He walked on water at Starbucks -- and then the bosses started hassling him

Dear Starbucks Gossip:

I worked for Starbucks for 12 years. Very loyal, always high reviews.

As far as my managers were concerned I pretty much walked on water.

I have had numerous health issues (cancer, hip replacement, radiation damage). My wife has had a bone marrow transplant and other issues.

I was at Starbucks simply for health insurance.

Last July they started hassling me, accused me of stealing, said they had proof and I could either quit or be arrested. They were certain that I would quit, they told my manager that I would not be back.

When I wouldn't confess to something that I had not done they had no proof and didn't quite know what to do. They put me back on the schedule. This was all done by the district manager and corporate.

The manager didn't know what to do but simply stayed out of it. (She was new.)

On several occasions she told other partners that she hoped she wouldn't have to fire me because I do a really good job and would be hard to replace.

She was told by the district manager to start a bag check policy, every night the closing shift was supposed to check my bag. No one else's just mine.

When I wouldn't quit the district manger showed up to give me my review. I got the worst score possible on everything. I asked for specifics and they had none.

A week later I was fired for not telling them someone else was stealing even though I had been telling them for 6 years!

I have proof of all of this.

Do you know of anyone else that has been through something like this?

SIGNED -- [NAME DELETED]

You can contact the letter writer at vertizon@aol.com

Comments

[jj]

the infamous "they".

go to partner resources, not starbucksgossip (no offence jim) to solve this obviously illegal - the way you tell it - tale.
if you do get fired from Starbucks after 5 years, you get a week's pay for every year you worked, so you'd be dismissed with at least 3 months pay - which is pretty sweet if you ask me...especially if you're being so harassed unfairly and illegally -- it's likely a better gig than what you were getting.

[Vertizon]

I don't know where you get your info but your wrong. You get your unused vacation pay and that's it!

[Toby]

Ummmm yeah JJ I think you have a little wrong info there.

[Sparky]

I agree with JJ in that if you actually had a legitimate concern you should be taking it up with partner services and getting a lawyer, not venting on this Gossip Page which is why my crap-detector is on overload with you dude. I'm sure there is much more to the tale that you are leaving out or are in complete denial about. I'm not saying the upper management at Starbucks are rocket-surgeons when it comes to HR but your tale sounds a bit contrived.

[Coffee Soldier]

What JJ is describing is the severance pay for a store/dept/position that closes/eliminated when the partner is laid off because they could not be relocated or hired to new store or to a different position.

Does not apply to someone being fired at all.

[TexMex]

Yeah, jj - show me where it says that. By law, as I understand it, they have to pay you any outstanding vacation hours and that's it.

[Vertizon]

I tried all the regular routes.
I tried Starbucks Partner Services for six weeks when it first started happening.
The responded to me with one message one time. I called them every sixth day(You are supposed to allow 5 days for them to respond.) for six weeks. It took them four months to send me my records. I tried to dispute the termination. And at first they sounded really interested and then would call and tell me in a very uncertain tone that they support the termination. I have a lawyer and am filing suit. I tried all the regular channels.

[Jj]

Last thing you should be doing is posting this on here! Your lawyer would probably say the same thing.

[actuary]

This is a tough one because legally a worker can be fired for any reason or no reason, unless you are a member of a protected class who has been discriminated against (age, race, gender, disability, etc).

Do you have any evidence you were fired because of your health situation or age? If so, you may have a case for disability discrimination. You will need a labor lawyer, because Starbucks has endless resources to fight against you.

Long-term partners are often happily gotten rid of because they cost more than new partners for essentially the same work. Best of luck on this one.

[Vertizon]

No harm in that.
Every single thing I have stated is factual and I have proof!

[That Guy]

Story sounrds a little wierd...
I wanted to seperate a partner a few years ago due to customer and partner complaints about attitude and overall performance. The partner happened to be deaf but the problems had nothing to do with him being deaf. I reached out to HR due to the sensetivity of the matter and they shot me down so hard. They didnt even want to entertain the idea. Maybe because we are in a very litigious state (guess which one) but I have a feeling there is more to this story... Either that or you are about to be a very rich man soon

[MrsP]

dude! it's starbucks.

go find another retail job.
mcd's has benefits, too.

[actuary]

That Guy,
Sbux has had several high-profile disability discrimination lawsuits that it settled. Firing a deaf guy is a terrible thing to do. Though you claim his bad performance had nothing to do with his deafness, it is hard to believe that you were making accommodation for him in order for him to do his job effectively. I bet your store helped to create a very tough working environment for him because, you know, a deaf person is unlucky enough to be unable to hear. Typically a deaf person is so grateful to have a job that he will do everything he can to keep that job. I have a feeling there is more to your story, too.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

There are many stories like yours at Starbucks. I know of a number of long-term "partners" that were terminated for poorly-constructed reasons (that seemingly came out of nowhere, after years of positive reviews) during the company's financial troubles in 2007 - 2008. The company saved a lot of money in severance costs. In most states, the "at-will" defense (employers allowed to fire their employees for the right reason, the wrong reson or no reason at all) will stand up, and you will only win a judgment if you are a member of a protected class. I hope you are not in one of those states or, if so, that you are in a protected class. Starbucks management & HR will not voluntarily review your complaint, although your attorney may be able to entice them to review it.

[Anon]

Are you a shift supervisor? I'm not sure why/how you could be fired for not reporting theft otherwise. Also, I don't understand the rampant theft issues where multiple partners are being accused of stealing. When you request your file, your manager typically has 5-10 business days to respond with faxing your complete file. When you request your file as part of an effort to dispute your termination, typically a manager only has 48 hrs to respond. I'm not sure how/why it took 4 months to get your file. Bag checks are usually applied uniformly to protect partners from being accused of discriminating. How do you know that no other partners had their bags checked? Lastly, when you refused to quit and "they" had no proof, did you sign a corrective action?

[That Guy]

@actuary
Obviously without knowing any sitsuation first hand there will be plot holes. My point was complaints were made by both customers and other partners about his attutude and performance in writing! Multiple write ups after write ups, etc... I was still told dont even think about it.

I actually liked the guy, he was an angel when I was there, complete different animal when I wasnt

[Amazing Grace]

Holy crap--just realized who That Guy was. Shocked and dismayed since SBUX has been holding you hostage with a carrot in front of your nose for years with still no movement...and the deaf girl definitely deserved to be fired, actually as I recall she was a parting gift from a low-performing ASM that got shipped off a few months later.

[actuary]

It is impossible to believe a deaf partner was accommodated appropriately. If this deaf partner -- who in one case was referred to as male and in another case as female -- is unable to hear, which is, um, a key characteristic of deafness, then it could very well be the case the write ups or any such problems are attributable to the fact that the managers and fellow partners don't understand how to communicate effectively with such a person.

I simply don't believe that customers can complain about a deaf partner's attitude because, you know, they cannot communicate by speaking. Deafness is a hidden disability so if they are complaining the deaf partner is ignoring them, that is not the deaf person's fault. I also don't believe that managers of low-paid retail employees really care enough to accommodate the person appropriately.

[That Guy]

Without giving away too many details and to retain a certain amount of anonymity on the internet. All I can say is it was very clear that the problems had nothing to do with the partner being deaf. It was all about how the partner acted with other partners on the floor and customers.

I have worked with 3 deaf partners in my career at Starbucks all of them were trained to read lips at an expert level or else they were not hirable as a barsita. We got away from the point I was making and people on this site want to just attack others as a first reaction. All I was saying was Starbucks is a big company been in business for many years and they wouldnt want to open themselves up to lawsuits. Whatever their problem was with you Im sure they had the ammo to support their decision

Good luck

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ That Guy:

The only "ammo" that Starbucks needs is the "at will" condition of employment that it includes in all of the company's offers of employment. Starbucks knows that it can fire any "partner" for the right reason, the wrong reason or no reason at all, as long as that "partner" is not in a protected class. The "at will" status of employees is the only defense Starbucks needs, and it is often the only defense that Starbucks has.

[That Guy]

@SBUX Alum Bill
Thank you, what’s your point?
You speak of protected class, well this person has a disability. What’s to stop him from Discrimination Complaint with the state or causing other types of legal headaches that whether or not he wins or loses this minimum wage partner will cost the company $10,000s in legal fees. They rather not deal with it is the feeling I got

[wasatec]

At will is far more limited then SBUX Alum Bill makes out. Especially in Wash state. You can't fire people for a wrong reason, unless you are prepared as an employer to fire every employee for that same reason. AT Will really means no reason. Once you provide a reason you must apply it uniformly and defend it. That is where companies get into trouble.

Unless this partner was actually arrested for theft and convicted(or admitted it) , then Starbucks cannot fire them for theft. Or it cannot claim to fire them for theft.

Did you sign anything during the meeting with your DM?

[Komodo]

it's more likely partner and asset protection approched the partner, along with a DM to discuss the situation. they may have suggested proof, but did not share proof.
They probably made it very convenient for the accused partner to sign paperwork resigning his position with the company.
And as for the deaf partner- people with disabilities are also expected to perform to a minimum level of expecation. Having a disability does not exlude them from performing to this level.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ wasatec:

"At will" in Washington State is a defense against termination for the any reason, even if the reason is wrong, as long as that reason is not illegal (i.e., discrimination or retaliation against whistle-blowers).

@ That Guy: If the employee that wrote the article is disabled, he may be able to prevail. I did not see anytthing in this thread indicating that he was disabled, only that he was involved in the termination of someone else who was disabled. Apologies if I misunderstood.

[Ms. Barista]

At my Starbucks (I no longer work at Starbucks) it was made clear that older employees were not appreciated and definitely not wanted. We (since there was more than one over 50 person at my store) were constantly being told we were too slow although there were many younger employees slower than us. We all seemed to be working while everyone else was standing around texting all day. Yes, the manager was (and still is) a problem.
This went all the way up to corporate and we were always being told there was no age discrimination. Favoritism was rampant. Some partners barely had to stand at the register while others had to work their tails off.
I've worked under five different managers and who your manager is makes all the difference. Unfortunately, most of the ones I worked under were horrible. They seemed to think their promotion to manager meant they could now spend their time making personal phone calls ALL day.

[Bob Barista]

I'm a tenured Partner as well, and I'm starting to feel pressure. I went through all the normal steps of moving up (Barista, Shift Lead, ASM) then got screwed and ever since then I've had to restart from square one (Barista). I was starting to think the company I've worked my ass off for 12 years changed and I didn't learn to adapt. If I could tell myself one thing as I started Starbucks 12 years ago, it was be "go to school" and "don't trust anyone."

[Coco]

To me the statement "I work at Starbucks for the benefits" pretty much speaks for itself. I would hope that people work at Starbucks because it's a good company to work for AND they offer great benefits. If not, they should find another job! How can someone be really invested as a partner when they are only there for the benefits? Starbucks should restructure their benefit package to prevent people from getting a job just for insurance.

[Smtom]

There is two sides to every story! I'm not saying they didn't single you out, but if you were walking on water then why would this happen. Your not telling something. There isn't a reason to start picking on your "walking on water" partner for NO reason. Just saying. You know what you did you just don't want to tell us.

[Vertizon]

Coco,
I worked at Starbucks because they gave me benefits for part time work. With my health history (Cancer and radiation damage) and my wife's health history(Cancer bone marrow transplant) Heath insurance meant the world to me. Almost my entire paycheck went to pay for my insurance but I was much more invested as a partner then most. Insurance is part of your paycheck. You think they should prevent people from getting a job because they need insurance, How bizarre!

[Vertizon]

Smtom,
I believe I know exactly what I did.
I cost too much in terms of my medical bills.
Get it!

[wannabe]

@Coco,
People work at Starbucks for many different reasons. Who are you to say it should be because it's a great company etc...? @Vertizon. I believe every single word you've written. Given my experiences working there. This sounds right in line with how this company operates. I stand behind you 100% on your lawsuit.

[actuary]

Coco,

The U.S. system of health care is currently based on medical benefits granted by an employer. Maybe you are not aware of this, but the whole medical benefits issue is the single biggest topic of Obama's term of office.

You have it backwards. People are MORE invested as a partner when they are there for the benefits, which is the one thing that sets Starbucks apart from all other similar low-wage retail or fast-food employers. People can get a minimum wage job anywhere. They cannot get a minimum wage job with benefits anywhere.

In fact, Starbucks offers benefits because it wants to attract good people and wants to keep them healthy. Perhaps you are unaware of the story of Howard Schultz, whose father slipped on the ice and lost his job as a diaper truck driver, leaving the family with no income and no benefits. Howard says he did not want to be responsible for such a situation himself, and therefore as an employer he felt it was important to take care of his employees with medical benefits.

In practice this is not so simple of course. Starbucks is a flawed employer just like any other. It prefers high turnover because new employees are cheaper than long-term employees.

You seem to think that partners should be more invested in the job because of....what, exactly? Because it's a "good company to work for"? I have no idea what that means. Is it a good company to work for because of the high hourly wage? Because of the casual dress code? The attractive apron? The free beverages? The opportunity to learn techniques for cleaning public bathrooms?

You seem to believe that one's motivation to work for a company must be judged before the company gives them a job.

[The Moar You Know]

Alum Bill:

"I know of a number of long-term "partners" that were terminated for poorly-constructed reasons (that seemingly came out of nowhere, after years of positive reviews) during the company's financial troubles in 2007 - 2008. The company saved a lot of money in severance costs."

Same thing happened in 2000-2002. No financial troubles then, that one was just nothing but greed. When they couldn't nail them on a performance issue, they just transferred them to a store fifty miles away.

[suziecoffee]

i thought i was in a bad district. my dm and rm tried to force me to fire a handicapped man that had worked for the company for years and was loyal and kind and fun. he was slow, but he was valued. i couldn't do it. then i started getting bad reviews and picked on about petty things. one of my employees wore nail polish one day. jeez, i think it was in the new york times the way they got on me.
starbucks dms and rms get away with alot of stuff.