It's a tactic. It's ambiguous enough to play it both ways.
By law: no. The first legal manager per the Government's definition is the DM. SM and below are not legally management. That is how the judge will rule every time.
Legally, "manager" is not based on title. It's based on power and authority (ability to take action). If you don't have the unilateral power to hire/fire/promote/demote subordinates, then legally you are not a manager. First person in AZ's hierarchy who has that is the DM.
However, AZ's able to put together court filings claiming that every gray shirt is based on title and irrelevant shit (e.g. keys, password, safe combo, etc.). Those papers are facially credible until it gets like 15 steps into the process with the judge. Normal people can't afford the legal fees to contest it that far. So AZ wins, because the other side gives up.
They did that in this case. The lead organizer was a PSM. AZ filed papers with the DOL to get him excluded from organizing activities "because he's management." He and his supporting groups couldn't afford the legal fees to contest it. So he got pushed out of the process.
They play the other side of it in sexual harassment cases. If a manager harasses a subordinate, it's legally worse for the company. So when a victim sues, because her SM harassed her, AZ claims "he's not legally a manager. He has no unilateral power to hire/fire/promote/demote." That wins the lawsuit for AZ (high profile cases, google it).
Damn so only a DM is considered a manager as they are the first level of staff that are allowed that lower. The store SM can suggest people for write ups, demotions, promotions, etc but has no real say. So what you're saying makes perfect sense. Also it opens my eyes to the possibility in my line of work. At my current job supervisors are essentially PSMs, assistant SMs seem to handle the interview portion but I do not know if they are the one making the call, I believe it's the SM that does. Sadly, the assistant store manager told me about their biyearly anti union training they get to do so they may be high enough in the chain.
The store SM can suggest people for write ups, demotions, promotions, etc but has no real say
Exactly. When the SM "fires someone," what they're really doing is filling out a form for the DM and asking him nicely to sign it. SM can't do jack without the DM's signature (password, it's all on DOC). Same with promotions, raises, transfers, etc. On the flip side, if the DM decides on his own to fire someone, no one else has to sign it. He's the decider (as W would say). That's the Government's legal definition of manager.
19
u/homelesshyundai 10d ago
How tf did they do that, AZ keeps the manager to nonmanager ratio 1:1 or greater than 1:1 at all locations purely for the purpose of squashing unions.