top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 1 year ago (9 children)

This is the jerk who was flying the company jet back and forth to Seattle daily.

MOVE, ASSHOLE.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Like it's not like seattle isn't a lovely city

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Seattle sucks if you drive, which is likely what the CEO would be doing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh then he should take the light rail or live walking distance to work. Or get a different job

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I mean, yes. But also, if you’re an asshole who demands your employees work from the office, you should too. The normal way. The same way everyone else does it. So you can realize how stupid that idea is

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 115 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    "We can't have people working remotely. Look, I'm the CEO and even I'm commuting into the office every day!"

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I mean...you can't really be a Starbucks barista remotely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I would love to know the amazing, incredible ideas and decisions made that even come close to making any of the money he is making, taking, and spending worth it.

    It's always incredible how easy it is for companies to pay insane amounts of money to everyone but the hard-working employees.

    The company I work for has been consolidating services, contracts, and vendors for several years now. I now see how absolutely out of control this stuff can get and the amount of wasted money that is just thrown at stuff. Yet paying your employees is still not allowed...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I've met quite a few aspiring managers for whom the goal of life is to have other people working for they and bringing in the money while they do as little work as possible. I once partnered with a guy on a small business, only to find out he was like this. He kept talking about how his goal was to hire the most junior developers and pay them as little as possible while he only worked 1 hour per week and got to spend time with his family. I'd argue with him that this was exploitation but he called it "working smart". Then he swindled me out of $20,000, which I guess was also "working smart", and we parted ways, leaving him richer and me poorer. Lots of people seem to have the weird idea that morals don't apply to business.

    I'm watching The Walking Dead right now and it's largely about how living under constant threat and competition causes people to become brutal to one another, and some go completely off the rails and become exploitative and cruel, while others hold on to some kind of ethics even after they are forced to do brutal things. Capitalism does something similar to people. Some resist exploiting others, but many have such weak ethics that their instinct for self-preservation and self-advancement crushes the good out of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's not that it's not allowed but it's not required. Labor market is very unequal in information on one hand, where it's much harder for individuals to know what is their value for the business and how are they doing versus the peers. Then there is strong arming through credit obligations and work + commute time that effectively makes it very prohibitive for people to object.

    And so since you can exploit the people, most businesses will. That's a very easy way to improve your business results.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Starbucks has built out a 4,624-square-foot office — replete with "luxury" finishes — that CEO Brian Niccol can use while home in Newport Beach, California.

    In addition to giving him a $1.6 million base salary and stock rewards of more than $95 million in his first four months on the job, the filing said, the company would establish a "small remote office" near Niccol's home in Orange County so he wouldn't have to commute daily to Starbucks' Seattle base.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Which makes sense because home offices aren’t a tax deduction anymore, but a small remote office is a business expense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    It doesn't make sense because none of the other corporate employees are going to be there with him meaning it's no different than if he (or they) just worked from home to begin with. It's essentially the same as if they turned his home garage into an "office."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    It makes sense from an accounting perspective: no deduction versus large deduction.

    I agree it’s stupid from a practical perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    That doesn't really make sense because they're still spending that money. A $1M/yr business expense on a new office that gives you a $1M/yr tax deduction isn't putting you ahead financially.

    What you're missing from the "no deduction" side is that they're also not spending additional money on new offices.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It makes more sense than having him commute via private jet like he used to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't that be a business expense as well? I agree it's the more sane option, but they're both still insanely hypocritical options when compared to allowing remote work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it is. But if the CEO has a home office he doesn’t get a deduction.

    Honestly I’m amazed he didn’t buy the office and lease it back to the company. That sounds like the sort of sleaze I expect from the C-suite

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Which makes sense, but at the same time does not make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, either both should be deductions or neither should be.

    I used to get the home office deduction because I worked from home and my employer didn’t have an office to get the business expense. But now fully remote companies are de facto taxed more than ones with an office.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Seriously, wtf does a CEO even do? Companies dump them so often and I never even notice anything changing with the companies. The people under them make more important decisions comparatively.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    CEOs are there to be the lighting rod of our anger. We focus on them and blame them. They get a big fat paycheck or bonus for implementing majorly unpopular policies, because the board that appointed them wants to extract more money out the company.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Still better than taking a helicopter to work

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Emperor Hadrian would take the whole court with him as he undertook his frequent travels, essentially a traveling imperial capital. The senators sat in Rome, essentially powerless, and steamed in anger.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Instead of harping on this fat-cat for wasting money for his own convenience, let's congratulate this pompous ass for saving gas on his commute.

    Narcissistic asshole.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Starbucks CEO sets up a new office in his California home. It's a 5-minute drive from the east wing to the west wing during his morning commute.

    Why not just setup a home office? You can ever drive the car around the block if you have the urge, though I would suggest to skip on the car and take a bike.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Must be nice

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Total coincidence.

  • source