this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2024
389 points (98.7% liked)

Work Reform

9969 readers
3 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 139 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I don't understand why they think he's worth this much money and effort when by all accounts Chipotle is a shell of its former glory

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 82 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is the only metric that boards care about when hiring CEOs:

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It won't last. It just takes awhile for consumers to figure out that your product is now shit.

Most people aren't visiting every day to notice the price increases or the quality decreases. And the first or second time it's often written off as just an outlier.

Of course there's variance per customer, but it takes a couple years before you really earn the shitty reputation of something like Dominos circa 2014. In the meantime, line looks like this before it drops. And by that time you're CEO of a different company.

[–] lanolinoil@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

you underestimate how corrupt, short term and opportunist the markets are I think

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Yeah it’s like a big cult, the real market doesn’t matter to anyone, they just rotate CEOs when that hits. It’s always and forever about next quarter growth, nothing else matters.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

They don’t care about long-term, line must go up now. If he can do a similar stock price pump in the next few years to Starbucks by cost cutting and some bullshit projects, they will be rich and happy.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

If consumers had any taste, McDonald's would have gone out of business decades ago.

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cause gutting doublebucks is the plan

[–] Botzo@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely. Jack Welch's rotting corpse requires further tributes. The product isn't what matters, just the line going up.

[–] Retreaux@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Behind the Bastards episodes on this dickbag is a solid listen.

[–] KreekyBonez@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

solid like a fresh, crunchy cool ranch dorito

[–] forrgott@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Umm....what??? Lol

[–] Vent@lemm.ee 35 points 2 months ago

Chipotle failed to unionize and I bet short term profits are up.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He grew the value of chipotle considerable.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMG/chipotle-mexican-grill/revenue

Chipotle wasn’t expected to survive as a company and not only did it survive. He grew business.

This isn’t the first time he revitalized a brand. He did it at Taco Bell as well.

It sounds like his strategy at Starbucks is lowering prices, making the stores more inviting to hang out in and increase employee happiness.

[–] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fascinating

I keep hearing it's much worse than it used to be, profits regardless

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

It entirely depends on which Chipotle you walk into on what day at what time. Their ingredients are still good. There's just no consistency. It was never cheap, but at least it's still (usually) a lot of food.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The food quality is slightly down in my opinion but that’s because he went to a safer food model.

I have a friend who works at Starbucks who’s excited about the changes. He’s a manager in Las Vegas. If he does the same at Starbucks, he pushes for internal promotions. The goal was 95% of promotions were internal.

I don’t go to Starbucks often. The coffee is expensive. The stores are unwelcoming and I don’t like their coffee much.

I avoided chipotle after the food safety issues but tried it after he said he fixed it. I go 1-2 a month now

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

LOL those fucking idiots gave him giant mountains of cash to sign on

they deserve it

[–] WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Mountains in cash via underpaid labor. Hope the movement to unionize fucks all these tyrants.

[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago

This statement could also apply to the buffoons who frequent Starbucks to pay exorbitant prices for sugar with a dash of bitter coffee

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 34 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If he wants to commute, fine so long as he has to take a regular commercial jet like the rest of us.

Get there two hours early, check in, go through airport security, wait at the gate, then board. Then do it again at the end of the day.

We'll see how long he could put up with that before thinking he should really not try to commute 1,000 miles away.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 12 points 2 months ago

Stfu peasant... This daddy gonna live large while busting unions ... Game 102

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

to be fair when you commuter travel you rock up like 5 min before gates close and use CLEAR or TSA back in the day was enough

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

If it's the company jet do they get to write of its usage?

If so, this isn't a commute. You drive your own car at your own expense for a commute. I'm sure people wouldn't mind as much if they had a company car and a driver for their commute.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 22 points 2 months ago

No, he faced backlash over wasting fuel, which is running out, and creating more carbon emissions, which are killing all of us, including this fucking dumb ass.

[–] johny@feddit.org 13 points 2 months ago

He’s a venti piece if sh*t.

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Won't someone think of the restricted stock units???

[–] anubis119@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So does he pay income taxes in Washington or California?

[–] Blackout@fedia.io 36 points 2 months ago

He's rich so probably neither

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

Well, there's no income tax in Washington, but I think technically you're supposed to pay based on where you physically work. So, if he's only working 3/5 days in Washington, that's only 60% of his salary that falls under Washington's rules.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

That's not how it works. What matters is the state of your residency and the state that your paychecks come from. If you get paid in a state you don't reside in, you have to file in both, unless there's a reciprosity agreement. Many states will allow deductions for income tax paid in another state. So for example if the state your employer is in has a 4% rate, and the state you reside in has a 6% rate, then you'd end up paying 4% to state A and 2% to state B. It is possible to get double taxed depending on which states are involved.

So the CEO will at the very least have to file in California.

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

I'm pretty sure that you're talking about applies when an employee lives in one state full time, but receives a paycheck from a company in a different state. They may live near the state line and commute across the border, or they may be fully remote, but either way, their work is consistently happening in the same location.

In this case, he's working part time in California, and part time in Washington. The exact laws vary by state.. in some states, your tax liability begins on the day you start working there, while others have a certain threshold, but I'm pretty sure he's crossing whatever threshold there might be. So for the days that he's working in Washington for a company based in Washington, Washington income taxes apply, and for the days he works from California, California income taxes apply.

Since Washington doesn't have an income tax, and California does, he will still definitely have to file in California.

[–] anubis119@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Quick and informative. Thanks.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago

Both. He’d pay 3 days of Washington taxes which is zero. He’d pay two for California.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 months ago

He should feel shame, but you know he doesn't. Only a sociopath would have bought-in to such a plan.