There’s an irony there, sure, but it’s a side effect: I mean, if it had been a Starbucks card, my advice would be the same, and they would benefit.
I mean, if the store takes the money, how do they even record it? As a credit? To what account? And does it go to the store’s operating expenses, effectively subtracting the money from the central budget?
If you give a gift to someone based on your pre-existing personal relationship, it’s a personal gift, no matter where it’s handed over. If you give a gift to a store cashier simply because she happens to be the one standing behind the till, that’s not a gift to her, its a gift to “the cashier”. For target, one is “NOYFB” and the other is a tip.
You hear about these cases every few years regarding places like McDonalds or Burger King. The upshot there was, I believe, equally ambiguous. McDonalds has an explicit policy against acepting tips, and if the guy gives a twenty or a hundred and says “keep the change” there is also a cash handling policy that says “no cash from till to pocket”. Whether they can force you to hand it over, or call the police (who will probably tell them “it’s not a criminal matter”) it still boils down to - unless you take something that actually belongs to the store/restaurant, they ahve no grounds for legal charges, but the can fire you.
As others have pointed out it is a preexisting relationship unrelated to the job. I’d like to point out your mom should not be conducting personal business while on the clock. If circumstances are such that you need to do the transfer at her place of work she should be asking for permission to punch out and meet with you on her own time. This would also avoid the appearance of impropriety in accepting a gift should the relationship not be as clear as mother daughter.
It is handed out as a charitable gift and the recipient can use it as the please. Hey local food bank. We, Target, have a hundred dollar gift card for you. We need a receipt for this donation.
Is it really worth losing your job over a $100 gift certificate? I am sure the policy is NO surprise to the employee. If the employee does not agree, unfortunately the cold truth is said employee does not have to work here. 
Her job isn’t in jeopardy because she accepted a gift from a customer, said gift being confiscated immediately. She’s in trouble because she complained about it on Facebook.
And there she was very much in the wrong. One should never, ever bad mouth their employer in public. That is pretty much always grounds for discipline.
A good many politicians have tried that defense and still got convicted of bribery.
While “on the clock”, the employee is an agent of Target, and all her actions “belong” to the firm. The terms of her employment mandate that any money she receives be turned over to the firm; else as a cashier, she would pocket all the money physically given to her by costumers.
When the man gave her the gift card, her terms of employment preempted her from personally accepting the card. By accepting it on company time, the card is effectively the property of Target, to be used as the store sees fit. Presumably they would classify it as a charitable donation, and channel the funds appropriately as they would any other donation given to the store.
Alternatively, they may make some attempt to contact the original donor to return the card before processing it as a donation.
Wrong. BZZZT. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Bricker, do you somehow imagine that we’re all sitting in a hypothetical class you’re hypothetically teaching at a hypothetical law school? In other words, stop the stupid use of the Socratic method.
This is not true. In no way can Target take or accept the gift card if Target is not the intended recipient. There is no way they can take control of the gift. The only thing Target can do is ask the employee to not accept it or fire the employee. If in an at-will state, they can do both.
…this is General Questions. It would be nice, if you know the correct answer, to actually answer it and not leave us all hanging.
See post #79. I gave the answer and linked to the detail.
…maybe Bricker has a different answer. But I’d hardly call what he wrote constructive.
He seems to think he’s hosting a game show.
“I broke a major rule at work this week and my manager didn’t let me get away with it.”
She’s complaining that she didn’t get to benefit from breaking the rule. The company is more likely to decide that the mistake the manager made was that she didn’t get punished for breaking the rule.
Very true, especially on social media. It does look like she still has her job; she posted today that she has to work tomorrow. This woman posts her whole life on Facebook, and the past few days, she’s been preoccupied by a crisis with one of her children, which seems to have resolved.
A while back, another of my Facebook friends who works at Wal-Mart posted, “I work in a shithole!” I, and several other people, recommended that she delete that, and she did. She had just gotten divorced at the time she wrote that and has 2 young children, and also lives in an area with very high unemployment. Plus, a pharmacist with 15 years’ experience isn’t going to be able to find another job; most companies these days only want new graduates, preferably those with NO job experience of any kind. :dubious:
Its most likely in the ethics policy, not the corporate handbook. That’s where the rules on accepting gifts have been in the last two jobs I’ve had.
Do you even stop to think even slightly think about your morality? Do you not realize what you just said? Employers can do no wrong. It is immoral to complain about bad treatment by an employer. (Because, guess what? FACEBOOK ISN’T PUBLIC. It’s a place you share with your friends. THAT’S THE ENTIRE POINT!!!)
The inability to complain about mistreatment is pretty much the cause of social inequality. Think about the implications of a broad statement before making them if you want people to actually think your opinions on such a matter is worth something.
And feel free to pit me if I’ve rubbed you the wrong way. At least then the hostile comments would be in the right forum. I come to GQ to stay away from the naked hostility on display in this thread.