this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
1012 points (99.0% liked)

Memes

45489 readers
635 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 86 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't think they're allowed to eat the cake anymore. They have to throw it all away at the end of the day instead.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 56 points 2 months ago

And cover it in bleach, just to make sure it's completely safe from being consumed for free, shareholders forbid.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Probably depends on the store, but I think most of them usually give the unsold baked goods to the employees every day, or whatever day they're due to be marked out. My buddy has been at Starbucks for years, and he always has treats after a closing shift.

[–] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Anecdotal, but from what I've seen from the few stores I know about, they either have a donation program set up where somebody picks stuff up and takes elsewhere (probably homeless shelters and hospitals?) or managers let employees snatch stuff up before it gets to the trash can. Most employees are pretty fucking sick of the food after working there a few months, but neighbors and workers near the location always appreciate a bag full of free goodies once in a while.

[–] Donebrach@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I worked at Starbucks about a decade ago and it was ~a special treat~ when we were allowed to take a very small portion of the marked off goods but we had to make sure to throw most of it out least an internal audit show we were (mind you) not selling enough versus the actual problem of wasting untold amounts of food. Fucking disgusting operation.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 78 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When my wife worked there, there was so much anti-union training. I can only conclude that unions are good.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Unions are a way to resolve long term labor disputes without large scale vandalism and homicide, because throughout history angry desperate men have always done desperate things. It's a lesson usually learned the hard way.

[–] ampersandcastles@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 months ago

If unions didn't work, corporations wouldn't spend millions on anti-union propaganda annually.

The free market would simply make them useless.

But they aren't useless as we can tell from the capitalist class.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 55 points 2 months ago (6 children)

That three people downvoted this (so far) really shows how behind we are as a society. Why anyone would dislike calling out a multi-millionaire for flying a private jet unnecessarily is beyond me. We don’t live in the same reality.

[–] bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Hey man those 3 people are almost millionaires. As soon as their crypto drops they'll be in the same boat as the Starbucks CEO!

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They'd already be a millionaire if it weren't for the welfare queens and all the immigrants stealing their jobs/benefits!

/s in case it was obvious enough

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

na unlike that loser they don’t have to commute from their bed to the fridge!

[–] klemptor@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago

Great, so instead of Joe the Plumber we get Joe the Crypto Bro. Cool, cool.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

You probably didn't mean it, but your comment implies there are also necessary uses for private jets lol

[–] davad@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

It's hard to prove the blanket statement, "there are no good reasons to have a private jet." But it's easy to prove, "one overpaid person taking a private jet to commute 1000 miles is frivolous."

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Easy arguement life saving supplies like organ donation or an expert surgeon. Harder argument world leaders like president. I don't agree with that one presidents shouldn't be above us.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Emergency charter are not the same as a "personal jet used by CEO", but I get what you're saying.

The core issue is really that the wasteful uses of this amazing technology (flight) far far far outnumber the useful ones.

Its REDUCE, Reuse, and recycle.

We need to reduce and eliminate wasteful consumption. Not throw useful tools out with the bath water (to butcher an analogy)

[–] Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I downvoted, not due to any disagreement towards the politics, but just because the memecraft on display here is abyssmal.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 months ago

Ok, I can get behind that.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago

"Sir/Madam...this is 'memes'" is prolly why lol. It makes a good point tho.

[–] assa123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

Four people by now. Maybe is not that they disagree but ended downvoting by accident.

[–] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How the hell did shareholders even allow such a ridiculous thing? If I owned shares at Starbucks I’d be livid

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Because "he did good at Chipotle he do gud here"

And when the expenses for his commute get too high, they just lay off a shitton of employees so the quarterly bottom line looks good.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

Working there? Sometimes there's no choice. Buying anything there? Definitely a choice.

[–] whyalone@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago

The ones who will suffer will be the employee, someone has to pay for this nonsense and it will definitely not be shareholders or him