Archived Target Found Guilty Of Violating Worker Rights

[NPC]

They weren't. OP mentioned a settlement, which means he's misleading everyone by saying Target was found guilty of anything related to his store.

That's what I thought.

@commiecorvus I notice you un-liked this guy's bullshit. Thank fucking god. But I'm triggered you liked it in the fucking first place.

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

"Settled"

Status = Open. Last activity was an amended charge letter in Dec 2017.

Status = Open. Last activity was an answer to the complaint in Jan 2018

Status = Open. Last activity was filing the charge in Dec 2017.

If it hasnt been settled how do you think we have access to the legally required posted notice going up in our store? We can show you the legally-binding document all parties have signed to ok the settlement if you want...

 

[NPC]

If it hasnt been settled how do you think we have access to the legally required posted notice going up in our store? We can show the document all parties have signed to ok the settlement if you want...

Post your proof.

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

Sigh. I’m just gonna say this.

I was one several people who you censored on facebook. Not once did I threaten you. I dont make threats in general/ever, and even if I did I wouldn’t be dumb enough to do it on the internet. I know who emailed you. Their email was not to say that they couldn’t back it up. It was to apologize of how they came across to you.

We do not live in fear. We know you only came to our store to do this, you’ve been here less than a year. I just need to make it known that you do not speak for us, nor are supported by us.

Thats fine, there is never 100 percent consensus on anything, its to be expected that people disagree. But I and others would be glad to sit down and listen to you and understand your perspective, maybe you can come to understand ours? We even reached out to other coworkers who disagree to have their voices heard through the newsletter. One coworker wrote a rebuttal to our "Solidarity" article and we asked if it could be reposted in the next newsletter, they vehemently said "no". Another coworker claimed they wanted to do a coworker feature for the next newsletter to talk about how awesome Target is, we said "sure" and tried to work with them and let them use the newsletter to express their voice as well, they haven't responded back to us. What are we to do when we act in good faith and show we want to highlight worker views, even if they disagree with ours, only to refuse to work together? We want worker democracy, we want the air cleared, we want common understanding. So please reach out to me or other Target coworkers who are in favor of the workers committee so we can resolve these issues.

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

It’s simple. We don’t want to be associated with your “newsletter.” It’ll be twisted to your point of view.

Im sorry you feel that, we will publish anything any coworker wants expressed unedited even if they disagree with us. Part of democracy is disagreement and finding common cause.

 

[phibot]

I understood the need for unions in factories and mines and shit...but retail, and especially at a retailer that bends over backward to not offend anyone..really?

This is the epitome of first world problems. Idk what position you hold in the store, but chances are your "labor" isn't worth the overinflated $12 spot is already giving you. All we ultimately do is move boxes around. So backbreaking.

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

I understood the need for unions in factories and mines and shit...but retail, and especially at a retailer that bends over backward to not offend anyone..really?

This is the epitome of first world problems. Idk what position you hold in the store, but chances are your "labor" isn't worth the overinflated $12 spot is already giving you. All we ultimately do is move boxes around. So backbreaking.

We have coworkers who have been working for Target for a decade, who lost full time status, who lost their health insurance, despite having severe medical conditions, and who struggle to afford food, rent, and other bills. How is that not a legitimate issue? If we are a team and a family and we are suppose to look out for fellow team members why would we not advocate on their behalf so they can live a decent life while busting their butts for Target? All you have to do is look around to see that the costs of living have increased over the last several decades and wages havent stayed consistent with those increases, not even with inflation.

 

[NPC]

We have coworkers who have been working for Target for a decade, who lost full time status, who lost their health insurance, despite having severe medical conditions, and who struggle to afford food, rent, and other bills. How is that not a legitimate issue? If we are a team and a family and we are suppose to look out for fellow team members why would we not advocate on their behalf so they can live a decent life while busting their butts for Target? All you have to do is look around to see that the costs of living have increased over the last several decades and wages havent stayed consistent with those increases, not even with inflation.

How does your union prevent this then? How does introducing another middle man help?

 

[phibot]

We have coworkers who have been working for Target for a decade, who lost full time status, who lost their health insurance, despite having severe medical conditions, and who struggle to afford food, rent, and other bills. How is that not a legitimate issue? If we are a team and a family and we are suppose to look out for fellow team members why would we not advocate on their behalf so they can live a decent life while busting their butts for Target? All you have to do is look around to see that the costs of living have increased over the last several decades and wages havent stayed consistent with those increases, not even with inflation.

What is forcing them to work at Target?

 

[tlintraining]

Thing is we are not isolated to our store, we have team members across the country working with us at this point, so they can go ahead and try to close us down but the corp isnt going to be able to shut down every store that has Target team members working with us across the country...

“Us” being a key word. Most of the workers want this to go away. We want to work in peace. Most of the people who have been there for a few years have worked hard to get the store to where it is.

 

[tlintraining]

Exactly. NRVStrike is very hypocritical. He claims that he cares about the rights and fairness of his coworkers, yet he has put us on the radar of being a trouble store. How fair is it when a 100 people are out of a job?

It’s funny. He claims he’s not for unions. That’s been the most said word at our store for months because of him.

He claims he wants to help everyone. Does he mention the fact that whenever ANYONE (Target employee or not) tries to have a civil conversation and/or back it up with facts and reasoning, he shuts it down? It’s amazing how many people he and the other OUTSIDERS at NRVStrike (Yes, just about everyone who does support him has never worked for Target) have blocked on social media for defending ourselves/our point of view. He held a town hall. Many of our coworkers went. He tried to get them thrown out before meeting even began.

We’re mad. We love our store. We love our jobs. It’s stressful at times, sure. But we dont want to be shut down because of one ignorant person who claims to speak for the entirety of our location.

Wait?? Did NRVstrike just state that they deleted posts that were threatening? That total crap! I know of people who posted factual information about full time benefits and those posts were deleted. Not once did those people threaten come off threatening.

 

[NPC]

Wait?? Did NRVstrike just state that they deleted posts that were threatening? That total crap! I know of people who posted factual information about full time benefits and those posts were deleted. Not once did those people threaten come off threatening.

not only that, but he can't even answer legitimate questions. Like, how do you help?

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

“Us” being a key word. Most of the workers want this to go away. We want to work in peace. Most of the people who have been there for a few years have worked hard to get the store to where it is.

Everyone already works in peace, the only thing preventing the friction from going away is Target Corp violating worker rights. There's nothing wrong with community members exercising their rights.

Wait?? Did NRVstrike just state that they deleted posts that were threatening? That total crap! I know of people who posted factual information about full time benefits and those posts were deleted. Not once did those people threaten come off threatening.

The coworker you mentioned has their rebuttal still posted on our facebook page, we asked to share that with coworkers via the newsletter as well as offer a response as to how there are inaccuracies in their statement. This is the sort of thing we want common understanding on and a rational dialogue about. Our coworker did correctly state Target offers benefits, but what they didnt specify is the qualifications coworkers must meet to be eligible for health insurance and other benefits. It doesnt help to have benefits if most workers cant afford or qualify for them because we don't get enough hours.

We would like some actual acknowledgement that the problems coworkers have spoken out on be taken seriously rather than dismissed or denied, just like with all those testimonies of current and former team members who suffered from abuse by the prior STL.

 

[TargetWrkrsUnite]

Wait?? Did NRVstrike just state that they deleted posts that were threatening? That total crap! I know of people who posted factual information about full time benefits and those posts were deleted. Not once did those people threaten come off threatening.

you can see this publicly right?



nrvstrike response - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AUAx-KSYTtlEwx6f5PGT1PdXJvMlpBnWN9K1RDb5ts0/edit

 

[phibot]

 

[REDcardJJ]

Benefits are not a right. We can disagree about that, but under the current laws you are not entitled to health insurance by virtue of being employed by Target.

I have to question anyone who has worked at Target for a significant amount of time without developing into a leadership role, which is the only surefire way to get a consistent amount of hours. I think the issue many of us here on TBR have is that you’re taking your original grievance (your STL) and morphing it into an all out war on Target as a corporation. That isn’t really an issue in and of itself, but you should admit that’s what you’re doing.

Another thing: even if your ENTIRE store was in favor of this committee, there’s almost 2000 stores in the company. Look into what happened at the Valley Stream store. You’re in for a remodel if you keep rocking the boat, and the entire team is at risk of losing their jobs from the top down.

 

[NPC]

Also, remember this. If something is free, it's because YOU are the product.

 

[commiecorvus]

I've avoided weighing in on this mostly because I am certain that most of you aren't going to read the whole thing and the who do aren't going to like it much.
The reason I changed my like is that I couldn't find the information I wanted on the subject.
If I can't confirm something, which is why I post links in my arguments, then I prefer to wait and see.
For those of you deriding the group for existing because they put the store and other employees in danger from revenge from Spot, that is like blaming a woman for getting raped because of the clothes they are wearing.
I'm sorry but if something happens it is Spot's fucking fault, not the people who organized.
As to the OP and how folks are suspicious of their motivates, style, and think they are pushy or off-putting, whatever.
Some people are annoying, especially if they are pushing something they care about,, get over it.
When it comes to the question of a Workers Committee vs a Union, I have to say unless I'm fighting in the streets of Paris (the history majors will get that) I want a union.
You have a structure and rights that you don't have other wise.
And if one more person brings up the mob, something that hasn't been relevant since Jimmy Hoffa, I will do 2000 word post on labor history that you have to read to log in.
So, the TL ; DR, if you think the OP is annoying, put on ignore. Spot is the scumbag if a store is closed. Unions made this country great.

 

[NPC]

I've avoided weighing in on this mostly because I am certain that most of you aren't going to read the whole thing and the who do aren't going to like it much.
The reason I changed my like is that I couldn't find the information I wanted on the subject.
If I can't confirm something, which is why I post links in my arguments, then I prefer to wait and see.
For those of you deriding the group for existing because they put the store and other employees in danger from revenge from Spot, that is like blaming a woman for getting raped because of the clothes they are wearing.
I'm sorry but if something happens it is Spot's fucking fault, not the people who organized.
As to the OP and how folks are suspicious of their motivates, style, and think they are pushy or off-putting, whatever.
Some people are annoying, especially if they are pushing something they care about,, get over it.
When it comes to the question of a Workers Committee vs a Union, I have to say unless I'm fighting in the streets of Paris (the history majors will get that) I want a union.
You have a structure and rights that you don't have other wise.
And if one more person brings up the mob, something that hasn't been relevant since Jimmy Hoffa, I will do 2000 word post on labor history that you have to read to log in.
So, the TL ; DR, if you think the OP is annoying, put on ignore. Spot is the scumbag if a store is closed. Unions made this country great.

yeah, regardless of this guy's union, he's undeniably shady and dishonest. That is the issue.

 

[phibot]

unless I'm fighting in the streets of Paris

The worst thing about the French Revolution was that after the battle was won, the revolutionaries didn't know when to stop and became worse than what they replaced.

Kinda relevant to today really. People don't know how good they have it.

 

[HiddenPenguin]

@NRVstrike can we sit down for a minute and talk about the words you actually type?

Thread title: Target found guilty of violating worker's rights

inaccurate characterization, unless you have proof specifying otherwise

Workers from our store just received a settlement from Target regarding management's violations of our labor rights.

... maybe you reached a settlement with them; saying received a settlement usually implies money
... also, reaching a settlement is an alternative to trying a case and determining guilt - you don't do both, either settlement or found guilty/not-guilty.

several labor rights violations including acts of discrimination, censorship, intimidation, threats, and surveillance of workers exercising their labor rights both during and after the August 2017 strike against worker abuses perpetrated by the now-fired general manager Daniel Butler.

you keep changing what your list of what "labor rights violations" Target has committed. Here's what the NLRB has listed across all 3 of your cases:

• 8(a)(1) Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits, etc.)
• 8(a)(1) Coercive Actions (Surveillance, etc)
• 8(a)(1) Concerted Activities (Retaliation, Discharge, Discipline)

Nothing about healthcare access or limitations to scheduled hours.
Nothing directly about workplace sexual harassment either, seeing as that issue had been addressed prior to any of these allegations being filed (i.e. your creep of a boss had already been fired).

it seems no matter how many times we say and show the evidence we are not a union and this isnt about forming a union theres always someone not paying attention only to have a knee jerk response and go "its a union"

... maybe because your worker's committee fits perfectly into one of the common definitions of a "union" : an organization of workers joined to protect their common interests and improve their working conditions. It serves as an intermediary between the employer and the employees. The main purpose is to give workers power to negotiate more favorable working conditions through collective bargaining. Source (first result on google). ....

...or maybe... it's because even the legal document you're spreading around your store calls it a union..?

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to distribute literature about the Independent Workers Committee (The Union), or any other union, during non-work time to customers and co-workers in non-work areas and WE WILL NOT stop you from doing so.

And as the article shows we are the ones who have a basis for charges of harassment.

... not very clearly, if at all. The article states that there were acts of intimidation and threats, but not what those were and how they classify as actual intimidation.

Unless you mean the one sentence where you mention, "They actively discouraged workers from discussing the workers committee by holding captive audience meetings and giving the impression it is against the rules to discuss the workers committee..."? ... But you don't clarify whether these captive audience meetings were on the clock (such as huddles)? During work meetings on the clock (huddles), they can discourage you from discussing whatever they like if it's not productive workplace communication or its something that should clearly be discussed off the clock.

One worker, who was the victim of sexual harassment of the prior manager, was driven to tears and bullied by others for going on strike so much so she quit. Lets talk about that harassment...

Let me get this straight, this worker came up to you directly and said, "I am quitting, not because of any of the dozens reasons someone in my position might quit this job, but specifically because of the bullying and harassment I received for going on strike"..?
Otherwise, don't twist someone else's story of misfortune to debate your point. It's gross.

Actually we've been more than willing to have real dialogue with any coworker who wants to do so, but what you may consider "dialogue" has really been yall hostile folks yelling at us and making it a hostile work environment for us, there's no "rational" discussion being had because yall have already be primed by management as is to what to believe we are about without actually talking to us. ... coworkers were too scared to be seen talking to us... so who are the real outsiders?...yall storm out in a fit because some people dont understand what it actually takes to form a union

Ahh, yes, flinging around insults and insinuations... that age-old signal for demonstrating willingness to hold an open-minded conversation...

The point of the community boycott was to show Target Corp our community doesnt accept sexual harassment and worker abuse here in the NRV. ...The point isn't to cause the store to close up in the area, but to send a strong message [which corps dont listen to unless you hit them in the pocketbook] to the corp to take our community demands seriously.

Stop playing the sexual harassment card.

1) Corporate did take it seriously and fired him months ago. 2) It's not even your card to play. If you want to support those harassed, let them speak for themselves -and- respect their decisions on when and how to air it publicly. For fucks sake.

Step back and try to see that there's a distinct gap between the sexual harassment issue and the rest of your allegations of worker "abuse."

If it hasnt been settled how do you think we have access to the legally required posted notice going up in our store? We can show you the legally-binding document all parties have signed to ok the settlement if you want...

Yes, please. Also please clarify which of the three cases have been settled and the dates they were settled. (If very recent, it will help people understand why the NLRB website says otherwise.)

We have coworkers who have been working for Target for a decade, who lost full time status, who lost their health insurance, despite having severe medical conditions, and who struggle to afford food, rent, and other bills. How is that not a legitimate issue? If we are a team and a family and we are suppose to look out for fellow team members why would we not advocate on their behalf so they can live a decent life while busting their butts for Target? All you have to do is look around to see that the costs of living have increased over the last several decades and wages havent stayed consistent with those increases, not even with inflation.

Unless you're implying they lost hours and health insurance because of their medical issues, nope not a public issue. Companies are allowed to hire and employ people according to their business needs. Target is certainly not obligated to provide certain employees more hours based on the length of their tenure.

Target is also not responsible for inflation or stagnant wages. Just because things suck doesn't mean there's always a party to hold accountable.

We would like some actual acknowledgement that the problems coworkers have spoken out on be taken seriously rather than dismissed or denied, just like with all those testimonies of current and former team members who suffered from abuse by the prior STL.

See previous. No really. I still can't tell what the precise goals of your workers committee are, and what makes them Target-centric issues..?


To everyone else: I apologize for the extreme length of my post.

 

[NPC]

@NRVstrike can we sit down for a minute and talk about the words you actually type?

inaccurate characterization, unless you have proof specifying otherwise
maybe you reached a settlement with them; saying received a settlement usually implies money
also - reaching a settlement is an alternative to trying a case and determining guilt - you don't do both, either settlement or found guilty/not-guilty.
you keep changing what your list of what "labor rights violations" Target has committed. Here's what the NLRB has listed across all 3 of your cases:

• 8(a)(1) Coercive Statements (Threats, Promises of Benefits, etc.)
• 8(a)(1) Coercive Actions (Surveillance, etc)
• 8(a)(1) Concerted Activities (Retaliation, Discharge, Discipline)

Nothing about healthcare access or limitations to scheduled hours.
Nothing directly about workplace sexual harassment either, seeing as that issue had been addressed prior to any of these allegations being filed (i.e. your creep of a boss had already been fired).
... maybe because your worker's committee fits perfectly into one of the common definitions of a "union" : an organization of workers joined to protect their common interests and improve their working conditions. It serves as an intermediary between the employer and the employees. The main purpose is to give workers power to negotiate more favorable working conditions through collective bargaining. Source (first result on google). ....

...or maybe... it's because even the legal document you're spreading around your store calls it a union..?

... not very clearly, if at all. The article states that there were acts of intimidation and threats, but not what those were and how they classify as actual intimidation. Unless you mean the one sentence where you mention, "They actively discouraged workers from discussing the workers committee by holding captive audience meetings and giving the impression it is against the rules to discuss the workers committee..." but you don't clarify whether these captive audience meetings were on the clock (such as huddles). During work meetings on the clock (huddles), they can discourage you from discussing whatever they like if it's not productive workplace communication or its something that should clearly be discussed off the clock.

Let me get this straight, this worker came up to you directly and said, "I am quitting, not because of any of the dozens reasons someone might quit this job in my position, but specifically because of the bullying and harassment I received for going on strike"..?
Otherwise, don't twist someone else's story of misfortune to debate your point. It's gross.

Ahh, yes, flinging around insults and insinuations... that age-old signal for demonstrating willingness to hold an open-minded conversation...


Stop playing the sexual harassment card.

1) Corporate did take it seriously and fired him months ago. 2) It's not even your card to play. If you want to support those harassed, let them speak for themselves -and- respect their decisions on when and how to air it publicly. For fucks sake.

Step back and try to see that there's a distinct gap between the sexual harassment issue and the rest of your allegations of worker "abuse."

Yes, please. Also please clarify which of the three cases have been settled and the dates they were settled. (If very recent, it will help people understand why the NLRB website says otherwise.)

Unless you're implying they lost hours and health insurance because of their medical issues, nope not a public issue. Companies are allowed to hire and employ people according to their business needs. Target is certainly not obligated to provide certain employees more hours based on the length of their tenure.

Target is also not responsible for inflation or stagnant wages. Just because things suck doesn't mean there's always a party to hold accountable.

See previous. No really. I still can't tell what the precise goals of your workers committee are, and what makes them Target-centric issues..?


To everyone else: I apologize for the extreme length of my post.

@commiecorvus

 

[HiddenPenguin]

Yes! I'll take a Countess gif any day!

 

[Flow Warrior]

Thing is we are not isolated to our store, we have team members across the country working with us at this point, so they can go ahead and try to close us down but the corp isnt going to be able to shut down every store that has Target team members working with us across the country...

Wal-mart did. They closed 6 stores at once for renovations for 'supposed' plumbling problems that would take several months to fix because they were under the store. I was working at Wal-mart at the time and one of the those stores was with me. Funny thing is, it was the only one of the six that they actually applied for a permit for.
They will shut down a store and force out everyone just to flush out the problem. You won. Like in WWE, you are standing in the ring, bloody with your arm in the air. Only sneaking up behind you is a very large angry man with a metal chair.

The point of the community boycott was to show Target Corp our community doesnt accept sexual harassment and worker abuse here in the NRV. This is a classic tactic that has been used by many communities taking action to get justice for decades. The point isn't to cause the store to close up in the area, but to send a strong message [which corps dont listen to unless you hit them in the pocketbook] to the corp to take our community demands seriously.

Your second point is just an admission that the charges we are "outsiders" is bogus, all the more ironic considering so many Target coworkers are not actually from our community [not that we are xenophobes, but it was your folks trying to portray us as "outsiders"].

I don't know which coworkers you are referring to but any coworker I have met with in person to talk about the issue I have listened to without shutting down once. Again, it hasnt been a dialogue because hostile workers have been literally shouting and yelling in our faces as we just stood there and took it without giving it back. There are several witnesses who can testify to this. If you want names, dates, and locations please come talk to us in person and we will gladly go over all that with you. Again, theres a huge amount of irony in all this, because not only did we have one hostile worker first come to us and say that "they disagree with what we have done but think there can be respectful engagement over the issue" only to come back and yell at us, and apparently they must have recognized they couldn't live up to their own word because they eventually emailed us an apology over it. Comments deleted on facebook were a result of threats to disrupt our labor rights meeting - which those same coworkers who made those threats actually followed through with by coming to the labor rights event to try to disrupt. We don't have to tolerate that kind of behavior and flies in the face of any claims of rationality or civil discourse. And you know what? Despite their attempts at disruption, those same workers stayed over two hours with us as we listened to them vent while also hearing us out about what even is a workers committee, and do you know what we found out? We found that these coworkers have already acted as a workers committee by collectively issuing grievances to management, as well as admitting that they bucked management's demand that no workers should be talking about the strike or workplace conditions while on the clock [ one of the labor rights violations we proved ]. Ultimately we know the hostility to our efforts is rooted in fear, which Target Corp is promoting by threatening our livelihoods just for exercising our rights. That's the saddest thing of all.

You seem to think that your employment allows you to dictate what and how Target functions in the community. Your community has NO capacity to affect the bottom line of Target. You don't seem to grasp that.

The West Hollywood Store that John Barrowman tweeted and instagrammed in front of to 1million followers got its leadership team removed (i only know that ap was terms the rest simply removed according to source) because one APS decided to lecture him on a city ordinance that does sadly exist. However, target doesn't have a policy about selling to the homeless. If they have money we sell to them. That APS was in error and the team was in error. And even that store in the metro area of the Largest city in the country closing for a day, didnt affect their bottom line.

Hell, Losing the Humble store and the south central Houston stores to Harvey for 6 months didn't truly affect their bottom line. It effected our district of 83 stores. It got everyone in the Houston metro a night gift card for busting our asses in a half empty store to save people who just lost everything to a preventable flood caused by fear from a monster hurricane.

So, you intended to get your way without understanding that their end goal is no dissension, You dont work in Minneapolis in the corporate hq in Niccolette mall. You keep pushing and you get all your co workers and yourself out of a job.

Seriously it you want to work for a retail union, go work for Kroger. They have one. In Houston, and you know what we get alot of their rejects all the time. You know why? Because, Kroger is a crappy workplace because of it. (and other things).

One final point.

Earlier this month Wal-Mart doubled down on the wage hike debacle by promising to raise wages for employees higher up the corporate ladder (something we predicted would happen last year). The retailer announced the new wave of raises just days after saying it would close 269 stores and fire 16,000 people.

Apparently, the good folks in Bentonville are oblivious to the connection between the closures and previous wage hikes.

Also oblivious are policy makers who have pushed for wage hikes without thinking through the consequences.

"Washington, D.C., is beginning to look like a cautionary example of what can happen when bastions of liberalism throw caution to the wind in raising the minimum wage," IBD wrote, earlier this month. "The nation’s capital is now losing about 700 jobs a year at restaurants, hotels and other leisure and hospitality sector venues, a sharp reversal from the gain of 2,000 such jobs per year the city was enjoying before it hiked the minimum wage by 27%, first from $8.25 to $9.50 an hour in July 2014 and then to $10.50 in July 2015." Here's more:

Now, as D.C. employers brace for yet-another minimum-wage hike to $11.50 set for this coming July, Wal-Mart has called off two of the city’s most-prized retail developments.

Wal-Mart said it would close 154 stores in the U.S., mostly small-format locations. But even as the nation’s biggest retailer said it would keep opening supercenters, including 50 to 60 in the coming year, it told District officials that it won’t go forward with plans for two huge stores that were expected to create hundreds of new jobs in one of the city’s poorer sections.

Company officials cited the city’s coming minimum-wake hiketo $11.50 an hour as one of the reasons for its change of heart. Wal-Mart has signaled to investors that its already-narrow profit margins could shrink by one-third as it voluntarily hikes its own base wage to $10 an hour.
This from a story written by Journalist Colin Lokey over 2 yrs ago.

You are making it really easy to for them to save money.

It’s simple. We don’t want to be associated with your “newsletter.” It’ll be twisted to your point of view.

Don’t suggest that my coworkers are with you. I’ve worked here for years. I know the people better than you claim to do so. We are not with you. We want this to go away, so we don’t get shut down by corporate. That is all. If you put as much effort into actually working as you do this agenda, it would be appreciated.

Dude what you and the rest of the others need to do is be really clear about the fact that you aren't supporting it. If the bulk of the TMs are truly against this then Spot needs to know this. That way when Spot says that this store required a more extensive renovation than others and is closed for 6 months you can the others can be marked as eligible.

"Sonia Williams, one of the most active pro-union employees who has frequently spoken to the media, including The Huffington Post, found out last week that she wasn’t eligible to transfer or apply for unpaid leave, she said. She was offered, however, a severance package for her nearly 10 years of work that amounts, after taxes, to about $800, Williams said." This happened in 2012. NRV you are Sonia.

 

[glo]

"Sonia Williams, one of the most active pro-union employees who has frequently spoken to the media, including The Huffington Post, found out last week that she wasn’t eligible to transfer or apply for unpaid leave, she said. She was offered, however, a severance package for her nearly 10 years of work that amounts, after taxes, to about $800, Williams said." This happened in 2012. NRV you are Sonia.

Minus the years of work.