186
This is what they strike over?
Shitty wages - I sleep
New dress code - Real shit!
Yeah, my thought too. There are enough things wrong with that company - this one policy change doesn't seem that bad to me. I mean, I'd certainly prefer more leeway than less, but there are a million other chains with more restrictive dress codes. For many, it's a single specific color pants and a uniform shirt. The updated dress code isn't horrific.
"We demand the right to wear plaid."
From what I've seen of this new dress code the baristas aren't allowed to show collarbone and basically any normal cut shirt does not qualify. I'm talking regular long sleeve black shirt does not cut it.
It seems they basically want everyone in turtle necks or buttoned up to the equivalent area of the neck which is a style most people don't already own.
So they have to buy new shirts and the company is not paying for what amounts to a new uniform. Which is shitty.
I've worked for places that required a uniform before and the company provided the first uniform.
If that's true it's not mentioned in the article. It just says they have to wear a black shirt and blue, black, khaki, or denim pants.
If there are many other issues then a perceptibly small thing can be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Could be, but then they should strike because of the set of things, not the straw.
My first thought as well. Perhaps leadership is flexing? Seeing what they can get away with and showing Starbucks the same?
"We struck over the dress code. Want to push your luck?"
it’s easy to get people angry together for a change
it’s harder to get people angry together over slowly boiling in a pot
I don't know anything about it, but could the media just be saying this is what it's about, but it also includes more important issues? They often don't report on strikes in a way that makes them look reasonable or good, and saying it's just about a dress code makes them potentially look like they're being overzealous.
A "dress code" this limiting is essentially just getting employees to pay for the uniform.
I don’t know why so may don’t understand that this is a pay cut. You are being asked to buy a shirt or shirts to work for the company. It might be a temporary cut, but still a pay cut. A union should always strike on pay cuts.
A lot companies do this over here, i never heard anyone have an issue with it tbh.
Is the code so restrictive? I work at Lowe's and can whatever the fuck I want within reason. Nothing with holes, stained to hell, flip-flops (safety related), controversial, etc.
It seems so.
I used to work in a warehouse that would send people home for wearing sweatpants instead of jeans.
A lot companies tell you to wear a specific color etc.
a warmer, more welcoming feeling in its stores
Ah, yes, nothing as warm as uniformity.
I'm pretty sure the stereotypical Starbucks patron doesn't mind a splash of colour, but what do I know.
They might as well be robots or clones, you don't think robots are warm and welcoming?
Robots can be convenient if all I want is service with minimum interaction (provided the robots work well, otherwise I'll have to talk to a human and deal with the annoyance of something not working). I don't need them to be welcoming any more than I need a fast food drive-through to be welcoming. The bakery I grab my breakfast from has to look appealing, but I personally wouldn't care if the staff was curt.
It's just stupid to pretend they're being "welcoming" by curtailing individuality.
Welcome to Starbucks, I love you!
Nothing says "local coffee shop" like khakis and corporate bullshit. Stupid move, Starbucks.
Yeah, but they do look great. Just sayin.
when you treat the front line workers like cattle and pay them jack shit, they have a tendency to not give a flying fuck about the job, which is why people stop going there. not the fucking shirts they're wearing
is this the "turnaround" they're getting from the fancy new CEO who commutes to work in a private jet every day?
I actively avoid going to any businesses that have any sort of corporate dress code.
Isn't that like 99.9% of businesses or something. Even mom-and-pop shops get uniforms for their employees.
Your locality may be different, but my local restaurants and businesses all just have employees that wear whatever.
I've worn company issued shirts with my name sewn on them. Honestly they can stop bitching.
difference is, Starbucks ain't paying for this uniform
I'm in the South (US) and we're more casual. I'd be appalled if a shit job required much of a dress code. Now that I think on it, I'm not sure I can name a place that has people dressing like identical robots. OK, the usual suspects like UPS and the USPS.
Lmao isn't that the mcdonalds uniform colour
Seems like a bit of a silly thing to strike over honestly. Companies have uniforms. It's not the end of the world.
However - "Starbucks said the new rules would make its green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity" do people in Starbucks not already recognise they're in a Starbucks? "A sense of familiarity"? Lol
Is Starbucks now paying for those uniforms?
I get what you're saying but it's a black shirt and jeans. It's not like they're asking for Gucci or whatever. I appreciate it's frustrating but I just find that there are much, much bigger critiques to level at Starbucks, in my opinion. A dress code is just part of work.
Well, all i can say is to go scan some of the other comments so it doesn't seem like this is coming from a single place.
But this isn't the only complaint. This is one complaint that was the breaking point.
Dress codes that aren't safety related are bullshit to begin with, but when they're being presented as a de facto uniform and the employees aren't being compensated as such, it amounts to a form of worker abuse.
They're already under paid, over worked, and dehumanized by their corporate structure. Now they're being expected to pony up for more clothing than what they already paid for out of their wages without compensation. When the policy is broad enough, you can make your work and life wear the same. Once you narrow it down, you can't any more.
You have an effective double expense that you didn't have before the policy change. It may not be literally double, so please don't get and nitpick that.
The point is that it's a company stomping on workers. That it's a lighter stomp than others is irrelevant.
I can absolutely understand the frustration and unfairness of having to pay for clothes you wouldn't typically wear, specifically for a role that is already underpaid and pretty miserable.
I'm just saying that, to me, it feels a little dramatic, a little silly, to strike over it. Again, I understand and can empathise with the people affected by this policy and unhappy about it! I'm not happy that I have to pay for my train tickets to go to work -- but I've always had to do that, for years, and I guess I just accept that as part of working life. To be clear, this is just my opinion. In my opinion, some expenses out of pocket are sort of just how work is, and as much as it sucks it's just sort of the way of things.
I don't think I've come across as nitpicky or unfair so far in this discussion so I'm not sure exactly why you figured I'd nitpick you saying double.
I hope the workers get their way and have this policy reversed -- I agree that the uniform is bullshit.
I’ve never even noticed what they wear. So let them wear whatever?
There could be a trex inflatable under green the apron and I wouldn't notice or care.
Welcome to ~~Costco~~ Starbucks. I love you.
Bitch unless you are gifting me the clothes and paying for their wash you have 0 say on what I wear.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
186 points (98.9% liked)
Business
778 readers
1 users here now
A place to share business news and insights.
Rules
- Follow lemmy.world rules
- Only post content related to business
- Do not use this community to promote your business
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS