Archived Terming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
TM2 said:
This isn't accurate. A documented coaching doesn't need to be read from a script, and is typically better if the team member doesn't know it's being documented.
Click to expand...


Better!?!?
That is all part of the rather nasty technique of performancing someone out.
You walk by the TM and say "Remember not to do "this or that" again.
Then you write it down.
You do that often enough and it becomes a CA or whatever they are calling them these days.
Three of those and poof, no more TM.
Sorry but this isn't honest or fair to the TM.
 
commiecorvus said:
Better!?!?
That is all part of the rather nasty technique of performancing someone out.
You walk by the TM and say "Remember not to do "this or that" again.
Then you write it down.
You do that often enough and it becomes whatever they are calling them these days.
Three of those and poof, no more TM.
Sorry but this isn't honest or fair to the TM.
Click to expand...
Sure isn't. Some people have fought write ups because higher ups lied about coachings that the team members didn't know they were getting.
 
TM2 said:
This isn't accurate. A documented coaching doesn't need to be read from a script, and is typically better if the team member doesn't know it's being documented.
Click to expand...

That's how we do it at my store. That way people don't write up certain team members then let their favorites get away with stuff
 
DCs you don't have to tell the team member it's being documented, but you definitely should let them know. However, when it comes to CAs you absolutely have to tell them, read it, and they either have to sign it or they can refuse to sign it.

On topic, Target makes it incredibly difficult to get rid of team members. My store likes to pack on the DCs, but I believe that's to cover their ass. It really supposed to go as far as I remember:

Coaching, if performance not improved -> Counseling (1 month critical period), if performance improved -> it goes to 6 months counseling extended period. If the performance wasn't improved -> final warning (repeat previous cycle but extended period for finals is 12 months). If performance still isn't improved -> Termination.

All stores don't follow that though. Some might make you do coaching like 20 times before it goes somewhere.
 
The corporate standard operating procedures regarding coaching are there to ensure both employees and Spot are protected under law. Potential legal issues arise when proper protocol is not followed and can be monetarily and time-wise costly for both the company and the employee. Too, always consider it a "CMA" action to properly document and clearly indicate what is happening, the reason and potential future consequences. Drive-by-coachings can place the coacher into legal proceedings as well and if that were to happen, kiss your job at Spot goodbye. Even in right-to-work states improper termination and unfair business practices suits can be initiated.
 
It's an interesting topic because in actuality the DC is just documenting that you spoke about something to a TM. When it goes further than that and enters counseling, that to me is the true write up. Anyone who had to do a CA knows it's not a walk in the park to get approved.

You could tell a TM that you're documenting the coaching and they could lie and say you never spoke to them so it goes both ways. I've had team members who tried to do that when I specifically told them it'll be documented. If they don't need to sign anything to aknowledge something there is no way to tell who is lying.

That's why I see both sides of this. To me when it comes to the CA I look at that as the official write up. The DC to me is a way to put in that you spoke about something with a team member. Although I usually tell them it'll be documented, I do feel you don't have to. TLs can abuse that though.

Interesting to me.
 
redeye58 said:
Seeing how much detail goes into the paper path before terming a TM makes me laugh whenever someone derides unions because (unions) make it 'impossible to fire crappy workers'.
Click to expand...

Yup, the problem is even in right to work states Target goes by the strictest rules of don't fire someone unless certain it can stand up in court.

The company focuses on avoiding litigation at all cost above doing what's right.
 
I'm finally, after 2 years as GSTL, about to have my first term. I'm not proud of it but said TM needs to go yesterday. Bad attitude, sloppy work, attendance issues and insubordination. It took about 9 months but next time she's in, she's hone (or so I am told).
 
Yeah, it stinks to have to fire anyone. Think about what you are going to say beforehand so you don't get all tongue-tied.
 
I fired someone just before Christmas. That was before the heart transplant. Used to be a cash register there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top