Not All Fired Target Employees Who Went Zhu Zhu Crazy Got Their Jobs Back

Target fired employees for prematurely buying Zhu Zhu Pets, then hired them back. Ellen says her son, a former New Jersey Target employee, got the former treatment, but not the latter.

She writes:

Since other empolyees of Target have been reinstated for the same offense I am now wondering why the same thing does NOT seem to apply for all stores? Is there a policy your company is enforcing or is there not? At this point I will continue to send this em to anyone who will listen or read it.

I would like to bring an unjust matter to your attention and seek your assistance in this matter if possible along with bringing this topic out to the public. So that they can see how and employer can be unjust during such a sensitive and delicate time due to the economy.

My son was a devoted employee of the local Target store here on [redacted]. He had been employed by them for the past 2 years. He was devoted to not only following company polices but enforcing them as well as a Team Leader. Volunteering on Holidays to come in early and help set up coming in at 4 and 5 am to also help with this the day of Black Friday. However, as of December 8th he found himself without a job. This was the day after his new baby arrived. It seems that on an earlier day he along with other employees that day made the huge error of making a purchase. They all bought Zhu Zhu pets. They all continued to work following the so called “offense” In my sons case he found out he was let go day after his baby was born. Is this a justified thing to take advantage of employees and kick them out on the streets before the holidays? Where there not other means to sort this out without termination? Like perhaps a warning or day suspension? Why did the company let these employees continue to work if they broke a so called policy? Where all employees let go that day for making a purchase or just the ones whom bought Zhu Zhu pets? I have seen similar stories to this effect all involving Target.

UPDATE: Ellen’s son was given his job back.

Those Zhu Zhu Pets seemed to have made one heck of a siren call to Target employees. If you know of any who Zhu Zhu-ed their jobs away and didn’t get them back, tell us about them.


Edit Your Comment

  1. katstermonster says:

    Off-topic: I hate the phrase “so-called.” It’s overused and misused, and I hate it.

    On topic: In the Buffalo Target, there was a dispute about whether employees has been told about the policy regarding two-day sale items, which is largely why they were rehired. In this case, perhaps the employees were told more clearly? I think we’re going to need more information.

    And as much as I can appreciate the stress and frustration created by being fired right after your baby is born, Target didn’t determine that timing. Assuming for just a second that they DID have reason to fire the OP’s son, it was based on the timing of the Zhu Zhu sale. Not firing him immediately would have been unfair to the employees who were fired immediately, and possibly against company policy (a lot of companies list behaviors that are grounds for “immediate dismissal.”). I mean, I feel sorry for the guy, but it’s better to keep letters like this on facts of the dismissal, rather than unrelated issues. Losing your job is horrific on its own.

    • Jbondkicks says:

      Agreed. The child and the holidays are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I would say that the VAST majority of the time, it’s a bad time to get fired. It’s a catastophic event no matter what (whether you have a newborn, a 10 year old, or no kids at all).

      Also, I agree that it probably hinges on how clear the management went over the issue. “I guess we could have been clearer” in Buffalo vs. a potential “We couldn’t have been any clearer about the policy” elsewhere.

      If I worked at Target or a similar store, I would actually just assume they’d have a policy against employees buying items that are as hot as Zhu Zhu.

      • dragonfire81 says:

        The bare facts are: He broke a policy and got fired.

        Some other target employees had the same thing happened to them, but were subsequently re-hired.

        I think in the case of the latter, Target caught some bad PR because of the SEVEN people let go at one store over this. In the case of the former it’s just one kid who made a mistake and therefore there was no PR issue and Target is sticking to their guns.

        If it’s a district/regional manager decision I completely understand as for most companies, one district is run completely different from another based on what a particular regional manager wants.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I think the mother was trying to pull the “Be a #4*&%!@ human” card, which really only applies in certain situations. This is not one. Sure, the timing was crappy, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that Target had some kind of grudge against this guy and management decided, “Wait, I know. Let’s wait until he has a baby, and then we’ll can him. That’ll really screw with him!”

      • kevinrw says:

        I agree that the fact that he just had a child is totally irrelivant. However, if Target were being true to what they claimed they would do in their press release regarding the 7 employees in Buffalo, they would’ve re-hired this employee as well.

        Unless there are additional circumstances that we’re not aware of.

    • kevinrw says:

      Target did not make any claim that the re-hirings were due to the employees being told. In fact, Target continues to assert that the employees were properly notified, and that the policy is in the handbook, which would be sufficient notification.

      Per the article linked in the previous consumerist article on this target: “Target has carefully reviewed the situation … and we have determined the team member terminations were the unintended consequences of a good policy rigidly applied.”

      They then go on in their press release to indicate that they are committed to “ensuring that our policies are appropriate and fair and that we are implementing them consistently across our company.”

      Clearly they re-hired the other 7 employees because there was bad PR over firing them. If they were truely committed to ensuring that their policies are being implemented consistantly across the company, they would’ve re-hired all employees in all stores that were fired due to this policy, and they would not require additional bad PR for each case before they act.

      • katstermonster says:

        Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the correction. I didn’t reread the previous article thoroughly, just saw the bit about the dispute over the policy.

      • keith4298 says:

        While Target didn’t officially say they were re-hired because of a questionable “notice”, I’ve worked in the same types of environments and reading between the lines of their statement – that’s most likely the reason.

        If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t have said that even if that wasn’t the case…..

  2. holden190 says:

    Sorry. Your son broke the rules and that caused his dismissal.

    The fact that it happened at Christmas and the birth of his “baby boy” is irrelevant.

    • Tedsallis says:

      Bingo. You gotta think these employees had at least a tickle of conscience that told them they should not do this but they ignored that “still small voice” and did it anyway. Obviously Target took it a lot more serious than they did and down came the ban hammer.

  3. MattAlbie says:

    I can get behind the sentiment, but that entire letter is so frustratingly written. By the time I got to the second mention of the fact that his baby was born, I wanted to punch myself.

    • katstermonster says:

      THANK YOU. And the repeated use of “so called.” Very unprofessional.

      • 339point4 says:

        I’m with you. I couldn’t focus on the content of the letter past the second paragraph.

        At the same time, I feel like kind of a jerk for being so irked by the writing style. Here is someone feeling rather desperate and clinging to an emotional appeal (one which obviously seems valid in their view). They probably haven’t had much writing experience and so they’re using a style that sounds, to them, serious and professional. Meanwhile, the effect is like nails on a chalkboard to more educated readers.

        But then I feel like a jerk for assuming the reader is uneducated and not just a terrible writer.

        • katstermonster says:

          Nah, I wouldn’t assume uneducated. I know lots of highly educated people who can’t write for shit. Granted, I’m an engineer, so it’s kind of not our strong point.

          That being said, she states that she is going to send this email out in mass quantities to anyone who will listen…I’d wanna run that through a spell check, and perhaps have a friend read it. Having those kind of spelling and grammar errors (and the repeated use of “so called,” which still has me banging my head against my desk) just distract from the overall message. That plus the emotional plea. Better to stick to the pertinent facts.

    • Tech Guy+ says:

      Agreed. Please don’t write letters out of frustration, it just makes it harder for people to support your point.

  4. ShruggingGalt says:

    Has anyone confirmed that somewhere in the handbook it mentions that certain items can’t be bought???

    If it does, why are they still complaining about it? Like another commenter, the original story hinged on if they were reinformed about it or not; does this guy work at the same Target?

    Also, helicopter parent much? He worked as an employee of Target for two years, just became a father, and his MOM is trying to get his job back????

    • hotdogsunrise says:

      His mom might have to shell out some big bucks to keep her son and his new baby from surviving. It may be more than just being a helicopter parent.

    • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

      It’s a really simple concept. His mom is the Consumerist reader. He is not. She is trying to help her son navigate a tough situation. Good parents do what they can to help.

      • sirwired says:

        The consumerist was just cc’d on the note. The first paragraph of the note (or, in the lingo of this partiular OP, “em”) is clearly addressed to Target themselves.

    • chargernj says:

      I’m going with helicopter parent. I’m a college administrator and I read emails of a similar tone all the time.

  5. ander_bobo says:

    I think common sense would dictate that perhaps one should not purchase THE single hottest gift of the season before they are even available to the public (I believe these employees had just stocked the zhu zhu pets that night and then each purchased some before the store ever opened?). Target is justified in firing the employees, I bet there were many angy customers who would have been happy to pay full retail price for those zhu zhu pets (without the employee discount) and probably would have bought many secondary gifts and items once they secured a zhu zhu pet.

  6. ExtraCelestial says:

    I wonder if the son knows his mom is sending off emails to any relevant party’s address she can get her hands on. If so, fight your own battles dude. Who’s going to rehire a former employee because their mom wrote a sternly worded letter? If not, how embarassing. Hope she didn’t name drop.

  7. pecan 3.14159265 says:

    This woman doesn’t seem to fully understand that “you cannot buy the hottest toy of the season” vs. “you cannot buy anything at all from this store” are not the same. She says, “Where all employees let go that day for making a purchase or just the ones whom bought Zhu Zhu pets?”

    Well, obviously the people who bought a Christmas card, GI Joe, or loaf of Bread weren’t fired. Zhu Zhu Pets are obviously the hottest toys of the season – and there were rules concerning these items. Target would have no grounds to fire people based on a purchase that was not against the rules. However, if management told the employees that they could not buy a Zhu Zhu Pet during work hours, and people still did, that’s definitely grounds for firing.

    Why some people were reinstated and some weren’t most likely had to do with the reaction of the employees, as well as their work performance. If you thought the rule was lame and ludicrous, and kicked up all sorts of fracas about it, it reflected poorly on you than if you were truly apologetic about breaking the rules.

    And this rankles me a little:

    “Is this a justified thing to take advantage of employees and kick them out on the streets before the holidays? Where there not other means to sort this out without termination? Like perhaps a warning or day suspension? Why did the company let these employees continue to work if they broke a so called policy?

    Life can be a cruel, cold bitch. I got laid off on my birthday. Think that was fun? I don’t think I could have walked in and told the people, “look, it’s my birthday, can you have sympathy for me and wait til next week?” People are losing jobs every day. It’s terrible, it’s horrific, and I don’t wish it upon even my greatest enemies. But this woman wants to know why Target waited so long (only days, though, apparently) to fire the employees who bought the toys, but then asks “why didn’t you let them work longer?” to get through the holidays. You can’t have it both ways here.

    • katstermonster says:

      Ewwww they laid you off on your birthday??? That blows, I’m sorry.

      I agree entirely. The timing is based ont he employee’s actions, not on Target’s cruel, heartless decison-making (not saying it actually is cruel, just trying to illustrate the point). Also, I hardly think the employees were “taken advantage of” if they broke company policy, albeit one that it seems isn’t usually enforced (per Target’s statement that it was perhaps was enforced “too rigidly”).

    • katstermonster says:

      P.S. Misuse of who vs. whom? Seriously? UGH. I’m not a total grammar Nazi, but if you’re trying to get your son re-hired, having a badly-worded and grammar-deficient letter is not a good start.

      • stuckinms says:

        It bothers me that she kept saying “where: instead of “were” too.

        • stuckinms says:

          Correction: It bothers me that she kept saying “where” instead of “were” too.”

          One handed typing while holding a baby isn’t easy.

          • katstermonster says:

            There you go with the emotional pleas!! No one cares about your child! Hahaha….kidding.

            I totally agree. The repeated use of “so called” what what really got me. It’s such an unprofessional phrase, often uttered by people valiantly trying to make a long lost point. Often accompanied by air quotes. I can picture them now…

  8. Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

    I’m going to take a wild stab and guess that this is “The Beanie Baby” rule. I wonder how many employees of retailers took advantage of their position and bought Beanie Babies well before the public had a chance to get them.

  9. qbubbles says:

    Sorry… but is it so frickin hard to proofread an important email? Especially one that you want to be read by a lot of people? Its unfortunate that your son was let go, but why are you fighting his battles? If this was so important to him, why isn’t he writing the email?

  10. Strausy says:

    nthr pntlss str. Wh crs?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Between you and ConsumerWolf, the disemvoweling ray gun is going to be working overtime.

      Even though I don’t agree with the claims made in the woman’s letter, I can see how it may seem arbitrary and unfair for some people to be rehired, and some to be kept fired – and I can see how a mother who is concerned for her son and grandson might come to his defense. I can see how it could have gone the other way, and we could be reading another letter from someone who was reinstated.

      As to why it’s on this site, well, “the more you know…” and all. It’s an issue that has yo-yoed up and down for the past month or so. It’s not a laughing matter that people are being fired. Consumers need to be aware of policies such as this that govern business – it helps us become savvier shoppers, it helps us become aware of semi-related policies within our own workplace, and it helps us understand how some stores operate.

  11. mopman64 says:

    Well, Target did one thing. They stopped a lot of these toys from going on ebay. When I worked at Wal Mart we would just put the toys and figures we wanted behind the sports or hardware counter till our shift was finished.

    You break the rules, you pay the price.

  12. ConsumerWolf says:

    When people break the rules, they get fired. I don’t see how this is a Consumerist story.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      I guess the big thing here is equal enforcement of the rules by Target and did they clearly let the employees what they expected of them. If everyone who did this wasn’t fired this was wrong and is this a clear cut Target policy.

      I would’ve suspended them or written them up and made them return the item.

  13. Skellbasher says:

    So much trouble caused by a robotic hamster….

  14. DeeJayQueue says:

    I’m going to be the asshole that second guesses the veracity of the entire letter.

    Really? He’s a Team Lead, 2 years on the job, comes in early, etc? You’ve just painted the model employee, how could anyone want to fire him?

    Oh, and it was near Christmas and he just had a child? Oh Noes! Now we’ll all be heartbroken to hear that he’s lost his job and of course we’ll side with him instead of Target, the big evil cruel corporation, after all this IS a consumer affairs blog right?

    Honestly, it’s too thick, I can’t swallow it.

    Either his stature and willingness to follow the rules should have given him more common sense about buying something he knows is a hot item (and with more than 2 years experience this isn’t his first holiday season, he knows you can’t buy these types of things before opening. I worked at Target for 3 weeks and I know that it’s a pretty well organized, corporate run machine, and they drill the rules into your head from day 1, including the one about don’t buy hot items when you’re not supposed to),


    someone isn’t telling the truth.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Most parents find it hard to imagine their children as flawed human beings who make mistakes. I think most people are genuinely good people, but we’re all flawed, and this means that maybe Mom sees a different side of her son than Target does, or other people do.

      We all put on difference faces for different people, as much as we try not to. There are things that I can say in my own home that I can’t say in front of my parents. There are conversations and discussions that I can have with certain people, and not with others. If there were extenuating circumstances as to this guy’s work performance, it’s not a stretch to suggest that maybe Mom didn’t know about it, or was not aware of specific problems.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      Maybe the story is somewhere in between. Maybe Target decided it is appropriate to fire a team leader w/ 2 years of tenure for breaking the rules, since it would be expected that he would know and follow them, and his behavior would be an example to his subordinates.

  15. pinkbunnyslippers says:

    This sounds like an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. At first, I honestly thought Ellen’s son might be a developmentally disabled worker, which would explain why she was writing on his behalf…

    Ellen – if you love your son, you’d teach him the value of following the rules when laid out clearly before him, and accepting the consequences of his actions when he breaks them. You might also allow him to be an adult and take on his own battles instead of taking them on for him.

    I’ve been laid off right before Christmas THREE TIMES. It really sucks, it’s painful, and my parents were frustrated for me. But the best lesson they taught me through all three of those layoffs was to pick myself up, dusty myself off, and keep on truckin’…God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.

    Time to cut the umbilical cord, Ellen…

    • sickofthis says:

      “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle.”

      That’s crap. That particular mythical figure gives people more than they can handle all the time.

  16. millertime1211 says:

    I think the best part of all these stories is that it was over a robot hampster?!!? How does such garbage become “the hottest toy of the season”??!?! Really people, if your going to get fired why not have it be for stealing a PS3 or something thats really cool. How do you explain to your friends/family you were fired over a robot hampster! This is all just commercialized gimmick that people fall for every year. Beanie Babies, Furbies, etc….all garbage hyped by the stores/media as “HOTTEST TOY” so everyone rushes out to get one because they can’t let the neighbor kids be the first to get one!

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Ham + p + ster – p = Hamster.

      And if you steal a PS3 or “something thats really cool” you don’t just get fired, you get brought up on criminal charges. Something about that tells me that getting fired over buying a robot hamster is better than stealing.

    • Manrico says:

      Yep just like every couple of years some new disease or health scare comes, westnile, Sars, bird flu, swine flu…

  17. nachtwulf says:

    There is a crime here… the fact that the other employees were hired back.

  18. Manrico says:

    Most of you people are D**KS, from reading what this lady wrote it seems like she is upset because other people who work with her son(AT THE SAME TARGET) also bought those stupid waste of money toys but none of them were fired. And the reason they gave her son for being fired was because he purchased the zhu zhu pets which if that was the reason it would make it unfair because his co-workers(WHO ALSO PURCHASE THE ZHU ZHU PETS) didn’t get fired.

    • holden190 says:

      Too bad.

      A company can fire anyone for any reason.

      • SunnyLea says:

        No they can’t.

        In “Right to Work” states, they have a great deal more leeway, true (and I don’t know which sort the OP is in), but even there you can’t fire anyone for “any reason.”

        No reason, sure, but not any reason.

        • dantsea says:

          That’s when you simply fire them for no reason at all. Same thing. “Sorry, it just isn’t working out.”

    • katstermonster says:

      Where in the article does that other people bought Zhu Zhu’s and were fired? Feel free to share. I’ve been able to read the English language for over 18 years now (I’m 22, not foreign), and I can’t seem to find it.

    • dantsea says:

      That’s the reason he gave his mother. It isn’t necessarily the reason he was fired.

      Regardless, her son is apparently responsible enough to hold down a job for two years and father children, it’s probably time for her to land the helicopter, already.

    • sirwired says:

      Her son is a team lead, who should have known better. And we don’t know if the “other employees” worked at the same Target, or if they are the ones referred to in other stories.

  19. ColoradoShark says:

    You guys are no where nearly cynical enough. They laid him off after they found out he had a baby so they wouldn’t have to cover it with medical insurance. The ZhuZhu thingie was just an excuse.

    Of course, I am assuming Target gives medical benefits to married two year employees.

  20. sirwired says:

    Mom wrote the letter? Yeah, that’s gonna be effective… Add the irrelevant information, a mis-understanding of what the policy even was (hot fad toy =/= any purchase), scare quotes, the whole works. I bet they pin this one up in the Corporate HR breakroom to chuckle at.

    Are all helicopter parents this weird?

    Maybe Target could have communicated the policy better, maybe there was some injustice done here, but this letter isn’t going to accomplish bupkis if that’s all Mom can come up with.

  21. Platypi {Redacted} says:

    There is one thing that the comments seem to be driving home for me. I wish my mom had a helicopter. She just drives a RAV4, and NEVER comes to pick me up in a helicopter. Just think of the fun we could have! I could hang upside down from the skid, pretending I was Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. OR, we could recreate one of my favorite scenes from WKRP in Cincinnati: “I honestly thought turkeys could fly!”

  22. Blinkman987 says:

    I’m sure there’s a program specifically designed to track the birth of employees’ families and births. Then the light goes on and the supervisor at HQ pulls a lever and says “ahahahahaha got another one!”

  23. dolemite says:

    Somehow, it simply seems ridiculous that a corporation would fire good employees who legally PURCHASED something from the company. Yes, yes, the item is in high demand. It is sad that people’s livelihoods are jeopardized over a fad toy that no one will want in 2 months.

    • Coelacanth says:

      The item in question may not have been “legally purchased” at retail price. Instead, an employee privilege of using a discount is more likely. I have a hard time seeing how a corporate policy allowing the employees to purchase regular inventory (at full-retail) could be lawful, but if a discount is involved… of course the company has the right to restrict the terms of sale.

      • MrAP says:

        Ah, but if they purchase the item before it even goes on sale, there’s your problem. So it doesn’t matter if the employee discount was applied or not.

      • crouton976 says:

        Well, if Target’s policy is “We don’t want your money” then sure, I am in agreement with you.

        Think about it… the smart thing on Target’s part would be to LET IT F***ING GO. They made a sale to a person who HELPS MAKE THEM MONEY AND MADE A PROFIT OFF OF THAT SALE. Was it as large of a profit compared to Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Consumer buying the item? No, but sheesh, show some gratitude for your employees efforts in HELPING TO LINE YOUR POCKETS.

        I work for Lowe’s, and we don’t receive treatment like this. Although I feel that it is rare, we are actually shown gratitude for the hard work that we do.

        I honestly feel like too many people in America just don’t get what retail employees have to endure. You complain about crappy service and bad attitudes. It’s because retail employees have to deal with all of the idiots and rude customers that come into the store. You act like we are the scum of the earth because we work retail. I HATE working retail. I miss my old job (a lay off forced me back into retail) because there was a certain amount of respect I had that is just not there in the retail business, because customers make an assumption that I am a bumbling idiot who doesn’t know anything and am too lazy to get another job. You made us this way, Consumer America, with your hostility and nastiness. It’s like the old saying “You can’t lie down with a dog and not get fleas.”

        And that’s just from the customer side of things… don’t get me started on the management side.

        On that note, I’ll raise a particular finger to the retail world (you can guess which one) and say “Let’s build something together.”

  24. msbask says:

    Sorry, I can’t get past the fact that this woman wrote a (poorly worded) letter on behalf of her (presumably) adult son.

  25. PaRa02 says:

    Let the boy fight his own battles! Would you want to work for the same employer again after all this?

  26. Corporate_guy says:

    The question is simple. Did he know in advance about the policy?

  27. Outrun1986 says:

    This would have some merit if the person themselves wrote it, ahem not the mom of the person who got fired and if it was written in a more professional matter. Assuming that the person who got fired is old enough to have a child, this person is definitely old enough to write their own complaint letters. If the person’s mom is still fighting his battles then I fear for the welfare of this child that was just born.

  28. willthetech says:

    when i worked at ccity the store manager got fired because he followed the policy of checking packages at the door. the customer refused to show his purchased merchandise at the door so the manager called the cops, a week later my coworker that was still working there told me the manager was fired because the customer called headquarters and complaint.

    • SunnyLea says:

      Er, what does this have to do with the OP? I’m not seeing the connection, but I’ve been called dense before….

      • dantsea says:

        I think what willthetech is trying to tell us is that even though on the surface it seems someone gets fired for an insanely minor transgression, the reality in most cases is that it’s just the icing on a large cake of previous transgressions. It’s doubtful that his store manager was fired for following a door check policy, but that complaint could have been the cap on a lot of customer relations issues for that store. I think something similar happened in The Curious Case Of Momma’s Hamster Boy Babydaddy, and that’s what will was trying to tell us.

        Or not. :)

      • willthetech says:

        I was just trying to show an example of how retail stores will fire any one for non following store policies and in some cases (like in my comment before) for actually following policy. I am very sure that he will probably still had a job if he just let the customer go, but he deicide to enforced policy and that lead to his dismissal. I worked many black Fridays in which I was reminded to stay away form buying sales item if I wanted to keep my job, even after closing the store we were not allowed. I hope he can get a better job any time soon

  29. Red Cat Linux says:

    The question is even simpler than all this drama:

    If employees can be fired for purchasing this item before [insert arbitrary date/time here], why are they allowed to purchase it?

    I mean really – clearly people did it either not understanding, or not knowing it was a firing offense – why not just cut them off at the register?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Probably because they ring each other up, or take it to the returns counter because the POS can ring up items but are used in that area for returns.

  30. parabola101 says:

    retail outlets suck to work at… i think its awful that Target can enforce such a harsh punishment? What kind of integrity is that?? Just fire someone for a purchase of a toy rodent after months/years of loyal service? Target has just dropped down to the Walmart level in my eyes. This is an awful story, another reason why corporations need to be reigned in but we too brainwashed to even think for ourselves.

    Although reading the comments below I am in the minority on this point of view…

  31. dantsea says:

    I am assuming the reason your Angelic Child From Upon High O Exalted One He Is Indeed Yes was permanently fired because as a team leader and longterm employee, had no excuse for not knowing the rules, but broke them anyway.

    • dantsea says:

      Also: Lady, since your son is old enough to hold down a job and father children, it’s time for you to cut the apron strings, land the helicopter and let him take care of his employment problems.

  32. tekchik27 says:

    My guess is he and the employees who didn’t get hired back didn’t just buy 1 stupid Zhu Zhu pet but likely 10, and that all 10 ended up on EBay. And legitimate shoppers who stood in line outside of Target in the NJ early-morning Black Friday freeze were out of luck because there were no more Zhu Zhu pets left. I worked in retail, I know the score. Employees snag the best stuff for themselves, so stores have to have rules like this especially for hot items. I don’t feel sorry for this guy.

  33. BlueEyesTM says:

    What also bothers me is this:

    “He was devoted to not only following company polices but enforcing them as well as a Team Leader. Volunteering on Holidays to come in early and help set up coming in at 4 and 5 am to also help with this the day of Black Friday.”

    He CANNOT be allowed to work for the company that regularly employs him without paying him — especially if he is doing work-related activities such as “setting up early” for Black Friday. While he may choose to try to fight to get his job back, he really should consult with an attorney versed in employment law. He should also contact his states labor board. If an employee performs work-related functions without being paid (whether or not both his employer and him “agrees” to this), then it’s a pretty serious violation of labor laws. I’m not a legal professional, but he might be able to use this as leverage in getting his job back. If they allowed him to work off the clock, they might now realize the mistake that they made and was looking for any reason to let him go.

    • dantsea says:

      I doubt Target let him work off the clock. Momma’s not a very good writer, so I’m certain that in her context, volunteering meant that he told someone looking for warm bodies to fill out the schedule that he’d be happy to work those hours, instead of having them arbitrarily assigned to him.

  34. Bast says:

    Why is the OP writing for her son? I would be horrified if my mother did something like this. It doesn’t do him any credit, for sure.

  35. coren says:

    So here’s my question – who’s selling this shit to people – are you self checking out? Are the early morning employees showing up before opening and checking out? What’s the deal – cuz someone is selling this stuff, and they should be punished equally.

    Also, she has a point – if he’s done something fireable, fire him, don’t let him work for a few more days, then do it.

  36. Chris J. Stone says:

    I’d hate to be rehired. Everyone in the workplace would know you as that-guy-who-asks-his-mommy-for-help-when-bad-things-happen.