To the company it is “an adjustment.” To those people, it can be a devastating loss of healthcare, of the money they use to pay for food and shelter, and even an identity crisis. Starbucks has all sorts of positions, ranging from seasonal part time employees, to store management that gets paid pretty well, to corporate employees that presumed they were in 20y career trajectories. Every single one of them deserves better than losing their job just to pay for a big bonus for one guy.
It’s not about whether they are allowed or not. It’s that actions should have consequences but the modern corporate structure has so divorced leadership from the consequence of their actions that this is normal. Let me rephrase: Hurting people to pump your personal wealth is not just normal, it’s expected. That’s sick.
Earflap@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Do you keep a list of workers who you feel are beneath you and don’t deserve a living wage?
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Why would I do that.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Let me translate that rhetorical question for you:
Why do you believe society should allow certain businesses to remain in existence, when those businesses utilize human labor, yet do not pay enough for human laborers to subsist?
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t believe that, you’ve just attached that to my argument because you either can’t understand my point or don’t want to.