They only offer licensed or franchised locations to the big supermarket operators, Target, and airport operators. If it's a freestanding, drive thru, or in line Starbucks that isn't inside a separate business then it's a company owned and operated store.storewanderer wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 8:26 pmIn my area I've watched Starbucks close a lot of stores. There is always an alternate location nearby. It is rare for them to abandon somewhere entirely. But the relocation may be a licensee shop instead of a corporate shop.pseudo3d wrote: ↑November 15th, 2023, 5:37 pmStarbucks rarely closes stores, but they do, especially in economic downturns. The unionized stores want to prevent a "store closed to union problems" issue.rwsandiego wrote: ↑November 14th, 2023, 9:52 pm I'm neutral on unions in general. My view is employees who are treated fairly have no reason to unionize. I don't see where Starbucks employees are being treated unfairly. It seems like they are treated a lot better than the average foodservice and retail workers. The union lost me when they stated that they want assurances stores won't close. That's ridiculous. Firstly, companies are free to make business decisions such as closing stores. Secondly, unionized companies close locations all the time.
The way to avoid problems between the two parties would be to have well-communicated standards based on income and fixed expenses.
Just in downtown Reno alone they have closed 3 corporate stores over the years (currently they have 2 corporate stores there). Downtown Reno is not big and doesn't have much going on. This is in like a 10 block by 10 block area.
There have been a very small handful of corporate stores that were transferred to licensees which I would describe as "attached" stores that are not built today, for example there was a company store "attached" to and renting space from a QFC reportedly somewhere in Seattle; it had a side door that opened into the sales floor. Starbucks decided to transfer it to QFC and let them take over which infuriated the employees who wanted to unionize. There were some Barnes and Noble stores that were actually corporate Starbucks and same thing, separate suite with a second door opening into the bookstore; they transferred those back to B&N who converted some to their Cafe concept and closed others (Huntington Beach for example). Finally, Simon Malls decided for reasons I can't comprehend to make a deal to take over the freestanding kiosk format stores in their malls and food courts. These are the ones that look like a grocery store format. If it's still in it's own separate walled suite in the mall it's still a corporate Starbucks.
I do wonder if the Union push gained legitimacy by switching to UFCW or Teamsters etc. if we would see Starbucks move in a very different direction and franchise out the US stores. With the push into supermarkets, coupled with the Target partnership, they now have about 10,000 company stores and 6,000+ licensed stores inside grocery stores and airports plus the Simon mall deal. More that don't count because not open to the public in corporate cafeterias licensed by Sodexo and other vendors. So they are getting closer to a 50/50 split. The major downside is that the licensed operators like Target pay substantially less than Starbucks does, especially for the leadership. A Starbucks Store Manager pay seems to be around $70K in California (I've seen as low as $58K and as high as $120K reported, maybe that high for a crazy location like Downtown Disney with hundreds of employees). Meanwhile Target will give a team leader near identical responsibilities for less than $20 an hour... Of course once they learn how to do it there and realize they're grossly under paid they can apply at Starbucks to run a "real" store.