promoted me to guest for getting too many redcards
- Thread starter amply
- Start date
- Status
sigma7
Former ETL-All the Things
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,415
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.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 184
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).
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).
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 184
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.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 79
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 20,153
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.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 184
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
Scary Socialist
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 10,547
oath2order
Scary Socialist
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 10,547
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 184
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.
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
Former Service Desk Ninja
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2014
- Messages
- 651
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.
I'm thinking the same thing now but free starbucks is what gets a lot of our apps...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 34,155
Some background on our op.
http://www.thebreakroom.org/index.php?threads/should-i-take-sbtl-even-though-its-a-trap.9274/
http://www.thebreakroom.org/index.php?threads/should-i-take-sbtl-even-though-its-a-trap.9274/
oath2order
Scary Socialist
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 10,547
I hate it when OP abandons thread
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.
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.
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).
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
Former ETL-All the Things
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,415
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.
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
Former ETL-Logistics
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2012
- Messages
- 829
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.
- Status
