Shame on Target

[SpunGirl]

Target Stores have completely banned the Salvation Army bellringers from ALL their stores this year. Wal-Mart is cutting back on their presence, but at least they're still allowing them.

Naughty Target. That's not very nice.

-K

Maybe enough customers complained about them?

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

What's to complain about? "That dude over there is ringing a bell he must be stopped!" Seriously, if seeing a Salvation Army bell-ringer is the worst thing that happens to you all day, consider yourself in good shape.

-K

Oh, I agree. I'm playing Devil's advocate here. Those guys don't bother me in the least, in fact, too me they are just part of the Christmas deal that we have going here in America. It's really a part of the backround I've come to get used too.

Either way, if the customer base DOES complain, it should be the duty of the business to accomodate them. The customer is always right, no?

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

In most cases I would agree with you, Arkans. But if that were always true, then people bitching to Wal-Mart about their Down's Syndrome employees making them uncomfortable would also be in the right. Sometimes people's complaints should be trashed, or they themselves should be bitchslapped for their selfishness.

-K

If said Down's Syndrom employees are not performing up to par, I'd have to disagree with you. Also, there are plenty of places that they could work that would not involve customer service. Both sides win that way.

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

If, in this hypothetical, the Wal-Mart stores conceded to put the DS employees behind the scenes because they made people uncomfortable, that would be an injustice. If they weren't performing up to par, I would imagine they'd be treated like every other employee. But you can't compare poor customer service to bell-ringers, because the bell ringers just stand there and ring the bell. There's not a lot to it.

-K

To a point, who's to say that some bell ringers wern't a bit over zealous? Some people do have a tendancy to go out of their way and harass incoming customers. I'm not saying this was the case here, but it is a possibility.

How would it be an injustice though? They make the same pay, get a job, and customers are not made to feel uncomfortable.

- Arkans

[Tsunami]

Target also does not allow Marines to set up thier Toys For Tots displays that collect toys for unfortunate children. As a result, we refuse to shop there....Refusing Salvation Army bellringers who stand out in the cold freezing thier asses off to help the poor....just another reaon to avoid the place altogether.

Oh my gosh! Its Christmas time and I hear sleigh bells!

Gimmee a break.:grr:

[SpunGirl]

Ew... I think cutting someone off from interaction with customers during a job (if they were doing a good job) because their disability made some "uncomfortable" would be bowing to people who are not willing to look at the bits of society that are less than perfect. That's just ignorance.

And if the bell-ringers were overzealous, or hustling for change, I think the Salvation Army should remove them. Just stand there and ring the bell. But for Target to just ban them all together is something they should be ashamed of. People will still shop there with the bell-ringers. It's not like I'm mad enough to NOT shop there without them. The difference is that they could have made a greater contribution to the community (which is something their company professes to care about).

-K

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Target also does not allow Marines to set up thier Toys For Tots displays that collect toys for unfortunate children.



That's really disgusting. How sad.

-K

Ew... I think cutting someone off from interaction with customers during a job (if they were doing a good job) because their disability made some "uncomfortable" would be bowing to people who are not willing to look at the bits of society that are less than perfect. That's just ignorance.

Ignorance? Maybe. Maybe they are uncomfortable around them due to a negative incident in their life. It's completely possible. The customer remains right and the main goal of a business is to survive, grow larger, and make money. It requires a very strong customer base to do this. I wouldn't blame Target or any other business that would put them at other jobs.

They won't hire someone for customer service with piercings and tattoos over their face because it does not set a good image and it makes customers feel uncomfortable, are those customers ignorant as well? It's all about image, IMHO.

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

No. Piercings and tattoos are avoidable and the choice of the employee. Piercings can be taken out. At my job, people working on the casino floor have to use make-up to cover visible tattoos.

Having Down's Syndrome is not a choice or something that can be covered up.

-K

But it still makes customers feel intimidated. If you let one thing slide you should let them all, that's my point. No one should be discriminated from work, but some people are naturally suited for some work than others. Plain and simple. I have nothing against hiring people with Down's Syndrom, but maybe they arn't the best choice for Customer Service.

- Arkans

[Ivex]

I work at a distribution warehouse for target stores, and I have the inside info on this.

The reason why Target isn't allowing the Salvation Army Santas this year is because of a legal loophole. Target has a 'no solicitation' policy on their property, this means no solicitation by ANYONE. If they allow the Salvation Army, then morally they'd have to allow everyone, so in an all or nothing situation, they'd rather have nothing this year until this situation can be resolved.

[SpunGirl]

That seems silly to me. If they really wanted to allow the Salvation Army, couldn't they just change their corporate policy? "No soliciting except for people who apply to us and are accepted at our sole discretion." That's easy.

-K

[AnticorRifling]

That's weird because last year I thought one of my guys set up a Toys for Tots box at the Target... I've got a picture of me in blues handing out toys from one year it was cool the looks on those kids faces was awesome.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Target also does not allow Marines to set up thier Toys For Tots displays that collect toys for unfortunate children.

And Wal-Mart will not donate their short dated product. Instead, the throw it away in a locked dumpster.

At least shoppers aren't inconvenienced, though. That'd be the real tragedy.

Jorddyn, volunteers at a food bank, gets more depressed by the day

[Trinitis]

Yah, cause I'd rather have food thats going to possibly be rotten or bad for me, then no food at all.

I personally think wal-mart makes the good choice there. Would you rather be viewed as a company that donates shit food to a cause all the time, or make a soild donation of good food, two or three times a year?

[Tsunami]

I think the keyword there Ivex is loophole. Plenty of stores allow soliciters without having to 'let them all', if they did they would be over run. If Target really wanted to support a charity this holiday season, they could find that loophole too.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You realize it's the lawyers fucking things up right? It's people suing Target saying they show preferential treatment to Sal Army, why can't I solicit for Chucks Fuck Farm like they can?! I SUE YOU. I AM BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. SOMEONE CALL THE NAACP!

[Ivex]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You realize it's the lawyers fucking things up right? It's people suing Target saying they show preferential treatment to Sal Army, why can't I solicit for Chucks Fuck Farm like they can?! I SUE YOU. I AM BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. SOMEONE CALL THE NAACP!

Indeed, I was about to explain where Target stands here. They have had lawsuits filed against them for allowing the Salvation Army to solicit and nothing else, against their 'no solicitation policy'.

Target COULD make a contract with the Salvation Army in this case and allow no one else, the same way they support the United Way but not the Girl Scouts. But that takes time and I assume it would have taken too much time to make the litigation pass before Christmas.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by LordAdredrin
Yah, cause I'd rather have food thats going to possibly be rotten or bad for me, then no food at all.

I personally think wal-mart makes the good choice there. Would you rather be viewed as a company that donates shit food to a cause all the time, or make a soild donation of good food, two or three times a year?

Short dated food is not spoiled. Short dated food are the beans on their shelf that says "best purchased by (some date next week)" that everyone will work around and not buy, but will still be good for another 6 months. Short dated food is bread that is slightly stale, but not moldy. Short dated food is not beef that went bad last week.

Edited to add that they get the same exact break on their taxes if they donate it or pitch it, and food banks will generally pick up large donations, so they're out nothing. All they'd have to do is not throw it in the dumpster.

Edited again to add that I work for a company that produces food. Our short dated food gets sold to a company that resells it to prisons and schools. So! Your kids are eating short dated food! Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Jorddyn, clarifying (and drinking)

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Jorddyn]

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Jorddyn]