Starbucks Shows Courage Where Others Cower

[mrjarrell]

Even in the face of possible insurance rate rises they aren't going to penalise their employees. Unlike other CEO's at other companies they see their employees as an asset and not a drain. That would tend to explain their profits. There will be no cutting of hours or benefits at Starbucks. Guess they know that loyalty is a two way street.

Starbucks CEO: We won't cut benefits because of Obamacare - Aug. 27, 2013

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Good for them. It's their business, they should have the right to make such decisions.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Even in the face of possible insurance rate rises they aren't going to penalise their employees. Unlike other CEO's at other companies they see their employees as an asset and not a drain. That would tend to explain their profits. There will be no cutting of hours or benefits at Starbucks. Guess they know that loyalty is a two way street.

Yep. They understand the coffee wont make itself.

 

[MisterChester]

I applaud Starbucks. You don't punish your employees for things out of their control.

 

[terrehautian]

This isn't news because even before, Starbucks offered insurance to full and part time people regardless (even before ACA). Plus, with the cost of their products, they can afford to do so.

 

[hornadylnl]

C'mon, you can't work at Starbucks and not be an Obama voter. They deserve to lose their hours, benefits and jobs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This isn't news because even before, Starbucks offered insurance to full and part time people regardless (even before ACA). Plus, with the cost of their products, they can afford to do so.

Being profitable doesn't necessarily mean generous compensation/benefit packages for the employees but it certainly makes it easier to keep them going. Over the years our company has gone from "bench mark" to "competitive" compensation packages and seem to be quite proud of it.

 

[mrjarrell]

This isn't news because even before, Starbucks offered insurance to full and part time people regardless (even before ACA). Plus, with the cost of their products, they can afford to do so.

It is news. We've got numerous companies cutting hours, ditching benefits or benefits for spouses and a myriad of other schemes because of the ACA. Hell, we've had people here on INGO say they were going to screw their employees because of Obamacare adding to their costs, (as if rates weren't already going up every year). Starbucks has taken the decision to stand with and support their employees instead of passing the buck or screwing them over.

 

[John Galt]

How is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide health insurance? Food, water and shelter are more important, should they provide those things also? What about something in between the two, like auto or homeowners insurance, maybe those? Just askin' ...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide health insurance?

It's not.

However I just learned today we're losing a decent mechanical engineer because he was hired in on contract (with few, if any benefits) because he found a job that did. The employer must weigh the cost of losing good people against the cost of the benefits they wish to offer. It's part of how a free market should work.

 

[mrjarrell]

How is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide health insurance? Food, water and shelter are more important, should they provide those things also? What about something in between the two, like auto or homeowners insurance, maybe those? Just askin' ...

It's not their responsibility, but it is often part of the pay package that many businesses choose to offer as compensation for their employees. It's a welcome addition to many people and a fairly normal part of many compensation packages. Many places also do not offer it and that's their right.

 

[buckstopshere]

I don't like coffee. I've had their hot chocolate, it sucks too. But I don't care, I get it anyway because I like to support them for their pro 2A stance. This is just the whip cream on top of the hot chocolate. Maybe I'll start going twice a week now.

 

[buckstopshere]

How is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide health insurance? Food, water and shelter are more important, should they provide those things also? What about something in between the two, like auto or homeowners insurance, maybe those? Just askin' ...

Lolwut?

Benefits being offered as part of employment started out as part of an overall compensation package to bring on top talent. It morphed into an expectation that all employers give healthcare insurance as an option to their employees. Obamacare is bringing it back to being an actual incentive to work for a company.

 

[mbills2223]

How is it the responsibility of the business owner to provide health insurance? Food, water and shelter are more important, should they provide those things also? What about something in between the two, like auto or homeowners insurance, maybe those? Just askin' ...

I don't KNOW who John Galt is, but it definitely isn't you.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Theory X or Theory Y?

Too many businesses are Theory X regarding employees. They fail to see the cost savings over time of low turnover, experienced employees, happy workers, and the positive returns on having people who WANT to come to work because they like it, not just for a paycheck.

All investments made in improving and keeping your employees have the potential for massive long term payoffs, even with short term losses.

Too many businesses look only at the end of today an fail to see the compound results their nearsightedness will have years down the road.

Starbucks does NOT suffer from this lack of understanding.

Good for them!

Regards,

Doug

 

[John Galt]

Employer provided healthcare started during WWII when the government imposed a wage freeze. It morphed into an expectation and I would say was the beginning of the end of affordable healthcare. When people became insulated from what the true cost of their healthcare was, due to someone else "picking up the tab", and those that provided such service could abandon efficiency and charge whatever they wanted due to someone else "picking up the tab", it is only a matter of time when the unsustainable becomes unsustainable. Research what common procedures cost in the 40's. People were paying cash for their children's births and even major procedures. The same unsustainable price explosion has happened with higher education, government intervention to "help" with the cost has made it unaffordable ...

 

[Tsigos]

Employer provided healthcare started during WWII when the government imposed a wage freeze. It morphed into an expectation and I would say was the beginning of the end of affordable healthcare. When people became insulated from what the true cost of their healthcare was, due to someone else "picking up the tab", and those that provided such service could abandon efficiency and charge whatever they wanted due to someone else "picking up the tab", it is only a matter of time when the unsustainable becomes unsustainable. Research what common procedures cost in the 40's. People were paying cash for their children's births and even major procedures. The same unsustainable price explosion has happened with higher education, government intervention to "help" with the cost has made it unaffordable ...

And knowing this, what is your solution?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Food, water and shelter are more important, should they provide those things also?

...well, yeah. If I can't get food, water and shelter, wtf am I working for? Luckily with the invention of currency most businesses just give you a salary and then you go ahead and buy those things on your own. Insurance is part of the total compensation package, just as much as the money I use to pay my grocery bill.

*edit*

Oh, and I did pay cash for my son's birth. In a country with free government run healthcare to compete against, and a much less robust civil lawsuit-crazy culture, prices are much more reasonable. $1,500 for a natural birth and $3,000 for C-section. Healthcare can be cheaper without be inaccessible to the masses. There's plenty of smart people out there who can figure out a way to make it happen, but there's little incentive to do it.

 

[MisterChester]

To All,

Theory X or Theory Y?

Too many businesses are Theory X regarding employees. They fail to see the cost savings over time of low turnover, experienced employees, happy workers, and the positive returns on having people who WANT to come to work because they like it, not just for a paycheck.

All investments made in improving and keeping your employees have the potential for massive long term payoffs, even with short term losses.

Too many businesses look only at the end of today an fail to see the compound results their nearsightedness will have years down the road.

Exactly!!! If I ran my own business, I want to hire the best and the brightest, so I would offer good wages and benefits. The company Costco is a perfect example of this. Lots of people want to work for them because of how well they treat their employees. Companies that don't offer good pay and benefits will not get the best candidates, and it will hurt them in the long run but that is their choice. Nearsightedness is a plague among American companies today.

 

[Twangbanger]

"...Even when Starbucks took cost-cutting measures like shutting down stores and laying off employees, health care benefits -- which also include dental and vision -- have remained intact..."

Producers of luxury items are not immune to the marketplace. They are keeping labor a variable cost, not a fixed one, like a good business must. By focusing on quality and having a premium product, and selling direct to the consumer, they have developed a customer base who is willing to pay (indirectly) the health benefit cost of the people who hand the sippy cups through their Volkswagen window to them, and it works. Selling directly to the consumer, there's no need to deal with the middleman and his purchasing department, who are there to squeeze every last concession out of the "supplier." As a Starbucks "buyer," I am free to make my own individual decision to pay however much I want for their product, without some corporate entity hanging over my head (assuming you don't consider your spouse a "corporate entity"). But there is no universal free lunch, and as we see in the quote from the article, there is a limit to the demand for this product. It appears places like McDonalds may be able to take a bite out of this market.

Good for SB, and we can no doubt use more companies like this. But I can't help wondering how many of their employees have college degrees, are 30 years old, and still live with Mom and Dad. That's the real issue for young people in today's economy. There are not enough Starbucks in the world to see this generation (and the next) through until they can find their first "real" job.

Welcome to Germany.

Good for Starbucks...but Team USA is doing a crappy job in the economy department.