Response to Chris MacDonald’s Blog Post “Target: Is Store a Person?”
Nov 18th, 2012 by Shawn Li
According to Chris MacDonald, the worker union of Zellers’ argument of Target should be responsible for Zeller’s current employees as they are replacing Zellers signs with their own is not valid enough in protecting their workers. It is a fact that Target is not purchasing Zellers from HBC but rather just taking over the lease of Zellers’ locations; therefore, it doesn’t have the legal responsibility to continue hiring the Zellers’ employees since it is HBC’s decision to close down Zellers stores and lay off their workers.
I agree with MacDonald’s point of view mostly. However, after taking morality and ethics into considerations, my heart actually leans towards the workers’ side. Although there’s no legal issue if Target decides to hire brand new employee teams for each location, it is to their best interest to actually continue employing most Zellers’ workers. First of all, experienced in-store employees of Zellers need very minimal training since they are used to work at the location already. The savings on time, money, and resources from training can significantly lower the start-up cost for each store. Secondly, it helps Target to build up a positive public image towards Canadians. For it is difficult to enter a brand new market, if Target can keep the experienced employees who have already build up friendly relationships with local customers, it will be a great asset to the company. On the other hand, Target does need to be careful with its employee selections as some old workers from Zellers have already lacked motivations and missed the sense of responsibility.
Thus, I agree with MacDonald’s point that the argument raised by the workers union of Zellers may get rejected. However, I feel it will also be Target’s best interest to keep most of the experienced and responsible employees from Zellers. Hence, the debate on the topic will still carry on as long as Target has no further responses towards this issue.