Starbucks continues to be terrible

Do you keep a list of workers or jobs who you feel are beneath you and don't deserve enough money to support themselves with basic essentials like food, water, or shelter?

Why would I do that.
- Let me translate that rhetorical question for you:
  
  Why do you believe society should allow certain businesses to remain in existence, when those businesses utilize human labor, yet do not pay enough for human laborers to subsist?
  
  I don't believe that, you've just attached that to my argument because you either can't understand my point or don't want to.
  
  I don't believe that,
  
  I see. Maybe we have had a failure to communicate. What I was referring to was this:
  
  And especially Starbucks, it's shit-work
  
  Whatever you meant by "shit-work" is what I was trying to ask you about.
  
  Why do you believe companies offering "shit-work" should be allowed to remain in business?
  
  By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It's not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
  
  Some business operate on unskilled labour, it shouldnt be a surprise that its not paid well, just because something doesnt pay well doesnt mean the company shouldnt exist, and since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That's fucking ludicrous. And before you start with people have to take what they can get, yes thats true and starbucks isnt responsible for that shortfall, in a real socialist democracy, that should be taken up by welfare if needed.
  
  I understand the gut reaction to go after the CEO or board for making decisions that affect so many people, but it doesnt help, its misdirected energy that should go to the government.
  
  We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial. The best way to handle this is to use government to reign in corps to limits we can be happy with.
  
  I stand by all I've said, but I respect your position, i just think it's misguided.
  
  By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It's not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
  
  The question wasn't about the labor. The question was about the employer. The question was about the mindset you demonstrated in your first comment, that you later clarified:
  
  since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That's fucking ludicrous.
  
  The question is about how you decided that this idea is "fucking ludicrous".
  
  You lied to me when you said you didn't hold this belief. It may have been an unintentional lie at the time, probably because you didn't understand what I was asking. But, I was talking about what you describe as "fucking ludicrous". Those two words are a vociferous acknowledgement of the beliefs I was talking about; beliefs that you clearly hold. I want to know how you came to believe this idea to be "fucking ludicrous".
  
  We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial
  
  Why not? I think we most certainly can. I think we can absolutely demand that they fulfill an obligation greater than just their own financial interests. I think we can certainly demand that their business operations benefit their workers, and society in general. When their business is demonstrably exploitative "shit-work", we are not obligated to allow them to continue to do business. We can prohibit them from continuing to engage in that harmful business.
  
  Some business operate on unskilled labour
  
  Unskilled human labor.
  
  They require the labor of a human for their business to function, but they pay less than subsistence wages to that human. That is "shit-work".
  
  The net effect of their business practices is harmful. Those workers are also consumers, and those consumers have less to spend. These "shit-work" companies are strangling the economy and damaging society in general.
  
  Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow "shit-work" companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
  
  Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow "shit-work" companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
  
  Well put and logical. Taking this thanks.
  
  Tldr
  
  Color me surprised.
  
  Coward.
  
  Oh no! My feelings!
  
  Who said these were part time jobs? No one. A lot of Baristas work full the jobs actually, because they can't get any other jobs. Should they die of starvation or exposure or buried in medical debt just because you think they're beneath you? What if you lose your job and the market is shit and all you can find for a year or more is some "shitty unskilled labor" job? Should you be forced from your home to live on the streets just because you can't find a job in your career field through no fault of your own?
  
  Let's do some quick, back of the napkin math. I'm going to round for simplicity.
  
  This asshole took a bonus of 96 million dollars. Let's assume that all 1,000 employees have an average salary of $45,000, which was the US average salary last time I checked. Employee benefits, which include health insurance and retirement contributions, typically cost an employer 1.5x the salary but I'm being lazy so let's 2x it. So each of the 1,000 employees costs the company $90,000.
  
  $$96,000,000 / $90,000 = 1,066
  
  Or in other words: At $90,000 per employee, the $96 million bonus could fund these employees at full time schedules with full benefits for an entire year. This asshole stole their salaries for themselves.
  
  Just because the government lets them do it doesn't make it moral or OK. If he didn't take the bonus he'd still be a gazzilionaire and one of the highest paid employees in the company, but he elected to steal 1000 salaries instead.
  
  No one is in this thread calling for Starbucks specifically to change their ways, they're outraged that this is allowed to happen at all. And yes, the only organization that can stand up to corporate power is the government, but that has been completely sucked up corporate Americas asshole, so all we can do is point out the injustice and hypocrisy of the system and hope enough other people get as angry as we are so we can all overthrow this bullshit system of oppression, and your "well what did you expect working a shit job, sucks to suck lmao" attitude does absolutely nothing to help, and only reinforces the idea that this is all somehow normal or OK.
  
  I didn't read past the abject lie that is "A lot of Batistas work full the jobs actually".
  
  That's OK. Nobody expects you to actually be able to present a convincing rebuttal. You aren't here for that. While our comments are directed at you, they are actually intended for the reasonable, rational people reading along. You aren't the target audience; you're a tool we use to reach that target audience.

To the company it is "an adjustment." To those people, it can be a devastating loss of healthcare, of the money they use to pay for food and shelter, and even an identity crisis. Starbucks has all sorts of positions, ranging from seasonal part time employees, to store management that gets paid pretty well, to corporate employees that presumed they were in 20y career trajectories. Every single one of them deserves better than losing their job just to pay for a big bonus for one guy.

It's not about whether they are allowed or not. It's that actions should have consequences but the modern corporate structure has so divorced leadership from the consequence of their actions that this is normal. Let me rephrase: Hurting people to pump your personal wealth is not just normal, it's expected. That's sick.

Lol, okay, blame starbucks all you want, it's a faceless entity. You could be mad at the politicians who set you up to instantly fall into desperation the moment you lose a minimum wage job, but if you want to be mad and ineffectual at the same time, be my guest.
- I don't understand why you think it's either/or? I didn't say, "Starbucks is solely to blame" or anything of the sort. It's incredibly stupid that living requires an employer, and that's something we need to fix, but as long as it does they should act and be treated like they have the ethical responsibility they've been given.
  
  Maybe you should stop giving people free passes for psychopathy just because it's within the law.
  
  There's a fucking recession coming you dolt, ofcourse large companies are going to dump people, and it doesnt take a psychopath to do it.
  
  Your hearts in the right place, but if you cant be realistic about the why and how of running a business, i dont want your opinions.
  
  It’s a self made recession by the corporations themselves. A thousand employees don’t matter to their bottom line.
  
  If preparing for a recession is to blame here, then why at the same time are the Starbucks board giving the CEO $96 million buckadoos?
  
  Likely to get him to stay in the position because the board or whatever thinks he is worth that much to keep on. I'm not saying they got their moneys worth but they obviously thought so. They arent handing him a bonus as big as that as a pat on the back.
- it's a faceless entity.
  
  Not only does it have a face...
  
  ... It's a perfectly punchable face.
  
  Okay, you go do whatever you can to that face and come back and tell me what changed. The answer will be nothing.

It's not like individual locations determined they're overstaffed or something. The CEO is just blanket firing people because it makes some numbers look more gooder on some spreadsheet.

Oh so that's their reason is it, make number look good, company be strong.

It wouldnt be because of your idiot president causing a recession where more people wont be able to afford to buy coffee as often? You dont think that could be a contributing factor?
- I'm European.
  
  Sorry, I just assumed because you seemed to be at about that level.