Live data from Hacker News

Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

about.starbucks.com

11–20 of 117 posts

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#11
post #6

"Second, we’re further reducing non-retail headcount and expenses. This includes the difficult decision to eliminate approximately 900 current non-retail partner roles and close many open positions." What are the non-retail partners?

Is partner here a way of saying employee but without saying employee?

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#12
Feel bad for those employees. In the last 10 years I've gotten Starbucks maybe twice, both times because we were on the road and needed coffee... and it was the only option. A true fall from grace; The drinks are either sugar bombs or taste burnt and corp loves union busting.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#13
post #6

"Second, we’re further reducing non-retail headcount and expenses. This includes the difficult decision to eliminate approximately 900 current non-retail partner roles and close many open positions." What are the non-retail partners?

Is partner here a way of saying employee but without saying employee?

I was a GAP employee long ago. That was a "good" job because I saw how the "Associate Managers" barely made more than me, the "Assistant Managers" were stuck at 30, so I spent my lunch hours reading computer science textbooks. I mean "good" job in that it taught me exactly what I never wanted to do long term. I recall they had this management consulting team come in with an acronym "GAP ACT" (Greet, Approach, Product add-on, Accessorize, Close/cashier (?) and then Thank"). I suppose they were right because 30 years later I have not forgotten it, but I do recall quitting when they told me to take a toothbrush and clean the plastic fronts of the jeans racks. What a shitty job, and I bet it is not much better for Starbucks employees.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#14

Feel bad for those employees. In the last 10 years I've gotten Starbucks maybe twice, both times because we were on the road and needed coffee... and it was the only option. A true fall from grace; The drinks are either sugar bombs or taste burnt and corp loves union busting.

They blow it more than half the time when it comes to regular drip coffee.

I still remember my first starbucks visit as a 13 y.o. Sitting down, having a coffee, not knowing what caffeine was, and having the best conversation of my life.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#16

Feel bad for those employees. In the last 10 years I've gotten Starbucks maybe twice, both times because we were on the road and needed coffee... and it was the only option. A true fall from grace; The drinks are either sugar bombs or taste burnt and corp loves union busting.

> taste burnt

It was the case since forever ( ~15 years+ ). Starbucks is not a speciality coffee shop. There is nothing wrong with that. One has to acknowledge that high volume coffee shops have to rely on basically burned beans in order to be consistent with the taste.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#17

Really surprised about the closing of Starbucks Reserve in Seattle. That place was always bursting at the seams and must have had a major halo effect for the brand. It's hard not to associate the closure with its recent unionization.

No way! I've been there and had the best tasting coffee and pizza of my life. Surprisingly good combo. And it was right next to the old Living Computer Museum. It was for sure the highlight of my trips to Seattle. :(

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#18
post #5

"Each year, we open and close coffeehouses for a variety of reasons" Wonder how many of these are being closed because they've unionized?

attempted to unionize -- they are known for nipping that one in the bud. Happened to one of the locations in my town.

Heh, we had one that was very popular for university students to work at and they did successfully unionize. The thing with university students, though, is that they’re not going to be around forever… so the store experienced pretty much complete staff turnover every few years. This store would perpetually end up in weird situations like not being allowed to make coffee because the supervisor had a family emergency and had to leave. The staff could serve cold drinks and snacks but the union regulations required a supervisor to be on-site if there was any risk of burns.

None of the people who had done the original push to unionize were still around. They had been students, graduated, and moved on. Eventually the staff got frustrated enough with their own union rules that they successfully voted to un-unionize and the store improved a fair bit. Bizarre situation.

Post reply on HN