Employees at Starbucks on Army base accused of stealing drinks, pastries

Employees of the Army and Air Force Exchange Services-operated Starbucks say their bosses (AAFES) secretly videotaped them and accused them of stealing beverages and pastries on the job. AAFES says the baristas now owe money to the Starbucks licensee; the amounts range from $3.75 to $13,951. Read the story, then comment if you want. Or discuss anything else Starbucks-related in the OPEN THREAD.

Comments

[Seadanes]

This is not Starbucks, it's a licensee.

[Redacted]

This is not going to end well.

Sounds like some Little Caesar in "Loss Prevention" is trying to show their power by making enforcement of two sets of "rules" a lose-lose for the employees.

It is also not clear that the installation of the temporary surveillance camera was within the rules, and depending on the State it could have violated State Laws if not authorized by a Judge.

[Starbucks Gossip webmaster]

Seadanes -- that's made clear in the summary.

[barista]

After actually reading it, this makes more sense. The summary kinda sounds like the baristas were stealing mass quantities of pasteries and drinks, but the article implies it was basic on-shift free drinks and pastery sampling combined with an unstable beverage policy.

[Just a Barista]

I read this article and was somewhat puzzled by a "Starbucks" policy of one drink per shift. Perhaps I misunderstood whether they were speaking of Starbucks licensees. In my regular Starbucks store, baristas have more than one drink on shift every day. Did I miss something?

[Heather]

I worked at a corporately owned Starbucks for two years, then later worked at a licensed AAFES owned Starbucks at Fort Eustis, VA. In November, I and six other employees were forced to resign or be fired for this same type of employee "theft."
I had been told by my supervisors and my manager that we were allowed to sample beverages in one ounce sample cups, but not to drink actual entire beverages on the shift. The employee drink policy as we understood it was that we got a fifty percent discount on all products while we were working and only while we were working.
So we were pulled into loss prevention offices, told that we had been secretly taped (which is illegal in many states, but not on military bases, yay for us) and that we had been witnessed "stealing" drinks. In my case, the loss prevention people told me that they knew I had only taken sample cups, but that it was still stealing. We were told that we had to sign promissory notes or be fired, paying back AAFES for the amount that they calculated we owed. This amount was not decided based on the actual video evidence, but through a forced "confession," in which they goaded employees into admitting that they were guilty of "stealing" at least one beverage a day for every single day they worked. (They said that if you were guilty of taking two or three sample cups on one day, then you must be guilty of doing the same thing every day.) Then they calculated the days the employee worked, multiplied it by the drink total, and charged us the resulting sums. I was not initially forced to resign, but a week later I was called into the AAFES general manager's office and told that I was an untrustworthy employee and that I would resign or be fired. Then I was escorted out of the store. It was one of the most humiliating days of my life.

Since then, I realized that this policy of "loss prevention" works in AAFES's favor by charging employees for trumped up "stolen" products, and denying them of any tenure or benefits. Then they hire an entirely new round of employees and start again. Their goal is not to prevent theft, but to provide ample opportunities for it, and to redefine it so that everyone is guilty. (Every single person with the exception of the store manager that I worked with was charged money under this policy. Do you really think we were all thieves?)

I am still incredibly angry. And I hope that Starbucks reviews how AAFES treats its employees and decides to pull their licenses from AAFES stores.

[Confused as always]

6 comments must be a new low for an OPEN THREAD. Come on, folks! There is Sbux news out there!

The cherry pies are gonna sell like hotcakes!!

[drive]

I cannot comment because Heather's tale has left me absolutely speechless.

It is sick that her company is treating its employees this way.

[BaristaSteve]

I worked @ various SBUX corp stores for 8 years. The employee theft of every sort was astronomical. I still kick myself 4 not taking the blendtec when I had the chance. lol

[Starbucks Gossip webmaster]

I heard a barista say today that there's a buy-one-Mocha on Valentine's Day and get one free. Is this a national promotion?

[Swabnthedeck]

Webmaster - its a mocha or hot chocolate, we partners have these Starbucks Valentines cards to give out to select special customers that have the by one get one free offer on it. Only the customers that received the card are supposed to get the deal-

[Starbucks Gossip webmaster]

Swbnthedeck-- I heard her tell a customer it was mocha.

[Barista]

The promotion includes mocha and hot chocolate (Swabnthedeck wasn't saying "or" as in "I'm not sure", he/she was saying "or" as in "choice of either")

[George]

As this is an open thread... does anyone know - if a barista quits and is entered into the system as nonrehirable for quitting w/o giving notice - is that for a specific district, state, or is it company wide? Does that ever go away after a certain number of years? Also - is it a mandate or just a "suggestion," in other words could I go to a new store manager and explain the situation as to why I quit without notice and have them hire me? Thanks

[Heather]

It is company wide. I don't know if it goes away after a number of years, but I do know that it is more of a "suggestion" than a complete bar from rehire. If you talk to a manager, explain the situation, and admit any mistakes, they can overturn the decision.

[George]

Thanks heather. Loved my job for five years... No corrective actions in all that time and perfect attendance, but sudden health issues caused me to throw in the towel. Hated to do it like that. My manager was PO'd (understandably) and i'm sure did whatever she could to make sure i can't come back. But I'd love to know I didn't screw myself out of ever working for the company again sometime in the future.

[drive]

George, if you had to quit because of health issues and sbucks is retaliating by putting you on the "not eligible for rehire" list, you can sue for disability discrimination.

[Sgt Jones]

They gave you a place of employment and said a sample, not one free meal a day. Be realistic and think of from an owners stand point. 9 employees times $5-10 per day can add up.

[FedCoffeeDrinker]

Folks should also remember that AAFES employees are federal employees. Within the first year a a new civil service employee without career tenure you can easily be removed without much cause. I agree with Heather's assessment...this sounds very much like keeping costs low.

[jadedbarista]

holy bejeezus this is insane. i worked at the andrews afb starbucks and the exact same thing happened. i was hired in because they fired everyone before me for theft, forcing them to sign promissory notes. aafes is a horrible company. the only job i've walked out on without a 2 weeks notice. totally worth it.