"I was fired because I was unable to attend the 3-hour retraining meeting"

Has anyone else been fired/disciplined for not attending the retraining session?

M-E writes: I was recently fired from a Starbucks in Oregon. I had been a loyal partner for four years while I was attend in college. My records at Starbucks were very clean, only one customer complaint always did well on reviews and snapshots. I was fired because I was unable to attend the 3 hour meeting that took place to retrain baristas. I had class that night and a midterm the following day. I told my manager as soon as a knew that the meeting would take place, and again the day before to make sure he remembered. He proceeded to tell me that I could not work until I was retrained. I was fine with this as school is more important to me. He then told me that this meeting was very important, but he would not have time to retrain me for a while. Basically telling me that I would be fired. 

I told him I could not go no matter what, he then told me I should put in my two weeks notice. I told him I would not and he fired me. I then blew up at him, which I know is wrong but I couldn't help it. Here is a company that I have tried to work my best in treating me like dirt. I am appalled at Starbucks and am upset that I worked so well for them and then was thrown out because I could make a 3-hour meeting (but was willing to reschedule). I just needed to get this off my chest.

Comments

[Pat Nerr]

fact or fiction??

April Fool's Day anyone....

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP WEBMASTER]

FYI -- this was sent to me on Saturday, March 29. No April Fool's joke.

What an imcompetent manager. Most districts had make up days around here.

[sbuxsyd]

I lost a partner myself over the three hour meeting. Different circumstances, as this partner declined to attend the "make-up" session I set aside time for that Sunday, as it was his day off. (My day off, too, but...) I explained that he would not be working espresso station again until I could schedule another time including some new hires. He quit.

Quite frankly, it was a relief. I would much rather focus on the partners who are willing to embrace the new policies.

On the plus side, he was the ONLY partner I had who didn't attend the original meeting, and I am still in awe over the enthusiasm that continues with my partners. Wouldn't have sent the right message to those who put in the effort if I had made an exception for the one.

[Meredith]

Although a store manager IS empowered to schedule mandatory store meetings, and partners ARE responsible to attend (even if it falls outside of their availability), this does seem a little extreme.

Honestly, when I see cases such as this one (that is, assuming it's true), I tend to suspect that the partner probably had it coming. Perhaps she has had some additional issues that have not been properly documented (i.e. time/attendance, cash handling) and this was more of a concrete, black/white, terminable offense.

I'm not saying she deserved to be separated--just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, there's more to the story.

[baristagrl]

I was not able to attend the meeting because I was in the hospital. It was a non-issue with my manager.

There must be something else going on here.

[STUCKINTHEDRIVETHRU...NO LONGER!!!]

I heard of another partner down here in Texas who got fired because she was unable to make the meeting.

Our district had a make up meeting - a couple, actually.

I'd call HR.

[waltie]

I absolutely don't believe this. I'm not sure if it's an April Fool's prank or just an outright lie, but either way... no way did that happen.

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP WEBMASTER]

I'll repeat for the last time: This was sent well before April 1. It's not a prank. Further suggestions that this is a prank will be deleted.

[waltie]

I would like to mention a pet peeve of mine, as long as we're on the subject.

Partners always seem to put Starbucks second, the rest of their lives first. This might not sound unusual or annoying, but it is. ANY time a meeting or event or shift is scheduled outside of some partner's ridiculously thin availability, they complain and say there's no way they can go.

They will ALWAYS skip a shift or meeting at Starbucks. They will NEVER skip class, a shift at their other job, or plans they have with friends.

So you know what? If somebody does repeatedly refuse to come to meetings or events because they "can't", I can completely understand letting them go if it goes on too long.

But I still don't believe this story.

[darthsid]

waltie:

On the contrary, I used to skip classes to help out at my store/district. In fact, for a whole year I worked as much/more than I attended school.

=s

[Me]

I'm sure there is more to it.
Anyways, if really not then the store manager is the one who should be fired!
Talk to your DM or HR, if your story is true.
Even if you can't be retrained for another two or three weeks, then you just wouldn't be scheduled, which should be "punishment" enough for taking education over your starbucks job. ;-)
They can't fire you for not showing up just once and for the first time. If you never had attendance issues before and your story is true your store manager is in real trouble!

Tell me again how Starbucks is different from the rest of corporate America? Oh that’s right everyone working for the company is a PARTNER, except when they selfishly miss taking part in PARTNER HOWARD’S RE-TRAINING PUBLIC RELATIONS STUNT to attend school. Then they get axed.

[ohmi.gosh]

Waltie:

I could not attend the original meeting because i had a class. The make-up meeting for my district also fell so that i would miss another class, but i chose to go to that one because this class was less difficult to miss.

This Friday, i will be missing class AGAIN for a Shift Supervisor class. These instances are just two examples of times when i've put work before school-- effectively, your job before my future.

Your assertation that "they" will always skip work in favor of school is insulting.

[zoom]

Not sure what Oregon's laws are, but out here in CA, you cannot simply fire someone on the spot. This would mean that the partner's final check would need to be paid out of the till, requiring DM/ HR approval.

[lo]

What, the company you love treating you badly? Nooooo...

[me]

This is a joke, everyone was offered consolidated make up meetings. The makeup meetings in our districts included many different stores as well as districts.

All of our colleges were on break the original week of training...

Why are they sending it to you and not the business conduct line?

[sbux man]

It sounds to be like you were fired for being a jerk to your manager. You claim you told him you could not go no matter what after he told you that it would be a while to be retrained. This could be seen to him as I am a 4 year know it all partner who wont go to retraining at anytime.

[Jewels]

In oregon we had MULTIPLE makeup sessions that partners who were unable to attend the original meeting could choose from, held at our training centers- just like starbucks experience classes. Therefore, I call SHENANEGANS! Either this is a SM who NEVER reads their email or there was something else going on with this partner that was not disclosed- like what Meredith was saying.

It sounds anal that you couldn't work if you hadn't attended the training- our manager refused to close the store for 3 hours, so some of our partners couldn't even attend as they were having to run the bar/cash registers.

[Demonic Sweater]

I just created a new topic on "MyStarbucksIdea.com" -- Give Mary-Elise Smilek Her Job Back

Vote early and often and she will move to the most popular idea page theb to "under review".

It is under "Our Partners" and new ideas for at least a short while.

Good Luck Mary-Elise!

[MusicGal]

Guys, don't blame the entire company for one incompetent manager. As many people have already attested, *most* places offered makeup sessions if you missed it the first time. It's not like it was company policy or something! Now if all these people who posted here about missing the retraining had been fired, *then* there might be something to complain about. But that's not what happened, is it?

[debra]

Wake up "Parters" you are employees...all of this partner talk is as creepy as all of the "my pleasure" automatons at the Four Seasons!

[hope]

I wish and can only pray that my spouse could have their job back it is awful out here!! Feb.21 still no work!!

[waltie]

Somebody called me on speaking in absolutes. And, of course, that person was right. I shouldn't have said that all partners skip Starbucks for their other commitments. I should have said that, in my experience as a shift and as an ASM, the times I've seen partners adjust their schedules to accommodate Starbucks's needs are so rare as to be insignificant. But that isn't to say it doesn't happen, or that it doesn't happen elsewhere with greater frequency.

And another reason why I think this whole story is bogus is because, frankly, Starbucks actually makes it TOO HARD to fire partners. A lot of people think SMs have the power to fire people on the spot, willy nilly. This simply isn't true. Even when a partner is caught stealing, the SM still has to jump through a series of hoops to sever the parter.

So, no, a partner couldn't have been fired for being unable to attend the retraining. There's no way the DM would've given approval.

[Sam]

We have a partner at our store who could not attend the espresso excellence training, and he still works at our store, but just can't make espresso drinks. I find it hard to believe that she couldn't even work until she made up the class.

Call Partner resources and let us know what they say.

[Tim]

In our district, and what I thought was the standard operating procedure, partners simply could not work bar until they caught up on espresso excellence training on their own time (paid) or scheduled in a couple weeks later.

"Partners always seem to put Starbucks second, the rest of their lives first. This might not sound unusual or annoying, but it is. "

As they should, anyone that doesn't, imo, needs a life. I love my job (i dont' work for Starbucks), but it is not my life more. I understand there are responsibilties to my job, and I know that, but my greater responsbility is to my daughter, and my family, if my employer is not willing to work with that, I'll find a new one.

[waltie]

I'm not saying you should give up your personal life, drop out of school, or quit your second job. That would be insane.

All I'm saying is that, if you have NEVER attended a store meeting, Starbucks class, or been willing to work a shift that was outside of your availability even once, you're far too inflexible and unaccommodating.

[Pat Nerr]

Sounds like many of the typical incompetent store managers, DM's and RDo's we have here in California. SBUX and it's Mission Statement is "going down the tubes"....

Just another example of the beloved company that everyone seems to hold dear.

Why do partners love this company so much? This is an example, another example, of how Starbucks feels about its employees.

How can anyone love this company? There's been a ton of negative press, even in the recent past, that shows this company only thinks of its employees in terms of being a commodity.

First, there's the layoffs. They did it to save cash, but then turn around and acquire a company. Good way to spend the saved cash you say you didn't have to begin with.

Then, there's the whole mess with tips in California. Starbucks decides to save some cash by utilizing illegal tips policies. Why not pay one part of your staff less by cooping it and using it to pay another part of your staff. The company essentially allowed Shift Supervisors to steal cash that rightfully and legally belonged to the baristas.

Finally, Starbucks got lots of bad press for how it pays its growers in third-world nations. It's bad enough to pay someone in the first-world a barely livable wage, but to do it where people really need the money is ludicrous.

And now... this.

Yeah, and people still love to work for this company? I can't figure it out.

[Yancy Yukon]

If this story is in fact true, I would expect this newly fired employee top contact HR right away if she hasnt done so. Our district had a makeup session held at my store and we had a huge group of partners come in for the make-up session. It was made clear that partners who didnt attend a session could not be on the bar. But to be fired because you couldnt attend is definitely not right.

[badbadbucks]

Waltie, what alternate universe do you live in?

At my store, we have had many partners terminated, some on the spot and some within days. Sometimes they were incompetent partners and sometimes they were good, loyal, longstanding partners. I rarely found out the reasons, but some seemed fair and some did not.

It is disgusting that this girl was treated like this.

[Jean-Luc Picard]

If this is true: SUE SUE SUE!!!! I came to the meeting from school in PJ's and it was a complete waste of time. Just a bunch of bullshit!

[josh hagquist]

first, i doubt a DM would approve this if these were really the only circustances.

second, we are only hearing one side of the story.

third, we shouldn't be weighing in on any side of the story since it is neither any of our business and not company policy to debate the merits of someone being separated.

fourth, make up dates had to be offered in every area so there is NO WAY a partner would be fired for not going to one meeting. they wouldn't have offered make-up meetings if the punishment was termination upon missing the actual meeting at the store.

fifth, can we please hear something good that starbucks is doing? everything is negative and always questions anything and everything they do. it's bullshit. there are even people here who work for starbucks WHO COMPLAIN about hating their jobs. here's a piece of advice: quit. no one is forcing you to work for starbucks and if you hate it you should quit. thanks.

[loanesay]

I'd call HR over this. We also had a partner who couldn't come to the meeting and the manager here said that she couldn't work until she'd been retrained. But, she gave the option of having her training done in a different store at a different time, at least.

[no name]

Josh,
IMO your 4th point ("NO WAY a partner would be fired for not going to one meeting") contradicts your 3rd point ("we shouldn't be weighing in").

For a more positive discussion, go to the March 29th Open Thread and contribute to the on-going discussion of "Positive Things You May Not Know"...If in the future you can't find a more positive discussion, you can always start one. :)

[Sticky Bandits]

The question isnt, is this an April fools day joke? The real question is, is Starbucks fooling you?

[Allison]

I teach middle school and coach cheerleading; Starbucks is my summer and sometimes-weekend job.

I couldn't attend the training because I had a meeting at the school where I teach and then had to coach cheerleading. My school is 30 minutes away from the store, so I couldn't have made it even to the end of the training. At my store, too, it was a nonissue with the manager. I'm sure next time I work, I'll pick up on the changes. I always do after long periods of not being in the store.

I resent the assertation that it is wrong for baristas to place school or other jobs at a higher priority than Starbucks. I obviously place my 120 middle schoolers above Starbucks, priority-wise, for what I feel is good reason. Teaching is my primary job, as is coaching, and provides my living income. Starbucks is something fun that I do to fill time during summer.

Partners are asked to fill out an availability sheet letting their managers know when they can work. If a mandatory meeting falls outside of their availability I don't know how someone can be fired for not being able to make the meeting.

[starbuckmngr]

Sorry...I don't believe a word of this. Additional meetings are being scheduled for partners who could not make the initial meeting and...this is not our culture...a manager must show a consistent line of corrective actions without behavior changes before termination can occur.

Get real!

I just don't believe it!

[Kate]

I'm guessing that there were issues with the manager beforehand, and he was probably just looking for an excuse to terminate her.

The "retraining" was so remedial it's laughable that anyone would have to actually MAKE SURE to attend a class. Any competent barista (and I'm sure that after four years this girl knew her way around a latte) would easily be able to pick up on the relatively simple changes. The manager not having time to retrain her? That's crazy. It would take twenty minutes, tops. The retraining class itself shouldn't have taken as long as it did, either; it was way too jazzed up with "activities" and other bull.

[MyGiveADamn'sBusted]

So many people think that SBUX managers and DM's follow the appropriate protocol in regards to letting a partner go aka firing them. However, I am aware of several instances where managers and dm's bypass those protocols and fire-at-will. Managers and District Managers are not GOD but many act as though they are. I would so love to see some managers and District managers put in their places and knocked down a peg or two. My store manager is absolutely great. He can improve in certain areas, yet where it matters most he is a very laid-back yet efficient manager. Now our DM, thats an entirely different story. She is the biggest micro-managerial pain-in-the-ass DM. It must be the cold winters up north that make her frigid and unapproachable.

[waltie]

"At my store, we have had many partners terminated, some on the spot and some within days. Sometimes they were incompetent partners and sometimes they were good, loyal, longstanding partners. I rarely found out the reasons, but some seemed fair and some did not."

Exactly... you didn't find out the reasons. The people who steal, cut corners, and generally do the wrong thing are usually the ones you'll never suspect. So when Mr. Perfect gets fired, people usually blame Starbucks for being evil. In reality, there's no such thing as Mr Perfect. Mr Perfect was probably guilty of time theft or stealing from the till.

It's not company policy to let everybody know why everybody gets fired. It's a good policy, but it does often make Starbucks look like the bad guys.

Has anybody ever been unjustly let go? I'm sure. But I'm also sure that number is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

Oh, and for the person who won't go to meetings because Starbucks is just something fun to do in your spare time, you proved my point. It's a job, not a hobby.

This is bogus Jim and I suspect you know this as well...........but don't care.

Anything you can print here to stir it up and drive traffic to your site is fair game obviously.

Is your ego that needy? Pathetic