General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy most employers aren’t like Starbucks and Costco
Being a coffee clerk may not be a dream job, but Starbucks (SBUX) has added some kick to its line positions with a new program that covers college tuition for employees who meet certain conditions. And Starbucks, like Costco (COST), Whole Foods (WFM) and a handful of other enlightened employers, offers starting pay well above minimum wage, along with other benefits it probably doesnt have to.
Firms that offer employees above-market pay and perks usually contend it makes good business sense to treat workers well, since it boosts morale, discourages turnover and improves the companys image. So why dont more companies do it? The answer involves a combination of pragmatism, short-sightedness and sensitivity to Wall Street concerns.
Companies basically fall into two categories in terms of the pay and perks they offer their workers: Those that view their workforce as a cost and those that consider employees an investment. It wont be surprising to hear the overwhelming majority of companies take the cost approach.
The number of companies who treat employees as an investment is pretty slim, says Lee Dyer, a professor at Cornell Universitys ILR School. When a company like Starbucks invests in its people, the reason it gets so much attention is because its such an anomaly.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-most-employers-aren-t-like-starbucks-and-costco-152636634.html
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Which I don't mind, but the media is only screaming this but not adding that the money is going towards tuition assistance for their employees.....No they are screaming....."Starbucks is raising coffee 20 cents starting Tuesday....isn't that awful?"
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)not because it's paying its employees more. But I'm sure the conservative media will blame labor costs.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and all to do with a shortage of Arabica beans. I expect to see coffee go through the roof, not just Starbucks, and it is because of climate change and the incredible drought in coffee raising regions, in Brazil and other areas of central and south america
mopinko
(69,812 posts)they pay their own premiums.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)mopinko
(69,812 posts)i dont work for them, friend does.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)mopinko
(69,812 posts)and people think they pay for their employee healthcare, at least in part, and they pay zero. that would be the point.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)but the offering is good, many employers did not even offer this before ACA.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)What are you talking about? Nobody gets actual FREE healthcare for working. Most pay a premium that is taken from the paycheck monthly or bi-weekly however they are paid.
mopinko
(69,812 posts)some people dont even have access to a group plan, some get partial payments, some get it as part of their compensation, without a copay.
starbucks offers a group plan that employees buy into and pay 100%.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Not exactly a progressive company.
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/tell_Starbucks_to_dump_GMOs_and_stop_fighting_GMO_labeling/?ak_proof=1&akid=.667416.XntC3Y&rd=1&t=4
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)And so am I for that matter. GMO labeling is NOT a progressive ideal. It's an anti-science ideal.
Seeing as the science SUPPORTS GMOs, I'll go with the science.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)No thanks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and whether they increase allergies or not is far from clear.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You respond with an article from an anti-gmo blog.
Oh, and here's a bit of info on your Seralini study:
"In November 2013, Elsevier, the publishing company for Food and Chemical Toxicology, the journal that published the 2012 paper, announced that the journal was retracting the paper, after the authors refused to withdraw it.[6][85] The editors of the journal concluded that, after an in-depth look at the raw data of the study, no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in overall mortality or tumor rates, given the known high incidence of tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats and the small sample size. Normal variance could not be excluded as the cause of the results.[6][86] Séralini and his supporters strongly objected to the retraction,[85][87][88] and Séralini himself threatened to sue Food and Chemical Toxicology.[89] In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.[90]"
As John Stewart would say, "BOOM!"
SHRED
(28,136 posts)The fact remains you toe the corporate line by denying those of us who choose not to ingest GMO's the ability to to make a choice via labeling.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)You toe the woo line.
Everything you eat has been genetically modified. Some of it took a few years of selective breeding and mutations, some of it went much quicker in a lab.
For some reason, we tend to consider humans outside of nature. But we're a part of nature. If a beaver builds a dam, it's considered natural. If a human splices genes it's considered unnatural.
You can chose not to ingest GMOs. Have fun. Waste your money. But don't try and convince people of things with debunked scientific papers and calls of defending corporations. That's what the anti-vaxxer and anti-climate change crowd do.
wisechoice
(180 posts)Monsanto produces its own science. Monsanto science said agent orange does not cause cancer.
. Should we be skeptical of Monsanto gmos this time?Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)By both Dow and Monsanto, for the federal government.
The extent of it's harmfulness wasn't realized until the mid 60s.
Science has come a LONG way since then.
Also, Monsanto =/= GMO. There are MANY companies that produce GMO food. You just have a need for a bogeyman.
What's your opinion on the Golden Rice Project?
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)take your courses through the remote campus of Arizona State University, and only through reimbursement once you've finished. It's old policy was $1,000 a year. Basically it's a huge scale-back, except for a very few people who are able to take advantage of it.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Compensation. It is good to hear Costco and Starbucks does this.
renate
(13,776 posts)(Bolding is mine)
Looks like they're doing a Walmart in terms of getting other people to pay for their workers' benefits.
Initially, Starbucks said that workers would be able to offset the costs through an upfront scholarship it was providing with Arizona State, but declined to say exactly how much of the cost it was shouldering. The chain estimated that the scholarship would average about $6,500 over two years to cover tuition of about $20,000.
Following the announcement, however, Arizona State University president Michael Crow told The Chronicle of Higher Education that Starbucks is not contributing any money toward the scholarship. Instead, Arizona State will essentially charge workers less than the sticker price for online tuition. Much of the remainder would likely be covered by federal aid since most Starbucks workers don't earn a lot of money.
Workers would pay whatever costs remained out of pocket for the first two years, and Starbucks would bear no costs.
Starbucks had previously declined to say how much it was contributing to the scholarship. But in a subsequent email Wednesday evening, Starbucks said that the scholarship is being "funded by ASU."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Starbucks-admits-its-not-contributing-to-hyped-scholarships-263837031.html?mobile=y
bayareaboy
(793 posts)talk out the other side of their mouth.
Go in and buy your TP and towels, both Georgia Pacific, owned by the Koch Family.
Or perhaps up here in Auburn Ca. If you come quick, You can see a senior center, a children's theater, and a gym and a senior first group, that provides lunches, trips out for medical, and shopping and so on. They won't be there long, probably late autumn. They are all on land that was given to the Placer County by the Army after WW2. seems as though a land developer set up this with Costco and the County don't care what what happens if they can get a big box store instead of seniors and children services.
A few months ago I sent two emails to Costco regarding the problem as I have described and got back no messages from them. My assumption is that Costco does a little word-mining with folks and when Auburn Ca came up, they didn't want to hear any more.
So then I decided to put my costco card thru my paper shredder.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and talk to them? By the way, this started oh at least five years ago when a local land planning group got together.
bayareaboy
(793 posts)Althought there has been opposition to this little power grab by developers and a county that doesn't mind screwing up things as long as no one touches their areas.
The only thing that has come up is maybe Costco will give 500,000 to the senior center to help relocate. But no money for Seniors First and no funds to the childrens theater.
Placer County is by and large controlled by the western part of the county which seems to be for the most part much different than the folks who live the rural areas.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that san diego has. Four of the Supers represent the urban core... so they really do not care much about the rural areas, or at least that is how the rural residents feel. Some of it is valid, some of it is not. When you look at county internals you realize that something else happened in urban core that was opposed by residents as well.
The lone Super who represents the rural areas has a tough fight.
I did not want to sound too snarky but it is rare something like this had not the ball rolling at least five years ago.
One thing that at times embarrass them and make them back off is... make the story go to national media. It is not easy, but that at times gets them to go... maybe we should not, and this is becoming a PR disaster.
Now, here is why I suspect they partly did it. Rural areas have few jobs. So the math is cruel, You will have more good quality jobs from Costco than you do currently from the senior center. If we had a similar piece of math in I don't know, Ramona, I think Cosco would win over a senior center as well. (In an ideal world both should be able to coexist)
DhhD
(4,695 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)We once had signs in all our facilities boasting that "People are our most important asset"
When they removed those signs, they began the process of cutting benefits one by one and pay raises were no longer guaranteed annually.
At one time, the company put money in a Stock Option plan where they double matched up to 12% of your paycheck. At first they reduced the offering to a simple 1 for 1 match, then the reduced the limit to 3% of your pay check that they would match. Then after dropping the match last year, last Friday, we got a notice from the Investment company that manages our retirement plan that our company would no longer contribute and we would no longer be allowed to contribute and that what we had in the fund would need to be moved elsewhere. The company didn't even have the guts to tell us about this change themselves and let the investment company do it.
They have frozen our retirement accounts and eliminated education assistance, took a week of vacation away and cut life insurance and Long Term Disability insurance.
I have seen what it was like to work for a Starbucks or Costco and seen the other side all without leaving the company I work for.
Cha
(295,929 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)What do you think about when you are deciding where to go for your coffee? How often have you said, "It's got to be Starbucks because their 'expert' baristas make all the difference!" Has anyone EVER said that? Is their success due to the quality of their baristas, the quality of their coffee, or due to aggressive expansion and the good fortune of being identified as a cool and hip brand back in the 90's?