Wow to "100% percent sure they will focus on low performers or folks in areas that will not be developing or growing over years" by Anonymous60776. You really have no clue on the federal regulations on layoffs and the number effected at HQ do you? That is not the way it works. Starbucks has to prove that it is not focusing on any one group (ethnic, age, etc). This causes a huge wacko adjustment and statistical analysis for any layoff and a lot of people get caught up in the layoff who shouldn't and a lot will get saved who shouldn't. Additionally, as strategic focus changes they end up eliminating some strong performers who are not CURRENTLY in the area they are focusing on, because with a layoff you cannot let just some people apply internally and not others (because again, you might be discriminating). No, Starbucks is doing this for OTHER reasons than eliminating "dead wood." They do it this way to get some accounting write offs. Otherwise in an "AT WILL" employment state, which Washington is, they can trim dead wood when ever they want, one employee at a time. This is done in a layoff manner strictly to save money and for other reasons (including speed). It is significant (many hundreds, perhaps as high as 20%--unconfirmed). Starbucks is just another fast food company, focusing on keeping profits high. My only real fault against Starbucks is the hypocrisy of CLAIMING to be different. It is certainly a bit better for the hourly workers than McDonald's and it is a bit more creative, but bottom line it is no different. This should surprise no one.
2 replies (most recent on top)
Starbucks is no longer innovative. Apparently it doesn't listen to its employees, which constrains innovation. And its marketing is a front for something less positive...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zp-heller/spilling-the-beans-about_b_205497.html
This should surprise no one