5 ms·

how does "i'd like to see all baristas be able to call out of work if they get sick without consequence (fear of losing their job) despite the constraint of a s

how does "i'd like to see all baristas be able to call out of work if they get sick without consequence (fear of losing their job) despite the constraint of a store needing sufficient manpower hours scheduled when it comes to staffing to give good service/get through a shift for its customers" correlate to "i/other customers don't want to pay starbucks already high prices, let alone hypothetically higher needed to support starbucks having a more lax 'employees need unpaid spontaneous time off' policy" they don't correlate well https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/pro... they have 75% margins on their coffee as is, yet their net margins are 10% company wide. the average drink in my experience is $6-$8 before a tip. how much more do they need to charge their customers in order to make "starbucks will be less strict and more understanding about their employees needing unpaid time off randomly without having to worry about it counting as a missed shift/needing to get it covered"? they only have that policy because otherwise their bottom line would get affected, right? what's realistic? 2 random sick days a quarter per employee? 4 a year? sick bank hours accrued?

giraffe_lady 4y ago
idk working out their profit model isn't my responsibility but allowing workers to take sick time without retribution can't be optional either. if those two aren't compatible then we just can't have starbucks I guess oh well.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  i wouldn't say it's working out their entire profit model, i'd say it's applying basic logic if this, then that if "employees taking time off without any notice (sick time) disrupts the schedule/store operations", then "the store will suffer financially" if "the store suffers financially", then "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere in order to be offset" if "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere", then "the money needs to come from somewhere" if "the money to offset the loss needs to come from somewhere", then "prices need to be increased" therefore, in order for ALL workers to be allowed to take SOME sick time off (time off without much notice) without retribution, prices need to be increased even further if prices need to be increased even further, you might alienate away even more of your existing or potential customer base (prices already very high for what they offer relative to their competition) if you alienate away more customers, you lose money therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. i don't mean for that to sound as cold and heartless and immoral and rude as it does. i'm not some high level executive who only thinks in terms of MBA. i'm just trying to show perspective to both sides of the bargaining equation. imagine if the entire staff could call out sick whenever they wanted without consequence twice a week. the store would have to close down, wouldn't it? where's the balance? is the balance supposed to be exactly where it is now? you'd argue it needs to be more in favor of the worker, but you also admit to not putting much effort/thought into thinking of the business side, becasue you're arguing it's already too much in favor of the business side
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    > therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. Yes I am. That's exactly what it comes down to. I uncompromisingly believe that making profit while not providing a living wage and sick time is immoral and should not be allowed. Maybe they can do both, maybe they can't. They put themselves in the position of needing to find out though.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

idk working out their profit model isn't my responsibility but allowing workers to take sick time without retribution can't be optional either. if those two aren't compatible then we just can't have starbucks I guess oh well.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
i wouldn't say it's working out their entire profit model, i'd say it's applying basic logic if this, then that if "employees taking time off without any notice (sick time) disrupts the schedule/store operations", then "the store will suffer financially" if "the store suffers financially", then "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere in order to be offset" if "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere", then "the money needs to come from somewhere" if "the money to offset the loss needs to come from somewhere", then "prices need to be increased" therefore, in order for ALL workers to be allowed to take SOME sick time off (time off without much notice) without retribution, prices need to be increased even further if prices need to be increased even further, you might alienate away even more of your existing or potential customer base (prices already very high for what they offer relative to their competition) if you alienate away more customers, you lose money therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. i don't mean for that to sound as cold and heartless and immoral and rude as it does. i'm not some high level executive who only thinks in terms of MBA. i'm just trying to show perspective to both sides of the bargaining equation. imagine if the entire staff could call out sick whenever they wanted without consequence twice a week. the store would have to close down, wouldn't it? where's the balance? is the balance supposed to be exactly where it is now? you'd argue it needs to be more in favor of the worker, but you also admit to not putting much effort/thought into thinking of the business side, becasue you're arguing it's already too much in favor of the business side
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. Yes I am. That's exactly what it comes down to. I uncompromisingly believe that making profit while not providing a living wage and sick time is immoral and should not be allowed. Maybe they can do both, maybe they can't. They put themselves in the position of needing to find out though.