3 ms·

The small article aptly points out the unique ‘perk’ (or in their eyes necessary for conducting CEO business) use of the Starbucks jet for commuting by jet. How

The small article aptly points out the unique ‘perk’ (or in their eyes necessary for conducting CEO business) use of the Starbucks jet for commuting by jet. However it tries to paint a comparison to Starbuck’s environmental initiative that speaks to giving back more than it takes in terms of agriculture. This seems like a false comparison. Two have nothing to do with each other. The reason is because he wants to live in his home in Newport Beach, California vs moving to Seattle. Quoted text from SEC notification: “ During your employment with the Company, you will not be required to relocate to the Company’s headquarters (currently in Seattle, Washington). You agree to commute from your residence to the Company’s headquarters (and engage in other business travel) as is required to perform your duties and responsibilities. From the Start Date until such time as you secure permanent secondary housing arrangements in Seattle, Washington (up to three months following the Start Date), the Company will pay directly, or reimburse you for, the costs of your reasonable temporary housing arrangements in Seattle, Washington and a driver to transport you as necessary while you are in Seattle, Washington. If you decide to relocate to the Seattle, Washington area, you will be eligible for reimbursement for qualified relocation expenses to Seattle, Washington, pursuant to the Company’s relocation policy. Remote Office: Promptly following the Start Date, the Company will establish, with your assistance, a small remote office in Newport Beach, California. The Company will employ an assistant of your choosing for such office, subject to the reasonable consent of the Company. This office location will be maintained at the expense of the Company.” CTRL+F for jet comes up empty. It does say they will provide a driver. So maybe it’s implied he will use the jet.

komadori 2y ago
> CTRL+F for jet comes up empty. The relevant word in the text is "aircraft": "You will be eligible to use the Company aircraft for (i) business-related travel in accordance with the Company’s travel policy, (ii) travel between your city of residence and the Company’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington and (iii) your personal travel in accordance with the Company’s policies, up to a maximum amount of $250,000 per year, which amount will be based on the aggregate incremental cost to the Company." A commuter jet and a quarter of a million dollars of personal travel!
ooterness 2y ago
It uses the word "aircraft", not "jet". There is a whole section about it: > You will be eligible to use the Company aircraft for (i) business-related travel in accordance with the Company’s travel policy, (ii) travel between your city of residence and the Company’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington and (iii) your personal travel in accordance with the Company’s policies, up to a maximum amount of $250,000 per year, which amount will be based on the aggregate incremental cost to the Company.
torgoguys 2y ago
That isn't the only Starbucks environmental initiative. A relevant one for this purpose is they've pledged to cut carbon by 50% between 2020 and 2030.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Okay, the one linked in the article didn’t reference that from what I could ascertain.
- ac29 2y ago
  > A relevant one for this purpose is they've pledged to cut carbon by 50% between 2020 and 2030. I wonder if thats even possible given how much dairy they use. While I cant find any official numbers on their dairy use, one site estimated it at 750 million liters a year. Another site suggests Starbucks actually sells more dairy than coffee (a drink like a latte or mocha is 90% milk).
hiatus 2y ago
> However it tries to paint a comparison to Starbuck’s environmental initiative that speaks to giving back more than it takes in terms of agriculture. This seems like a false comparison. Two have nothing to do with each other. Of course they are related. How can a company say with a straight face on the one hand that they are committed to environmental initiatives while on the other hand their CEO uses one of the most environmentally harmful forms of travel for a regular commute?
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  I took it as the environmental initiatives were more agricultural related and not related to forcing the CEOs to use all forms of environmentally friendly forms of everything to operate. It’s not feasible to be good at environmental everything

komadori 2y ago

> CTRL+F for jet comes up empty. The relevant word in the text is "aircraft": "You will be eligible to use the Company aircraft for (i) business-related travel in accordance with the Company’s travel policy, (ii) travel between your city of residence and the Company’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington and (iii) your personal travel in accordance with the Company’s policies, up to a maximum amount of $250,000 per year, which amount will be based on the aggregate incremental cost to the Company." A commuter jet and a quarter of a million dollars of personal travel!

ooterness 2y ago

It uses the word "aircraft", not "jet". There is a whole section about it: > You will be eligible to use the Company aircraft for (i) business-related travel in accordance with the Company’s travel policy, (ii) travel between your city of residence and the Company’s headquarters in Seattle, Washington and (iii) your personal travel in accordance with the Company’s policies, up to a maximum amount of $250,000 per year, which amount will be based on the aggregate incremental cost to the Company.

torgoguys 2y ago

That isn't the only Starbucks environmental initiative. A relevant one for this purpose is they've pledged to cut carbon by 50% between 2020 and 2030.

firesteelrain 2y ago
Okay, the one linked in the article didn’t reference that from what I could ascertain.
ac29 2y ago
> A relevant one for this purpose is they've pledged to cut carbon by 50% between 2020 and 2030. I wonder if thats even possible given how much dairy they use. While I cant find any official numbers on their dairy use, one site estimated it at 750 million liters a year. Another site suggests Starbucks actually sells more dairy than coffee (a drink like a latte or mocha is 90% milk).

hiatus 2y ago

> However it tries to paint a comparison to Starbuck’s environmental initiative that speaks to giving back more than it takes in terms of agriculture. This seems like a false comparison. Two have nothing to do with each other. Of course they are related. How can a company say with a straight face on the one hand that they are committed to environmental initiatives while on the other hand their CEO uses one of the most environmentally harmful forms of travel for a regular commute?

firesteelrain 2y ago
I took it as the environmental initiatives were more agricultural related and not related to forcing the CEOs to use all forms of environmentally friendly forms of everything to operate. It’s not feasible to be good at environmental everything