Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:57:29 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:


None of the Targets I've ever been in has a sporting goods counter.
Its impossible to sell guns without the terminals etc. that go along
with completing the paperwork. I know the Dayton family who owns
Target are big donors to the Nature Conservancy. One of the Dayton's
(Mark) who is in the Senate, has a pretty good environmental voting
record. Targets have always struck me as being a more urban oriented
discounter than Wally World.

Target used to have guns. I could even point to the place in the
store that we were previously local to (bad grammar. Sorry) where
they were kept. I don't recall when they went away. They were there
more than 30 years ago when it opened and for some time thereafter.

I suspect they got out of the gun business because of the risk of
litigation. It's not easy to find good retail help. I'd guess it's next to
impossible to find people who are truly knowledgable about guns, and expect
them to work for retail wages.

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:56:08 GMT, "Tim J."
wrote:


Remind to tell you an "evil *******" story about WM when next we meet.
:(
--
TL,

Does it have anything to do with its practice of locking
in overnight employees, with no way to get out other than
by smashing down doors or trying to track down a manager via
telephone ?


.....or having them clock out and work an extra hour or two, "for the team"?
Those who think corporations are deities don't want to hear these tidbits.

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote...
"Greg Pavlov" wrote...
"Tim J." wrote:

Remind to tell you an "evil *******" story about WM when next we meet.

Does it have anything to do with its practice of locking
in overnight employees, with no way to get out other than
by smashing down doors or trying to track down a manager via
telephone ?

....or having them clock out and work an extra hour or two, "for the team"?
Those who think corporations are deities don't want to hear these tidbits.

No, neither of those. Both sound like issues having to do with individual
management or supervisory decisions. I'm not here to defend Wal-Mart, mind you,
but I'll venture a guess that the folks higher up the chain of command weren't
really happy about either one of those incredibly stupid decisions. My story is
a bit more personal, but since we're all good friends and I know you'll keep it
just amongst us. . . .

My then-nineteen-year-old son was working at WM when his long-time high school
sweetheart was diagnosed with a rare form of terminal brain cancer. As he was
going through the process of watching her die and being with her when she needed
him, his WM supervisor, who was well aware of the situation, placed him on
unpaid leave "until he could come back to work and keep his mind on his duties".
Again, an individual with some kind of power complex who was unable to think how
he would feel or react if placed in the same situation as my son. As it turned
out, it was the best thing that could have happened because my son was able to
spend the time he needed with his girlfriend so he was not left with any regrets
when she passed away.

These kinds of situations are usually created by individual spineless weasels
who think the way to get ahead in life is to be ruthless in their business
dealings. IMHO, the above examples could happen in any business, but are more
likely to occur when upper management loses touch with the people who are their
public interface. I've always subscribed to the adage "If you're not directly
servicing the customer/client/student in your present position, you'd better
damn well be doing everything you can to help someone who is."
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote...
"Greg Pavlov" wrote...
"Tim J." wrote:

Remind to tell you an "evil *******" story about WM when next we
meet.

Does it have anything to do with its practice of locking
in overnight employees, with no way to get out other than
by smashing down doors or trying to track down a manager via
telephone ?

....or having them clock out and work an extra hour or two, "for the
team"?
Those who think corporations are deities don't want to hear these
tidbits.

No, neither of those. Both sound like issues having to do with individual
management or supervisory decisions. I'm not here to defend Wal-Mart, mind
you,
but I'll venture a guess that the folks higher up the chain of command
weren't
really happy about either one of those incredibly stupid decisions. My
story is
a bit more personal, but since we're all good friends and I know you'll
keep it
just amongst us. . . .

My then-nineteen-year-old son was working at WM when his long-time high
school
sweetheart was diagnosed with a rare form of terminal brain cancer. As he
was
going through the process of watching her die and being with her when she
needed
him, his WM supervisor, who was well aware of the situation, placed him on
unpaid leave "until he could come back to work and keep his mind on his
duties".
Again, an individual with some kind of power complex who was unable to
think how
he would feel or react if placed in the same situation as my son. As it
turned
out, it was the best thing that could have happened because my son was
able to
spend the time he needed with his girlfriend so he was not left with any
regrets
when she passed away.

These kinds of situations are usually created by individual spineless
weasels
who think the way to get ahead in life is to be ruthless in their business
dealings. IMHO, the above examples could happen in any business, but are
more
likely to occur when upper management loses touch with the people who are
their
public interface. I've always subscribed to the adage "If you're not
directly
servicing the customer/client/student in your present position, you'd
better
damn well be doing everything you can to help someone who is."
--
TL,

Absolutely right.

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:46:27 -0400, "Tim J."
wrote:


No, neither of those. Both sound like issues having to do with individual
management or supervisory decisions. I'm not here to defend Wal-Mart,
mind you,
but I'll venture a guess that the folks higher up the chain of command
weren't
really happy about either one of those incredibly stupid decisions.


Walmart claims that the lockups were local decisions
but they were on a pretty large scale, so even if they
were telling the truth Walmart corporate is still
responsible: it created the culture and it was not
keeping tabs on what its managers were doing. I'm
on a puny scale compared to Walmart but when someone
at my end makes a mistake, I take responsibility for
it and often the offended party does not have any
idea of who was "actually responsible:" I am. That's
another failing on Walmart's part in the lockup
situation: it won't take corporate responsibility for
its managers' behavior.

....or, take responsibility for lack of training.

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote...
"Tim J." wrote:


No, neither of those. Both sound like issues having to do with individual
management or supervisory decisions. I'm not here to defend Wal-Mart, mind
you,
but I'll venture a guess that the folks higher up the chain of command
weren't
really happy about either one of those incredibly stupid decisions.

Walmart claims that the lockups were local decisions
but they were on a pretty large scale, so even if they
were telling the truth Walmart corporate is still
responsible: it created the culture and it was not
keeping tabs on what its managers were doing.

Well, if what I've read since my last post is true, it WAS known by corporate,
but I *refuse* to apologize of roff. This from the New York Times:

--- Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications, said the
company used lock-ins to protect stores and employees in high-crime areas. She
said Wal-Mart locked in workers - the company calls them associates - at 10
percent of its stores, a percentage that has declined as Wal-Mart has opened
more 24-hour stores.
Ms. Williams said Wal-Mart, with 1.2 million employees in its 3,500 stores
nationwide, had recently altered its policy to ensure that every overnight shift
at every store has a night manager with a key to let workers out in emergencies.

"Wal-Mart secures these stores just as any other business does that has
employees working overnight," Ms. Williams said. "Doors are locked to protect
associates and the store from intruders. Fire doors are always accessible for
safety, and there will always be at least one manager in the store with a set of
keys to unlock the doors." ---

I'm
on a puny scale compared to Walmart but when someone
at my end makes a mistake, I take responsibility for
it and often the offended party does not have any
idea of who was "actually responsible:" I am. That's
another failing on Walmart's part in the lockup
situation: it won't take corporate responsibility for
its managers' behavior.

From the above, it seems that they did take responsibility for the bad policy
and have taken steps to correct it. A better method would have been for them to
have thought about the policy's ramifications before it became a problem and a
public issue. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Orvis + Wal-Mart = Angry local shopkeep
 

"Greg Pavlov" wrote...
"Tim J." wrote:


Well, if what I've read since my last post is true, it WAS known by
corporate,
but I *refuse* to apologize on roff. This from the New York Times:

If you believe that nonsense, fine, but given that it has
gone on for at least 15 years and that a lot of these stores
are nowhere near a "high crime area," the company is lying.

I didn't say I believed it, only that they admitted it was a bad policy that
needed changing. EOT for me.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj