
Starbucks, which offers healthcare benefits to its eligible part time employees, is somehow expanding with 1500 more cafes in America in the middle of ObamaCare.
Starbucks had been suffering due to what they explain as bad decisions regarding where they were opening new stores. During the recession, they closed 10% of their stores. They took responsibility for their downturn and did something about it.
How do they do it? Smart business decisions. Instead of whining on TV about employees needing healthcare, they looked at their own management decisions and made some tough calls in 2008.
Philly.Com reported:
Cliff Burrows, who heads Starbucks’ domestic business, said the problem wasn’t that Starbucks was oversaturated, but that the company hadn’t been careful about its store openings. In the years leading up to the downturn, the company was opening well over 1,000 stores a year. That led to cafes in locations where signs or traffic might not be optimal, he said.
Burrows said Starbucks has gotten more sophisticated, and noted that the cafes opened in recent years are among the company’s best performers. Sales at new cafes are averaging about $1 million a year, for example, above the company’s target of $900,000. It costs about $450,000 to build a new cafe.
Starbucks has offered “a comprehensive compensation program since 1988 to their “partners” (their term for employees).
This benefits package includes “competitive base pay, comprehensive health care for eligible full and part-time partners, with an average of 20 hours per week, equity in the company in the form of Bean Stock, a 401(k) savings plan with employer match, tuition reimbursement, short-term disability, paid vacation time, and product discounts.”
Based in Seattle, Starbucks has been named by FORTUNE magazine as one of the “100 Best Companies to Work For” in America every year since the list’s inception 13 years ago, ranking number 18 in 2010
Starbucks has been a long supporter of healthcare reform. On their website, they write, “As a long-time provider of comprehensive health coverage to full-time and eligible part-time employees, Starbucks has been a steadfast supporter of meaningful healthcare reform.” Furthermore, “Starbucks commitment to wellness extends to our own Partners (employees). Thrive Wellness, our internal broad-based wellness program, has been in place since 2004. The Thrive program provides partners with a variety of tools, resources and benefits aimed at helping all our partners incorporate wellness into their daily routine. From fitness tools, to weight loss and smoking cessation resources, it’s covered under Thrive.”
In 2004 (before ObamaCare), then CEO Orrin Smith told Bloomberg Businessweek that rising healthcare costs were their biggest challenge. He explained that companies that were doing the right thing regarding offering health insurance to their employees were paying for companies who don’t do the right thing (a jab at Walmart no doubt), but that he built Starbucks as place for people like his father to work, because Smith remembers growing up without health insurance:
Businessweek reported in 2004 :
A:My parents didn’t have much — and they didn’t have much hope. We didn’t have health insurance.
And I saw up close the plight of a working-class family. Building Starbucks has been very much about building a company my father never got a chance to work for. The cultural transformation took place when we were small and still losing money, and we decided to provide comprehensive health insurance for every employee, and later stock options for every employee. That was a first for part-time workers. About 65% of our employees, then and now, are part-time.
Q: What’s the upside to providing all that health care?
A: The result is that we probably have the lowest rate of attrition of any retailer in America. Managements of major retail businesses have used employee churn as a mechanism to keep wages low and health insurance out of the labor picture.
When you look at what companies say they do and what they really do, you have to be careful. Some companies that say they offer health care go out of their way to restrict part-timers’ hours [so they won't be eligible for coverage]. And if they do qualify, they often can’t afford the upfront premium. One of the largest companies in the country is famous for this.
Maybe treating employees with a modicum of respect is a choice made by certain kinds of corporations due to their internal values. It’s also smart business. Yet Starbucks has been the target of efforts to unionize in some areas, with workers objecting to rising healthcare costs and cuts in benefits (among other issues) since the downturn. Solidarity among workers can be a good thing for a company willing to listen, even if they can’t/won’t comply with all of the desires of the workers. Open dialgoue is the best way for those in charge to bear in mind the concerns of the workers.
Citing the ethical importance of creating jobs here in America, Starbucks broke ground on a manufactuing plant in Augusta, Georgia in July of this year, that they point out could have been located in Central America or Asia for 15% to 20% less, “but we felt that creating 200 or so jobs domestically was more important.”
Sad little Walmart announced in 2011 that it can’t afford healthcare benefits for its new part time employees. Somehow the largest retailer in the world is being bested by other successful companies who can afford to respect their workers with healthcare.
Here are 7 companies that offer health care benefits to their part-time workers (list complied in Oct 2011 by ABC News): Target, Starbucks, Lands End, Whole Foods, Home Depot, UPS, and Costco. What do you suppose makes these other companies more able to provide healthcare benefits than Walmart? Is it a matter of corporate cultural values? Walmart is the largest retailer in the world – so either they are mismanaging their profits or they are Scrooging up the retail market as they destroy the function of competition in the marketplace.
Bashing healthcare for employees isn’t smart business, as Papa Johns and Applebee’s found out. Their brands are still suffering severe fallout from their miserly grubbing about having to pay a few cents for their employees to have healthcare.
Brand Index reported, “Anti-Obamacare rhetoric from Papa John’s CEO and a major Applebee’s franchise owner appear to have driven down both chains’ consumer perception with casual dining eaters in the US, and are still impacted two weeks after those remarks were made.”
Starbucks suffered a setback in the early parts of the recession from what they claim was bad business decisions. They got it together internally and instead of blaming employees, they worked hard to regroup. Now they are expanding not only in America but around the globe. Furthermore, days before the 2012 election, Starbucks earnings were better than expected and thus current Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (who right wingers were using to attack ObamaCare over his concerns regarding its impact on small businesses) told CNBC they were raising shareholders’ quarterly dividends by a rather huge 24% (also, Schultz told them he was voting for Obama).
This suggests that it is possible to be successful and treat your employees with human decency. In other words, griping about profit shouldn’t be a get out jail free card to punish employees. Yes, times are tough and everyone has to make sacrifices (including the CEOs) — but it is possible, with the right intentions, to both create a decent place to work and be successful.
Shocking, I know.
Image: EMA, sustainability report

Dustin
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 10:56 am
90% of Starbucks employees are part time making them not eligible for employee sponsored health benefits. That makes the title of this article misleading and false.
loading...
Ukot
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
I believe Starbucks extends benefits to employees working as little as 20 hours per week, much lower than most companies.
loading...
Heather
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
It stated in the article that approximatly 65% of employees were part time.
loading...
Sabyen91
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:11 am
Did you not read the part of the article that said “Starbucks, which offers healthcare benefits to its eligible part time employees, is somehow expanding with 1500 more cafes in America in the middle of ObamaCare.”? I mean…it was only the first sentence of the article. You couldn’t have missed it.
loading...
Terri
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I read somewhere that 75% of employees are eligible for the benefits from Starbucks but I didn’t get the source. It’s also on the union site for Starbucks. Wise Geek said they spend more on health insurance than coffee beans!
Copy and Paste http://www.wisegeek.com/which-is-a-greater-expense-for-starbucks-employee-health-insurance-or-coffee-beans.htm :
Employee health insurance is a greater expense for Starbucks than coffee beans, even though the company buys more than 270 million pounds (more than 122 million kg) of coffee each year. The company spends about $300 million US Dollars (USD) on health insurance for its U.S. employees. Every employee who works at least 20 hours per week is offered a health insurance package, which about 64 percent of them take. As of 2010, the company had more than 130,000 employees.
Also, I didn’t know they were doing fair trade. Copy paste: Starbucks pays double the regular commodity price of coffee to many of its suppliers. Commodity prices for coffee as of 2012 averaged about $0.98 USD to $2.50 USD per pound (0.45 kg), depending on the type of coffee.
The company also gives loans to farmers with whom it works. In 2010, the company made loan commitments in excess of $14.5 million USD.
Starbucks buys more than 14 million pounds (6.4 million kg) of certified organic coffee beans each year.
loading...
Wolfgang
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Starbucks makes money by NOT paying taxes in the UK despite years of making profits here; I’ll drink my coffee in a coffee shop where they do pay UK taxes.
loading...
Sabyen91
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:13 am
Really? Starbucks makes its money by not paying UK taxes? That is the difference between a successful company and a bust?
loading...
Robert Blake
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
That’s not what he said, he said they made money, not its money. They are increasing profits by avoiding taxes, declaring a loss to the UK, but reporting the UK market as profitable to the SEC
loading...
Former Barista
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
I used to work at Starbucks and, at least in the USA, anyone working over 20 hours per week was eligible for employer-sponsored health insurance. This cuts out most after school workers but makes part-timers supporting a family eligible. It was never an issue to get 20 hours scheduled, either. These employees were also eligible for a stock purchase plan and education reimbursement. That’s why Starbucks costs more than the others.
loading...
Maria Meacham
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
Thank you for informing us.
We, as consumers need to vote with our dollars for the success of the companies that help our fellow workers and do return to walmart, dennys and the rest of greedy groups who are “too poor” to support workers insurance.
loading...
Rho
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Sadly, the closest Starbucks is 50 miles away for my little town, and the tourists and snowbirds that breeze through Chipley are really amazed at that fact. Our quasi-baristas at McD’s do okay, but I would love for once to actually taste a Starbucks coffee to find out what all the fuss is about. Maybe one of those outlets might come to Marianna, so then the closest Starbuck’s will only 25 miles away.
loading...
Ilse
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
I’m not a biggest Starbucks coffee fan (too strong) but I’m going to give them another try because having companies like this succeed is important. Hmmmmmm yesI think I’ll do gift cards from them this year for those little extra gifts I give to friends…. sounds good to me.
loading...
Melvin Haun Sr
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
I am not overly fond of Star Bucks coffee ( that does not mean I don’t like it ) having gotten used to Chow hall coffee, and never lost that taste, but I get a cup anytime I am close for several reasons. One they are better than some.
Two. they treat their workers well, and last but not least, three. They are not anti-union. All pluses in my World.
loading...
marehare
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 6:02 pm
If Walmart was only this thoughtful regarding their employees along with the other corporations that low pay and part time employees so they can’t make a good living. This is why I boycott Walmart and their ilk and always get my coffee at Starbucks.
Thank you Starbucks! Your employees always seem happy also. Good Job!
loading...
StackPointer
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Don’t be ridiculous.
If McDonalds had the markup Starbucks has, a Kids Meal would be $15 and they would not be selling many of them.
Starbucks built its brand on fools who are willing to pay $7 for a cup of coffee or pay $80 a pound for the raw material.
This is hardly an example Walmart (who delivers goods to the poorest Americans at prices they could never find elsewhere) or McDonalds.
For every Starbucks-like success there are 100 businesses which have to operate on narrow profit margins and lack the upscale clientele to be able to charge insane prices for ordinary, every day goods.
loading...
Maranon
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
StackPointer:
In Arizona, last month, the Mc Donalds in the poorest neighborhood, handed out 11,000.00 free meals, as a sign of good will.
The owner of the franchise, also hires part time workers and have good benefits. The policies are not the company, but the franchise owner, who feels compeled to help the people who support his business.
He was interviewed shortly afterwards, and reported doing “very well” and the meals are not any more expensive than they are elsewhere.
He grew up poor and remembers the needs of his family and being hungry.
I will NOT return to Walmart or Dennys, and say yes to the stores who are supportive of their workers.
Even whe the margins are small, there is room for decency and charity.
loading...
Sabyen91
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 2:16 am
So…if McDonald’s had a markup that would make the Happy Meal 15 bucks do you think they would be in business? No. The market sets the price. Why do you hate capitalism?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 8th, 2012 at 10:00 am
No, the market does not set the price. That is “used to be” capitalism.
loading...
cy lemon
Dec. 6th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Don’t go to Starbucks. but will start, this is my kind of company.
loading...
Taymee
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 12:14 am
@ stackpointer, Walmart would not go out of business offering health insurance. Target proves that by doing it for a similar price range retail product- differences of about 5-10% on most items with many of the less expensive at Target. today’s very poor shopper goes to Dollar General, Family Dollar, or Dollar Tree.
loading...
Robert Blake
Dec. 9th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Starbucks avoids UK taxes by claiming to run at a loss, but in SEC filing it it admits it makes a profit.
UK workers get state provision of healthcare paid for by taxation, therefore Starbucks is denying funding to the healthcare of its UK employees.
They tried to claim that they did pay tax, by including the amount of payroll tax paid by its employees
Moreover, Starbucks is now offering to pay a miniscule amount of the tax it has been avoiding. As it offered that, it cut paid lunchtimes and benefits.
Far from being a good company, Starbucks is another neoliberal leech
loading...
turtle
Dec. 10th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/06/starbucks-to-pay-10m-corporation-tax
Companies and ethics aren’t always clear. Starbucks appears to make an effort to be a good investor company at the same time as employee and culturally responsible. Project not perfection.
loading...