Comment on Starbucks continues to be terrible
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day agoI don’t believe that,
I see. Maybe we have had a failure to communicate. What I was referring to was this:
And especially Starbucks, it’s shit-work
Whatever you meant by “shit-work” is what I asked you about.
Why do you believe companies offering “shit-work” should be allowed to remain in business?
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 day ago
By shit work i mean unskilled labour basically. It’s not worth much for a reason. I dont see why you would ask me that.
Some business operate on unskilled labour, it shouldnt be a surprise that its not paid well, just because something doesnt pay well doesnt mean the company shouldnt exist, and since when did anyone expect that a part time job at startbucks could or should be able to fully support a person? That’s fucking ludicrous. And before you start with people have to take what they can get, yes thats true and starbucks isnt responsible for that shortfall, in a real socialist democracy, that should be taken up by welfare if needed.
I understand the gut reaction to go after the CEO or board for making decisions that affect so many people, but it doesnt help, its misdirected energy that should go to the government.
We cant expect any company to do what in the interest of the workers, unless its financially beneficial. The best way to handle this is to use government to reign in corps to limits we can be happy with.
I stand by all I’ve said, but I respect your position, i just think it’s misguided.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
The question wasn’t about the labor. The question was about the employer. The question was about the mindset you demonstrated in your first comment, that you later clarified:
The question is about how you decided that this idea is “fucking ludicrous”.
You lied to me when you said you didn’t hold this belief. It may have been an unintentional lie at the time, probably because you didn’t understand what I was asking. But, I was talking about what you describe as “fucking ludicrous”. Those two words are a vociferous acknowledgement of the beliefs I was talking about. I want to know how you came to believe this idea to be “fucking ludicrous”.
Why not? I think we most certainly can. I think we can absolutely demand that they fulfill an obligation greater than just their own financial interests. I think we can certainly demand that their business operations benefit their workers, and society in general. When their business is demonstrably exploitative “shit-work”, we are not obligated to allow them to continue to do business. We can prohibit them from continuing to engage in that harmful business.
Unskilled human labor.
They require the labor of a human for their business to function, but they pay less than subsistence wages to that human. That is “shit-work”.
The net effect of their business practices is harmful. Those workers are also consumers, and those consumers have less to spend. These “shit-work” companies are strangling the economy and damaging society in general.
Again: we do not have to allow this. We do not have to allow “shit-work” companies to compete in our markets, where they drive reasonable, responsible employers out of business.
tischbier@feddit.org 1 day ago
Well put and logical. Taking this thanks.
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Tldr
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Color me surprised.
fermionsnotbosons@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Coward.
Earflap@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Who said these were part time jobs? No one. A lot of Batistas work full the jobs actually, because they can’t get any other jobs. Should they die of starvation or exposure or buried in medical debt just because you think they’re beneath you? What if you lose your job and the market is shit and all you can find for a year or more is some “shitty unskilled labor” job? Should you be forced from your home to live on the streets just because you can’t find a job in your career field through no fault of your own?
Let’s do some quick, back of the napkin math. I’m going to round for simplicity.
This asshole took a bonus of 96 million dollars. Let’s assume that all 1,000 employees have an average salary of $45,000, which was the US average salary last time I checked. Employee benefits, which include health insurance and retirement contributions, typically cost an employer 1.5x the salary but I’m being lazy so let’s 2x it. So each of the 1,000 employees costs the company $90,000.
$$96,000,000 / $90,000 = 1,066
Or in other words: At $90,000 per employee, the $96 million bonus could fund these employees at full time schedules with full benefits for an entire year. This asshole stole their salaries for themselves.
Just because the government lets them do it doesn’t make it moral or OK. If he didn’t take the bonus he’d still be a gazzilionaire and one of the highest paid employees in the company, but he elected to steal 1000 salaries instead.
No one is in this thread calling for Starbucks specifically to change their ways, they’re outraged that this is allowed to happen at all. And yes, the only organization that can stand up to corporate power is the government, but that has been completely sucked up corporate Americas asshole, so all we can do is point out the injustice and hypocrisy of the system and hope enough other people get as angry as we are so we can all overthrow this bullshit system of oppression, and your “well what did you expect working a shit job” attitude does absolutely nothing to help, and only reinforces the idea that this is all somehow normal or OK.
RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I didn’t read past the abject lie that is “A lot of Batistas work full the jobs actually”.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
That’s OK. Nobody expects you to actually be able to present a convincing rebuttal. You aren’t here for that. While our comments are directed at you, they are actually intended for the reasonable, rational people reading along. You aren’t the target audience; you’re a tool we use to reach that target audience.