since I took them to task the other day I felt it only right to report on a
good experience that I had yesterday.
Went to the paint dept. to pick up a gallon of custom mixed oil based and a
bit more to finish off my latest project. While the line was a bit long and
it took a while to get served, once I did the experience was quite pleasant.
Another cute young lady mixed my paint using the numbers off of the sample
card, it was way darker than it should have been, she didn't just mix the
paint and hand me off, she took the time to get it right and then made a
note on the label as to what she did in case I need to get more. She also
noted the discrepancy for future investigation.
More importantly than what she did was her attitude, she wanted to do right
by me.She was friendly, apologetic for the machine not being correct, etc.
The exact opposite of what I've come to expect from Home Depot in general.
Ironically, from talking with her a bit I found out she's relatively new to
the dept. Another irony, while she was helping me one of the more
experienced guys showed up, he was rude to each customer he spoke to, talked
down to them like he was the freakin god of paint mixing. Sad, I hope she
doesn't turn into one of those.
Unfortunately I didn't have time for a hot dog this time.
This was at the store in Monrovia, CA by the way. And nobody was stopping
people to check their receipts either...
--
John Emmons
"when hatred calls with his package, refuse delivery..."
Matisse wrote:
> It is what it is, a big warehouse with minimum wage
workers thrown into the fray and doing their best. <
That is where you are wrong. Home Depot pays some of the highest wage
rates in the industry and tries to hire people experienced in the
field.
Like anywhere else, however, people are people. There are unreliable
and rude contractors, just as there are unreliable and rude HD
employees.
It all boils down to the individual's personal pride in doing a good
job.
Gus
ISTR reading on the Home Depot webpages that they offer
consider autonomy to their mangers so it is no surprise
that policies and attitudes are highly variable.
I mostly patronize the only one I've found that does NOT
have a sign on the front door stating that they require
drug testing of all applicants for employment. The
general environment at that one is cleaner and better
organized and the employees more numerous, helpful and
competant than the norm. I dunno is that manager
requires drug screening or not, it may simply be that
he does not put a sign on the door. But just maybe he
screeens his employess for qualifications other than
their willingness to urinate on demand.
My personal opinion is that demonstrating that one wishes
to earn an honest living by applying for a job is NOT
an indicator of substance abuse.
--
FF
Jerry Wrote:
> Wow! Good for you. Exactly counter to my experiences with HD paint
> dept. I will go out of my way to buy paint elsewhere to avoid HD.
> Won't go into detail. Just to say that if it were my business and
> they
> were my employee they would be out the door....
In 12 years of buying paint at my local Home Depot I have never had a
bad experience with either the employees or their product. But, I also
don't expect a lot from Home Depot in general as far their employees
being knowledgable. It is what it is, a big warehouse with minimum wage
workers thrown into the fray and doing their best. As with anything it's
best to do your homework before you buy and treat everyone with as much
respect as you can muster.
--
Matisse
Two years ago I bought two chemicals to clean my deck prior to staining.
The clerk told me to use them in the wrong order. When I found out and
complained, they not only gave me my money back, but a bit extra for the
inconvenience.
Last year I bought a closeout transfer switch. It was defective. They took
a comparable switch out of a kit and swapped with me.
I have no complaints about their service. Now Chase Pitkin; I don't even
read their ads anymore...
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ISTR reading on the Home Depot webpages that they offer
> consider autonomy to their mangers so it is no surprise
> that policies and attitudes are highly variable.
>
> I mostly patronize the only one I've found that does NOT
> have a sign on the front door stating that they require
> drug testing of all applicants for employment. The
> general environment at that one is cleaner and better
> organized and the employees more numerous, helpful and
> competant than the norm. I dunno is that manager
> requires drug screening or not, it may simply be that
> he does not put a sign on the door. But just maybe he
> screeens his employess for qualifications other than
> their willingness to urinate on demand.
>
> My personal opinion is that demonstrating that one wishes
> to earn an honest living by applying for a job is NOT
> an indicator of substance abuse.
Absolutely agree. Everyone abuses something, whether or not it is on a
government list.
"bf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> It would be a lot less hassle if they just made everyone get on the
> flight nude.
Well, that would be one way to reduce the line ups to board a plane. No more
need to fight over a window seat. Hell, even first class would be mostly
empty.
<[email protected]> wrote
>
> I mostly patronize the only one I've found that does NOT
> have a sign on the front door stating that they require
> drug testing of all applicants for employment. The
> general environment at that one is cleaner and better
> organized and the employees more numerous, helpful and
> competant than the norm. I dunno is that manager
> requires drug screening or not, it may simply be that
> he does not put a sign on the door. But just maybe he
> screeens his employess for qualifications other than
> their willingness to urinate on demand.
>
I know that a lot of folks are really gung ho about the drug testing thing.
The ability to do the job or treat people well apparently are not thing that
concern them when interviewing prospective employees.
But you are absolutely right about the urinate on command thing. It gets
down to the quality of the body's waste matter as to whether or not you get
hired. What is the next step? Testing of feces? Or sweat? Flatulence?
Impure thoughts?
Or even airport security. If it gets much worse, they will be insisting on
a body cavity search before each flight.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> competant than the norm. I dunno is that manager
> requires drug screening or not, it may simply be that
> he does not put a sign on the door. But just maybe he
> screeens his employess for qualifications other than
> their willingness to urinate on demand.
>
> My personal opinion is that demonstrating that one wishes
> to earn an honest living by applying for a job is NOT
> an indicator of substance abuse.
Companies with drug testing polices get lower rates on their workman's comp
insurance.
While applying for a job is not an indication of substance abuse, there are
many abusers that apply for jobs. Passing a test in not an indictor of not
abusing drugs either.
Drug testing is also a way to legally and easily get rid of an employee that
is using drugs and causing problems (like theft, property damage etc.) . .
Yes, I have first hand experience in doing just that. Damned good workers
if they could stay straight, a danger to others if they were not. Had to
say goodbye.
On 21 Jul 2005 08:32:45 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>ISTR reading on the Home Depot webpages that they offer
>consider autonomy to their mangers so it is no surprise
>that policies and attitudes are highly variable.
>
>I mostly patronize the only one I've found that does NOT
>have a sign on the front door stating that they require
>drug testing of all applicants for employment. The
>general environment at that one is cleaner and better
>organized and the employees more numerous, helpful and
>competant than the norm. I dunno is that manager
>requires drug screening or not, it may simply be that
>he does not put a sign on the door. But just maybe he
>screeens his employess for qualifications other than
>their willingness to urinate on demand.
>
>My personal opinion is that demonstrating that one wishes
>to earn an honest living by applying for a job is NOT
>an indicator of substance abuse.
what? you question nancy reagan's just say no campaign? you're
obviously a traitor and a terrorist!
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:51:53 -0400, Lee Michaels wrote:
> I know that a lot of folks are really gung ho about the drug testing
> thing. The ability to do the job or treat people well apparently are not
> thing that concern them when interviewing prospective employees.
>
> But you are absolutely right about the urinate on command thing. It gets
> down to the quality of the body's waste matter as to whether or not you
> get hired. What is the next step? Testing of feces? Or sweat?
> Flatulence? Impure thoughts?
>
> Or even airport security. If it gets much worse, they will be insisting
> on a body cavity search before each flight.
And if someone wants to do a couple of lines of coke in the breakroom, or
sneak out back and take a hit off a joint, then thinks it would be "cool"
to have a Hyster or forklift race down the aisles, and impales you/your
child, that would be ok?
Many threads in this NG talk about the systemic lack of professionalism
amongst BORG employees, but I guess we should just limit talk to
discussions about long checkout lines and Ryobi tools.
"Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Or even airport security. If it gets much worse, they will be insisting
> on a body cavity search before each flight.
You mean that search they did on me *wasn't* required?
Son of a bitch.
Jason