Because from our experience, it's irrational to support this company's direction. The new process isn't working. Supporting a process that doesn't work is irrational, is it not?
Just a simple exercise here: two months ago, many stores were having trouble actually completing their workload. There just wasn't enough payroll or employees to get things done, especially with the expectations stores are held to. Trucks were being rolled, price change was piling up, sets were behind, BRLA tanked, Audits weren't being done (both system and manual), etc.. This isn't an opinion, but an objective fact that is supported through metrics via Greenfield when looking at the RGD cards - all of the metrics were tanking compared to when we had dedicated teams for those tasks.
So what was the response to this? The solution that corporate came up with? Dropping manual CAFs to fill-to-capacity: One for Ones.
In what logical, rational way is that an appropriate response to the dilemma stores were facing? Auto completion was fairly poor across the board, indicating stores were having trouble even just completing their autofills. Manual CAFs that fill-to-capacity are, by their very purpose, always going to be larger than autofills. So the "solution" to stores not completing their workload was to increase their workload.
If anyone can tell me how that's rational, I'll bow to them.