Working at Starbucks

Beyond the green apron

Photo by Athar Khan on Unsplash

When I was growing up, everyone worked at McDonald’s. It was an American rite. Or, at least, it was a common American experience. I’m sure that McDonald’s still employs millions. But there came a time when everyone worked at Starbucks. That was—is, I think—a common American experience.

May I pause for a language note, even so early in this column? From what I gather, the official name of the burger chain is “McDonald’s”—with the apostrophe ess—and the official name of the coffee chain is “Starbucks,” with no apostrophe.

What is the plural of “McDonald’s”? “McDonald’ses”? “This town has three McDonald’ses”? How about “Starbucks”? What about “Mercedes”? Over the years, I have found myself writing “Mercedes-Benzes,” to skirt the issue.

Last month, a news story caught my eye, and I would like to quote it at some length, as I will then quote one man’s reaction to it.

Here we go:

Starbucks workers in three states took legal action against the coffee giant Wednesday, saying it violated the law when it changed its dress code but refused to reimburse employees who had to buy new clothes.

I will skip ahead a bit:

Starbucks didn’t comment directly on the lawsuits Wednesday, but the company said it simplified its dress code to deliver a more consistent experience to customers and give its employees clearer guidance.

“As part of this change, and to ensure our partners were prepared, partners received two shirts at no cost,” the company said Wednesday. Starbucks refers to its employees as “partners.”

Oh, please. You’re a partner in a law firm (if you’re lucky) (or very talented and/or hard-working) (and even then, you may have to be lucky, too). I’m not sure it’s necessary to pretty up “employee” with “partner.” But maybe I’m wrong.

The article continues,

Starbucks’ new dress code went into effect on May 12.

Hang on, I’m pausing for another language note: “Starbucks’ new dress code”—is that the way you would write it? If “Starbucks” is the name of the company, I would say “Starbucks’s new dress code,” as I would say “Charles’s birthday” (being an old Strunk & White guy).

(Years ago, Florence King got upset at her editor, my colleague David Klinghoffer, for insisting on an apostrophe ess in this or that instance. She called him an “apostrophe-ess hole.”)

To return to the news story:

Starbucks’ new dress code went into effect on May 12. It requires all workers in North America to wear a solid black shirt with short or long sleeves under their green aprons. Shirts may or may not have collars, but they must cover the midriff and armpits.

Oh, hell, yes. (But I am not supposed to be giving commentary today.)

Employees must wear khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms without patterns or frayed hems, or solid black dresses that are not more than four inches above the knee. ...

Starbucks said in April that the new dress code would make employees’ green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity for customers. It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its stores.

I sent the story—the news report—to three beloved friends of mine: the Hill brothers, who come from Gaffney, South Carolina. They are the sons of my beloved friends Chip and Karen, who are musicians. (The three sons are, too.) I thought that two of the three sons worked at Starbucks in the past, or maybe all three did.

Anyway, I got an extensive response from the middle Hill, Gabriel, which I will share with you now (with Gabe’s permission, of course). I don’t say that Gabe is the last word on the subject. I do say that he is a very interesting word, and I am pleased to turn my column over to him:

I worked at Starbucks for about three years. I think the first thing that must be mentioned is that it is hard work. There’s a stigma about this type of job, as such labor is often referred to as “unskilled.” I don’t disagree with this. I think just about anyone can make a cup of coffee and learn how to make lattes and cappuccinos and even (god forbid) frappuccinos. But I didn’t say it was skilled work, I said it was hard work, and it is.

Workers at stores with drive-thrus, even in a town as small as Gaffney, are expected to keep drive-thru times at one minute maximum. That means, from the time the car pulls up to the window to pay, we have one minute to get them their drink and get them out of there. This translates to 60 cars an hour, doesn’t matter what they ordered. A car with just a white mocha placed an order? Better get them out of there in 30 seconds, because the next car may very well place an order of three frappuccinos, a few pastries, and maybe even a breakfast sandwich, and none of that changes the maximum of one minute per car.

I’m a public-school teacher now. I’m good at what I do. I’m a skilled worker. Not everyone can control a room filled with middle-schoolers who all want to burst out with whatever just popped into their developing minds while I’m in the middle of a sentence. To top it off, I run three different after-school clubs and teach private lessons on Saturdays. But in the four years I’ve been teaching, I have never felt anything close to the physical exhaustion that came with those Starbucks shifts. Even if Starbucks were to pay a little more than teaching, I would take teaching any day, not just for the love of it, but because it’s easier.

When I started at Starbucks, the dress code was simple:

(1) Shirt doesn’t need a collar, but avoid T-shirts.

(2) No graphics on the shirt. Color patterns okay, but no graphics.

(3) “Fall” colors, if I remember correctly. No neons or anything like that.

(4) No sweatpants, and shorts are to the knee.

I could understand these dress-code ideas. Look halfway decent so that people getting their food from you will feel like the environment is clean. Because the dress code was so open, most people had the clothes necessary to work the job. I mean, they had them already.

Starbucks has new ideas about a dress code now. Two solid-black shirts are being given to employees. If I were currently working at Starbucks, this would upset me, and here’s why:

(1) You can’t finish a Starbucks shift in clean clothes. It isn’t possible. Even in a four-hour shift, you will get sweaty, you will get coffee splashed on you, and you will smell like work. You can’t wear the same shirt for two days at Starbucks and call yourself hygienic.

(2) Again, Starbucks is really hard work, and they don’t pay you much. I know they pay more now, but at the end of the day, it isn’t enough to live on. My personal opinion is that if a job doesn’t pay enough to sustain an individual in a decent life, it shouldn’t count towards employment numbers, but leaving that aside, if you aren’t paying them enough to live on, you aren’t paying them enough to force them to go shopping either.

I make a good deal more than Starbucks employees, and I don’t do much clothes-shopping, because it isn’t in my budget. I can’t imagine it’s in theirs. If a company is going to force you to wear a specific thing, it should pay for that thing (and two free shirts won’t cut it).

In sum, employees at Starbucks work like dogs. Telling them that some of their paycheck now has to go to what amounts to a company uniform is, in my opinion, horribly inappropriate.

Thank you, Gabriel Farah Hill, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. All the best to you and have a good week (Starbucks “partners” especially, I would say!).