Hacker News Reader

Comment by PuppyTailWags | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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 the blog you linked is sharing outdated numbers and parroting corporate lines about their worker experience without any critical evaluation of their veracity - we call that propaganda.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com