Want a worse number? Back in 2019, the price of commodity was at less than a $1. Starbucks, at the time made up 3% of the world’s production. They decided to give $20m to their farmers. Did it help? Well based on available financial data at the time, $20m was approximately single afternoon’s profit for the company. A SINGLE FUCKING AFTERNOON! https://sprudge.com/starbucks-would-prefer-you-dont-think-too-hard-about-that-20m-relief-fund-151839.html
Just so people are aware, Starbucks was caught buying from farms in Brazil multiple times that used slave labor. In Guatemala, along with Nestle, were caught buying from farm(s?) that used child labor.
EDIT: On top of this the company partnered with Conservation International to certify the farms met the company’s standards. The incident in Brazil saw CI trying to coverup the certification of that farm. Also CI is involved with arms dealing.
EDIT 2: Their retail products have the claim “100% Ethically Sourced”. That is a lie.
EDIT: I got the slogan wrong. It is “Committed to 100% Ethical Coffee Sourcing”.
Is this the same nestle slave labor case that went to the Supreme Court where nestle was successfully defended by former Obama solicitor Neal Katyal, or have they done this more than once?
Their retail products have the claim “100% Ethically Sourced”. That is a lie.
That all depends on which ethical code you're referencing for your statement. I 100% believe that Starbucks sources according to their corporate ethical standards.
I am unable to find a news report now, but I am certain I read one back in 2018 or 2019. I believe that Conservation International (an organization that helped develop the C.A.F.E. standard the company uses) was discovered covering up the certification of one of the farms in Brazil. As I remember reading, that a farm was at the time listed somewhere as being certified but after slave labor was discovered, CI uncertified the farm and attempted to claim it failed to meet the C.A.F.E. standards, thus never was awarded certification. They weren't saying the certification was revoked; it never had any.
Remember when Ford had an amazing performance growth, made record profits, then laid off a huge amount of people and moved more business overseas. Nothing like capitalism to fire you when you're down and fire you when you're up!
Or sharing profits among the leeches when it's going great, but when shit goes down they are begging for help from government and firing people. How about you not instantly take out profits but you build resillience through reserves and preparation? Lol, who am I kidding, milk the cow till it's dry and then make beef patties when it stops giving milk.
Was it baristas that were laid off or office workers? Minimum wage for their corporate headquarters is a bit over $20/hour, and I'd suspect very few corporate employees are making only minimum wage.
That might be fair, but "laid off" has the sort of vibe to it that they didn't get to choose between minimum wage and no job. Also, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 and the minimum wage in Washington state, where starbucks HQ is located is $16.66 so yeah definitely would have to rework the math based on location of the layoffs.
They could have paid every one of those employees nearly 6 figures instead. If the company is doing so badly that they feel they need to lay off a thousand people, they should not be handing out CEO bonuses, period.
This is the same douche canoe that was the CEO of Chipotle and denied that the serving sizes were getting smaller and told people to just harass the worker making the food if they thought their serving size was to small.
Also the same guy trying to green wash plastic waste to be customer responsibility while commuting on a private jet from Southern California to Seattle.
That's what I'm trying to do understand as well. What's the explanation for these kinds of things? What's the actual sequence of events and how conditions that lead to these things? Why would the board approve of this kind of compensation?
Shop local. It's just coffee. Don't let the marketers tell you any different. For sweet creamy syrupy treats go to the ice cream store. Let's not support the current system of the bigwig at the top who does very little and reaps most of the rewards.
Plus ordering there takes 3x longer than if I just made a coffee at home. They are not convenient unless you are traveling and have no access to a coffee maker.
But the local shops are often treating employees in ways that starbucks couldn't possibly get away with. Source: ex who worked 14 hr shifts without weekends at 4 different places for a couple months each and came out at net negative.
There are some nice places though, where barista is the owner, and not just some stupid rich kid trying his hand at entrepreneurship.
"Good billionaire" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp. You can be good, or a billionaire but not both. If you were good, you wouldn't have a billion dollars.
You have to be willing to exploit your fellow humans to get where he is. Either you don’t have a soul to start with or it gets torn to bits every step you take up the ladder.
I’ve known people like that. I’ve been very close to people like that. It’s crazy, everywhere they look they’re looking for some win/something they can take. They never feel guilty. Honestly, the only thing they feel is betrayal when someone won’t bend the knee.
That’s my little observation.
Sad thing is, they still have people who love them but they aren’t truly capable of reciprocating. Everything is transactional and they always expect it to be profitable for them. The only thing that truly hurts them is when it isn’t profitable. It sucks being caught in their orbit too. Believe me.
I worked there back in the early aughts. It actually was a cool retail job that paid reasonably well, a few dollars above minimum, and you got company stock, benefits, a free pound of coffee a week or box of tea, you were invited to company meetings, free drinks on shift, and we did all sorts of cool volunteer stuff, like with the food bank and habitat for humanity, and we would do coffee tastings at events, all sorts of things. It honestly was a fun job lots of the time. It's so sad it's turned into trash.
Fair warning, if you're brewing coffee at home it's still possible to buy Starbucks.
Most of the coffee at Costco is just rebranded Starbucks beans. A lot of dark roast coffee is secretly shitty Starbucks beans. If it smells like cigarettes at any point, you've probably got Starbucks coffee.
The only reason i would go to a Starbucks is to look at the people working and buying coffee there. Or to meet a cute person behind the counter, but i have never nore will i spend money in that
Cap the maximum compensation gap (including bonuses and stocks) between the highest paid and lowest paid person in a company at 1000:1. Any overpay goes into a UBI account that pays out equally to all.
Then they'll just hire Task Rabbits or otherwise divide companies by pay.
Starbucks needs more union stores. Unions can address loopholes more quickly and effectively than government legislators can. Deunionization is half the reason why inequality has skyrocketed since the 1970s.
We need to fix the root causes of inequality by building infrastructure that can't just be destroyed by executive order.
I work at a bakery (we’ve got snacks, coffee, cake, and danishes in addition to bread), and every once in a while I see two people come in and it’s not clear if they’re on a date until they disagree about whether it’s for here or to go. Then I realize that only one of them thought it was a date. It’s especially awkward if the one who did has already offered to pay for everything.
Shifting "blame" on these white-collar police dogs (megacorp CEOs) instead of shareholders (and the system demanding growth) only needs to happen when everyone understands that even 96m is 2.6% of 3.760m of net income (2024).
So if 1k people were let go all of them could have gotten 1m of bonus and still the company would have made almost 3bn.
But they were let go bcs yoy income (but not revenue) was lower last year, and the financial markets demand a sacrifice (literally any action, even if not actually needed, just to send a signal they are 'on it').
And it's just mediocre coffee anyway. Roasted too dark just to keep a consistency in flavour between locations.
Starbucks is a tax dodging lifestyle brand, they could start a clothing line and make the same money as they do selling coffee.
I volunteer at food shelters, and every now and then we get something we can't really hand out, like unground coffee beans, so I ended up with a large bag of some Starbucks ultra dark roast of some kind. Had a leopard? on the bag. It smelled like boiled cat shit the instant I opened the bag, went in the compost bin immediately.
Coffee nuts don't drink starbucks and those of us who just drink coffee can't tell the difference...starbucks is a shit company with overpriced drinks.
I mean he has been rewarded for making the line go up. Part of making the line go up is reducing overheads. So he is being directly rewarded for actions like firing 1000+ employees. So is it a surprise?
I don't know why people think large companies aren't allowed to get rid of people when they want to? And especially Starbucks, it's shit-work, not a 20y long career maker.
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?
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.
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?