Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: Aazadan

They are getting paid. They accepted a job at a specified hourly wage and an expected number of hours. When the wage went up, the company couldn't afford the hours. I'm sure they are still getting at least the minimum specified in their contract.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I do see a lot parent companies moving OREO's to mexico and was it Train? And the companies are posting record profits. But of course it ain't enough.

And the employees get the same load of crap from the guys making 6 and 7 figures, it was a hard decision it is the only way, but keep working and doing a good job (fools). I would not want to buy a train AC unit right now.

Trump to the rescue right?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
In a bear economy, that is what you get. Or, would you rather they pay someone 1/2 that is a worse CEO, that results in the company losing money and closing stores, which means more jobless? The work of a CEO means that one bad decision could bankrupt the company. If a barista makes one bad decision, they write the name of the customer wrong on the cup. Not quite the same impact I am afraid.

More false equivalencies.

Being paid more/less isn't a mark of someone being a better or worse CEO. Compensation is all about perception, if you give off the illusion that you're a good CEO, you're going to be paid more regardless of past performance. If you give off the illusion that you're not going to be as good of a CEO, perhaps because you have some radical ideas that go against the boards preconcieved notions, you're not going to be paid as much... even if you're right.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well, at least we have narrowed the problem down to comprehension and not lack of reading.

I care nothing for multi-million dollar homes either. My goals are quite different. I also make no excuses for politicians; they do nothing to help the economy. They don't create jobs (well, a few bureaucratic positions maybe), and they don't produce a product or service (unless you count harassment). That CEO that you despise and denigrate so much is at least responsible for making coffee (or whatever it is they make) for customers, and employing people. He is not responsible for the economic downturn; that's the politicians' fault. He isn't responsible for the number of unemployed people who will gladly work at Starbucks for minimum wage. He didn't make full-time employment so expensive he can't afford it any more. All he does is run the company as best he can.

Without him, Starbucks would likely not even exist. Without Starbucks, there would be no one here screaming bloody murder at him for something the politicians forced him into. Instead, we would be crying about the fact there are so few jobs, even less than there are now.

Every single employee took that job at a specified wage. They agreed to do the work; they agreed how much they would be paid. Not one was forced to come to work at Starbucks. Yet you and so many others apparently hate the guy who pays them.

I wish they could make more; I really do. I wish the economy were better and that businesses had to compete for good workers. I wish CEOs didn't demand such high wages while the average unskilled worker demands so little. But I don't blame the guy who at least gave them a job. I blame the people who made the policies that have given us such a terrible economy: the politicians.

But, it'll all work out in the end. As a poster previously said, soon automation will replace workers. Robots are efficient, don't complain, don't file lawsuits, don't take sick days off to go fishing, don't purposely slow down work because they're mad at their employer, and don't need health insurance. I will probably be one of those making the robots. I'm sure as I watch the last vestiges of a once-vibrant working force disappear into oblivion and see the third-world conditions here in the USA, I'll feel a lot of sympathy for the poor people who are suffering so badly. But I'm also sure I'll remember this discussion and a thousand more just like it where those same people told me how much they hated the people who gave them jobs.

You see, you're far from unique. Your attitude is actually quite common. Because of it, minimum wage will soon increase, probably to $15 per hour. When that happens, companies will lay off workers they can no longer afford, and some will go out of business. The few jobs that are left will not be enough to support even the fragile economy we have now, and that will mean more layoffs. Eventually we'll all be indigent, begging for anything on street corners until the laws are passed to make begging illegal. Then we'll all be in jail.

Well, not me if I can help it. Like I said, I'll probably be designing the robots. It's more productive than crying. If that makes me a bad person in your eyes, well... I can't change that. I'm going to protect me and mine first.

TheRedneck

You will build robots for about 20 minutes and then fight off hordes of people that this system refused the opportunity of work for the rest of your day. Good luck.

If the future you are talking about comes true, no one will be working. I hope it doesn't, but race to the bottom is real.

a reply to: Aazadan

They pay CEOs of these big companies so much because they are grooming them for the board room as the next generation of corporate masters.

Play by and learn the rules, if you do good your in the club if not back to middle managemt.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Pinke

So basically, you are saying that you expect ever CEO to be as good or better than you at your job and every other job in the company in order to be considered worth any pay?

Talk about unreasonably standards.

Those are the standards I have for people in authority positions. I don't think they're unreasonable at all. If you're managing a business with 10 departments, I expect that person to be competent in all 10 of those departments. Maybe not the best at it, but mid level at the worst.

Do you think you need to be as knowledgeable about the jobs of everyone you interact with?

Yes.

a reply to: Aazadan
I wouldn't expect the CEO to know how the actual job is getting done on the floor that's what the guy supervising the production floor or service floor is for.

Hell I wouldn't expect him to have to ever know what the he'll is going on in operations unless there is a problem.

That's what the COO is for.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

They are getting paid. They accepted a job at a specified hourly wage and an expected number of hours. When the wage went up, the company couldn't afford the hours. I'm sure they are still getting at least the minimum specified in their contract.

TheRedneck

I read the article and the petition holder said that only deceleration in quarterly cafe sales growth caused the computer program that schedules hour to cut.

It declined to give details but Starbucks spokeswoman Jaime Riley said it is not uncommon for Schultz to reach out to members of its 160,000-strong U.S. workforce. She also said no nationwide cutback in labor hours or jobs was underway at Starbucks stores.

Who to believe, hourly employees that are costs (negatives for business) or the corporation, that is experiencing record profits?

Q4 Comp Sales Increase 8% Globally, 9% in the U.S.; Global Traffic Up 4% Q4 Revenues Jump 18% to a Record $4.9 Billion; Operating Income Up 13% to a Record $969 Million Q4 GAAP EPS Rises to a Record $0.43; Non-GAAP EPS Rises 16% to a Record $0.43 Per Share Company Issues Strong Outlook for Fiscal 2016 and Increases Global Comp Store Sales Targets Board of Directors Approves a 25% Increase in the Quarterly Dividend to $0.20 Per Share

news.starbucks.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">news.starbucks.com...

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aazadan

The marke is far less conplicated than a casino but you need time energy and financial resources in order to be able to become even moderately adequate in order to invest in it

You need to be able to fail which average people cannot do

No, it is much more complicated. I've known a few professional gamblers in my life, even learned a thing or two from them. Even they weren't dumb enough to get tied up in Wall Street. I've known a few professional investors too who make their living from day trading.

The entire system is rigged by the large banks so that they get the profit and everyone else eats the losses. There are a few sectors where an individual can do what the banks do, but that's largely because they're too small for the banks to care about.

Wall Street works best for the average person if you use it for long term investments. The majority of people try to make trades locking in short term gains though, and that's where money is lost. If you focus on the long term, it's actually to your benefit when stock prices go down because it means you can buy more for less, the prices will eventually rebound, and at the end of the day the only value that matters is the value you cash out at.

originally posted by: PhageFalse. The idea that someone has to lose something is not inherent in economics.

There is only a finite amount of money in the pool at any given moment. We've tried to create a system with an ever increasing pool to get around that and ensure a system where it's possible for everyone to profit but from one moment to the next it is finite. If one person captures a bigger slice of the pie, there is less for others to take.

a reply to: Aazadan

There is only a finite amount of money in the pool at any given moment.

That would be true if there were a fixed standard. That's the main reason there isn't.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think one of the biggest factors everyone forgets to include as a variable in their equation is the currency value

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan



There is only a finite amount of money in the pool at any given moment.

That would be true if there were a fixed standard. That's the main reason there isn't.

If one person captures a bigger slice of the pie, there is less for others to take.

Are you talking about competition for the same market? Yes, someone generally does better than someone else in that case.

But at least you've modified your stance that a company has to take a loss if another one is profiting.

Not to nitpick, but you're up a bit high on your self-appointed pedestal, Redneck. Allow me to show why.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: onequestion

Rent: $0. I own my old trailer and the land it sits on. It's not much, but it's mine.

Good job there. However, you neglect to consider that not everyone gets lucky enough to have credit good enough for a home loan, or ever gets paid enough to stash money in some form of savings to buy a house in cash. Or pay the property taxes. Or insurance. There's your first disconnect of logic when chest-thumping over bootstrapping.

Water bill: $0. I have a well.

Fantabulous. It's not something people ALREADY broke can afford to put in to get off the water bill grid, though.

I paid for electricity, gas back and forth to work/school (and made trips count extra whenever possible), and toiletries.

No argument there, $96 a week is enough for filling a tank, electric bill portion, car insurance portion (and not forgetting annual registration portions) and basic necessities like butt wipe & laundry/dish soaps. EBT obviously did it's job shoring up the food budget end, you said as much.

I also learned to "hyper-mile."

Explain. Never heard of this.

I do all my repairs myself. I probably spent about $200 on repairs during the last 3 years, for parts.

Awesomesauce. I presume you own tools to assist in making these repairs? I've met many who can't afford so much as a pack of nails after rent, utilities & food. Consider yourself lucky to have had the spending money for tools, let alone the supplies.

We have kerosene heat, barely enough to keep the water pipes from freezing in the dead of winter.

Ok, something's not adding up well. $5k a year works out to be about $96.15 a week. I'm curious as to how you swung heating fuel with that. You didn't mention any HHC use or charity help.

Now, apply that to any given single parent, or old person struggling to survive on their minimum wage job. All that "extra" shizola you didn't have to pay for because it was already owned, or free? They do. I think you can get off your high horse now & examine those ants up close. You're going to see infinite shades of you, with less options for improvement.

a reply to: Nyiah

How much do you think cigs cost a week?

5$ a day for 7 days a week is 35 off of that 96

Can't feed four kids and a wife for 96$ a week or with foodstamps

Someone's not telling the truth

a reply to: Nyiah

I admit I am a bit proud we got through that. I guess it's normal for others who hear such a tale to try and discredit it.

I used what I had. Admittedly, I had some advantages, but I also had some serious disadvantages. Everyone has advantages and disadvantages in life. The key is to use what you have instead of concentrating on what you want. Most people, even those seriously underemployed, make quite a bit more than I did.

Hyper-miling is driving to take full advantage of maximum gas mileage. For instance, when I was attending the two-year college I started at, I learned how my car reacted to the downgrade coming off the mountain. I would be at 35 mph at the top of the last rise, then (assuming no traffic) just take my feet off the pedals. At one point I would hit 70, but by the bottom I would be at 50 mph going into a 45 mph speed zone. Other tactics involve timing traffic lights to minimize stopping and do any speed changes as slow and smooth as possible. I raised my mileage from 26 mpg to 30.

Heating fuel... I would average $20 in kerosene each week. During the summer I saved as much as I could and used that to get through the winter. It's not exactly rocket science. I figured $250 or so per winter. We were cold, like I said before, but we didn't freeze to death or have busted water pipes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: onequestion

Family of four = two kids.

I roll my own cigarettes. I pay about $8 per carton when all is said and done, and the machine I use costs $6.

I tried a pack of regular cigarettes once when I ran low on tobacco. Carpet glue tastes terrible. You can have them nasty $5 a pack things.

TheRedneck

a reply to: onequestion

What starbucks employees are doing is no different than what the Ford auto plant men did back in the 1920s and 30s. The company is very profitable and they refuse to share the profits with "johnny six pack".

Make no mistake, this is history repeating itself. If push comes to shove and there is a worker walk out, we will see picket lines and hired thugs or police beating the baristas just like the Ford employees got their clocks cleaned.

Battle of the overpass: Henry Ford, the UAW, and the power of the press

peoplesworld.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">peoplesworld.org... ss-henry-ford-the-uaw-and-the-power-of-the-press/

I can't be sure but I bet there were people telling the auto factory guys in 1920s to get back to work and be happy you got a job. And all you do is build cars, there are tons of guys to replace your unskilled ass. Seems like record profits are a determining factor to cut employees wages/hours. Sad really.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A family of four cannot survive off 5k for a year come on I'm not going to believe that.

Did you hunt for food and have your wife make clothes out of the skin?

No way you did that for four years strait not going to believe that for a second.

a reply to: seasonal

4 billion in profits definitely can't pay those # eaters at the bottom.

Total enslavement

The thing that irks me is the amount of people demanding these people work as slaves