Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Then the workers should revolt!

They should take all the wealth from the greedy upper class and rejoice in a new workers paradise!

a reply to: DBCowboy

See, you just took it to the very far extreme scenario. No one is saying these executives need to have their money stolen from them or for them to give all of their money away, that's a passive aggressive stance and does not reflect what I'm saying in any way shape or form.

What I'm suggesting is that these executives have a bit of empathy and humility mixed in with their business practices. You can only make so much profit before it starts hurting other people, and that's exactly what's happening today, these executives are so money hungry that they are letting it negatively affect their employees. They are basically "lawfully" stealing money from their employees by taking advantage of the laws they themselves paid to have written.

If you think greed makes a good businessman then I guess these executives are at the top of their games. Business shouldn't be about screwing other people over, it should be about mutual beneficience and that is NOT the case today, it is all about making more money than other people, their livelihoods be damned. That's not how it should be but that's how it is. That needs to change.

I have no issue with people making more money than me, I'm not a greedy or materialistic person, but when their income starts affecting me and other people around me negatively then I have a problem with it. That's what's happening today and that's why the middle class is all but non-existent, all the money is being sucked to the top and being put in offshore bank accounts that can't be taxed and circulated back into the economy.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So how much wealth should they be allowed to keep?

If a companies success is based on the employees and the employees should gain from that, then if a company loses money, should the employees be expected to be paid less?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not the person to decide that, but having more money than you could ever spend is wasteful and hurts the economy when it's just sitting in a bank account that can't be taxed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's already what happens. Employees get all the negatives that come with failure but none of the positives that come with success.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not the person to decide that, but having more money than you could ever spend is wasteful and hurts the economy when it's just sitting in a bank account that can't be taxed.

So you don't think a person should be able to determine what they should obtain.

Okay.

I disagree, but then again, I prefer freedom.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So how much wealth should they be allowed to keep?

Forty two?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not the person to decide that, but having more money than you could ever spend is wasteful and hurts the economy when it's just sitting in a bank account that can't be taxed.

I would suggest that most wealth is not sitting in a bank account. It is in the form of capital and real investment. Investment in things like companies. Many of which employ people.

a reply to: Phage

heeheehee. . . .

This cultural meme to actually be concerned with what other people have is annoying.

I don't care what people make. People shouldn't care what I make.

But, apparently, people have made it their business to determine how much people should have.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet you seem to be against people wanting to obtain $15 an hour minimum wage. Seems like there's a double standard here somewhere.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yet you seem to be against people wanting to obtain $15 an hour minimum wage. Seems like there's a double standard here somewhere.

I don't really care what people make as long as it doesn't impact me.

A ruined nanny-state, "give me an allowance" economy would impact me.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not against people making $15 an hour. Unless the job they do is worth $12.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well these CEO's salaries and business practices are impacting millions of people in a negative way, so you mean to say as long as it doesn't affect you in particular it's ok that it affects millions of others?

I don't work for Starbucks but I do know its employees are struggling financially because of those executives greed.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it too.

originally posted by: Phage
Both of the statements I quoted came from that post.

It's possible my edit was breaking them up into two posts, I'm not really sure as it was late and I was tired but either way, I didn't remove any words. They're all still there.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Phage

heeheehee. . . .

This cultural meme to actually be concerned with what other people have is annoying.

I don't care what people make. People shouldn't care what I make.

But, apparently people have made it their business to determine how much people should have.

The less people make the more you pay in taxes.
Min wage worker gets sick, 120,000$ medical bill YOU pay.
Min wage Bridge card (food stamps) YOU pay.
Min wage Energy Assistance YOU pay.
Min wage earned income tax credit YOU pay.
Min wage medical coverage subsidy YOU pay.

There is more, do you care how much a min wage worker gets paid now?

If not what would it take?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't work for Starbucks but I do know its employees are struggling financially because of those executives greed.

They are struggling because the job they are working at is not a high value job. That does not mean they aren't doing a good job, it means that the profit margin on that hour they work is not very high. The reason that Starbucks makes a lot of money is because there are a lot of Starbucks. Reduce the profit margin just a bit, on all those stores and the company is suddenly no longer profitable and it goes away.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Sure. They should be free to do so.

Though Starbucks will just hire scabs at a fraction of what the union baristas are asking.

But sure, unionize.

Will they? Krogers is a national grocery chain which has an employee union. A few years ago the union even managed to successfully strike for better wages and benefits. Remember the old days where a grocery store worker could put 25 years into the company starting as a bagger and come out of it with a retirement pension? My uncle has one actually so I know they existed, and it was a common practice.

Krogers still does that today and they still manage to remain competitive against other grocery retailers, even the cheaper ones like Walmart and Aldi's.

a reply to: Aazadan

Average Hourly Rate for The Kroger Company Employees. The Kroger Company (headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio) offers a host of job openings in the staple the retail, from Cashier to Pharmacy Technician. The average pay for The Kroger Company employees is $9.46 per hour. With overtime, that gets bumped up to $18.23.

www.payscale.com...=The_Kroger_Company/Hourly_Rate

29 percent have paid vacation, and only about one in ten survey participants can take paid time off for illness. For employees looking to save up for their golden years, The Kroger Company provides an optional 401(k) plan, and the larger part of respondents participate.

a reply to: Phage

I'd say their job is pretty damn valuable to that CEO because without that job the CEO wouldn't make any money at all. The CEO doesn't recognize just how valuable his employees are, as do many Americans, that's the issue here, narcissistic money hungry people (not directed at you) thinking that they deserve everything while everyone else can get crumbs.