Starbucks Hasn’t Met Employee Promises, Report Says
Starbucks employees still endure irregular hours, insufficient rest and difficulties taking sick days, according to a new ...
Starbucks employees still endure irregular hours, insufficient rest and difficulties taking sick days, according to a new report, more than year after the company promised to improve labor conditions for its employees.
More than 200 baristas across the country responded to the survey that formed the basis of the report, which was released by the Center for Popular Democracy. About 25% of employees said they had been asked to close a store and open it the following morning, giving them little time to rest between shifts. Almost half said they received their schedule one week or less in advance, giving little time to plan for childcare or other needs. Two in five employees said they faced difficulties taking sick days.
Last year, the company promised to change conditions for its employees, which it calls “partners,” after a New York Times report documenting the struggles faced by many employees.
Source: Time
Kenny Leon teams up with Marvel stars for Puerto Rico benefit
Kenny Leon teams up with Marvel stars for Puerto Rico benefit
Actress Scarlett Johansson has been in Atlanta working on Marvel’s latest “Avengers” project and keeping up with the harrowing updates out of storm-ravaged Puerto Rico. It could be Christmas...
Actress Scarlett Johansson has been in Atlanta working on Marvel’s latest “Avengers” project and keeping up with the harrowing updates out of storm-ravaged Puerto Rico. It could be Christmas before power is back on throughout the island and access to a steady supply of clean drinking water is still a challenge more than a month after Hurricane Maria hit.
Read the full article here.
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
How Trump's Criminal Justice Plan Is Really More For-Profit Incarceration
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
...
The DOJ and the Trump administration seem to be working to expand private prison profits at the expense of communities of color...
Read the full article here.
Gary Cohn publicly criticizes Trump's Charlottesville response and reportedly came close to resigning over it
Gary Cohn publicly criticizes Trump's Charlottesville response and reportedly came close to resigning over it
Top White House economic advisor Gary Cohn publicly criticized President Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., and reportedly came close to resigning over it.
In his...
Top White House economic advisor Gary Cohn publicly criticized President Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., and reportedly came close to resigning over it.
In his first public comments on the matter, Cohn told the Financial Times in an interview published Friday that the Trump administration “can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning” white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.
Read the full article here.
2013 Race for Mayor: Low-Income New Yorkers
WNYC - March 1, 2013 - Brian Lehrer hosted a forum with seven mayoral hopefuls "2013 Race for Mayor: What's in it for Low-Income New Yorkers?" sponsored by The Community Service Society (CSS)...
WNYC - March 1, 2013 - Brian Lehrer hosted a forum with seven mayoral hopefuls "2013 Race for Mayor: What's in it for Low-Income New Yorkers?" sponsored by The Community Service Society (CSS) sponsored the event in partnership with Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Popular Democracy, and United New York.
Source
Why Charter Schools Are a Bad Idea: Guest Opinion
AL.com - March 17, 2014, by Rep. Craig Ford - Other than the $700 million hole in the state's General Fund budget, no issue has been more talked about than the charter school bill.
...
AL.com - March 17, 2014, by Rep. Craig Ford - Other than the $700 million hole in the state's General Fund budget, no issue has been more talked about than the charter school bill.
Republicans in the Alabama legislature have made charter schools a part of their legislative agenda, and a priority in this legislative session (which is ironic, given these same Republican legislators campaigned on stopping President Obama's agenda, but President Obama has been one of the strongest advocates for charter schools).
The charter school bill was passed out of the state senate last week, and will most likely be voted on in the state House of Representatives this week.
Because the Republicans hold a Supermajority (nearly 70 percent of legislators in the House of Representatives), they will certainly force this bill through, and it will be up to Gov. Bentley to decide whether to veto the bill.
There is no doubt that something needs to be done in some of our school systems. But charter schools are not the answer, and will not give our children the better quality of education that proponents of charter schools have claimed.
Researchers at Stanford University conducted two studies on charter schools, in which they reviewed test scores from charter schools in 26 states. The results they found undermine the argument that charter schools outperform existing public schools.
In all, only 25 percent of charter schools performed better than traditional public schools in reading, while only 29 percent performed better in math. More troubling is that 19 percent of charters performed worse in reading, while 31 percent performed "significantly worse" in math. The rest performed at the same level as the existing public schools.
So after about two decades of experimenting with charter schools, the test results have proven that charter schools are not likely to give our children a better quality education. In fact, there's a pretty high chance that our children will get a lower quality education at a charter school than they would at the school they are already attending.
Charter schools also have a very real problem with fraud, waste and abuse of tax dollars.
The Center for Popular Democracy and Integrity In Education, both non-profit organizations, released a report that found more than $100 million in fraud, waste and abuse by fraudulent charter operators in just 15 of the 42 states that have charter schools.
Another report conducted by Integrity In Education found that, just in Pennsylvania, charter operators had fraudulently misused more than $30 million!
The authors of Alabama¹s charter school bill have claimed their bill addresses the accountability issues. But it does not.
The charter school bill that came out of the Alabama Senate does not require that ³Education Service Providers² be non-profit organizations. What this means is that, while the organization that applies for the charter might have to report to the state, the companies that it subcontracts to do not and have no accountability to the taxpayers.
The reason charter schools are hotbeds for fraud and waste is because the for-profit companies that provide education services, such as financial and operation management, managing the facilities and even designing the curriculum, are not held accountable.
In fact, in the reports I referenced earlier, government regulators were not the ones who have discovered the fraud in charter schools. The fraud was only discovered by an investigative reporter, or when a whistle blower came forward or someone filed a lawsuit.
The fraud has come in many forms, including charter operators using school funds illegally to buy personal luxuries for themselves and to support their other businesses.
Investigative reporters have also found that education service providers are typically non-compliant with request for information required by law under the Freedom of Information act. The Washington Post reported that, during their own investigation of charter schools, 70 percent of Education Management Organizations refused to respond to the request for a copy of their contract with Charter Operators, while another 10 percent claimed they were not legally required to publicly provide a copy of their contract.
So even if the Alabama legislature passes a provision requiring them to make their contracts and finances publicly available, 80 percent of these organizations have proven that they will ignore the law and refuse to provide the information.
The sad thing is these are not even all the arguments that can be made against charter schools. But these are more than enough to prove that charter schools are a scam, and a bad idea. Yes, something needs to be done in some school systems. But charter schools are not the answer.
Source
Do Black Lives Matter to the Federal Reserve?
O’Neal is one of dozens of activists and policy experts traveling to Jackson Hole this week to urge the Fed against raising rates. The campaign, called Fed Up, includes some two-dozen unions,...
O’Neal is one of dozens of activists and policy experts traveling to Jackson Hole this week to urge the Fed against raising rates. The campaign, called Fed Up, includes some two-dozen unions, community groups, and think tanks, from the AFL-CIO to the Working Families Party. In Jackson Hole, organizers will deliver a petitiondemanding that the Fed rethink its plan to raise interest rates until the recovery can reach more Americans. Fed Up also plans to hold a series of teach-ins exploring questions like “How Do We Build a Fed that Works for Us?” and “Do Black Lives Matter to the Federal Reserve?”
While there’s only so much the Fed can do when spending on public investments and social programs is well below where it should be, the absence of fiscal support makes monetary policy that much more critical to promote a broadly shared recovery. At its core, the Fed Up campaign is about answering two questions, said Ady Barkan of the Center for Popular Democracy during a press call previewing the upcoming meeting: “Whose recovery is this?” and “Whose Federal Reserve is this?”
“I don’t think that those at the Fed know how life is here in south DeKalb County when they say that the economy is recovering,” O’Neal said during the call. O’Neal makes $8.50 an hour at the daycare center she works at in Atlanta. That’s not enough, she says, to cover rent, food, and utilities for her household, let alone the medication she needs to treat asthma and high blood pressure. “Our life is a constant struggle,” she says. “We have to decide whether, you know, are we going to buy meat, or are we going to buy medicine, or are we going to pinch off the electric bill this month?”
But, she emphasized, she’s hardly alone. “It’s also my neighbor. It’s also the person down the hall, my neighbor next door, around the corner. The whole community is suffering.”
The Atlanta area has been particularly hard hit by the financial crisis and weak economic recovery. In 2009, the Pew Hispanic Center named Metro Atlanta one of a handful of “distinct epicenters” of the nationwide foreclosure crisis. According to their report, less than 300 U.S. counties had foreclosure rates of more than 1.8 percent, and 19 of those counties, including DeKalb, are in Metro Atlanta. As elsewhere, the crisis had a particularly severe impact on black communities: All of the 19 counties Pew singled out as centers of the crisis are majority-black.
Since then, the weak recovery has in some ways only worsened inequities like this. In 2011, the unemployment rate for blacks in the Atlanta area stood at 14.4 percent, or twice the rate of their white neighbors. Three years later, black unemployment had dropped to 13.7 percent, but because joblessness among whites in Atlanta had fallen much faster, blacks were now nearly three times as likely to be jobless as whites. Today, DeKalb County has a poverty rate of 19 percent, well above the average for Georgia and the nation as a whole. And most of that poverty has been concentrated on the county’s majority-black south side.
But among black communities nationwide, DeKalb has actually fared relatively well. The area was hit hard by the downturn, but it remains the second-most affluent black-majority county in the country. By contrast, in Washington, D.C., a majority-minority city, black unemployment is a staggering 15.8 percent, more than five times the rate for whites, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Nationwide, after hitting its highest levels since the 1980s, black unemployment remains about double the rate for whites. The mortgage crisis and subsequent downturn destroyed a full 47 percent of black families’ wealth, and that wealth is far from recovered.
Despite that, the Federal Reserve seems perilously close to raising interest rates, possibly as soon as next month—a change that could have a disastrous effect on the already-weak recovery.
“We shouldn’t mince words,” said Barkan. “When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, it is doing so in order to slow the economy down in order to prevent the economy from creating more jobs.” A slowdown like that would not only make it harder for the labor market to recover, but it also has a good chance of widening the gap in unemployment between blacks and whites. Historically, the joblessness gap between black and white workers tends to grow when the economy slows down.
But Fed officials remain stubbornly committed to a rate hike, even as instability grips the stock market this week. In a speech on Monday, following another day of market volatility, Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart sought to allay suspicionthat the Fed’s plans to raise rates this year had changed. In June, 15 out of 17 senior Fed officials indicated that they’d like to see a rate hike this year, echoing a similar statement from March. As Lockhart put it in another speech on August 10, “The economy has made great gains and is approaching an acceptable normal.” Nowhere in his speech did Lockhart mention the poverty and racial inequality gripping communities just a few miles from the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank he chairs.
For O’Neal, places like south DeKalb are very far from an acceptable normal. “When the Fed says that the economy is recovering and they want to raise the interest rates,” she said, “I look around and I don’t see recovery in my community.”
Unfortunately, plenty of Fed leaders don’t seem to think an unequal recovery is their responsibility to address. In testimony before Congress last month, Fed Chair Janet Yellen said that while black unemployment remains very high, “there really isn’t anything directly the Federal Reserve can do to affect the structure of unemployment across groups.”
But Barkan begs to differ. “We think that’s really a mistake,” he said. “A strong economy—more job growth and more wage growth—has a disproportionately positive effect on African Americans because of the racial disparities that exist in our labor market.” Keeping interest rates low is far from the only solution to racial inequality in the job market (and not even the only thing the Fed can do by itself), but it’s a good start.
Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute, another Fed Up signatory, agrees.Because low-wage workers and workers of color tend to feel changes in unemployment much more dramatically, he said, keeping unemployment low should be the Fed’s first priority. “A policy that lets the unemployment rate get as low as it can possibly go without sparking inflation is one that’s going to have disproportionate benefits to workers of color,” he added.
Unfortunately, Barkan said, Fed officials have a long history of overlooking issues like racial gaps in unemployment and wealth. A big part of the problem is the central bank’s leadership, which is heavily skewed toward the banking sector. By law, 72 out of 108 directors of the Fed’s 12 regional banks must represent workers. But currently, just two officially do, compared with 91 who come directly from banks and financial institutions. “Of course when you have leadership like that you get policies that don’t advance the needs of American working families,” Barkan said.
Which is exactly why Fed Up plans to confront the central bank’s leadership today in Jackson Hole. In doing so, the coalition will help connect monetary policy and policymakers to the people and communities it most impacts.
And demanding that interest rates stay low is just a first step. During the conference, Fed Up will also present a report from PolicyLink on what a more equitable recovery would look like. The report explores how genuinely full employment—which has long been a core policy mandate for the Federal Reserve—would reshape our economy. The report defines full employment as no more than 4 percent unemployment for all groups and a labor-force participation rate no lower than 75 percent for men and 60 percent for women. (Currently, labor-force participation remains stuck at 69 percent for men and 56.7 percent for women, the lowest levels in decades.)
As Barkan and Bivens emphasized, a change like that would have a particularly dramatic impact on communities of color. In Atlanta, black unemployment would drop 10 percent while average household income would increase by 11 percent for black families. A full 175,000 people would be lifted out of poverty and the local economy would grow by $24 billion. Nationwide, the change would be just as dramatic. Genuine full employment would cut black unemployment by two-thirds and lift more than nine million people out of poverty.
It’s this kind of recovery that the Fed needs to begin thinking seriously about, said Barkan. The first step, he added, is to rethink how monetary policy is formulated and who gets a seat at the table.
Correction: In a previous version of this article, Dawn O'Neal's name was mispelled as O'Neil.
Source: The American Prospect
Issue committees pump $86M into Colorado election
For some corporations and advocacy groups, Colorado's jam-packed ballot has meant opportunity.
And they don't just care about political candidates. In fact, issue committees — which stand...
For some corporations and advocacy groups, Colorado's jam-packed ballot has meant opportunity.
And they don't just care about political candidates. In fact, issue committees — which stand on the front line of fights over proposed amendments and propositions — have raised more than 10 times the amount of money of Colorado Democrats and Republicans seeking state or local office. These committees have drawn in more than $86 million, a staggering difference when compared to the approximately $7.3 million raised by state and local Democrats and Republicans.
These statewide issue fights — this year races concerning ColoradoCare, the minimum wage and a so-called "right to die" proposition have dominated much of the conversation — can give out-of-state groups a chance to get more bang for their buck and jump into statewide elections, which might affect their bottom line more than federal races, Colorado State University political science professor Bob Duffy said. States like Colorado are less expensive to campaign in than, say, California, which makes it appealing for groups looking to affect legislation without breaking the bank, he said.
ELECTION: Haven't voted yet? Here's what to know
"Typically those elections are cheaper and also low-information elections," he said, pointing out that sometimes people have less information about statewide ballot measures than more high-profile races. "So a little money can go a long way. A big fish can have a much bigger impact in a small pond than they can in a big pond."
In the fight over Amendment 72, for example, the parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris has bankrolled No Blank Checks in the Constitution, a group fighting against the proposed hike in cigarette taxes. Philip Morris is one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, and is known for products including Marlboro cigarettes. It has so far spent more than $16 million on the campaign. That alone is more than Democrats and Republicans running for state and local offices have raised.
"Obviously cigarette sale declines puts a real crimp in their bottom line, and they have an opportunity (to fight it), and it's probably cheaper to do it here than in California, for example," Duffy said.
Oftentimes out-of-state groups will use statewide races as a test case to see how effectively they can influence it — and again, it makes most sense to do that in a less-expensive race than in a large state with lots of media markets — and sometimes it's meant as a warning shot to groups who might be considering similar legislation in other states, Duffy said.
Opponents of the "right to die" proposition have gotten much of their funding from Catholic groups. The Archdiocese of Denver, for example, has contributed more than $100,000 to the campaign fighting Proposition 106, which would allow physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medication to terminally ill patients who met certain criteria so they could end their own lives.
Colorado Families for a Fair Minimum Wage, a group advocating for Amendment 70, which would raise the state's minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020, has raised almost $5 million, including more than $1 million from the Center for Popular Democracy Action, a New York-based advocacy group which focuses on several social justice issues. Keep Colorado Working, a group opposing the hike, has raised about $1.7 million, and has also received out-of-state support, including $50,000 from Florida-based Darden, the company that owns Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse, among other brands.
"Especially after 2010, some federal election rulings unleashed some money," Duffy said, referencing a few court decisions on campaign finance, included Citizens United. "The floodgate really opened up."
By Alicia Stice
Source
Mpls. City Council members urge JPMorgan Chase to cut Trump ties
Mpls. City Council members urge JPMorgan Chase to cut Trump ties
The three council members also want the corporation to divest from private prisons and immigration detention centers.
...
The three council members also want the corporation to divest from private prisons and immigration detention centers.
Read the full article here.
For Some Starbucks Workers, Job Leaves Bitter Taste
CBS MoneyWatch - September 26, 2014, by Alain Sherter - Liberte Locke, a 32-year-old "barista" at a Starbucks (...
CBS MoneyWatch - September 26, 2014, by Alain Sherter - Liberte Locke, a 32-year-old "barista" at a Starbucks (SBUX) in New York City, is fed up.
"Starbucks' attitude is that there's always someone else can who can do the job," she said in running through her complaints about life at the java giant.
If that isn't necessarily the consensus among Starbucks workers, interviews with nine current and former baristas at the company make clear it's not an isolated opinion, either. Even those who say they like their job paint a picture of a business that underpays front-line workers, enforces work rules arbitrarily and too often fails to strike a balance between corporate goals and employee needs.
Of course, such complaints are nothing new in retail, where low pay and erratic schedules are the norm. But by its own account, Starbucks is no ordinary company and is ostensibly a far cry from the fast-food outlets now facing a nationwide uprising by employees tired of working for peanuts.
That's evident in the company's recruitment pitch. Starbucks invites job-seekers to "become a part of something bigger and inspire positive change in the world," describing it as a chance to discover a "deep sense of purpose."
Damage control
That image suffered a serious blow last month after The New York Times vividly chronicled a Starbucks worker struggling with the company's scheduling practices. The story, which centered on a 22-year-old barista and single mother, amounted to a public relations nightmare for Starbucks. Perhaps not coincidentally, within days of the story's publication top executives were promising reform.
In a memo to employees earlier this month, for instance, Chief Operating Officer Troy Alstead vowed to "transform the U.S. partner experience," referring to Starbucks' more than 130,000 baristas. Inviting worker feedback, he said Starbucks will examine its approach to employee pay, revisit its dress code, make it easier for people to ask for time off, and consider other changes aimed at helping baristas balance work and their personal lives.
Among other changes, the company said it would end the practice of "clopening," when an employee responsible for closing a store late at night is also assigned to open it early in the morning.
"We recognize that we can do more for our partners who wear the apron every day," he wrote.
Some baristas did not feel this August memo from Starbucks went far enough in proposing ways to improve work conditions, so they marked it up with their own ideas.
Although Starbucks workers welcome this pledge to respect the apron, they fear the company is more intent on dousing the PR flames than on genuinely improving employees' experience. After the retailer last month sent an email to workers outlining possible solutions to the kind of scheduling problems and related issues detailed by the Times, a group of baristas gave the proposal a C- and posted online a marked-up version of the memo listing their own demands (image above).
"We hope you're ready for a commitment to give us schedules that don't mess with taking care of kids, going to school or holding onto that second job we need because Sbux wages don't make ends meet," wrote the baristas, who are working with a union-backed labor group, the Center for Popular Democracy.
Retail jungle
Despite the recent media focus on Starbucks, the company's labor practices are generally no worse than those of many large retailers. In some ways they're better, with the company offering health care to part-time, as well as full-time, workers; unusually generous 401(k) matching contributions; annual stock grants to employees; and tuition reimbursement.
Starbucks highlights such benefits as an example of its commitment to employees. "Sharing success with one another has been core to the company's heritage for more than 40 years," Alstead said in the September memo.
Meanwhile, some baristas say they enjoy their work and feel valued by Starbucks. "It's a decent place to work, and my manager and co-workers are great," said one employee who asked not to be identified.
But other current and former workers claim Starbucks has changed in recent years, saying that corporate leaders' intense focus on slashing costs has short-circuited its professed commitment to workers. Mostly, they say Starbucks doesn't listen to employees and even punishes those who identify problems.
"The biggest problem is that baristas don't have a voice," said Sarah Madden, a former Starbucks barista who left the company this spring after two years with the coffee vendor. "They can't speak to issues that they know exist. Workers know how to fix them, but when [they] speak up there are serious repercussions -- your hours get cut, you're transferred to another store or isolated from other people."
Employees interviewed for this article said one result of Starbucks' cost-containment push is that stores are frequently understaffed, hurting customer service and forcing managers to scramble to find staff. That problem is common across the big-box stores that dominate the retail sector, experts said.
"One the one hand, retailers overhire, but they're also understaffed, so everybody's running around and then there aren't enough people on the floor," said Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago and an expert in work-life issues. "Companies are effectively loading all the risk onto workers so that they're not the ones incurring the risks inherent in business."
Starbucks denies that its stores are short-staffed. "We're proud of the level of service we provide in our stores," said Zack Hutson, a spokesman for the company. "We know that the connection our partners have with customers is the foundation of the Starbucks experience. It wouldn't be in our best interest. We want our customers to have the appropriate service level when they come to our stores."
To be sure, Starbucks is hardly the only U.S. corporate giant to keep a gimlet eye on its bottom line -- among Fortune 500 companies that approach to management is the rule, not the exception, and CEOs across the land defend it as an inviolable fiduciary duty to shareholders.
But baristas say Starbucks' focus on profits and cost-cutting has increasingly led its leadership to tune workers out. Locke, who has worked for the company since 2006 and who earns roughly $16,000 a year, said she yearned for the Starbucks of old.
"When I started they had a training program and taught you how to be a coffee expert. There was more of a culture of supporting each other as co-workers. Store managers were sympathetic. I really enjoyed it."
Asked why she stays at Starbucks, Locke said her employment options are limited because she lacks a college education and because her only professional experience is in retail.
Living wage?
According to workers, the best thing Starbucks can do for its apron-wearers is to raise their pay and offer full-time hours instead of the 20 to 30 hours that most employees work.
Samantha Cole, a barista in Omaha, Neb., said she struggles to get by on her supervisor's salary of $11.25 an hour. Such pay may be better than what she would earn working for other retailers, but the 30-year-old mother of two say it's still not a living wage.
"I'm definitely not making enough money," said Cole, who has been with the company for six years. "A lot of us are right there with what fast-food workers are making."
Such frustrations are also evident in comments on the Facebook page Starbucks uses to communicate with employees and where it is asking baristas for input regarding the company's labor practices. Wrote one employee: "I've worked for the company for 7 years in January, and I don't make enough to support myself on one job so I work 2 jobs, 6 days a week.... I've seen a lot of amazing partners leave because they don't make enough."
Starbucks declined to disclose compensation data, citing competitive reasons and saying that pay varies widely according to workers' experience and where in the U.S. stores are located. It didn't respond to emails requesting clarification regarding other aspects of its labor policies.
It's worth noting that low pay isn't unique to Starbucks -- in retail it is the norm. As of 2012 (the latest year for which data is available), the median hourly income for retail salespeople is $10.29 per hour, or $21,410 a year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Hourly pay for full-time retail workers range from a high of $14.42 to $9.61 for lower-paid people, according to Demos, a liberal-leaning think tank in New York. Part-timers typically make much less, with the average cashier earning $18,500 a year.
"Until [Starbucks] gives a living wage to every employee, they can't claim to be a good employer," Locke said, who added that it has been roughly two years since her last pay raise.
"Race to the bottom"
Another priority for baristas: stable, regular schedules. Like most large retailers, Starbucks uses scheduling software to try to match the number of workers it has in a store at any given time to the amount of business it gets. Workers also may be scheduled according to the sales they generate or their facility in promoting certain products. The technology also can enable other savings, such as limiting overtime.
For employees, however, that approach -- known as "just-in-time" or "on-call" scheduling -- often results in lower income and chaotic hours.
Stephanie Luce, a professor of labor studies at City University of New York's Murphy Institute, characterizes the widespread adoption of scheduling and so-called workforce optimization technologies as a "new race to the bottom."
"Companies that have already reduced operating costs by making deals with irresponsible subcontractors and using the cheapest available materials are now cutting corners in the form of the 'just-in- time scheduling' of their workforce," she and her co-authors wrote in a recent report. "These 'lean' manufacturing practices take advantage of sophisticated software and an increasingly desperate workforce to cut labor costs to the bone."
By the same token, tighter control of worker schedules helps Starbucks contain payroll costs. But it also means employees who had expected to work a certain number of hours every week can see their schedules dramatically cut back and fluctuate wildly. The result? Smaller paychecks and a disturbance to family life.
"It makes it very hard for parents to participate in an intimate family routine and structure it in such a way that experts agree is good for children," Lambert said.
Irregular schedules also make it hard for workers who do need extra income to work a second job, schedule appointments and plan other aspects of their lives.
Baristas said Starbucks posts their schedule only days in advance and that they are often subject to change. Following the Times story, Starbucks said it would post schedules at least one week in advance. That's not enough time, several workers said, asking the company to provide at least two or three weeks notice, as retailers ranging from Walmart (WMT) and H&M to Victoria's Secret (LB) do.
Meanwhile, despite Starbucks' promise to end clopening, the practice continues, some workers said, although the company insists that this is only in cases when people request such shifts.
"Partners should never be required to work opening and closing shifts. That policy is clear," Starbucks' Hutson said, adding that the company is studying ways to give workers more input in their schedules. "If there are cases where that's not happening, we want to know about that."
Given the scrutiny on Starbucks, the company can count on baristas to do just that.
Source
3 days ago
3 days ago