so i have often wondered (as i am sure many of your reading this) just how starbucks could possible get into the top positions of fortune's 100 best companies to work for list year after year. did a little research and found some interesting things. such as they list all, including part time, as employees but only rate the company on the full time employees and their benefits.
did you know that starbucks is considered a best company to work for because they have "on-site" child care and "on-site" gym facilities!!
wow...can't imagine how i missed that when i worked there...oh yeah that is in the corporate offices in seattle...hhhmmmmmm. so much for the single mother who is trying to pay her bills and needs child care so she can work and doesn't get hired at corporate.
maybe it was the job sharing, telecommuting, and compressed work week that made my job so great...oh wait..that was in seattle too....no wonder i never got to take advantage of it. i would love to see ANY sm, asm, shift, or barista try to telecommute or compress their workweek.
oh and apparently there are no white males who work for the company because they have 35% minorities and 66% women...so that is 101% of the employees.
(by the way, before you say it parrotheadkrm, that was for effect. i know the percentages are crossed but the 33% and 65% are correct going by the information supplied by starbucks)
and yes they also have only a 13% voluntary turnover. that does not take into account the excellent employees that they force out of the company and also only includes full time employees.
god i love it when you get to skew the numbers to protect the "brand". (kinda of like when the government changes the rules about who can apply for unemployment benefits, thus disqualifying thousands, and then reports happily that the number of people applying for benefits has dropped! see the economy is doing just great! we can all relax now.)
oh and did i mention that they have a discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation (that they soundly ignore)?
and oh yeah they offer same sex partner benefits too. of course they prefer you don't take advantage of them so they charge too much for you to afford them with the low wages they pay many of the full time employees that don't work in the regional offices and above and almost every single one of the part time employees.
yep that adds up to #7 on fortune's top 100 companies to work for.
btw in case no one knows this, the information they collect to compile these numbers/ratings comes from..drum roll please...STARBUCKS! and we all know that they would NEVER EVER lie or distort the truth now would they.
and no i did not just pull this out of my ****.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/snapshots/7.html
about that #7 company to work for.
(7 posts) (3 voices)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
I have always wondered how they come up with these lists. I have worked for 2 of the companies on that list, and one of them was the worse job I ever had in my life (I have never worked for Starbucks), the other was ok, but nothing great. The company I work for now, in terms of job growth, benefits etc, is by FAR the best I have ever worked for, and it wasn't even mentioned.
Posted 5 years ago # -
my my was that parrotheadkrm being nice to me or at least not saying anything nasty! why thank you parrotheadkrm and for your kindness i will inform you why your company did not make the list.
To be eligible, an organization must meet all of the following requirements:
* Have a minimum of 1,000 regular full- and part-time U.S employees for the duration of the selection process. ("Regular" employees does not include temporary employees, interns etc.)
* Have been in operation for at least seven (7) years by the nomination deadline. If the organization existed in a different form (e.g. part of another company, under a different name) they are eligible to participate as long as there are employees who have been working at the company for seven years or more.
* Government agencies are not eligible. A governmental agency is defined as an arm of the government or an organization where any leaders are appointed by government official or are elected by the community.
If your organization is a private company or a non-profit whose leaders are appointed by government officials or elected by the public, this would make you ineligible.
* A company is not eligible if it is going through a merger/acquisition that adds 25% or more to their U.S. employee population at any time throughout the year in which the process occurs. Any company who has recently undergone a merger/acquisition that added 25% to their U.S. employee population must have closed on the merger/acquisition by the December before the nomination deadline (e.g., by December 31, 2006 to participate in the list published in January 2008). It is acceptable for a company to go through a divestment of any size during the process – as long as you inform us prior to the employee survey process in June.
* Companies must apply on behalf of the whole organization. In other words, subsidiaries of larger organizations are typically only eligible for participation along with the parent organization. For example, if a parent company owns two independently operating U.S. subsidiaries in the same industry, they will need to apply as the parent organization, including both subsidiaries. If a hospital is owned by a larger Health System, the Health System will need to apply as a whole, including all hospitals, nursing homes and any other entities that are owned by the larger organization.as you will note in item four a company going through an acquisition/merger that has an effect of change involving 25% or more of its employee base is considered ineligible. the bank's acquisition's of abn amro north america and lasalle bank would have had that effect on your employee base. until the bank ends its mergers and acquisitions it will continue to be ineligible. just thought you would like to know.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Imagine that, well wonders never cease!
Yeah, that would have to be the reason we aren't on the list. Then again, I have no reason to think that there are not 100 more companies out there better to work for then the bank, but I have a hard time believing Starbucks is one of them!
Posted 5 years ago # -
maybe boa just needs to make sure that when they get the surveys they get them "approved" by corporate. that is what starbucks does. they send out a voicemail telling employees what is and what is not acceptable answers for responding to the survey. the implication is that they will know who said differently than what was correct. and again the numbers get very skewed in the long run. 13% voluntary turnover?! get real. i remember them being happy if we got our turnover under 50% and that was also just for full time employees. a manager i know had 32 employees in one location (it was newly opened and had hired heavy knowing that many would not work out) and was told to reduce it to 12...and then got written up for having a lousy turnover rate! then she had three others leave because they where only hired for the summer (funny they failed to mention that guess they didn't want to get fired in the first round) and so had a lousy turnover rate again. they also hire for the holidays and count those against you when they leave as well...(if they don't voluntarily go they can't be hired back next season) so this manager actually almost lost her job because her turnover rate for the year was so bad, about 40%, but she was actually following the policies of the company. maybe they have a 13% turnover rate in corporate (of course with the changes in upper management and the outsourcing of hr, oh right! they didn't VOLUNTARILY leave...lol) that may change as well. the truth of the matter is simple. when they look at these companies to rate them they don't really go into the ground level to find out how they are to work for they are more concerned with the corporate level. they take the corporate info (biased as it is) and then add the surveys (and we all know how reliable surveys are) and come up with a list. it is a great concept though. i was once asked by a c.e.o. to tell him, if i knew so much about running a company, what the company's goal should be for the next year. i told him i could give him a one sentence goal that if he could fulfill he would make everyone happy from the bottom rung of the ladder employee to the top investment analyst on wall street. he laughed and said i was crazy. i looked him square in the eye and without blinking i told him the goal was simple "make the company #1 on fortune magazine's list of 100 best companies to work for in america." i must say the look of utter surprise and shock on his face was priceless. suddenly everyone else around, including many of his board members, were laughing and it was not at me. me, they applauded. even if you don't make it to the #1 position or even on the list it is a, excuse the corp speak, win win situation. you see from an investment point of view everyone likes a focused, soundly run, company. from a customer point of view everyone likes a smoothly run, well respected, company. from an employee point of view everyone likes to be working for company that truly gives a damn about them. investors, customers, employees, yep everyone covered and best of all everyone is a winner. and the crowd goes wild.
Posted 5 years ago # -
obxguy - where did you come from - you're great! and clearly smart - nice challenge for you parrotheadkrm :) - yeah I know it has been awhile - but I am back!
Posted 5 years ago # -
Freak! Welcome back!
PLease, don't encourage obxguy! It goes RIGHT to his head ;-) (kidding obx)
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.