Freakin' Starbucks

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Dammit. I'm vastly irritated with the company I work with, for a varity of reasons.

First, I'm forced to sell a disgusting product--the sugar-free mocha. Uuughh, I can't even explain WHY it blows big foamy bubbles, it's that gross. How the HELL did it get through taste-testing? It tastes ok at first, but afterwards, there's this lingering chemical taste. It's also curiously minty smelling. And I have to pretend that it tastes good.

Second, in an effort to cut costs yet AGAIN, they switched lids on us again. I used to be able to pop a lid on one-handed while multi-tasking on another drink at the same time. Not any more! Gotta use to two hands and press the lid down all around. "More efficient," my foot. Also, they're more frequently ill cut and more brittle, so they break more often. The dome lids and iced cups are more flimsy. It doesn't directly affect the quality of the drink, but it sure as hell pisses off baristas and the lids are more likely to come off, so it hurts the quality of the experience.

Third: What the heck is it with hiring crappy people? Mostly, I really like other baristas, but there are a few I want to punch. This afternoon, some smarmy little manager checked in on us (we haven't got a manager at the moment, so they're all stretching to cover us, too). She had some valid critiques, but she seemed to take joy in nick picking little things, and making invalid claims (After touching one carafe, she went, "All the milk carafes are warm! And that one's over flowing!" "Um, no, I just changed all but one of them, and that's a little spillage."  Shuddup, you shrew), she was also rather rude to me. I went into the back room on my break, and was chased out with a "Get out", and my temp manager (who is t3h awesome) looked like she was going to cry.

Finally: I knew that Starbucks wasn't wild about unions, but it looks like they're watching for those of us who are pro-union. And I would totally join a union, given the opportunity.

"...
The Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, has been trying to organize workers at Starbucks since 2004 and has been able to organize only several dozen at a handful of stores in New York and a few other cities.

According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks managers discovered that two pro-union employees in New York were graduates of a Cornell University labor program. According to an email, managers took the names of graduates from an online Cornell discussion group and the school's Web site and cross-checked them with employee lists nationwide. They found that three employees in California, Michigan and Illinois were graduates of the program and recommended that local managers be informed.

The emails are exhibits in a pending case before an administrative law judge in New York. Brandon Borrman, a Starbucks spokesman, said most of the documents relate to issues that were already settled in a separate agreement with the National Labor Relations Board, in which the company didn't admit any wrongdoing. He said the claims in that case were baseless but declined to comment on specifics, and said disclosure of the documents violates a confidentiality order.

Referring to Starbucks employees as partners, he said: "We honor the free choices of partners, and we strictly comply with labor laws, including those for organizing activities. It is unfortunate that a small group of activists continues to misrepresent itself as speaking on behalf of more than 150,000 partners world-wide when it does not."

In the pending NLRB case in New York, the IWW has accused Starbucks of committing about 30 labor law violations during 2005 and 2006. The union argues that the company's effort to identify union supporters was part of a broader campaign of unlawful activity, and it argues that the company discharged three employees because they supported the union.

"What possible nondiscriminatory reason could Starbucks come up with to scrutinize Cornell graduates working at the company?" said Daniel Gross, a former barista in New York. He alleges that he was fired in August 2006 because he is a union activist, and his termination is a subject of the pending NLRB case.
...
The company emails show that managers have been fighting the union since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation," begins an email dated Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official.

In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee is an "IWW supporter" and discuss when pro-union employees will be reviewed and those that are "at risk" of being terminated.

Taking action against an employee based on union sympathies, such as firing an employee or directly asking if they support the union, would be illegal, said Chuck Cohen, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board and a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Washington. But "employers speculating about individual union sympathies is not unlawful," he said."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119992798501479685-lMyQjAxMDE4OTE5NDkxMjQ3Wj.html

[Griffin NoName]

I suppose thinking of it all as a metaphor for Life isn't very helpful !

[Sibling Chatty]

Read up on how WalMart handles those possibly thinking that in some future time they MIGHT conceivably consider the option of the bare possibility that a labor union might be marginally feasible.

Then prepare a resume that has NOTHING about your Starbucks employment on it, because they'll trash you to any future employer for LISTENING to someone say the word 'union' within 5 miles of one of their stores.

(I've hired 5 former Starbucks employees in the past. 3 were given straightforward, facts only refs, the two that told me they'd listened--NOT RESPONDED TO, LISTENED--to someone talking about unions?? A completet recitation of every drop spilled, every error, every SECOND ever late, and some pretty nasty character analysis, all 'sorta off the record' on the "analysis". Starbucks can be very nasty. Be Careful.)

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I will. I am getting a new manager soon, so we'll see.
Additionally, I've never ever mentioned the word 'union' anywhere near my store or co-workers. WWI doesn't seem to be trying to unionize my neck of the woods, so I think we're ok right now.
Wal-Mart is an atrocity. I'm aware of what they do.
Did they really go that far with the kids you hired? Yeesh! So much for kindness.

[Sibling Chatty]

In one case, I was hiring an established adult, 31 years old, with a BA in Journalism. Starbucks had hired her in a 'fast track to management' program that they derailed early on, when they found out (district manager met her brother at her store and started chatting with him) that her brother was a minor officer in the local AFL-CIO.

This woman NEVER said a word about unions, her brother's position or anything else. She busted ass, covered shifts, you name it, she did it. They 'assumed' from her brother's position that she was pro-union. They treated her like dirt from the day after her brother and the district manager met.

It wasn't until I was interviewing her and knew their pattern from the previous person that she figured it out. I told her what I suspected, and asked if she'd ever said "the U word" near Starbucks. No...but her District Manager had gotten really nasty after he met her brother...

I hired her, then talked to her District Manager.  He's the one that had been so "confidentially honest" with me. He wasn't concerned. Bottom line!! As one manager to another, I should understand...

There used to be a Starbucks across the street from the AFL-CIO headquarters in Houston. When AFL-CIO people boycotted it, it shut down within 2 months. No signs, no pickets, just--no business!

The other guy was a 20 year old son of a dockworker in Galveston. ALL dockworkers are union. Management asked him if his Dad was union, he said yes. Did he think unions were a good idea? He said "Works in Dad's job." He was gone in 2 days.

Both of these people are still working for the company I hired them for. She's state-wide sales manager, he's in charge of all deliveries. I doubt either one of them would have done as well staying with Starbucks, because there is a corporate mentality that eventually roots out too much creativity there...at least from what I have seen.

One of my other Starbucks hirees is still there as well, in purchasing. Their current HR person STILL gets a lot of Starbucks employees coming in off the street to apply.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Good Lord. My mother's in the teacher's union here, and I think I'll ask her not to mention anything about it.
Hmm...the manager that hired me is also my friend's mom. I think I'll ask her about it the next time I'm over (she's not with the company anymore).
Starbucks, generally speaking, can pick 'em. Most people I work with are really cool and very smart with big plans of their own.
And now that I'm hearing this, I have to say I'd drop the job if I didn't need the money and the portability. I'll need the insurance too, come spring of '09 (No longer a full-time student at that point, if everything goes according to plan, so no longer on Delta's plan), unless I'd like to back-slide into depression.

[Sibling Chatty]

Starbucks ran into some issues in both Houston and New Orleans, in that there are some of the "F&B service and related" employees that ARE unionized. they didn't bother to even LOOK at the reasons, they just went ape-shit over the word "union" or anything that sounded similar.

Houston and New Orleans are/were (thanks Katrina) HUGE convention towns. the specific demands of THAT part of the hospitality industry lead to a 'unionized' waitstaff force that is basically a huge employment agency--VERY employer driven. The 'union' is literally a hiring hall--they'll issue a call for 300 to serve, describe the costume preferred, and take the first 300 plus 10 that sign up. So, if you're on the ball, have several white shirts, black bow ties and an assortment of black vests and jackets, as well as a white and a red jacket and a red vest, you can work banquet shifts for big bucks ALL the time. During one large medical convention, several servers I know pulled 10 4 hour shifts in 3 and a half days.

Anyway, Starbucks took all this as a sign that THEIR workforce would be targeted, and they've NEVER backed off. The union DOES NOT WANT other people's employees. They don't want non-full-service waiters, for sure. But, the area management of Starbucks wouldn't take phone calls or meetings about it, either.

I understand that in the past 2-3 years, they've finally caught on, but then there have been other attempts to unionize Starbucks people elsewhere, so they've got their paranoia out... What they have to remember is that as long as they offer a decent wage and benefits, they'll be OK. People go union from lack of benefits, THEN to get better wages.

Getting back to the original "guy" will help, according to my friend in Houston. (Chairman of the Houston Restaurant Association.) Starbucks has been a good role model for smaller businesses, according to him, in that the small places have had to be more employee-responsive (pay better, more flexible schedules) to compete with Starbucks. The original Starbucks concept was that the employees WERE as important as the management, because employees are the front line with the customers. If they can maintain that concept, I think they'll do OK. Offering insurance is the BIG thing. Nobody much out there is doing that, so there's going to be less interest in a union, ESPECIALLY if they don't forbid it.