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.
Let me translate that rhetorical question for you:
Why do you believe society should allow certain businesses to remain in existence, when those businesses utilize human labor, yet do not pay enough for human laborers to subsist?
By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It’s not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
Some business operate on unskilled labour, it shouldnt be a surprise that its not paid well, just because something doesnt pay well doesnt mean the company shouldnt exist, and since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That’s fucking ludicrous. And before you start with people have to take what they can get, yes thats true and starbucks isnt responsible for that shortfall, in a real socialist democracy, that should be taken up by welfare if needed.
I understand the gut reaction to go after the CEO or board for making decisions that affect so many people, but it doesnt help, its misdirected energy that should go to the government.
We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial. The best way to handle this is to use government to reign in corps to limits we can be happy with.
I stand by all I’ve said, but I respect your position, i just think it’s misguided.
By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It’s not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
The question wasn’t about the labor. The question was about the employer. The question was about the mindset you demonstrated in your first comment, that you later clarified:
since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That’s fucking ludicrous.
The question is about how you decided that this idea is “fucking ludicrous”.
You lied to me when you said you didn’t hold this belief. It may have been an unintentional lie at the time, probably because you didn’t understand what I was asking. But, I was talking about what you describe as “fucking ludicrous”. Those two words are a vociferous acknowledgement of the beliefs I was talking about; beliefs that you clearly hold. I want to know how you came to believe this idea to be “fucking ludicrous”.
We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial
Why not? I think we most certainly can. I think we can absolutely demand that they fulfill an obligation greater than just their own financial interests. I think we can certainly demand that their business operations benefit their workers, and society in general. When their business is demonstrably exploitative “shit-work”, we are not obligated to allow them to continue to do business. We can prohibit them from continuing to engage in that harmful business.
Some business operate on unskilled labour
Unskilled human labor.
They require the labor of a human for their business to function, but they pay less than subsistence wages to that human. That is “shit-work”.
The net effect of their business practices is harmful. Those workers are also consumers, and those consumers have less to spend. These “shit-work” companies are strangling the economy and damaging society in general.
Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow “shit-work” companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow “shit-work” companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
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.
I don’t understand why you think it’s either/or? I didn’t say, “Starbucks is solely to blame” or anything of the sort. It’s incredibly stupid that living requires an employer, and that’s something we need to fix, but as long as it does they should act and be treated like they have the ethical responsibility they’ve been given.
Maybe you should stop giving people free passes for psychopathy just because it’s within the law.
Likely to get him to stay in the position because the board or whatever thinks he is worth that much to keep on. I’m not saying they got their moneys worth but they obviously thought so. They arent handing him a bonus as big as that as a pat on the back.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Why would I do that.
Let me translate that rhetorical question for you:
Why do you believe society should allow certain businesses to remain in existence, when those businesses utilize human labor, yet do not pay enough for human laborers to subsist?
I don’t believe that, you’ve just attached that to my argument because you either can’t understand my point or don’t want to.
I see. Maybe we have had a failure to communicate. What I was referring to was this:
Whatever you meant by “shit-work” is what I was trying to ask you about.
Why do you believe companies offering “shit-work” should be allowed to remain in business?
By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It’s not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
Some business operate on unskilled labour, it shouldnt be a surprise that its not paid well, just because something doesnt pay well doesnt mean the company shouldnt exist, and since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That’s fucking ludicrous. And before you start with people have to take what they can get, yes thats true and starbucks isnt responsible for that shortfall, in a real socialist democracy, that should be taken up by welfare if needed.
I understand the gut reaction to go after the CEO or board for making decisions that affect so many people, but it doesnt help, its misdirected energy that should go to the government.
We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial. The best way to handle this is to use government to reign in corps to limits we can be happy with.
I stand by all I’ve said, but I respect your position, i just think it’s misguided.
The question wasn’t about the labor. The question was about the employer. The question was about the mindset you demonstrated in your first comment, that you later clarified:
The question is about how you decided that this idea is “fucking ludicrous”.
You lied to me when you said you didn’t hold this belief. It may have been an unintentional lie at the time, probably because you didn’t understand what I was asking. But, I was talking about what you describe as “fucking ludicrous”. Those two words are a vociferous acknowledgement of the beliefs I was talking about; beliefs that you clearly hold. I want to know how you came to believe this idea to be “fucking ludicrous”.
Why not? I think we most certainly can. I think we can absolutely demand that they fulfill an obligation greater than just their own financial interests. I think we can certainly demand that their business operations benefit their workers, and society in general. When their business is demonstrably exploitative “shit-work”, we are not obligated to allow them to continue to do business. We can prohibit them from continuing to engage in that harmful business.
Unskilled human labor.
They require the labor of a human for their business to function, but they pay less than subsistence wages to that human. That is “shit-work”.
The net effect of their business practices is harmful. Those workers are also consumers, and those consumers have less to spend. These “shit-work” companies are strangling the economy and damaging society in general.
Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow “shit-work” companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
Well put and logical. Taking this thanks.
Tldr
deleted by creator
I didn’t read past the abject lie that is “A lot of Batistas work full the jobs actually”.
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.
Not only does it have a face…
… It’s a perfectly punchable face.
Okay, you go do whatever you can to that face and come back and tell me what changed. The answer will be nothing.
I don’t understand why you think it’s either/or? I didn’t say, “Starbucks is solely to blame” or anything of the sort. It’s incredibly stupid that living requires an employer, and that’s something we need to fix, but as long as it does they should act and be treated like they have the ethical responsibility they’ve been given.
Maybe you should stop giving people free passes for psychopathy just because it’s within the law.
There’s a fucking recession coming you dolt, ofcourse large companies are going to dump people, and it doesnt take a psychopath to do it.
Your hearts in the right place, but if you cant be realistic about the why and how of running a business, i dont want your opinions.
It’s a self made recession by the corporations themselves. A thousand employees don’t matter to their bottom line.
If preparing for a recession is to blame here, then why at the same time are the Starbucks board giving the CEO $96 million buckadoos?
Likely to get him to stay in the position because the board or whatever thinks he is worth that much to keep on. I’m not saying they got their moneys worth but they obviously thought so. They arent handing him a bonus as big as that as a pat on the back.
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?
I’m European.
Sorry, I just assumed because you seemed to be at about that level.