Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

about.starbucks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#61

Post by lawlessone »

austinallegro wrote: post #44
deadbabe wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I go to Starbucks for the co-working vibes, not the coffee. When are small coffee shops going to understand, if you have a 1 hour limit on how long I can sit there on my laptop (if you even allow laptops), I’m not going to go to your shop. Coffee doesn’t matter, it’s all the same shit. Starbucks has never cared if I buy one coffee and then sit there all day.

Thank God for coffee shops that impose time limits, lest patrons visiting for a coffee and a sit-down have to walk on by because the hipsters in their bollock-strangling denim, plaid shirts and a Crossley turntable tucked under their arm are already hogging the place. Top Tip: Easily avoid said sofa-hogging hipsters. Look for the bike rack full of Penny Farthings outside. Go to a Workday for your 'co-working vibes'.…

Are you commenting from 2008?

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#62

Post by McAlpine5892 »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #48
brk wrote: post #31

This corporate word substitution bullshit really needs to die. Nobody on the receiving end of this is a "partner". Partner implies some amount of equality in things, a voice, a considered opinion. The people being cut almost certainly did not want to be cut, and I would wager none of them were asked for their input. Zero "partners" are impacted by this. The people impacted are employees. Also, Starbucks do not operat…

I have noticed for well over a decade or more, perhaps 20 years or longer, really, I'm not sure when it started, but companies are reluctant to call people "employees." Edit: I'm too young for this, but it's along the lines of Personnel from the '60s becoming Human Resources in the '70s and '80s, and Human Resources from the '90s and '00s now becoming People Operations in the '10s and '20s. I suspect in the '30s it'l…

This pains me so. Every time I have to hear "individual contributor", "leadership", or "the brand" I die a little inside.

Please just call me an employee or engineer. As for "leadership", I am somewhat convinced that the word "management" would lead to a mid-life crisis. Such inflated egos. As for "the brand", they are my employer.

This Newspeak has benefits though. Mainly that it hides in plain sight the top-down hierarchy of power that exists. Despite that fact that some employees are on food stamps while others make millions, it _sounds_ like everyone is on on somewhat equal footing.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#63

Post by RyanOD »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #19

I never understood Starbucks. I live in Europe, we have good coffee places everywhere. They are cheaper and serve significantly better coffee. I can't think of anything I ordered from Starbucks that didn't taste artificial.

It has always seemed to me that Starbucks has one thing going for it - consistency.

I used to go into smaller coffee shops and it was a 50/50 gamble that I was going to get terrible coffee (though more recently, I've had better luck). At least with Starbucks I knew I was going to get average coffee every single time.

That being said, I make 95% of my coffee at home.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#64

Post by RyanOD »

jsbisviewtiful wrote: post #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.

I once saw a publication by a coffee expert (sorry, don't have the link) who said the way to go with Starbucks is to order the lightest roast as it's always the closest to a proper, less-burnt coffee.

I've taken that approach and think it's sound advice.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#66

Post by Gud »

tonyarkles wrote: post #18
hyperbovine wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Why didn’t they just change the rules?

“Having a supervisor around” isn’t necessarily a requirement from the union.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#67

Post by dpoloncsak »

Gud wrote: post #66
tonyarkles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Why didn’t they just change the rules? “Having a supervisor around” isn’t necessarily a requirement from the union.

Starbucks told them it was because the union

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#68

Post by rdtsc »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #19

I never understood Starbucks. I live in Europe, we have good coffee places everywhere. They are cheaper and serve significantly better coffee. I can't think of anything I ordered from Starbucks that didn't taste artificial.

> I never understood Starbucks

It's the McDonalds of coffee. There are lot of better restaurants than McDonalads for sure but a random restaurant could also be worse. So McDonalds provides some low common denominator consistency. Same with Starbucks, coffee may not be the best and sandwiches are so so, but you know what you're getting there.

I find myself there when I travel to another city and need to grab something on the go. I could sit down and start researching local coffee shops if I have time, but if don't, I can pop in and out of Starbucks and know exactly what I'll get.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#69

Post by rdtsc »

RyanOD wrote: post #63
DarkNova6 wrote: post #19

I never understood Starbucks. I live in Europe, we have good coffee places everywhere. They are cheaper and serve significantly better coffee. I can't think of anything I ordered from Starbucks that didn't taste artificial.

It has always seemed to me that Starbucks has one thing going for it - consistency. I used to go into smaller coffee shops and it was a 50/50 gamble that I was going to get terrible coffee (though more recently, I've had better luck). At least with Starbucks I knew I was going to get average coffee every single time. That being said, I make 95% of my coffee at home.

> It has always seemed to me that Starbucks has one thing going for it - consistency.

Absolutely. That's why end up going there when I travel and just need to get something quick. I may find a better coffee shop if I have time, or if I wing it, I may end up with some burnt horrible coffee and undercooked sausage (happened before) so I'll just opt to pay more to get the consistency. At home I just brew my own coffee as well.

Re: Starbucks: Location closures and elimination of roles

#70

Post by heymijo »

DarkNova6 wrote: post #19

I never understood Starbucks. I live in Europe, we have good coffee places everywhere. They are cheaper and serve significantly better coffee. I can't think of anything I ordered from Starbucks that didn't taste artificial.

Our car culture in the U.S. means drive thrus can capture a significant portion of sales. Starbucks/Dunkin/McDonald’s do that.

It’s very rare to find a local coffee shop in the U.S. with a drive-thru.

Post reply on HN