Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Beachboy6294
New member
Not really because I just order a double espresso which is like $2
Oatmeal at Starbucks.
- Thread starter curvymommy
- Start date
Not really because I just order a double espresso which is like $2
I never complain when they raise prices, they are one of the companies I respect the most for how they treat their employees, I wish all others would volunteer to do the same.
unions and government intervention won't be needed at all one day. Many industries get by without unions. People look out for themselves and their own profits in some cases, in other cases they feel they have a duty to treat employees fairly and even support the communities that they profit from. The more employers do these things voluntarily, the less government intervention will be needed to enforce compliance to some basic common courtesy (e.g. break time and pay for working overtime)
case in point. The law in California regarding overtime became more lenient to allow for flexible shifts. Before anything over 8 hours was overtime, but then employers didn't have incentive to put people on four 10 hour work days or alternating three and four day work weeks of 12 hours. California said "ok, you only have to pay overtime for over 40 hours per week." My company did implement some flexible shifts, but also continued to pay hourly workers on a five day 8 hour work week overtime for any hours worked over 8 in a day.
Also California made a change to allow more hourly workers to become salary. We continued to keep some of these re classes positions on hourly rates so they could earn overtime, but gave them the benefit packages that people in salary positions get (1 week more vacation and a bigger bonus).
I have a sad feeling that most companies only abide to the letter of the law, and will do what makes them most profitable, which by definition means less cost and human labor is usually one of the biggest costs for any employer.
Also California made a change to allow more hourly workers to become salary. We continued to keep some of these re classes positions on hourly rates so they could earn overtime, but gave them the benefit packages that people in salary positions get (1 week more vacation and a bigger bonus).
I have a sad feeling that most companies only abide to the letter of the law, and will do what makes them most profitable, which by definition means less cost and human labor is usually one of the biggest costs for any employer.
mrplunkey
New member
Of course you wouldn't mind them raising prices! But what about the poor who can't afford Starbucks? There you sit, wi-fi enabled, in a comfortable chair with an affable, well-compensated employee creating a "total coffee experience" for you.
And then there is the downtrodden guy, forced to go to his local coffee shop because he can't buy a $6.50 cup of coffee. His chair is stiff and uncomfortable, he doesn't have internet access and his waitress is rude and inadequate.
How can you let this stand? Imagine the unfair productivity you've gained by this. How can you let people be denied equal opportunity for effectiveness? I'm sure you appreciate $6.50 coffee keeping the riff-raff out of the place, but denying someone equal opportunity for professional success seems wrong to me.
Lestat: Promise me this. For every cup of coffee you consume in the future at Starbucks, swing-by a low-end coffee shop and bring at least one person who can't afford the coffee with you.
Beachboy6294
New member
Hey then send it to me I'll use it!!
Mrplunkey not to sound like an ass but if that's the case that person needs to get a better job and stop crying about it! Damn even when I was in college I could find a way to afford it. Maybe that's why I worked two jobs and went to school full time.
mrplunkey
New member
You need a little more info on Lestat/Plunkey debates...
Similar threads
