Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: ketsuko

Profit is what's left over after expenditures.

No, it's not. Not that simply, at least. Profit is, broadly, money made. EBITDA profit is purely cost of goods sold compared to sales income. As of September 2015, the EBITDA was about $4.9 billion. Actual net revenue was $2.7 billion. Sort of a big difference between those numbers. Which is why it's important to not just pick a number and call it "profit." It may well be profit, but as we can see here, Starbucks didn't net over $4 billion, and complaining that that's a lot of money to not pay people better wages with is a failing argument.

a reply to: Aazadan

Currency value only matters for multinationals. When everything is operating under the same currency it doesn't matter. For the majority of small and medium sized business, this remains true.

That would only be true if the currency value were fixed and no other currencies were involved. Neither is true.

Our currency is not fixed. If it were, there would be no inflation/deflation. The cost to live under a certain standard of living has actually steadily risen for decades. Gasoline is a perfect example: a year or so ago, I had to pay $3.50 or so per gallon. This past spring it was down under $2.00 for the same gallon of gas. I can personally remember whe it was $0.50 a gallon. The gas didn't change; the value of the currency relative to the value of the gas changed.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. The value of the dollar relative to other currencies is constantly changing, and many of those currencies are in countries which produce the goods we consider necessary to maintain our standard of living. When the currency values change relative to each other, that affects the costs businesses pay for those goods. For example, about 90% of the ceramics used to encapsulate microchips is made in China, meaning the microchips are made in China. If the yuan changes value relative to the dollar, that affects the cost businesses pay for all the electronic machinery used to do business.

That depends.

No, it doesn't. Economics is a time-based science. One cannot remove the time dimension from economics and still expect their results to be anything more than a bunch of meaningless numbers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: xuenchen

Looks like there are 2 schools of thought,

One seems to believe workers should be happy for what you get, don't concern yourself with the amount of $ your labor creates. You are replaceable and unimportant compared to the upper ranks of a company.

Two, seems to think that if a worker should be fairly compensated if the company is very profitable, even if that means raises (bonuses). And labor preforms a very important function in a successful business.

Both sides have good points, and there are unintended consequences to both. I lean toward 2.

History is ripe with examples of this very thing. Unions were used to force the issue. I would like to avoid all the blood and pain, but it seems there is no way of avoiding the same old labor/company fights. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

Then unions push companies to the brink with unsustainable labor costs. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

a reply to: Shamrock6

So you're saying that Starbucks, after all expenditures are accounted for, made a net profit/revenue of $2.7 billion?

If that's the case, they have about 191,000 employees, that leaves about $14,000 per employee in profit. That's about 1.5x the amount the CEO makes in just one hour left over PER YEAR for each employee.

$2.7 billion is still a pretty huge number.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yes. My ass. The same place you got yours when. It was an entirely made up point to prove that your imaginary statement that he only works 1/2 as much as other people is also entirely made up.

a reply to: stolencar18

I've seen CEOs as way overpaid administrators at companies I've worked for before.

Just someone's kid.

a reply to: Phage

I did no such thing.
The first statement is still at www.abovetopsecret.com...

The second one is www.abovetopsecret.com...

No editing of content took place (well, I did reword one of them, but nothing that you quoted)

a reply to: onequestion

For all the anti and pro CEOs people, is there a valid reason for CEO pay to grow at such a high extent and not the pay of hourly employees? Productivity has grown, but it hasn't netted any gains in pay for workers.

I don't know if CEOs responsibilities have grown by 900% over the last 30 years. And I really mean I don't know.

The board of directors ultimately set the CEOs pay, I imagine that these people run in the same social groups, seems like a synergistic set up. And if it doesn't work out and the CEO takes a crap on the business, they get a big fat check as he is fired.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Our currency is not fixed. If it were, there would be no inflation/deflation. The cost to live under a certain standard of living has actually steadily risen for decades.

I'm aware that it's not fixed, and that cost of living has gone up. More accurate would be to say that purchasing power has gone down as an hour of work doesn't buy you equivalent goods to what it bought you 10, 20, or 40 years ago. Though fuel has actually remained relatively steady to the median income, but not to anyone below that.

We live in a global economy, like it or not. The value of the dollar relative to other currencies is constantly changing, and many of those currencies are in countries which produce the goods we consider necessary to maintain our standard of living.

Even still, we rarely see small changes on store shelves reflecting a change in the value of currencies from one day to the next. The end level consumer is pretty much insulated from that, and currency fluctuations are accounted for in store markups.

No, it doesn't. Economics is a time-based science. One cannot remove the time dimension from economics and still expect their results to be anything more than a bunch of meaningless numbers.

Calling economics a science is a real stretch. No where in any official definition of economics is time mentioned. It is a bunch of theories on how money changes hands. Time is only brought in because it takes time for an exchange to take place, but by that metric literally everything is time based because nothing is instantaneous.

TheRedneck

a reply to: seasonal

You did actually sideswipe a real issue: Most CEOs have salaries that are a fraction of their pay. The bulk of their pay is in terms of bonuses. Typically these bonuses are paid out as the company reaches certain financial goals set by the Board of Directors, for instance, stock price reaches a certain level, disbursements reach a certain percentage, a certain annual growth threshold, etc.

This actually makes sense, The Board is composed usually of stockholders and they're looking out for their own best interests. They want more profit (duh) so they reward the CEO who manages to make them that profit. The problem is that the goals are not well-defined. It's relatively simple to increase stock price, growth, disbursements, etc. in the short run. It is much harder to meet those goals while maintaining a solid business structure long-term. So it's little wonder that a CEO, faced with prospects of major financial advantage, will often make decisions based on short-term outlooks. It's a job to him, not a long-term investment, so who cares if the company fails after he's gone? He got paid.

Before anyone faults that too much, let me translate into simple terms what I keep hearing in this thread: Who cares if the CEO or stockholders don't get paid? As long as we get paid.

The problem is short-sightedness on the part of the Board. But it's not confined to rich guys sitting in a board room. I see short-sighted thinking in every class everywhere I go.

• Nah, too expensive to buy a good car; I'll get this piece of junk that's cheaper... $1000 to fix it? Why does this always happen to me?
  
• Going back to school is too much trouble; I'll get a minimum wage job and it'll be fine... what do you mean, you're cutting your workforce? Why does this always happen to me?
  
• Let's raise the minimum wage! That way I'll get a bigger paycheck next week... layoff? Why are we having a layoff?
  
• I have to have that new iPhone, but I can't afford it. Wait, there's a quick cash store! They only charge 8% a week... what do you mean I owe twice what I borrowed a few months ago? Garnishment? No!!!!!!
  
• Hey, look! I can save 70% by buying this new gadget online from China... who designed this thing? It broke before I could use it!

This is instead a society problem We tend to think short-term. That's why China is the fastest-growing economy in the world today... they tend to think long-term, even generationally. Sacrifice today for a better tomorrow, instead of gratification today for a harder tomorrow.

A perfect example of this is WalMart. Sam Walton started the thing with a vision. He grew it, using that vision, to be one of the largest retailers on the planet. He stressed American-made, new enterprise, customer satisfaction, and fairness to employees. When he retired, he placed his eldest son, groomed to run the business the way Sam did, in charge. His son died young, and control went to the remainder of his family. They had no concept of how Sam grew WalMart, only that it was their cash cow. So they began milking it. American-made changed to imported for lower prices. Good selections were changed to smaller selections of more merchandise to cut cost. Employee hours and wages dropped. Managers were hired for their cost, not their vision. The enterprise-friendly programs were dropped because they were too expensive.

Now we have a company which, according to their numbers, I wouldn't invest in if they were the last stock on earth. Their debt-to-asset ratio is way too high, their growth has stagnated, and their public goodwill is almost non-existent.

Walt Disney Studios was started by Walter Disney with a long-term vision to provide wholesome, family-friendly entertainment to the masses. It produced classic after classic and set the benchmark for animation and story-telling. Then investors looking for pure profit took over the Board of Directors. The level of art dropped, the story-telling became mediocre, and the family-friendly atmosphere dissipated. Luckily, one of Walt's nephews (I think it was a nephew?) recently managed to recapture the Board and is returning Disney, using long-range strategies and a vision, to its former glory.

What goes around comes around. Sam Walton's descendants will not enjoy the respect and popularity he did. WalMart will slowly lose market share in the coming years until it either is sold to someone new with a new vision and returned to a long-term strategy or spirals down into oblivion to join Kmart, Sears Roebuck, Montgomery Wards, Woolworth's, and a whole host of others. But the sheer size of Walmart means it will be able to last for some years on that alone. During that time, employees will suffer because of bad visions at the investor level.

The only way to stop this is to bring back the anti-trust laws. Stop companies from becoming too big to fail. We really need to change "too big to fail" to "too big to exist." That view doesn't just apply to banks.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

More accurate would be to say that purchasing power has gone down

Correct.

Even still, we rarely see small changes on store shelves reflecting a change in the value of currencies from one day to the next.

Only correct when the variations are minor. I remember a time maybe 10-15 years ago? when one of the major ceramic producers in China burned down. Electronics prices skyrocketed, because there wasn't enough ceramic to make microchips for the current demand.

Retailers will typically try to maintain price levels short-term just because it's easier than changing all those pricing signs and sales flyers. But that only applies to short-term minor fluctuations. It does not mean the fluctuations do not have an effect on their bottom line.

Calling economics a science is a real stretch. No where in any official definition of economics is time mentioned.

I took several economics courses in college for electives in my Computer Systems degree. I have several textbooks here, sitting in their place in my bookshelves. Every single one mentions time, not in passing, but as an integral part of the science (yes, it may not be aerodynamics but it is a science). The time value of money comes to mind... ever hear of interest? Compounding strategies? Future funding strategies?

I'm sorry, but that single statement tells me you know nothing about economics.

TheRedneck

a reply to: stolencar18

You never did answer where you got your numbers from. I got my numbers off of official data, you pulled yours out of your ass apparenttly. According to how much the Starbucks CEO makes per year divided by how much he makes per hour he works about half the amount of hours as a regular full-time employee. Explain to me how I am wrong instead of just saying it.

Again, where are you getting the idea that my numbers are imaginary? You can't just say something and not back it up with your own numbers. I've already provided where I got my numbers from, why can't you do the same?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: seasonal

You did actually sideswipe a real issue: Most CEOs have salaries that are a fraction of their pay. The bulk of their pay is in terms of bonuses. Typically these bonuses are paid out as the company reaches certain financial goals set by the Board of Directors, for instance, stock price reaches a certain level, disbursements reach a certain percentage, a certain annual growth threshold, etc.

This actually makes sense, The Board is composed usually of stockholders and they're looking out for their own best interests. They want more profit (duh) so they reward the CEO who manages to make them that profit. The problem is that the goals are not well-defined. It's relatively simple to increase stock price, growth, disbursements, etc. in the short run. It is much harder to meet those goals while maintaining a solid business structure long-term. So it's little wonder that a CEO, faced with prospects of major financial advantage, will often make decisions based on short-term outlooks. It's a job to him, not a long-term investment, so who cares if the company fails after he's gone? He got paid.

Before anyone faults that too much, let me translate into simple terms what I keep hearing in this thread: Who cares if the CEO or stockholders don't get paid? As long as we get paid.

The problem is short-sightedness on the part of the Board. But it's not confined to rich guys sitting in a board room. I see short-sighted thinking in every class everywhere I go.

• Nah, too expensive to buy a good car; I'll get this piece of junk that's cheaper... $1000 to fix it? Why does this always happen to me?
  
• Going back to school is too much trouble; I'll get a minimum wage job and it'll be fine... what do you mean, you're cutting your workforce? Why does this always happen to me?
  
• Let's raise the minimum wage! That way I'll get a bigger paycheck next week... layoff? Why are we having a layoff?
  
• I have to have that new iPhone, but I can't afford it. Wait, there's a quick cash store! They only charge 8% a week... what do you mean I owe twice what I borrowed a few months ago? Garnishment? No!!!!!!
  
• Hey, look! I can save 70% by buying this new gadget online from China... who designed this thing? It broke before I could use it!

This is instead a society problem We tend to think short-term. That's why China is the fastest-growing economy in the world today... they tend to think long-term, even generationally. Sacrifice today for a better tomorrow, instead of gratification today for a harder tomorrow.

A perfect example of this is WalMart. Sam Walton started the thing with a vision. He grew it, using that vision, to be one of the largest retailers on the planet. He stressed American-made, new enterprise, customer satisfaction, and fairness to employees. When he retired, he placed his eldest son, groomed to run the business the way Sam did, in charge. His son died young, and control went to the remainder of his family. They had no concept of how Sam grew WalMart, only that it was their cash cow. So they began milking it. American-made changed to imported for lower prices. Good selections were changed to smaller selections of more merchandise to cut cost. Employee hours and wages dropped. Managers were hired for their cost, not their vision. The enterprise-friendly programs were dropped because they were too expensive.

Now we have a company which, according to their numbers, I wouldn't invest in if they were the last stock on earth. Their debt-to-asset ratio is way too high, their growth has stagnated, and their public goodwill is almost non-existent.

Walt Disney Studios was started by Walter Disney with a long-term vision to provide wholesome, family-friendly entertainment to the masses. It produced classic after classic and set the benchmark for animation and story-telling. Then investors looking for pure profit took over the Board of Directors. The level of art dropped, the story-telling became mediocre, and the family-friendly atmosphere dissipated. Luckily, one of Walt's nephews (I think it was a nephew?) recently managed to recapture the Board and is returning Disney, using long-range strategies and a vision, to its former glory.

What goes around comes around. Sam Walton's descendants will not enjoy the respect and popularity he did. WalMart will slowly lose market share in the coming years until it either is sold to someone new with a new vision and returned to a long-term strategy or spirals down into oblivion to join Kmart, Sears Roebuck, Montgomery Wards, Woolworth's, and a whole host of others. But the sheer size of Walmart means it will be able to last for some years on that alone. During that time, employees will suffer because of bad visions at the investor level.

The only way to stop this is to bring back the anti-trust laws. Stop companies from becoming too big to fail. We really need to change "too big to fail" to "too big to exist." That view doesn't just apply to banks.

TheRedneck

Before anyone faults that too much, let me translate into simple terms what I keep hearing in this thread: Who cares if the CEO or stockholders don't get paid? As long as we get paid.

I haven't read anyone saying stockholders/CEOs shouldn't get paid, I would imagine many have 401ks. I think workers need to get paid too.

Where do you think min wage people get health care? From YOU, where do they get food? From YOU, where do they get day care? From YOU. I find it hard to believe that so many people can't understand that when a min wager need his appendix out he doesn't pay for it, WE do.

Low pay is very expensive, but screw it, let the tax payer pay it. You talked a lot about short shortsightedness, what is this policy? Cheap wages and let the tax payer pick up the tab sounds like a shell game, and business wins and taxpayers and min wagers looses.

a reply to: xuenchen

So employees are petitioning to get more money.

Ahhh, okay.



0_o

a reply to: DBCowboy

The employees need to form a union, and use collective bargaining. This company is very profitable, time to share the gains from everyone's labor.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: DBCowboy

The employees need to form a union, and use collective bargaining. This company is very profitable, time to share the gains from everyone's labor.

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.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't see what the problem is. Are CEO's the only ones who deserve to gain from their companies profits? Because I posted a link earlier saying that CEO pay has increased 90 times faster than employee pay since 1978, meaning employee pay has only increased about 10% while CEO pay has increased nearly 1,000%. Without their employees they would be nowhere but they seem to think that they alone deserve to benefit from the success of their and their employees business. I guess the record profits they are making have nothing to do with their employees?

It seems to me that these executives are just money hungry scumbags, making more money than they could ever hope to spend while denying their employees a living wage. They're a bunch of greedy bastards if you ask me and they use all that extra money buying off politicians and lawmakers to write laws that put even more money in their pockets, which in the end screws their employees over even more than they already are getting screwed over.

I don't see how anyone can justify such gross morals besides them hoping that one day they too may strike it rich like these scumbags. News flash, it's not going to happen unless you win the mega millions lottery, in which case you didn't earn it to begin with.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If 160,000 workers walk out at once, good luck with scabs. Picketing would really hurt the bottom line. Their middle class customers would not like getting their drinks/coffee while moving through a crowd of pissed workers.

Getting all the workers to do something is like herding cats. Realistically what can they do? nothing.

The only way to change is to change.

a reply to: seasonal

I don't think anything like that will ever happen, people are too complacent these days to actually want to do something. They'd rather get on Facebook while working and protest their job while still doing it. It's unfortunate but it is how things are today, social meida is a pacifier to real change.

a reply to: Aazadan

No editing of content took place (well, I did reword one of them, but nothing that you quoted)

Both of the statements I quoted came from that post.