Full Disclosure: I work at Starbucks as a barista. However, I get paid nothing to write this. I am an hourly store employee and I gain nothing.
Since this is my first diary ever, I figure I should start with a brief introduction. My account is only a couple years old, and I rarely comment. It is only recently that I really decided to comment at all. I have been reading the site avidly for a very long time, I can't really pinpoint when it was. But I remember Bush being in charge and no one holding him accountable, except for DailyKos. It was the last bastion of sanity. The place I could go to for solace when the traditional media didn't go after the Bush administration for all of their crimes.
The other day I read a diary on the front page by Joan McCarter. She is an excellent writer, however I had a few issues with the diary itself, but more especially the comment Boehner made that McJoan was quoting. And more disturbing than that was the comments. The comments made it clear that no one had done any research into the story at all before jumping to conclusions. In fact hardly anyone seems to have even read the tweet Boehner made, they just read the headline, and then went off on the bandwagon.
The diary is here http://www.dailykos.com/...
The long and short of it is that Boehner tweeted this: "Starbucks CEO says ObamaCare mandates "impose 'too great' a pressure on small businesses". And everything went pretty much straight to hell from there. There were several accusations levied against Schultz, that he's a chamber of commerce lackey, that he is lying, it also claims Schultz opposes the ACA. And it's implied that Schultz thinks Starbucks is a small business. But Schultz isn't any of these things, nor did he say any of this. And then the comments were worse. People started jumping on the boycott Starbucks bandwagon, they said Howard Schultz is a jerk because he doesn't want to give his employees healthcare, and he was made out to be a villain much like the koch brothers. But none of this is true, and I want to clear up some of people's misconceptions. You are probably wondering why I feel so strongly about this. Partly it's because Schultz is an ally in our fight for healthcare reform, and I think it's foolish to waste time mistakenly attacking people who are on our side. But I also don't want people to get the wrong idea about Starbucks, and the health coverage they offer, and they way they treat their employees and coffee growers. So sit back, grab a good cup of coffee (doesn't have to be Starbucks) and learn about the company I work for.
To begin with, the biggest misconception from the knee jerk comments: that Starbucks doesn't offer healthcare to it's employees. I don't know where people got this idea. For years Starbucks has been one of the few, if only companies that offers health benefits to part time employees. As for the afford-ability, I don't have all the numbers on me. But as a poor student putting myself through college, I can afford coverage with the company plan. I have seen some comments that suggested that stores might not give someone 20 hours to avoid giving them healthcare. That's not how the retail world works. If someone doesn't have 20 hours it's because the store hasn't earned enough labor, but it isn't 20 hours or more a week or you lose it. It's an average of twenty hours over the entire quarter. And there are a always a plethora of stores that need shifts covered if you need that extra time. And most managers will go out of their way to give you enough hours if you want the benefits. Believe it or not some people opt out.
So on to one of the other things that bothered me: "Howard Schultz thinks Starbucks is a small business". This is a fabrication. Neither Schultz, nor Boehner ever said any such thing, ever. In fact such a claim would be nonsensical that even an idiot of Boehner's proportions wouldn't make such a claim (maybe Palin or Bachmann). This just isn't true and irks me because even a cursory reading of the tweet shows that this doesn't make any sense at all. I read the tweet and the article quoted in McJoan's post and I don't see where people got this. I believe the point McJoan was making was that the CEO of an enormous company, doesn't really have the perspective to know what's good for small business, and I kinda agree with that. But people in comments took it and ran with it, in a way I wouldn't have thought possible.
The next issue I had was the implication that Schultz doesn't support ACA. He does, he has always been a supporter. He has some issues with one part of it. We all have issues with the ACA, I want it to have a robust public option. I think single payer should have been on the table in the first place. Attacking Schultz for not supporting the ACA is silly, because he's on our side. He may oppose one part, but as a whole he really wants healthcare reform and believes that people should have healthcare more than anything. If you are looking for a rich CEO who actually would support a public option/single payer, you probably aren't going to find many others who would so passionately support your cause. I'm just saying, lets not attack our allies.
You see several years back Starbucks was in trouble, Howard Schultz, the founder had left the company for awhile. Starbucks aggressively over expanded. In a way that was bound to catch up to them eventually. It did. Schultz came back and was faced with some tough decisions. He had to close stores, they did their best to move employees to other stores but yeah, some people lost their jobs. It wasn't a good time for the company, cuts had to be made. We had to go lean. But one thing Schultz never considered cutting was healthcare for part and full time employees, he wouldn't even think of it. Shareholders didn't like it, they thought it was costing the company too much money. But he still wouldn't budge on it. And I still get a free pound of coffee a week, and a 30% discount. And I get stock options, I could exercise and sell me stock options right now and make a few hundred dollars. But they recently changed the program, now instead of options you are just granted stock. It's yours and you can do whatever you want with it. Sell it to make money, or let it's value rise. Your choice. So when people tell me that Schultz doesn't support healthcare reform, or that he doesn't give his employees healthcare, or that Starbucks employees are treated terribly, I feel the need to explain why it isn't true. I also get annoyed when people tell me I should work at an indie shop, I know many people who work at indie shops. Most of them do not get healthcare benefits, and don't get 30% discounts, they don't get a free pound of coffee a week, or stock options. Oh but their employer lets them express themselves by wearing nose rings, and tattoo's and street clothes, how neat. That will pay my doctor bills and tuition.
And then finally on to Starbucks and it's coffee, and it's prices, and how they treat the farmers, because this is sure to come up.
Starbucks prices are expensive, this is true. However, I would like to clear up a really annoying myth I have been hearing for years. That Starbucks coffee costs $5. The largest cup of regular hot coffee, with tax, does not even cost half that. Sure, if you get a drink with espresso, and milk and syrup, and whipped cream and all the other add ons, it's going to cost a lot. Milk is expensive, so is all of the other stuff. It's still a bit more expensive than the competitors though. But Starbucks doesn't deny it's offering you an experience. They want to be your third place. That place you go when work and home are getting to you and you want to get away, and feel at home. And not worry about anything. Starbucks is more about selling a customer experience, than selling coffee. That's why in taste tests many companies do better and Starbucks has never been that worried about it. To them customer experience is far more important than being that absolute best tasting coffee.
Many people say Starbucks coffee is burnt, over-roasted. They call us Charbucks, Starburnt, etc. Starbucks does have many dark roasted coffees, some I really cannot stand. But we do offer some light and medium roasts as well. It's not just a bunch of coffee's charred to a crisp to make you think you are getting more of a flavor. It wouldn't be a workable business model anyway, we get many people who want a light roast coffee. And they are quite satisfied with our options. Yes Starbucks does roast some of their beans pretty dark, but it's more complicated than that. They do a lot of small batch roasting and taste testing to get the roast curve just right, so the flavor is excellent. They don't just toss the beans in a roaster, put the setting on burnt and move on.
And finally the growers. I have seen so many people complain that as a big company Starbucks should go completely fair trade, they can afford it, etc. That they don't buy enough fair trade coffee. For starters, Starbucks is the largest buyer of fair trade coffee. And the reason why they don't sell exclusively fair trade coffee is because there isn't enough fair trade coffee to meet the ridiculous demands of Starbucks coffee buying needs. If you are looking for a good fair trade coffee from Starbucks, try the Cafe Estima. If you are into organic, the shade grown mexico is my favorite (though it isn't fair trade certified). This doesn't mean that non fair trade certified coffee, bought by Starbucks, is unethically traded. Starbucks has something called CAFE practices. Or Coffee and Farmer Equity practices. Basically it's a system they have in place, where they try to give farmers a fair price for their beans, invest in the farmers communities, help them with short term loans and other aid so one bad harvest doesn't ruin them, and do everything they can to create a lasting and beneficial relationship with the farmers. Sure, even fair trade coffee isn't traded as ethically as I would like, nor are CAFE practices perfect, but Starbucks is trying.
Sorry if any of this is long winded. This was my first diary. To summarize, I really wish people would do more critical thinking and a little more research before jumping on the bandwagon. Read tweets and articles more closely, look for the primary source and think about the issue before threatening boycotts and claiming that Howard Schultz hates the ACA, doesn't want his employees to have healthcare, thinks that Starbucks is a small business, wants to kill your puppy, and makes the Koch brothers look like magical elves. I hope you learned some interesting stuff about Starbucks, and their stances on various issues. As well as a little more about me and my strange writing style. I am not a great writer but several commenter's in the other thread asked me to write something about this issue, so I decided to oblige them. By the way, I'm not saying you have to like Starbucks, feel free to hate all you want. I just wanted to clear up some glaring misconceptions and set the record straight on a few things.