7 ms·

People are a big asset for Starbucks. They are trying to make a visit to SB a personal, warm experience. And the staff is key to that, they don't want grumpy an

by gedrap 12y ago

People are a big asset for Starbucks. They are trying to make a visit to SB a personal, warm experience. And the staff is key to that, they don't want grumpy and hate-this-job-a-lot people. Once when I was in SB, the doors to the personnel room were open and I saw bunch of hand drawn things, hand written colourful weekly goals (rather than just printed), etc. That shows their, management people, approach and goals. So I think this decision fits in pretty well in their long term mission.

l33tbro 12y ago
Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you get increasesed productivity via an enhanced sense of belongining.
- logn 12y ago
  That's true. Public companies have an obligation to not waste money. But it's still admirable because they've attempted to find ways that altruism and respect can further their profits, when they didn't need to. It's kind of like saying there's nothing warm and fuzzy about people doing volunteer work because they ultimately derive self-satisfaction from it.
- qq66 12y ago
  Culture isn't that easy to fabricate without some level of sincerity throughout the organization. And even if it was, who loses if everyone is happier to belong in the organization?
  - l33tbro 12y ago
    Starbucks didn't crawl to the cushier half of the Fortune 500 on a corporate mission statement of "chill vibes". Would of made them has-beans (had-beans?) long ago. You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the profit-motive. I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this is happening.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      You seem to suggest that "all parties winning" is a random, unintended by-product of the process being ultimately profit-driven (which apparently is nefarious). This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value proposition is one of win/win/win.
      - moe 12y ago
        vast majority ... win/win/win Vast majority, really? Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.
        mseebach 12y ago
        It's important to get terminology right: It's "win" as in "win/win" situation, not "victorious forever". It means "better than the best alternative", not "best". Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In that case, he "wins". Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win". And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid, low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins". This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a "win" for more people.
- tim333 12y ago
  I rather doubt it's a calculated ROI move. I did calculating ROI for my CFA exams and I doubt that would fly. I suspect weirdly enough they are trying to do good.
sbarre 12y ago
The semi-unspoken part of this is that given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, so even if they help existing employees get better jobs and leave Starbucks, all they are doing creating new entry-level job openings, while raising brand awareness, and also ensuring that their departing employees are going to jobs that will help them afford 5$ coffees. ;-)
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  > given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, Marx called this the "reserve army of labor."
  - zo1 12y ago
    Yeah, because people keep having children, that they can't or can barely afford to raise and/or college-educate. It's unfortunate, as it's a wonderful thing that everyone should have a chance at doing. But I'd never do that if I was unable to provide for and give a good education to my spawn. Sadly, many people do so with no thought for the future other than thinking the state will fix it, burdening all the rest of us because we're kind. #Edit, yeah for some odd reason this opinion isn't flying so well with someone on HN. I am disappointed, I figured people are reasonable and can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of. Perhaps people would rather they bring a child into this world, innocent and naive, and then throw it to the wolves while crying to the state to fix a problem they created and inflicted on an innocent? Shame on you.
    - xerophtye 12y ago
      While i admit your argument seems reasonable in certain countries, I don't think it applies well to the US. The average number of children per family in the US is below 1 in most states[1]. And even if you take the conditional average (that is only consider families who HAVE children) then that is still hardly 2 [1]. Now does that really seem like an unreasonable number of children for a couple to have? I mean if 1 or 2 children are too much for the average family, do you suggest that only the extremely wealthy should reproduce? So i suppose people are downvoting you because they feel that your comment isn't a reasonable debate, but is more of an irrelevant rant. [1] https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-20...
judk 12y ago
Trader Joe's has hand drawn signs and Hawaiian t-shirts. They are drawn to spec to create an impression of "fun" in the customer's mind, but they are very much assembly-line product.
- qq66 12y ago
  Might that fun not also rub off on TJ employees as it rubs off on customers? If my job was to put boxes on shelves, I'd rather do it in a Hawaiian shirt uniform than a plain black uniform.
  - 4t4g24h3 12y ago
    Where can I find a soul-sucking job that lets me wear a Hawaiian shirt? That sounds like so much fun.
    - justizin 12y ago
      Right? I promise the people I know who work at TJs cannot fucking stop talking about the free shirts.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - serf 12y ago
    ever seen the movie 'Office Space'? 'fun' dress code is only fun when the person wants to dress in that manner.

by gedrap 12y ago

l33tbro 12y ago

Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you get increasesed productivity via an enhanced sense of belongining.

logn 12y ago
That's true. Public companies have an obligation to not waste money. But it's still admirable because they've attempted to find ways that altruism and respect can further their profits, when they didn't need to. It's kind of like saying there's nothing warm and fuzzy about people doing volunteer work because they ultimately derive self-satisfaction from it.
qq66 12y ago
Culture isn't that easy to fabricate without some level of sincerity throughout the organization. And even if it was, who loses if everyone is happier to belong in the organization?
- l33tbro 12y ago
  Starbucks didn't crawl to the cushier half of the Fortune 500 on a corporate mission statement of "chill vibes". Would of made them has-beans (had-beans?) long ago. You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the profit-motive. I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this is happening.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    You seem to suggest that "all parties winning" is a random, unintended by-product of the process being ultimately profit-driven (which apparently is nefarious). This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value proposition is one of win/win/win.
    - moe 12y ago
      vast majority ... win/win/win Vast majority, really? Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.
      - mseebach 12y ago
        It's important to get terminology right: It's "win" as in "win/win" situation, not "victorious forever". It means "better than the best alternative", not "best". Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In that case, he "wins". Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win". And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid, low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins". This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a "win" for more people.
tim333 12y ago
I rather doubt it's a calculated ROI move. I did calculating ROI for my CFA exams and I doubt that would fly. I suspect weirdly enough they are trying to do good.

sbarre 12y ago

The semi-unspoken part of this is that given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, so even if they help existing employees get better jobs and leave Starbucks, all they are doing creating new entry-level job openings, while raising brand awareness, and also ensuring that their departing employees are going to jobs that will help them afford 5$ coffees. ;-)

steveklabnik 12y ago
> given the way the economy is, Starbucks will likely never lack job applicants, Marx called this the "reserve army of labor."
- zo1 12y ago
  Yeah, because people keep having children, that they can't or can barely afford to raise and/or college-educate. It's unfortunate, as it's a wonderful thing that everyone should have a chance at doing. But I'd never do that if I was unable to provide for and give a good education to my spawn. Sadly, many people do so with no thought for the future other than thinking the state will fix it, burdening all the rest of us because we're kind. #Edit, yeah for some odd reason this opinion isn't flying so well with someone on HN. I am disappointed, I figured people are reasonable and can see the merit of not wanting to bring a child into this world that they can't take care of. Perhaps people would rather they bring a child into this world, innocent and naive, and then throw it to the wolves while crying to the state to fix a problem they created and inflicted on an innocent? Shame on you.
  - xerophtye 12y ago
    While i admit your argument seems reasonable in certain countries, I don't think it applies well to the US. The average number of children per family in the US is below 1 in most states[1]. And even if you take the conditional average (that is only consider families who HAVE children) then that is still hardly 2 [1]. Now does that really seem like an unreasonable number of children for a couple to have? I mean if 1 or 2 children are too much for the average family, do you suggest that only the extremely wealthy should reproduce? So i suppose people are downvoting you because they feel that your comment isn't a reasonable debate, but is more of an irrelevant rant. [1] https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-20...

judk 12y ago

Trader Joe's has hand drawn signs and Hawaiian t-shirts. They are drawn to spec to create an impression of "fun" in the customer's mind, but they are very much assembly-line product.

qq66 12y ago
Might that fun not also rub off on TJ employees as it rubs off on customers? If my job was to put boxes on shelves, I'd rather do it in a Hawaiian shirt uniform than a plain black uniform.
- 4t4g24h3 12y ago
  Where can I find a soul-sucking job that lets me wear a Hawaiian shirt? That sounds like so much fun.
  - justizin 12y ago
    Right? I promise the people I know who work at TJs cannot fucking stop talking about the free shirts.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- serf 12y ago
  ever seen the movie 'Office Space'? 'fun' dress code is only fun when the person wants to dress in that manner.