Starbucks Baristas: The daily grind
↑
14
↓
Isn't what Starbucks is doing illegal? (self.starbucksbaristas)
submitted by waterdropss
With the new laws that starbucks is implementing, couldn't someone claim that what they're doing is illegal by law? They are basically saying that if you don't have a minimum availability of 12 hours per week (with an extra 150% availability meaning up to 18 hours per week), and you don't work at least those hours every single week then you're voluntarily fired... isn't that illegal? Like say that you have some issue happening that week and you need to take some time off (but not LOA). Maybe you just gave up your hours that week to your other partners and on the schedule, you're not scheduled that week...
wouldn't it be illegal for starbucks to fire you from this? you're not doing anything wrong, you've found coverage for all your shifts... I could see a lot of managers using this to their advantage and firing partners that they may not particularly like.. which, that is definitely against the law. to fire someone without causation but under starbucks's new rules, managers would much more easily get away with this and this would cause injustice.
I'm honestly debating staying with the company or leaving after hearing the news of this.
anyways, thank you guys in advance for the answers :)
wouldn't it be illegal for starbucks to fire you from this? you're not doing anything wrong, you've found coverage for all your shifts... I could see a lot of managers using this to their advantage and firing partners that they may not particularly like.. which, that is definitely against the law. to fire someone without causation but under starbucks's new rules, managers would much more easily get away with this and this would cause injustice.
I'm honestly debating staying with the company or leaving after hearing the news of this.
anyways, thank you guys in advance for the answers :)
125cars 29 points 11m ago
Just to clarify it's an average of 12 hours per week over the quarter. So if you took some time off one week you would be all good as long as it all averages out at or above 12/wk
pleutparty 17 points 11m ago
Every job I've ever worked has had availability requirements. Starbucks has always had some of the most flexible, even with this new change. Also, personally, I live in a right to work state so technically employers can fire employees without a reason whatsoever and it's legal.
Flowerfuls 13 points 11m ago
I was under the assumption that they would schedule you for those 12 hours. Now you have me thinking lol 🧐 I was under the impression is was targeting the one day a week employees because they barely contribute. We have one and they’ll never be properly trained because they just don’t work enough. People like that are half the reason it’s probably being implemented.
Cust_service_voice 2 points 11m ago
I mean I am that one day a week partner, but I’ve been working for nine years and I’m a trainer. I just had to cut back because of my main job that paid the bills. Now I’m switching jobs again and I’ve opened my availability up and I’m still only being scheduled one day a week. They’re still cutting hours like crazy at my store so I expected as much. I know my availability is more than 12 hrs I’m just not scheduled it 🤷🏽♀️
StormTheParade 9 points 11m ago
No. All 50 US States are at will employment states, so all they have to do is claim performance or attendance issues.
Managers already abuse policies to get employees fired, this is nothing new. I would imagine the employees who have something critical going on can work something out with the SM, but no none of this is illegal.
At least as far as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, just an internet goblin.
Edit: I'm an idiot, mixed up two very very different terms
Managers already abuse policies to get employees fired, this is nothing new. I would imagine the employees who have something critical going on can work something out with the SM, but no none of this is illegal.
At least as far as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, just an internet goblin.
Edit: I'm an idiot, mixed up two very very different terms
looker009 2 points 11m ago
I think you meant to say at will employment
StormTheParade 1 points 11m ago
🤦♀️you are correct lmfao I do that all the time
fuwaldah 7 points 11m ago
> isn't that illegal?
No.
No.
thriftysentinal 6 points 11m ago
Starbucks has always had them. Every job you work at has them. It’s mainly for people leaching off the free drinks/ mediocre benefits
throwaway2825272 6 points 11m ago
not really . i mean , most companies are at will employment and they can fire you anytime . besides , if you’re there once a week or some shit , you might not be meeting the business needs so they can separate you . it’s fucked up , but not illegal
ThatOneTransGirl 5 points 11m ago
It’s twelve hours a week averaged out over the quarter. Fifty-two weeks a year divided by four, that’s thirteen weeks a quarter; or roughly 170 hours every three month period. It’s not a huge ask imo.
rudebii 5 points 11m ago
Should it be? Yes. Is it? Absolutely not. Unless you’re unionized (and even then) employers can do all kinds of bullshit legally.
Even protected classes have a hard time prosecuting illegal dismissal in the US, and probably elsewhere.
All that to say that siren can legally terminate you over availability, even you were hired under those hours. Best you can hope for is UI under “constructive dismissal.”
Even protected classes have a hard time prosecuting illegal dismissal in the US, and probably elsewhere.
All that to say that siren can legally terminate you over availability, even you were hired under those hours. Best you can hope for is UI under “constructive dismissal.”
aint_that_right 3 points 11m ago
It’s not illegal and it’s an average of 12 hours over a quarter, PTO and sick time count towards your hours. So if you have an emergency as you described you would use your PTO or make up the time another week. Hopefully this answers your question.
anxiouspeony 1 points 11m ago
Starbucks has been breaking all kinds of laws you think this is going to stop them?
Necessary_Low939 1 points 11m ago
It does sound illegal n I think they do this so they prevent u from getting another job
waterdropss [OP] 1 points 11m ago
Happy cake day to start. But how is this preventing one from getting a job elsewhere?
tortsnol 1 points 11m ago
so... what happens if your SM hates your guts and schedules you only for 11 hrs😭😭😭😭😭. not even your fault at that point.
waterdropss [OP] 1 points 11m ago
yeah that’s also what i was thinking. But i do know that you can be a borrowed partner at other locations so starbucks might come in with the “you could’ve found coverage at other locations to keep that 12 hours/week up. why didn’t you? bye.”
which would be hell for the partner in question but it is a valid point.
which would be hell for the partner in question but it is a valid point.
Tvdrone16 1 points 11m ago
It's just a way to get a bunch of people that aren't using the ASU scholarship stuff to quit. The students WILL stay for the free college, the ones that don't will either quit or get fired for some random reason. It's pretty wild.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.