Supposedly, my main boss' job is on the line. But, it's been that way for ohhhhhh the past six months or so. He's sticking his neck out because he likes the team he has brought together blah blah blah. But, I wonder. If I store got so bad under one manager (and could it be coincidental that it all went downhill under the guy? or did the economy and that area take a major downturn after he took over?) why would you keep that manager? Why would you move him into a store that has major earning potential to possibly fuck that one up, too?
Why would you not, instead, put him into a store that continues to make money no matter what happens just based on sheer location and move the corporate person out of there so that he can be released back into the other stores to help out on slow days, or whatever, to keep things moving smoothly.
I don't understand the rationalization and logic behind all of this. And, well, I'm not clearly laying this all out here either, because the backstories and names and all that are really just confusing.
Then, when you hear this comment, "And if they feel that I and D would just be better at being managers, then we'll go back into managing a store, possibly demote a general manager or two, and go that route."
Excuse me? I don't fucking think so. I refuse to be demoted because you can't do your job. I don't see how that helps anyone. Not that I think I would be demoted, but still, the threat is there.
I wish the job market in this area was a little better, then I could just get the fuck out of managing for this company. Maybe I should have taken Laura up on her offer of employment. Dammit.