not so fast, with the Starbucks love...

[mominatrix]

Starbucks Fires Employee on Food Stamps for Eating a Sandwich from the Garbage
posted by ANNA MINARD on TUE, AUG 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM
Coulson Loptmann was fired from Starbucks for eating a sandwich. Hes on food stamps.
GOOD JOBS SEATTLE
Coulson Loptmann



Last Monday, 21-year-old barista Coulson Loptmann was fired from a downtown Seattle Starbucks where he’d worked for more than a year. The reason? He ate a sandwich that had been thrown away. Really. Like most cafes, the coffee giant gets rid of food that has expired; they donate what they can and toss the more perishable items.

Loptmann, who says he couldn’t get enough hours to pay his bills and survives partly on his food stamps, explains, “I hadn’t eaten all day and I was on a seven-hour shift.” A coworker had just marked some breakfast sandwiches out of stock, and he figured no one would mind if he grabbed one of the plastic-wrapped sausage sandwiches out of the trash can.

But Starbucks did mind. According to Loptmann, his manager sat him down a week later and told him she’d found out about the sandwich and contacted HR, “and they consider it stealing, and it’s against policy. So I’m sorry, but I have to terminate you.” She fired him on the spot.

The incident comes up just as fast-food workers prepare for another strike this Thursday—and this time, they're asking baristas to join them. Seattle's fast-food walkouts this spring were extraordinarily successful, shutting down multiple restaurants, and this week, organizers for Good Jobs Seattle are encouraging low-wage workers in coffee shops to join the national push for a $15 an hour minimum wage.

For the company's part, Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson says that while they can’t comment on individual employees for privacy reasons, he can confirm that “it is a violation of our policy to consume marked-out products." But he says it’s not considered stealing—it’s for the employees’ own good. “We do not want our partners to consume potentially spoiled products and get sick.” Could someone be fired for breaking the policy? I asked. “In general,” says Hutson, “a partner would not be separated for a single, minor infraction like violating this policy. However, a partner could be separated for an infraction like this if it was the culmination of broader, ongoing performance issues.”

In other words: Yes, it is entirely possible for a Starbucks worker on food stamps to be fired (err, “separated”) for eating a sandwich out of the trash.

Loptmann insists he didn't have any "ongoing performance issues" before the incident or problems with his manager. “The coworkers and my manager were actually really great,” he says. Loptmann insists the policy he was taught "never says anything about don’t eat it," and that his manager cited stealing, not his own health and safety, as the reason for termination. "I understand completely they don’t want someone to mark something out just to eat it," says Loptmann. "I didn’t mark it out, someone else did." Of his manager, he says charitably, “It’s not her fault… She knows what it’s like. But she can’t do anything… These were the policies put in place by people who actually have power.”

Loptmann had been hired in 2012 as a close-to-full-time employee, he says, but after a couple of months, his hours started disappearing. Soon he was working anywhere between 23 and 32 hours a week, for $9.94 an hour plus about $30 a week in tips, with a schedule he calls “extremely variable.” Even if he was scheduled, he could still be sent home if the store got slow.

Loptmann says he had to get food stamps to make ends meet, and scraping up enough for lunch every day was still hard. “It sounds ridiculous, but having bread and mustard and mayonnaise and some kind of meat and lettuce—it doesn’t sound expensive, but that adds up… There were some days where I lived off of Starbucks food.” He got a 30 percent discount and a couple of free coffees a day.

The day of the sandwich incident, he says, his coworker was marking sandwiches out of stock and throwing them away. “She said, ‘What a waste, huh?’” remembers Loptmann. “And she tossed it in the garbage. I figured, it’s in plastic, it’s fine. So I reached in and grabbed it.”

As for scheduling concerns, Hutson says that’s “based on partner availability and the needs of the store,” and that employees can indeed be sent home when the store is slow, though they’ll be “paid a minimum number of hours.” But, Hutson continues, “most of our store partners work at Starbucks because they want to work part time. They appreciate the flexibility and the fact that they’re still able to take advantage of the benefits we offer.”

Still, those benefits are cold comfort to low-wage workers. “In every low-wage job that I have worked, the health insurance has been offered more as a novelty," says Subway worker Caroline Durocher, one of the strike organizers trying to recruit baristas. "Because it's too expensive for anyone to afford. It’s more so they can say they offer it." Loptmann was paying for health insurance, but that only made it harder to afford other things—like food.

He says he'll be supporting the striking works this Thursday as he looks for a new job.

What does Starbucks think of the upcoming protests? “We support the intent of various efforts to ensure that working Americans earn a decent and competitive wage,” says Starbucks' Hutson. At the same time, he acknowledges that raising the minimum wage would have “potential impact to businesses."


slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/08/27/starbucks-fires-employee-on-food-stamps-for-eating-a-sandwich-from-the-garbage

[pixy0stix]

The guy was stupid in that he didn't stash it somewhere and eat it later. It's a violation of policy, what else are they supposed to do?

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2013 16:38:39 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

The guy was stupid in that he didn't stash it somewhere and eat it later. It's a violation of policy, what else are they supposed to do?

The manager says he was stealing, but the Sbux spokesman said he wasn't. So it depends on which one of them is right.

It doesn't look like they necessarily had to fire him, according to the spokesman: he can confirm that “it is a violation of our policy to consume marked-out products." But he says it’s not considered stealing—it’s for the employees’ own good. “We do not want our partners to consume potentially spoiled products and get sick.” 
Could someone be fired for breaking the policy? I asked. “In general,” says Hutson, “a partner would not be separated for a single, minor infraction like violating this policy. However, a partner could be separated for an infraction like this if it was the culmination of broader, ongoing performance issues.” As far as I can tell from the article, the policy doesn't require termination over one occurrence if that occurrence doesn't count as stealing.

That said, it is possible that there was a broader, ongoing issue - we just don't know. But given the ambiguity here and the fact that the poor dude was on food stamps, I'm not jumping straight to "But they had to fire him" just yet. 

[LoveTrains]

Poor guy.

How sad that people that work still have to be on food stamps.

[zelda25]

I'm not shocked at all that a company would fire an employee for taking marked-out food. I find it more suprising that anyone would be surprised by this.

On a totally unrelated note, corporate euphemisms make me ragey. The spokesperson's insistence on referring to the dude as a "partner" who was "separated" instead of an employee who was fired is just grating and weird.

[statlerwaldorf]

When I worked at McDonald's, you would get written up for it. I don't think they would fire you for one write up, but after so many write ups they would fire people. One pregnant girl got fired for eating chicken nuggets on the clock, but it was not her first warning.

During the busy lunch and dinner times, we would make extra popular sandwiches to help get everyone through the line faster. After the rush, we would always have perfectly good food we would have to mark out and throw away. All of the trays of food would expire at some point and be thrown out too. I guess they wanted to avoid employees purposely making extra food in order to eat it. Most of the employees made less than $6/hr and had families to support. Some of them received WIC or food stamps, but it was never much. I'm sure some employees were going hungry.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2013 17:08:48 GMT -5 statlerwaldorf said:

During the busy lunch and dinner times, we would make extra popular sandwiches to help get everyone through the line faster. After the rush, we would always have perfectly good food we would have to mark out and throw away. All of the trays of food would expire at some point and be thrown out too. I guess they wanted to avoid employees purposely making extra food in order to eat it. Most of the employees made less than $6/hr and had families to support. Some of them received WIC or food stamps, but it was never much. I'm sure some employees were going hungry.

Yep, this was always the reason when I worked in places with food. When I worked at a movie theatre, we would have to write off boxes of candy with ripped boxes that were, otherwise, perfectly fine. We weren't allowed to eat any, though (although lots of "sneaking" of this food happened, anyway)

[ttt]

I find it really hard to believe that his manager couldn't have looked the other way if she wanted to.

[pedanticwench]

Aug 27, 2013 17:08:48 GMT -5 statlerwaldorf said:

During the busy lunch and dinner times, we would make extra popular sandwiches to help get everyone through the line faster. After the rush, we would always have perfectly good food we would have to mark out and throw away. All of the trays of food would expire at some point and be thrown out too. I guess they wanted to avoid employees purposely making extra food in order to eat it. Most of the employees made less than $6/hr and had families to support. Some of them received WIC or food stamps, but it was never much. I'm sure some employees were going hungry.

This is heartbreaking. Fuck.

[meshaliuknits]

We used to eat leftover mini hashbrowns on the clock with the manager. Permissive BK I guess.

I feel terrible for the guy, though, regardless though. Thats a terrible position to be in.

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2013 17:00:50 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

I'm not shocked at all that a company would fire an employee for taking marked-out food. I find it more suprising that anyone would be surprised by this.

On a totally unrelated note, corporate euphemisms make me ragey. The spokesperson's insistence on referring to the dude as a "partner" who was "separated" instead of an employee who was fired is just grating and weird.

It's some weird trend. A few weeks ago I had to call customer service for a major retailer over a missing item in an online order. The customer service rep kept referring to relaying information to someone else as "reaching out". "Yes, ma'am, I will reach out to the mailing center to find out why your item wasn't packed'. "I will have to reach out to my superiors to find out if we can send you a replacement item"

[zelda25]

Aug 27, 2013 17:17:42 GMT -5 ttt said:

I find it really hard to believe that his manager couldn't have looked the other way if she wanted to.

We're never going to get the whole story--all we know is what the fired employee says--the company itself will never publicly say if there were other issues at play. I half-suspect that the spokesperson saying that it's possible for this kind of offense to end in firing IF it were part of a larger pattern of problems is their way of saying, "dude was a hot mess, but we can't talk about that, sooooo..."

[statlerwaldorf]

Aug 27, 2013 17:21:17 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

We used to eat leftover mini hashbrowns on the clock with the manager. Permissive BK I guess.

I used to work overnight at a gas station next to a BK and they'd always bring us extra food after they closed.

[darnkatz]

My H used to work for Starbucks. At one point, they were giving the homeless guys in the alley the expired food. Their district manager caught them and said she would fire all of them if they didn't stop. Lovely, no?

Also, he was working full time as a shift manager, and we were still in need of food stamps. With me working full time as well. Good times! Starbucks sucks.

[sushi]

Aug 27, 2013 17:32:22 GMT -5 darnkatz said:

My H used to work for Starbucks. At one point, they were giving the homeless guys in the alley the expired food. Their district manager caught them and said she would fire all of them if they didn't stop. Lovely, no?

Also, he was working full time as a shift manager, and we were still in need of food stamps. With me working full time as well. Good times! Starbucks sucks.

It's a liability. A friend of mine was a starbucks partner and eventually became a store manager. He hated that he couldn't give the food to all the homeless folks around, but he understood and respected the legal reasons behind it.

[meshaliuknits]

Aug 27, 2013 17:37:58 GMT -5 sushi said:

Aug 27, 2013 17:32:22 GMT -5 darnkatz said:

My H used to work for Starbucks. At one point, they were giving the homeless guys in the alley the expired food. Their district manager caught them and said she would fire all of them if they didn't stop. Lovely, no?

Also, he was working full time as a shift manager, and we were still in need of food stamps. With me working full time as well. Good times! Starbucks sucks.

It's a liability. A friend of mine was a starbucks partner and eventually became a store manager. He hated that he couldn't give the food to all the homeless folks around, but he understood and respected the legal reasons behind it.

Do they have a euphamisim for that?

[ttt]

Aug 27, 2013 17:32:22 GMT -5 darnkatz said:

My H used to work for Starbucks. At one point, they were giving the homeless guys in the alley the expired food. Their district manager caught them and said she would fire all of them if they didn't stop. Lovely, no?

Also, he was working full time as a shift manager, and we were still in need of food stamps. With me working full time as well. Good times! Starbucks sucks.

I can kind of see their point about expired food, that someone can get sick and turn around and sue Starbucks.

But not paying enough full time to keep you off food stamps... That just sucks

[redheadbaker]

It's a liability for them if someone gets sick.

When I went to culinary school, we weren't allowed to take home any of the food we made in class for the same reason.

[statlerwaldorf]

The Salvation Army runs a special food pantry just from left overs from local restaurants. They get all sorts of food like pizza, pasta, frozen soups, etc. I know Pizza Hut and Olive Garden are two of the donors. I always thought that was a great idea. They freeze most of it to keep it from spoiling.

[darnkatz]

Aug 27, 2013 17:39:58 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 27, 2013 17:32:22 GMT -5 darnkatz said:

My H used to work for Starbucks. At one point, they were giving the homeless guys in the alley the expired food. Their district manager caught them and said she would fire all of them if they didn't stop. Lovely, no?

Also, he was working full time as a shift manager, and we were still in need of food stamps. With me working full time as well. Good times! Starbucks sucks.

I can kind of see their point about expired food, that someone can get sick and turn around and sue Starbucks.

But not paying enough full time to keep you off food stamps... That just sucks

Yeah, I logically understand the reasoning, but it was still ridiculous. 

And yep. $10/hour! Isn't that awesome? In a HCOL area.

[sushi]

Aug 27, 2013 17:41:00 GMT -5 statlerwaldorf said:

The Salvation Army runs a special food pantry just from left overs from local restaurants. They get all sorts of food like pizza, pasta, frozen soups, etc. I know Pizza Hut and Olive Garden are two of the donors. I always thought that was a great idea. They freeze most of it to keep it from spoiling.

Yeah, the sbux where my friend worked was eventually able to hook up with a program like that which apparently absolved them of the liability.

I think he made over $12/hr as a shift supervisor, but he was single at the time, so he lived pretty comfortably on that.

[zelda25]

So. Not only are we assuming a LOT about this individual based on a story that presumably is a story because he made it so, but we also expect this particular company to feed the homeless AND keep all of their employees working 40 hours/week AND continue its relatively generous benefits package? How does that work?

Look, I agree that as a country, our values and priorities suck balls (profits over people and all that), but I'm more than a little weirded out that we're all "Dude is a victim!" and "Starbucks is the enemy!"

It's not.

[Deleted]

I worked at Starbucks at one time and the managers gave us tons of marked out food. Tons. It was awesome. I'm surprised this is the policy, because where I worked, everyone took the food and the managers willingly gave it to us.

Eta: they also donated it to food shelters.

[mouse]

Aug 27, 2013 17:47:01 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

So. Not only are we assuming a LOT about this individual based on a story that presumably is a story because he made it so, but we also expect this particular company to feed the homeless AND keep all of their employees working 40 hours/week AND continue its relatively generous benefits package? How does that work?

Look, I agree that as a country, our values and priorities suck balls (profits over people and all that), but I'm more than a little weirded out that we're all "Dude is a victim!" and "Starbucks is the enemy!"

It's not.

I don't think it's Starbucks' responsibility but I think states could do more to ease responsibility rules so more food can get to hungry people. I thought Washington had done this, but that was when I was volunteering at the soup kitchen (sadly forever ago).

[msmerymac]

Aug 27, 2013 17:47:01 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

So. Not only are we assuming a LOT about this individual based on a story that presumably is a story because he made it so, but we also expect this particular company to feed the homeless AND keep all of their employees working 40 hours/week AND continue its relatively generous benefits package? How does that work?

Look, I agree that as a country, our values and priorities suck balls (profits over people and all that), but I'm more than a little weirded out that we're all "Dude is a victim!" and "Starbucks is the enemy!"

It's not.

Also - when I worked at Starbucks we could pick up hours at other stores if an employee needed a shift covered or if too many people were on vacation. So if you tried hard, you could still get 40 hours a week, even if you were being scheduled for 25. Now, maybe he doesn't have the transit options to get to other stores. Okay, that's understandable. But he could talk to his manager about trying to get more hours at his store. I mean, if anyone needed extra hours to get their average to keep their insurance, the manager would work with you. Hence, I'm leaning towards the Hot Mess scenario. Your manager doesn't cut your hours and tell you tough shit and fire you if they think you're a valuable employee. I also feel it's possible he was doing something like eating the sandwich in front of the customers. 

And my store also marked out food because of the liability, but my supervisor would often open a leftover fruit and cheese plate and we would split it while closing up.

[mominatrix]

Aug 28, 2013 11:36:13 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Aug 27, 2013 17:47:01 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

So. Not only are we assuming a LOT about this individual based on a story that presumably is a story because he made it so, but we also expect this particular company to feed the homeless AND keep all of their employees working 40 hours/week AND continue its relatively generous benefits package? How does that work?

Look, I agree that as a country, our values and priorities suck balls (profits over people and all that), but I'm more than a little weirded out that we're all "Dude is a victim!" and "Starbucks is the enemy!"

It's not.

Also - when I worked at Starbucks we could pick up hours at other stores if an employee needed a shift covered or if too many people were on vacation. So if you tried hard, you could still get 40 hours a week, even if you were being scheduled for 25. Now, maybe he doesn't have the transit options to get to other stores. Okay, that's understandable. But he could talk to his manager about trying to get more hours at his store. I mean, if anyone needed extra hours to get their average to keep their insurance, the manager would work with you. Hence, I'm leaning towards the Hot Mess scenario. Your manager doesn't cut your hours and tell you tough shit and fire you if they think you're a valuable employee. I also feel it's possible he was doing something like eating the sandwich in front of the customers. 

And my store also marked out food because of the liability, but my supervisor would often open a leftover fruit and cheese plate and we would split it while closing up.

In downtown Seattle?? Yeah, no.

Yes, transit in this city is the suck.  But there are literally Starbucks on EVERY block.  

I remember one of my coworkers getting into a pinch because he had told somebody to meet him in the "Starbucks across the street" from our building.

...if you went all the way around, there were FIVE Starbucks across the street from our building (two on one block, because one was freestanding and the other was inside a bookstore). 

Starbucks in Seattle (particularly downtown) is like Dunkin Donuts in Boston. Miss one, don't worry, there'll be another on the next block.

[doctordonna]

Aug 28, 2013 11:46:04 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Aug 28, 2013 11:36:13 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Also - when I worked at Starbucks we could pick up hours at other stores if an employee needed a shift covered or if too many people were on vacation. So if you tried hard, you could still get 40 hours a week, even if you were being scheduled for 25. Now, maybe he doesn't have the transit options to get to other stores. Okay, that's understandable. But he could talk to his manager about trying to get more hours at his store. I mean, if anyone needed extra hours to get their average to keep their insurance, the manager would work with you. Hence, I'm leaning towards the Hot Mess scenario. Your manager doesn't cut your hours and tell you tough shit and fire you if they think you're a valuable employee. I also feel it's possible he was doing something like eating the sandwich in front of the customers. 

And my store also marked out food because of the liability, but my supervisor would often open a leftover fruit and cheese plate and we would split it while closing up.

In downtown Seattle?? Yeah, no.

Yes, transit in this city is the suck.  But there are literally Starbucks on EVERY block.  

I remember one of my coworkers getting into a pinch because he had told somebody to meet him in the "Starbucks across the street" from our building.

...if you went all the way around, there were FIVE Starbucks across the street from our building (two on one block, because one was freestanding and the other was inside a bookstore). 

Starbucks in Seattle (particularly downtown) is like Dunkin Donuts in Boston. Miss one, don't worry, there'll be another on the next block.

There were three in the building where I used to work.  In the building.

[secretlyevil]

Aug 27, 2013 17:17:42 GMT -5 ttt said:

I find it really hard to believe that his manager couldn't have looked the other way if she wanted to.

I agree with this. I get the policy and what not but really, the manager couldn't have just turned a blind eye?

[zelda25]

Aug 28, 2013 12:00:19 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Aug 27, 2013 17:17:42 GMT -5 ttt said:

I find it really hard to believe that his manager couldn't have looked the other way if she wanted to.

I agree with this. I get the policy and what not but really, the manager couldn't have just turned a blind eye?

I still think there's a whole lot more to this story than Starbucks choosing to let an employee go hungry. We don't know anything about this guy or the circumstances surrounding his firing, other than what he tells the media.

[secretlyevil]

Aug 28, 2013 12:03:23 GMT -5 zelda25 said:

Aug 28, 2013 12:00:19 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

I agree with this. I get the policy and what not but really, the manager couldn't have just turned a blind eye?

I still think there's a whole lot more to this story than Starbucks choosing to let an employee go hungry. We don't know anything about this guy or the circumstances surrounding his firing, other than what he tells the media.

Oh, I don't think this guy is completely innocent. I just this this particular incident seems bad. It's also not like HR can just release his employee file to the media either.