Comment by MuffinFlavored | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MuffinFlavored | Hacker News Reader

Barista starting Hourly Pay Range near me: $15.50 to $17.50 (before tips)

> From free coffee to competitive pay, Starbucks is proud to offer a comprehensive compensation and benefits package to our eligible part-time and full-time partners. Benefits include 100% tuition coverage through our Starbucks College Achievement Plan, health coverage with a variety of plans to choose from, and stock & savings programs like our equity reward program, Bean Stock. What’s more, Starbucks offers flexible scheduling and opportunities for paid time off. Visit starbucksbenefits.com for details.

This is a non union store to my knowledge.

Looking at this as pessimistically as possible, I'll guess nobody is getting 40 solid hours a week (aka they strategically cycle through 20 to 30 hour/week part time employees)

7 days a week, 25 hours a week, let's say you don't work 3 days (you are 100% off, not on call in case the store gets busy or something)

25 hours a week, 4 days a week. about 6.25 hours a shift. let's say it's $16/hr

$100 in a 6.25 hour day, 4 days a week, $400/week gross

Let's say you don't work at all 4 weeks of the year (store closed for holiday, you take unpaid vacation/sick time/call out, you don't use PTO, i don't know). 52 weeks a year, say you work 48 full.

$16/hr, 25 hours a week, 48 weeks a year: $19.2k/yr before any tips

$16/hr, 30 hours a week, 48 weeks a year: $23.0k/yr before any tips

$16/hr, 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year: $26.8k/yr before any tips

$16/hr, 40 hours a week, 48 weeks a year: $30.7k/yr before any tips

$16/hr, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year: $32.0k/yr before any tips

so the upper bound for what you'll most likely ever earn gross as a barista at starbucks is $32k/yr

say the union comes in, negotiates. what does this upper bound increase to?

> say the union comes in, negotiates. what does this upper bound increase to?

Reasonable sick time allocation without fear of being fired?

Are you telling me if you're a good part time (or full time) barista at Starbucks in a non-union store and you don't abuse (call in sick too often like being hungover from a party the night before, are reliable), you have to worry about getting fired for taking... 5 days off unpaid sick? I kind of "don't believe" that's how the world works.

Have you actually worked a service job regularly? 5 days off unpaid was an absolutely ridiculous ask when I was in service. I would have to debate going to a doctor to justify the call in sick for an extended period of time, which I couldn't afford, as my job didn't provide healthcare, or else risk a writeup for every shift I missed. Kind of a shit sandwich all around. I see Starbucks offers medical for qualified part time employees, which I suspect would mean you actually didn't have healthcare for a fairly significant length of time.

it just feels like, if you were to ask starbucks management/leadership

"can employees in your non-union stores request 5 days off unpaid if they are sick without fear of being fired"

they would say "absolutely"

but you are saying "most likely not"

who is being dishonest?

if most of your employees are in that 20-35 hour range with no fear of overtime, aren't you able to say "so and so is sick, let me just call somebody else who is being under-utilized/has availability?"

I’ve never worked a service job where the manager treated it as their responsibility to cover a shift.

If an employee is sick and can’t find someone to cover, it is typically considered a missed shift on their part.

You feelings might tell you one thing, but it’s worth actually checking that against the facts on the ground.

You should just ask someone who's worked at Starbucks if you don't want to believe it.

I'm curious though... What do you think the incentive is for people demanding benefits they already secretly have? Why do you think they're making it up? Its obvious why management would make it up but why the employee?

Why would you ask starbucks management this question? Ask a worker how comfortable they feel asking for time off, ask them what the process is when they're sick.

I've been one so here let me just tell you. You have to call up your coworkers on their days off and beg them to cover you. You promise or call in favors, you convince someone to give up time with their family or skip class or to work a double shift for you. If you can't get anyone to do it you work sick.

If you can't get it covered and actually don't go to work the manager will work the shift and hold it against you forever. They can fire you for it the first time and they really might, it all depends on your relationship with them. At the very least your relationship, whatever it was, is badly damaged. They make the schedule so I hope you don't need consistent hours, or a specific day off for class or anything.

Yup. My ex- ran into this when she worked at Starbucks. All sorts of "unintentional" back to back "close one night, open the next morning", split shifts, etc. And very little you can do about it.

> it just feels like

> who is being dishonest?

Neither. Your hypothetical is wrong. Management would point you to the gargantuan employee handbook that all employees sign as a condition of employment. Somewhere in there it states that shift coverage is the employee's job and that company profits/image are of utmost importance. Management knows the hourly workers are easily replaceable warm bodies.

> if most of your employees are in that 20-35 hour range with no fear of overtime, aren't you able to say "so and so is sick, let me just call somebody else who is being under-utilized/has availability?"

No, this isn't that simple, and asking this question makes me ask how much experience you have with service work to even question the justification of a union. People who are working part-time are usually juggling multiple jobs, childcare, or other life circumstances which makes their hours not that flexible. Additionally, in order to avoid being eligible for full-time benefits you are literally unable to call in someone else who might have availability. Calling in sick suddenly usually means the team has to work short that shift, or someone else agrees to work your shift in that you owe them later with the understanding cost that they won't be working a shift at another time, leaving the shift they aren't working also short a member, thus cascading the issue.

> Starbucks' turnover rate is 65%, much lower than the industry standard because they put energy, resources, and money into creating a great employee experience which directly impacts the guest experience.

https://www.compt.io/hr-articles/how-to-reduce-worker-turnov....

then some articles from google say 140% turnover

https://www.google.com/search?q=starbucks+barista+turnover

It's possible, though very difficult, to get health insurance when working at starbucks. This is better than most service industry jobs, where you will never get health insurance no matter what. That's the main meaningful difference they definitely don't "create a great employee experience" lmao.

the 65% number is from at least 9 years ago. the blog you linked is sharing outdated numbers and parroting corporate lines about their worker experience without any critical evaluation of their veracity - we call that propaganda.

That is in fact how it works though.

how does "i'd like to see all baristas be able to call out of work if they get sick without consequence (fear of losing their job) despite the constraint of a store needing sufficient manpower hours scheduled when it comes to staffing to give good service/get through a shift for its customers" correlate to "i/other customers don't want to pay starbucks already high prices, let alone hypothetically higher needed to support starbucks having a more lax 'employees need unpaid spontaneous time off' policy"

they don't correlate well

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/pro...

they have 75% margins on their coffee as is, yet their net margins are 10% company wide. the average drink in my experience is $6-$8 before a tip. how much more do they need to charge their customers in order to make "starbucks will be less strict and more understanding about their employees needing unpaid time off randomly without having to worry about it counting as a missed shift/needing to get it covered"? they only have that policy because otherwise their bottom line would get affected, right?

what's realistic? 2 random sick days a quarter per employee? 4 a year? sick bank hours accrued?

idk working out their profit model isn't my responsibility but allowing workers to take sick time without retribution can't be optional either. if those two aren't compatible then we just can't have starbucks I guess oh well.

i wouldn't say it's working out their entire profit model, i'd say it's applying basic logic

if this, then that

if "employees taking time off without any notice (sick time) disrupts the schedule/store operations", then "the store will suffer financially"

if "the store suffers financially", then "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere in order to be offset"

if "the loss needs to be made up elsewhere", then "the money needs to come from somewhere"

if "the money to offset the loss needs to come from somewhere", then "prices need to be increased"

therefore, in order for ALL workers to be allowed to take SOME sick time off (time off without much notice) without retribution, prices need to be increased even further

if prices need to be increased even further, you might alienate away even more of your existing or potential customer base (prices already very high for what they offer relative to their competition)

if you alienate away more customers, you lose money

therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs. i don't mean for that to sound as cold and heartless and immoral and rude as it does. i'm not some high level executive who only thinks in terms of MBA. i'm just trying to show perspective to both sides of the bargaining equation. imagine if the entire staff could call out sick whenever they wanted without consequence twice a week. the store would have to close down, wouldn't it? where's the balance?

is the balance supposed to be exactly where it is now? you'd argue it needs to be more in favor of the worker, but you also admit to not putting much effort/thought into thinking of the business side, becasue you're arguing it's already too much in favor of the business side

> therefore, you're asking the business to lose money at the expense of their dispensable/replaceable entry level jobs.

Yes I am. That's exactly what it comes down to.

I uncompromisingly believe that making profit while not providing a living wage and sick time is immoral and should not be allowed. Maybe they can do both, maybe they can't. They put themselves in the position of needing to find out though.

You’re in for a rude awakening.

> From the perspective of a business owner trying to run a business, there can be a link between allowing baristas to call out sick without consequences and potential price increases for customers. If baristas are allowed to call out sick without consequences, it may result in increased staffing costs due to the need to hire additional workers to cover shifts. This may also result in decreased productivity, as a shortage of staff can lead to longer wait times and lower customer satisfaction.

> To maintain their profit margins and offset these costs, a business owner may need to consider increasing prices for their products, which could potentially impact their customer base. However, it's important to balance the financial considerations with the well-being of employees and the long-term health of the business. Prioritizing the health and safety of employees, providing flexible sick leave policies, and ensuring adequate staffing levels can also contribute to better customer satisfaction and long-term profitability.

Have you never worked a service job in your life? This is absolutely common.

The sheer ignorance of this comment is astounding.

riddle me this

tomorrow you're the starbucks CEO

instead of focusing on maximizing shareholder profit, you want to keep profit the same as it is now, but you also want to be a good moral person and listen to the complaints about "baristas need to be able to make $16/hr and have up to 5 'i can't come in for whatever reason despite being scheduled and i don't want to rush to get it covered/make it the store's problem and not mine' days a quarter"

how much MORE do you have to raise the drink prices from $6-8 per drink before tip to pull that off? serious question

you're at 75% margin when a drink is $7 (hypothetical but probably within a ballpark)

do you need to raise margins to 85% to be able to support baristas needing 5 unpaid random days off a quarter? 5 * 4 quarters = 20 a year

i don't think margins after what you charge the customer can stay the same while also enabling baristas to call out (what effects does that have on a store's daily sales/revenue/profit? they're linked, right? less baristas, customers get pissed, walk out, cancel orders, more mistakes made, or people see it is too busy and don't want to wait and don't order)

so you need to increase margins in order to support bartsias being allowed to basically, mess up the daily shift scheduling dynamic. somebody calling out randomly for being sick without being able to find a cover can probably cost the store... up to 20% of its revenue/sales/profit a day? 10%? 5%? 25%?

say you have 4-5 baristas per shift during busy hours. they can all call out sick randomly? store closes for the day? we're talking about moving the responsibility of fearing for your job being lost if you can't find somebody to cover your shift off of the employee.

what's the sane amount here? charge more? allow it more with less (no?) repercussions?

They should charge enough to be able to afford to treat their employees like human beings - and human being sometimes get sick. How is hard for you to understand? Do you really have that little empathy towards service workers?

> They should charge enough to be able to afford to treat their employees like human beings - and human being sometimes get sick. How is hard for you to understand?

so you would agree that (at their current $6-8 drink average), they are NOT charging enough to support their employees like human beings (being able to factor in that any barista should be allowed the right to call in sick 5 days with no notice a quarter)

Is that a fair summary?

How many days are they currently factoring in? 0, right? Because all baristas need to fear getting fired over take 1 sick day a quarter (call out unpaid with no notice) or need somebody to cover it right

So, how much do drink and food prices need to go up at starbucks to support 5 sick days per quarter per barista instead of the current 0?

Their current margins are 75%. Do they need margins to go to... 85%? 95%? 105%? 115%? What's the cost of a barista taking a sick day once a quarter? What's the cost to a store's bottom line per day of 5 baristas taking a sick day 5 times a quarter? What if they do it all at once? Close the store for the day, miss the revenue/sales?

As an aside, I don't want anyone sick preparing my food or drink. There's a public health reason for actual sick leave right there.

Aside from that, if they can't afford to treat their employees with dignity, they shouldn't be in business. They can, though.

Starbucks is, like many large corporations right now, making record profits.

Their margins are already plenty high. They just need to stop prioritizing executives' and shareholders' pocketbooks (shock! heresy!), and start prioritizing the human beings that depend on their jobs there to put food on the table.

Their net margin is 10% as per https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/SBUX/starbucks/pro...

How much of that would you like to see them give up in order to appease the employees to your standards? Would you like to see their net margin at 0%? 1%? Do they deserve to make any profit in your mind?

You're saying they make too much profit. That's fair. You'd like to see them to treat their employees better at the expense of making less profit. I just don't know how realistic that is...

That's how the world works.

Personal single-point anecdote burned into my memory: at my last restaurant job, I did a great job, had perfect attendance, and great reviews. Upon injuring my back, I was let go on my 3rd day calling out and my manager enthusiastically "encouraged to reapply for the position when I was feeling better!".

It was the moment I realized I needed to make myself a better future.

Tell me you were spoiled and never had to try hard in life without telling me your spoiled and never had to try hard in life

Reply on news.ycombinator.com