"Is it possible that Starbucks has issued a TOFU (Too Old For Us) purge directive?"

A Starbucks Gossip reader writes: "I'm a barista in San Francisco and our store recently got a new Store Manager (SM) who is 22. In the past few weeks, everyone in the store who is over 30 or has a disability has gotten an action plan or other disciplinary action (with the exception of the Assistant Manager) and all the new hires or store transfers are 20-somethings.  Our District Manager apparently does not want to hear about what's happening in the store and completely supports the SM. After checking with baristas in a couple of other stores outside our district (including suburban stores), this seems to be happening throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

"Is it possible that Starbucks corporate has issued a TOFU (Too Old For Us) purge directive or is this an anomaly for our district/region? The San Francisco Human Rights Commission is keeping a quiet, watchful eye on this situation in my district." [Starbucks Gossip welcomes a response from corporate, of course.]

Comments

[Karl Dahlquist]

Totally illegal...but I could believe it. Older workers have higher health insurance premiums.

[BostonSM]

Im an SM in Boston and havent heard a thing about something as rediculous as that.

[Asher]

The day I'm issued a directive as ridiculous as that is the day I walk.

[beantheredonethat]

Just go back to the layoffs last July. If you examine who was let go, you will see a very high percentage were well above 30 and were indeed the oldest in their departments, for the most part.

Of course, to get your severance, you had to sign a paper stating you would never challenge that, but just look around, you'll see the layoffs were a guise to eliminate older, smarter and higher paid people.

So of course a TOFU would not surprise me on bit.

[SOCalManager]

I'm a store manager and have heard nothing of anything like this. I have a several partners over 30.

[SCSM]

I'm a 27 year old store manager in the south and over half my staff is 30+. In fact I have several partners who could be my grandparents and can work circles around my college age baristas. Everyone on my team works very well together and we all love having such a diverse crew. I have NEVER been told by anyone (DM or above) what age group I should hire. I have worked in 5 Districts and 4 areas in my region (South Central), and can proudly say that this has always been the case. There is nothing wrong with venting about job frustrations or posting news stories about the company, but this kind of unsubstantiated gossip is ridiculous! Perhaps I should write in and suggest that the company has given the order not to hire african americans or homosexuals? I wonder how many people would jump on that bandwagon?

[DallasSM]

As a store manager, I find the very idea of this disgusting. I would walk in a heartbeat if this were to happen

[DaBeaner]

that is the most OBSURD thing Ive heard!! Its this kind of complete CRAP that keeps us in the spotlight. And coming from one of our own?? seriously THINK about what youre putting out on the table.. And its even worse if you are a SM, you do your hiring so essentially you make it what it is!

[brown dot]

I highly doubt this is the case. I am sure it may seem as if it is everyone 30+ but I doubt it. I am the youngest of my crew a lot of them are old enough to be my parents and a couple could be my grandparents! Needless to say, this is not occurring in my area.

[bjones]

Stupid. I've been with this company as a SM for 12 years and have never ever heard anything close to this. This gossip reader is obviously dumb or trying to protect that partener that gives his all, but it is not enough. Too bad in either case.

[KGB]

WTF?, really? sounds just like some SM filing a collective action lawsuit in FL, cause he had to get off his butt and run a store.........oh wait!.

[Venti Urnex Latte]

Starbucks has at least one disability discrimination suit now in court, and settled another one a few years ago. The company talks a good game about being a compassionate employer but it is all talk and not action.

[bjones]

Venti Urnex Latte, the name says it all. I hope you are not on the payroll.

[Aces of Eight]

The oldest employee at our store, who was with the company for ten years, and is old (not going to say how old but way above what some of you might think being an old partner means) is a shift that is just not going anywhere.

I can tell you right now that her going is the farthest thing from what would happen. However, we have lost plenty of young students over the past several months, and our ASM.

In my experiences, it is not happening... I dunno about anyone else.

[SPORK]

Hearsay.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

There are quiet purges at all levels of Starbucks. In particular the older partners are being slowly taken away. Much like the Nazis decided to take them away.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

But I do find that old partners move extremely slowly. They are there because they want the insurance converage.

[lattegal]

@Boston Starbucks Rebel -

If you don't know what you are talking about then don't say anything. I work in a store with older partners and have been at other stores with younger ones too. And the older partners have a better work ethic and get things done without being told to do something every minute of every shift.

If there is any truth to this...which I don't think there is...unless it's an isolated DM/SM thing...I would hope that Starbucks would get the socks sued off of them. Which could also happen if it is a DM/SM isolated thing...but it's probably not.

I have noticed many younger SM's and some are good but others need to have more experience under their belt before managing a store. How and why they are put into an SM position is beyond me...

[L@ p@_P]

Of course the SM's will not admit to this tactic, but it is 100% TRUE and it is going on Right Now people...Look around and open your eyes. Just like when they fire partners for forming unions, these older individuals should think about talking with someone from The Starbucks Workers Union and National Labor Board.

[Jack Smash]

I really hope you people don't beleive this

[Aces of Eight]

This is not happening, sure... I am sure their are corrupt SM's and DM's out there who do stuff like this, but in general I really doubt this is a widespread practice... and certainly NOT a company policy.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I have worked in stores with older people and they could barely do register, let alone bar and this was after several years with the Company.

Starbucks store managers are doing what is necessary to bring their labor into alignment within current labor directives. The termination of "older" partners is only collateral damage.

[MuddledUP]

This IS NOT happening where I am. We are controlling labor to the nth degree but I have not been directed to nor would I ever do such a thing. Perhaps this has to do with your manager and district manager and not the company. Reach higher up for answers if you truly want them. Conduct hotline, HR, there are lots of other places to talk about this other than starbucks gossip.

[sm101]

rubish

[Ex]

There exists in HR an older workers benifit protection act report. It was like pulling teeth from them to get a copy of that report from HR and it gives the % of each age group from the ASM layoffs.

But the discrimination goes further. It starts with the younger people giving poor training to older partners in an effort to chase them out of the company so a larger % of older workers are never given a chance to be tenured partners and it ends up so younger people are in control keeping the older workers at a minimum. If you look deeper this is causing the rot which is hurting starbucks now as you have less experience controlling the operations in the field and more inexperienced novices making too many important decisions.

There is also the same problem in some areas where gays are preventing straight people from advancing.

I am sure the opposite is also true where gays are prevented from advancing but the opposite may be more common.

on the whole,. the company is allowing too much politics and not enough merit considerations in reviews as well as promotions. Even the reviews are too vague and have no real substance for the ratings using the managers opinion in most cases which tends to be very biased

[Herman M.]

Wait...
A DM backed their SM in front of a barista/shift?

Good News! All is not lost! Even if the SM was in the wrong, I would expect the DM to back their play publicly then follow up in private to determine if the SM was acting improperly.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

One time I told a customer that if he had a problem we could take it in the back alley.

[(O-o)]

I once passed by a customer that fell asleep on the chairs and had a mess all around her...So I bend over to pick some of the garbage right in front of her up (with my back to her) and what do you know-=POOF =Mustard Gas right out my @$$!!

She wakes up and says "Umm something smells good"!!!!

I then punched my sell in the face, it was great :)

[NBDTBarista]

This is 1000% true in the Bellevue/Issaquah/North Bend area in Washington State. I have seen 10 different parters (always women) forced out for one ridiculous reason or another in the past ten months. All were 40 and over, and all were extremely competant baristas and shifts, but were told recently that they would never rise further than that. These stores lost incredibly valuable, educated, responsible parters. And all were replaced by retarded teens and 20-somethings that cant make it to an opening shift on time. So sad. And another lawsuit Starbucks is going to paying out in a few years.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

I agree that its unforunate that Starbucks has decided to let go of older partners. But time is a bitch.

[Ex Bux Pgh]

Starbucks used a different tactic here in the Pittsburgh area. Only one store closed in the rounds of closings, but more than a dozen tenured and very competent management partners were targeted to be removed from the company. However, instead of applying the principles of respect and dignity, those targeted were micromanaged out of the company. Every last one received writeups for small infractions, and tasks were set for each one that were unachievable (usually through omission of a small but vital piece of information), and the partners were written up and subsequently drummed out of the company for not achieving those goals.

Luckily, the affected partners have moved on to greener pastures. But the era of respect and dignity is long dead in Pittsburgh.

[Naptown Barista]

Just looking at this from afar, I tend to think that some of these incidents are rather isolated. The idea that a corporation would implement something like this, which would leave a paper trail from New York to Seattle, would be mind-boggling (however, we've seen a lot of other mind-boggling decisions lately!). If ONE disgruntled management person were to blow the whistle on a policy like this the company would be open to even MORE bad publicity than the advent of Pike Place Roast! Realistically, the young, unproven, unconfident, immature, not-ready SM is probably intimidated by those with a certain degree of age and wisdom and is probably trying to maintain control. With the merry-go-round of SM's, how many times has a barista encountered a NEW SM who has far less knowledge than the more tenured barista? That could be very intimadating to a new, young, sheepish SM who's in over their head.

[BouncingBarista]

Any SM who really needed to seperate an older partner due to whatever, would know that it is actually REALLY difficult, because Starbucks tries to protect themselves from these lawsuits so you have to go above and beyond the normal amount of documenting in order to get 'er done...

[Corbo]

"There is also the same problem in some areas where gays are preventing straight people from advancing."

Posted by: Ex | May 19, 2009 at 05:56 AM

This claim is by far the most ridiculous one of all. Do you have any examples of this? I find this hard to believe.

As for the topic at hand, I can only hope that it is not true.

[logjam]

I have worked as a barista for almost eight years. A few months ago we got new manager. He cut my schedule two hours a week. Just enough so I am no longer eligible for insurance benefits.I am 55 years old. The mgr. told me it was not his fault although I have had the same availability and schedule for over seven years. Today I hve to meet with my DM. I hve seen this day coming. I have written about this very subject. Skeptics have derided my thoughts. but here it is.

[just one man]

@ Corbo

Gays in my area stick together. Women more then men. It sucks. These gay women are a click. Barista to SM and it's more then one store in our district. They treat men poorly. Some of them are kinda nice when not around the others. I feel I'm treated different and have been passed up for promotion because I'm a straight male. Yes this does happen. It's Sbux politics. It's who you know not what you can do.

[Crema_the_crop]

UH, can we talk about the 22-YEAR-OLD STORE MANAGER????

[Age isn't just a number]

I saw this happen at my store.

We had a 45+ Asm who was a former SM who left the company and then returned and was placed at the ASM level. He didn't do the best job. Kinda lazy. He wasn't any worse then the other ASM that have came on gone at our store. The DM moved a kiss ass 19 year old new ASM from a store that wasn't earning an ASM. The DM let our 45+ ASM go during the ASM layoffs. Then transferred a 25 year old new ASM to our store from another district. The new ASM is dumb as dirt and lazy. He was the oldest ASM in our district by about 20 years.

[me]

Well favoritism is not quite an invention of Starbucks. this is unfortunately a nasty thing humans tend to do. So yes, this is happening everyday, everywhere.

But I highly doubt some mastermind in Seattle sat down and planned something like this. It is much rather the result of giving the wrong people jobs with some kind of power over other people.

Poeple in power almost always abuse it one way or another. So please stop bashing Starbucks for this.

The only thing Starbucks does wrong in this case is giving this apparently immature 20 something the SM role.
And please don't get me wrong. I've met a lot of capable SMs in their early twenties who did a good job.

And yes, I'm sure there will be stores with older people discriminating against youngsters, gay people against straight, the other way around, ethnic groups working against each other etc. But these are all not backed and especially not planned by corporate.

The reason more older people were let go during hte layoffs is, they were already more experienced and therefore more expensive.

[just one man]

How did they decide who was laid off?

[SOCalSM]

"But the discrimination goes further. It starts with the younger people giving poor training to older partners in an effort to chase them out of the company so a larger % of older workers are never given a chance to be tenured partners and it ends up so younger people are in control keeping the older workers at a minimum. If you look deeper this is causing the rot which is hurting starbucks now as you have less experience controlling the operations in the field and more inexperienced novices making too many important decisions."

Wow! That is a crazy conspiracy theory strech on your part. You're saying young partners are 1) hiring old people. 2) not training them well so they have more performance issues. 3) getting rid of them because of their performance issues.

So first, why would they hire them in the first place?! Just to avoid a lawsuit from turned away candidates? Sorry, all you have to do to not hire someone is say "we have filled the position already" or "we are going forward with another candidate". Second, who is this young colition of age discriminators? Third, you realize we have turnover goals to hit and this would make them impossible (and for most managers turnover is something their review and raise is dependant on) Fourth, in most cases you cannot terminate some one because their bad perfomance if it's based on bad training, you have to re-set expecations, coach, document, coach, document and then seperate.

[spence]

This site just keeps getting nuttier.

[BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL]

Stores were told they had to have a certain percentage of full time partner slots and the rest of the partners would be considered part-time. Eventually, partners would be phased out and who likes cranky old people anyway?

[Bouncing Barista]

Crema_the_crop

What about the 22 year old store manager?

[Java Joe]

This sounds like some BS!!! Do your job and you have nothing to worry about... That's very simple! :)

[SFASM]

As an ASM in San Francisco, I must say to this barista, please do not speak for our entire region. I have not heard a single thing about this, and I have never seen this kind of practice take place in any store that I have worked in. You are embarrassing everyone in the city.

[(former) FLA SM]

"This sounds like some BS!!! Do your job and you have nothing to worry about... That's very simple! :)"

Yeah, right. Tell it to all the employees let go from closing stores.

[BaristaINtheraw]

the older partners I've ever worked with were all slow leaners, they suck at multi tasking with drinks/warming pastries/brewing coffee etc.

Just saying.

It gets really annoying when you work in a cafe and your one other Barista is a 40+ green bean and you're stuck with them for a 4 hour mid! Ugh.

[Sara]

@ BaristaINtheraw

You're right. Anyone 40+ should be rounded up and shot, then have their organs harvested to save young people with diseases.

Old people have no place in this brave new world.

Go, Logan's Run!!!

[3 year partner]

I would agree with that (20 yr olds running the stores, the 30 yr olds let go). Obviously it's different store-to-store and district to district, but the 20-year old overhaul has made most of the older baristas leave by choice (out of disgust). Today was my last day actually.