> say the union comes in, negotiates. what does this upper bound increase to?
Reasonable sick time allocation without fear of being fired?
Reasonable sick time allocation without fear of being fired?
"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?"
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
https://www.compt.io/hr-articles/how-to-reduce-worker-turnov....
then some articles from google say 140% turnover
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?
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
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.
> 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.
The sheer ignorance of this comment is astounding.
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?
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?
Aside from that, if they can't afford to treat their employees with dignity, they shouldn't be in business. They can, though.
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.
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...
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.