuscule number of companies were doing the on call scheduling that it did not warrant this blanket approach. This was the equivalent of dropping a nuclear warhead on a pickup truck of insurgents on a battlefield. The practices were mainly mall clothing stores and several state Attorneys General had already started prosecuting the practice. By the time these laws were implemented nobody was doing it anymore and the employees were made whole through fines and penalties, or the company had just plain closed its doors (which if it was an abusive company is a good thing even if the employees had to go find a new job).

What the law really does is so severely strangles the retailer that they have no choice but to operate in a manner that is less productive - and then they cut even more hours and eliminate more positions.

If the receiving team is used to trucks arriving at 4am Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, but next week the Thursday truck isn't going to be there until 6am, then they should be able to change the schedule without being penalized. Heck most of the receivers will probably be happy to get a couple hours of extra sleep that morning! But under this stupid law they either have to pay out 8 hours an employee to change them from 4am to 6am, or they leave them at 4am so they come in and twiddle their thumbs for two hours until the load arrives. In more unionized environments that is exactly what will happen as they can't just ask those receivers to go recover aisles or other tasks outside of their job description. Then if the load isn't stocked by end of shift now the team is behind and the store misses sales because the goods are in the back. More loss which means more hours reductions.

I know that when this landed in Oregon my company wound up reducing customer service hours substantially because of the added expense of schedule change penalties. Ultimately all the employees were hurt by this, the stores lost sales, and the customers got a worse experience. And of course the buddy-buddy scams started where the employees collude to call out sick in hopes of collecting the penalty pay as if it is a bounty. Most retailers are still not actively managing attendance policies due to COVID because they know the massive liability if an employee who is sick "feels pressured" to come to work and infects other workers or customers. About the only way they can fire someone with HR approval is if they just plain don't show up and don't call in.

People who have no clue about how an industry operates should not be writing legislation for it. And it makes you wonder who really benefits from the law... Most of the time these are minimum wage employees. If they suddenly are picking up this penalty pay for schedule changes - then they are likely moving up a tax bracket or two - meaning that the real beneficiary is the local, state and federal government.

And yes I have always sided by my employees too which led me to form great teams, see dozens promoted up and sometimes out of my store, and led me to awards and recognition. Doing the right thing for your team means that they will go to the ends of the earth for you when you need them to. When a policy came down that was not right for the team I would calmly gather the facts and specifics, propose an alternate solution which would accomplish similar results, and partner with my DM etc. to ensure it was heard. Many times I would see "last minute changes" announced prior to implementations, and see the suggestions our team put together. Companies that listen to their teams and their customers are the ones that survive and thrive.
veteran+
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 1045
Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
Has thanked: 941 times
Been thanked: 86 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by veteran+ »

nobody was doing it anymore?

It is still being done in retail and many other industries.

The law or penalties do not stop these things. Litigation is a funny thing in the USA.

I do believe that this measure is a bit draconian and poorly written.

Where there is severe abuse the response is often as severe or worse. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to center.
storewanderer
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 8607
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Been thanked: 436 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by storewanderer »

veteran+ wrote: October 27th, 2021, 8:34 am nobody was doing it anymore?

It is still being done in retail and many other industries.

The law or penalties do not stop these things. Litigation is a funny thing in the USA.

I do believe that this measure is a bit draconian and poorly written.

Where there is severe abuse the response is often as severe or worse. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to center.
This also explains the hours of 9 to 6.

If you shorten the hours it is much easier to run a consistent schedule for the employees.

Makes you wonder if the hours of 9 to 6 are for theft prevention or due to the scheduling rules.
BillyGr
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 932
Joined: October 5th, 2010, 7:33 pm
Been thanked: 15 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by BillyGr »

ClownLoach wrote: October 26th, 2021, 3:58 pm If the receiving team is used to trucks arriving at 4am Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, but next week the Thursday truck isn't going to be there until 6am, then they should be able to change the schedule without being penalized. Heck most of the receivers will probably be happy to get a couple hours of extra sleep that morning! But under this stupid law they either have to pay out 8 hours an employee to change them from 4am to 6am, or they leave them at 4am so they come in and twiddle their thumbs for two hours until the load arrives. In more unionized environments that is exactly what will happen as they can't just ask those receivers to go recover aisles or other tasks outside of their job description. Then if the load isn't stocked by end of shift now the team is behind and the store misses sales because the goods are in the back. More loss which means more hours reductions.
Simple solution - change the hours for the two best workers (so they can stay 2 hours later and finish whatever doesn't get done due to the late truck), pay them as needed and then send the bill for that extra pay to the trucking company. If they fail to pay, sue them - if they were on time you wouldn't have had to pay that out.
Meantime, change all employee job descriptions to store employee - that way they can do anything required in the store and not waste time waiting for something to happen.
ClownLoach wrote: October 26th, 2021, 3:58 pm I know that when this landed in Oregon my company wound up reducing customer service hours substantially because of the added expense of schedule change penalties. Ultimately all the employees were hurt by this, the stores lost sales, and the customers got a worse experience. And of course the buddy-buddy scams started where the employees collude to call out sick in hopes of collecting the penalty pay as if it is a bounty. Most retailers are still not actively managing attendance policies due to COVID because they know the massive liability if an employee who is sick "feels pressured" to come to work and infects other workers or customers. About the only way they can fire someone with HR approval is if they just plain don't show up and don't call in.
Solution - if any customers complain about the experience, hand them a printed letter to their legislator(s) that set up the rules. As for the employees, if one calls in sick, thank them for not coming in when sick and go on - don't pay someone else to take the spot. After a try or two, they'll catch on that all this does is cost them pay and not help their "friend" and will stop doing it.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can put the blame on any particular situation if they get sick with this - is there really any employee who never goes anyplace besides work and home? Even then, that would have to assume they got it from a co-worker and not someone else at home who got it from their co-worker, another student in school or whatever.
babs
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 467
Joined: December 20th, 2016, 3:08 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 73 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by babs »

It's not just San Francisco that has issues: https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-co ... -10292021/
storewanderer
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 8607
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Been thanked: 436 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by storewanderer »

babs wrote: October 29th, 2021, 10:49 pm It's not just San Francisco that has issues: https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-co ... -10292021/
These incidents are going to drive retailers out of the big cities again...
Super S
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2274
Joined: April 1st, 2009, 9:27 pm
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 88 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by Super S »

storewanderer wrote: November 1st, 2021, 12:23 am
babs wrote: October 29th, 2021, 10:49 pm It's not just San Francisco that has issues: https://www.koin.com/local/multnomah-co ... -10292021/
These incidents are going to drive retailers out of the big cities again...
It's already happening in Portland. Macy's has left downtown, and Lloyd Center has emptied out and is facing foreclosure and a strong possibility of closing after the holidays. There are also a few random Walgreens locations that have closed which are scattered all over the Portland area.
Alpha8472
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 2531
Joined: February 24th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 105 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by Alpha8472 »

San Francisco has a drug abuse problem by homeless people. They live on the streets and they use drugs. They overdose and they are brought back from the brink of death by the anti-overdose nasal spray Narcan. There are teams of people going around giving out free Narcan. There were over 3,000 homeless drug overdoses that were reversed by Narcan in San Francisco last year alone. Normally, in the past these people would overdose and die. Now they overdose and go back out and buy more drugs. The streets are filled with these people who do nothing but use drugs and steal. It is a vicious cycle and San Francisco is where they go knowing that these teams of people will give them free Narcan and save them from overdoses.

In the past, these people would have disappeared and the streets would be empty. Now we have tent cities and armies of homeless who take what is not theirs.

Something needs to be done by the city. This cycle needs to stop or the city will become unlivable for everyone else. The drug abuse problem needs to be addressed and delt with.
Last edited by Alpha8472 on November 7th, 2021, 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
veteran+
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts: 1045
Joined: January 3rd, 2015, 7:53 am
Has thanked: 941 times
Been thanked: 86 times
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by veteran+ »

All of what you see are merely symptoms of deep systemic issues and the typical "bandaid on infected wounds" solutions.

Nothing will be solved until the inconvenient truths that No one wants to hear, are revealed.

The easy way of course is making the homeless the culprits and making it their fault. It is NO surprise that this is getting worse there and elsewear around the nation and world.
storewanderer
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
Posts: 8607
Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:54 pm
Been thanked: 436 times
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Target Closing 2 Small Stores in the San Francisco Bay Area

Post by storewanderer »

Are the San Francisco Targets going off of the 9 AM to 6 PM schedule for Black Friday/Holiday Shopping?

Macy's Union Square is open until 10 PM on Black Friday. Most other Macy's are open until Midnight.
Post Reply