Just some fun basic math for everyone...
$96 million / 1000 (workers) = $96,000
🍽️🤑
Want a worse number? Back in 2019, the price of commodity was at less than a $1. Starbucks, at the time made up 3% of the world’s production. They decided to give $20m to their farmers. Did it help? Well based on available financial data at the time, $20m was approximately single afternoon’s profit for the company. A SINGLE FUCKING AFTERNOON! https://sprudge.com/starbucks-would-prefer-you-dont-think-too-hard-about-that-20m-relief-fund-151839.html
Yes, but that's irrelevant, just an accidental "post-" fact.
I think more relevant basic math is that he got a 2.6% bonus in terms of annual net income of the group.
The other 97.4% of labour just goes to shareholders ("landlords" of the financial system).
Just so people are aware, Starbucks was caught buying from farms in Brazil multiple times that used slave labor. In Guatemala, along with Nestle, were caught buying from farm(s?) that used child labor.
EDIT: On top of this the company partnered with Conservation International to certify the farms met the company’s standards. The incident in Brazil saw CI trying to coverup the certification of that farm. Also CI is involved with arms dealing.
EDIT 2: Their retail products have the claim “100% Ethically Sourced”. That is a lie.
Their retail products have the claim “100% Ethically Sourced”. That is a lie.
That all depends on which ethical code you're referencing for your statement. I 100% believe that Starbucks sources according to their corporate ethical standards.
I am unable to find a news report now, but I am certain I read one back in 2018 or 2019. I believe that Conservation International (an organization that helped develop the C.A.F.E. standard the company uses) was discovered covering up the certification of one of the farms in Brazil. As I remember reading, that a farm was at the time listed somewhere as being certified but after slave labor was discovered, CI uncertified the farm and attempted to claim it failed to meet the C.A.F.E. standards, thus never was awarded certification. They weren't saying the certification was revoked; it never had any.
Do you have a source for that? I want to read more about it.
Here are three different reports regarding three different instances in Brazil. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/slave-labor-found-at-second-starbucks-certified-brazilian-coffee-farm/
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/09/slave-labor-found-at-starbucks-certified-brazil-coffee-plantation/
Here is one on the Guatemala incident. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/01/children-work-for-pittance-to-pick-coffee-beans-used-by-starbucks-and-nespresso
Awesome, thank you! Support local coffee shops, people!!!
Is this the same nestle slave labor case that went to the Supreme Court where nestle was successfully defended by former Obama solicitor Neal Katyal, or have they done this more than once?
Remember when Ford had an amazing performance growth, made record profits, then laid off a huge amount of people and moved more business overseas. Nothing like capitalism to fire you when you're down and fire you when you're up!
Or sharing profits among the leeches when it's going great, but when shit goes down they are begging for help from government and firing people. How about you not instantly take out profits but you build resillience through reserves and preparation? Lol, who am I kidding, milk the cow till it's dry and then make beef patties when it stops giving milk.
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.
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.
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?
So who will be the next Luigi?
I'm hedging my bets on a Mario. Let's a go! 🎲🎲
Shifting "blame" on these white-collar police dogs (megacorp CEOs) instead of shareholders (and the system demanding growth) only needs to happen when everyone understands that even 96m is 2.6% of 3.760m of net income (2024).
So if 1k people were let go all of them could have gotten 1m of bonus and still the company would have made almost 3bn.
But they were let go bcs yoy income (but not revenue) was lower last year, and the financial markets demand a sacrifice (literally any action, even if not actually needed, just to send a signal they are 'on it').
The usual "efficient" meat grinder stuff.
I haven't seen someone with so punchable face
Gets invited to meeting with manager. Employee orders coffee for the meeting Manager says, his coffee will be "To Go"
I work at a bakery (we’ve got snacks, coffee, cake, and danishes in addition to bread), and every once in a while I see two people come in and it’s not clear if they’re on a date until they disagree about whether it’s for here or to go. Then I realize that only one of them thought it was a date. It’s especially awkward if the one who did has already offered to pay for everything.
Doing that for a job instead of a date is brutal
I mean he has been rewarded for making the line go up. Part of making the line go up is reducing overheads. So he is being directly rewarded for actions like firing 1000+ employees. So is it a surprise?
Since I'm sitting negative I should clarify that I do not think the actions are moral. Only that he is incentivized to do things like this.
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals
