Starbucks Employees Petition Company To Stop Slashing Hours After Raising Wages

a reply to: Krakatoa

What stress a CEO experiences from his job is offset by his complete lack of worry financially. I'd say his employees have a much harder "job" than he does by the fact they do have to worry about their life financially 24/7.

A CEO's life is 1000x easier than any one of his employees.

a reply to: Gothmog

Excellent point. Add to that the ability to completely tilt the playing field in favor of those who already own the bank. Corporations currently enjoy all the benefits of being human, and share none of the responsibilities of supporting the infrastructure they thrive within. With tax abatements, tax incentives, tax credits, writeoffs and more, it is their employees' taxes paying for the sewers, water, roads, police and fire protections, etc., here as they sail their profits to Grand Cayman, or conveniently now, Nevada.

One in five children goes home at night and the family can't afford to put a healthy meal on the table. One in five. We are way beyond the go back to school, get a better job coaching will fix it situation.

America better address its out of control income inequality fast. The glow from the torches is upon the horizon. Moderate progress isn't going to cut it. People don't have the luxury of seeing how gridlocked the next session of congress is or isn't.

They're quite frankly mad, and they aren't going to take it anymore.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
SO, do you have the same level of expertise in running a company as that CEO you are comparing yourself to? How many have that level of knowledge, and have a proven record of success? Millions? Hundreds? Tens? See, that is what drives the pay scale, not greed.

Here is a simple loose analogy using a computer to represent the company.

- A CEO knows how to debug problems with the computer, identify problems, develop solutions, track down the needed replacement parts (if needed), and repair it so it functions so the computer users can get their work done each day.


[sic]

More Knowledge + Less people with that knowledge = More Pay per person

In my personal experience I completely disagree with this.

My bosses over the years have consistently delegated every single task, technical or not, to myself and my colleagues.

I've worked with a CIO that thought it was impossible for someone to use their network maliciously because, and I quote, 'we're on DHCP.' Have worked with agency partners in cyber crime who throw around words like 'neural networked AI' as if they're candy but have no idea what they mean. I've rarely met a CIO who can program. Have met CEOs who could barely write, as in it was easier to calculate their accuracy as 'typos per an hour' than words per minute.

Sure, CEOs go through more interviews but at the end of the day its a vote and that vote is run by people who got up the chain by generally working with people who aren't as smart as they are. They have the same human failings as floor and production managers. They don't want to vote themselves out of a job. CEOs don't want to do that any more than a burger flipper does. I've seen how their promotion chain works and they don't hire the people who bring in the most money for the company name. They hire the 'best fit'. This is nonsense speak for someone that won't criticize us.

The fact is that 95% of tasks don't need 35 years of experience or a $750k a year pay rate. You can be entirely incompetent as a CEO or CIO or partner or whatever and everyone beneath you will cover up your failings whilst simultaneously muttering under their collective breaths. Most companies simply don't have a 'money' decision most years in business. You only know when you've got a dud CEO when the muppet holding the desk decides to commit fraud or fails to pivot the business. In between then they could be replaced with a bobble head and an auto signing machine. Most of this type of success, as far as I can tell, comes from rampant self confidence and selling ability not actual talent or anything particularly special. In fact the more dense you are at retaining feedback, the less connected to reality, the more likely you are to get to the top of the chain.

So we can then say... well that is what people are paying for! Is it?! We're paying for some person to sit behind a desk? The biggest position that these people serve is a limb you can hack off when something goes wrong, the next biggest is listening to people's pitches and saying yes or no to them. Periodically they'll ask a bunch of questions that their employees will ignore because they're irrelevant, run powerpoint presentations, and sit in a board room filled with other 'important' people, but they have a legion of back up to make their decisions. If you had access to lawyers, techs, wet workers, and anyone's time in a 2000 person business... do you think it would be hard to get an acceptable answer on any question?

Now I'm not saying that you don't get hard working partners, CIOs, COOs, and CEOS ... They often seem to work hard and sometimes late, but... I've also sat in on their conference calls. In one such call with 8 international individuals I heard one say, 'forensic investigation isn't about catching the bad guys.'

No one said anything to attack that. Think about it.

If greed isn't a factor, then idiocy certainly is.

a reply to: xuenchen

Whats been happening of late is companies are hiring part timers to do full time positions. This way they pay no overtime nor benefits.

And Ive seen where 35-38 hrs is considered full-time...so to keep down benefits and o.t.

a reply to: xuenchen

So, exactly what some of us stated would happen has happened. Raised wages, without growth, brings fewer hours. No surprise there!

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Overtime and benefits are expensive. We warned people this would happen with the implementation of policies like Obamacare.

Then you add higher wages on top of it, and what do you think will happen?

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.

Do you think you need to be as knowledgeable about the jobs of everyone you interact with as that because I guarantee you that they grouse just as hard about how you don't understand them or their needs when you are done interacting with them.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hate to break it to you but the executive board members and majority stock holders often are the ones who make the choices.

investor.starbucks.com...

The CEO doesn't just get to do what he wants the majority share holders often get the final say

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Krakatoa

What stress a CEO experiences from his job is offset by his complete lack of worry financially. I'd say his employees have a much harder "job" than he does by the fact they do have to worry about their life financially 24/7.

A CEO's life is 1000x easier than any one of his employees.

CEO worship

a reply to: ketsuko

Yep. Everytime I punch-in to the city's time clock, I see daily job postings on the board that I know were once 40 hour postions. Now, they are seeking 2 new part-time employees.

All these postings have added to them "this is a 20-28hr a week position. Must work weekends and holidays and be available to work any shift as needed".

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: xuenchen

Whats been happening of late is companies are hiring part timers to do full time positions. This way they pay no overtime nor benefits.

And Ive seen where 35-38 hrs is considered full-time...so to keep down benefits and o.t.

I worked skilled trade at a fortune 500 co. and they now have a 75% temp force on the production floor. The temps make 9$ an hour the co. pays 14$ an hour to the temp co. The CEO always said they were going to reduce the # of temps but never did.

The 9$ an hour temps work next to the full timers making 16$ + bene's. And the temps are pissed, and poor and worried and sick. This company is a multi billion$ profitable co.

Moral leadership by the CEO or Unions seem to be the only answer, please tell me there is another way.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Unions used to insure a solid obligation from labor (cost of labor) and business (pay for labor).

Is there a big price difference between union built cars and non-union built?


What is the end game? Are we doomed to have a really really rich class and a really really poor class?
I see absolutely nothing stopping big business from their race to the bottom mentality with everything expect profit.
I shutter to think of the ugliness that will come about if this unfair wealth distribution isn't corrected.

Americans are a very patient people until we aren't. (God forbid, and I mean that)


Race to the bottom.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

These companies are making more money today than they have ever made before, yet working conditions and the livelihoods of their employees have gone down the toilet.

What happened to the good old days when companies actually treated their employees like people instead of disposable income? Oh yeah, they've seen the profits such practices bring so they stick to treating them like crap.

Higher profits and #tier working conditions. What's the problem here? That's the nature of capitalism though, profit over people.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What would solve this?

Carefully applied tariffs?
Unions?
3rd party president and legislators?
Campaign contribution reforms?
Flat tax/fairtax
Reversal of corporations are people?

a reply to: onequestion

Please read the post I replied to for context.

The CEO is responsible for setting company policy for day-to-day operations. He oversees policy and directives. Underneath him, the next line in the chain of command operate the same way to implement his directives on a division-wide scale. Underneath them, other executives do the same thing on a section-wide scale, and so on, through as many layers as necessary until the lower levels of management interact with the actual work force.

This is a good time to reply to Pinke's complaint about CEOs above: the management that a worker deals with is NOT a CEO. They are lower-level management, usually (unfortunately) nowhere near as capable of management as the upper levels. They get orders on how to do their job just like the workforce; the only difference is their job duties.

Back on track: The CEO is, by definition, the Chief Executive Officer. He makes the decisions how to implement the company direction set forth by the Board of Directors. He is there day after day, while the Board meets occasionally. The Board meets to, yes, decide on disbursements, evaluate upper management decisions, and set directives. They do not typically intervene in day-to-day policy decisions. If they did, there would be no need for a CEO.

The Board is typically composed of shareholders. Why not? They are the major investors and expect some ability to make sure their investment is secure. They are elected by the common shareholders, by a one-share, one-vote arrangement.

Why is all this so hard to grasp?

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What happened to the good old days when companies actually treated their employees like people instead of disposable income?

The economy collapsed.

When you have workers who are doing a job that 95% of the population can do, and 20% of the population are looking for a job, there's just not much incentive to treat workers well. If they don't like the policies, well, they can leave and we'll have someone else in that position by morning. If you have workers who are doing a job that 95% of the population can do, and there are maybe 5% of people needing a job, it gets tougher. That 5% represents people who are worse workers than what you have. It makes sense to keep your trained worker happy enough to stay in the job, because you might not be able to replace him with someone as good by morning anymore.

It's not just about the economy though. The situation changes when you have workers in a job that only 5% of the population can do. They are more precious and harder to replace, so you provide better wages, benefits, perks, and make sure they're happy where they are.

I said it before; I'll say it again: the Law of Supply and Demand also applies to labor. If you don't like the conditions you find yourself in, make yourself more valuable. Climb the ladder instead of sitting on a bottom rung wringing your hands.

TheRedneck

a reply to: seasonal

I think laws based on empathy would be a good start. At this point these corporations and executives are so far removed from their employees that all they are to them are numbers on a piece of paper. It's easy to treat numbers on a piece of paper like crap, there are no repercussions on your end for doing so.

Executives don't see people struggling, they see earnings reports and employee ID numbers. There is a severe disconnect between corporate and peon, that's the main issue in my opinion.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem with learning a new trade and skill is time. When you are struggling to pay your rent and put food on the table and need to work 40 hours just to barely pass by there really isn't very much time in-between to learn new skills.

Sure you can go to college but it's hard to balance both college and work especially when the cost of living is so high, not to mention the cost of college and the sheer amount of debt you find yourself in after graduating.

It really isn't as easy as you seem to think it is, not in today's world. If it were that easy then I'm sure we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I know it's hard. Better than you do!

I found myself unemployed/underemployed/indigent a few years ago. I could have whined, I guess, and I could have complained about time and how hard it was, I suppose. But I didn't. I went back to school.

I raised a family of four, cared for an ailing feeble mother, and went to school on an income of $5000 a year plus food stamps. That's not a typo. FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. Last May, I graduated. I am now an electrical engineer with a BSEE from UAH. I received the 2016 Outstanding Electrical Engineering Student of the Year to boot. I now work as an intern with NASA, my income has leaped to over $20K while I work towards my Masters degree (I am already about halfway there), and if I choose, I can land a full time job in an industry which pays a minimum of $50K per year plus benefits. Once I get my Masters, average pay in this area is closer to $80K, entry level.

Yeah, that was tough. I actually had to take a leave of absence from ATS. My wife and I went without the little fun things you probably take for granted. But I did it. An aging, dumb old redneck from Alabama did it. Are you saying you can't?

Next time you complain about something being too hard, you might want to check to make sure the one you complain to hasn't already done it...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your amazing. It is hard but you did it. I too know how hard it can get. I lived in my car for three months. I made a choice to pull out of this hole and make my life work.

Living on $5000.00 a year is really a struggle. Congratulations on your new life!