Starbucks corporate workers respond to the latest RTO mandate: 'This is the wrong direction. Please stop.'
A spokesperson said the RTO order is about enhancing Starbucks' culture, not reducing head count.
Employees told Business Insider they're worried the company's beloved people-first culture is eroding.
Employees at Starbucks' corporate headquarters who are unhappy about CEO Brian Niccol's strict return-to-office mandate are making their displeasure known.
On Friday, a flyer created by "Partners for the Preservation of Starbucks Culture, Mission, and Values" was taped inside an elevator at the corporate offices in Seattle. Featuring two photos of Niccol and a list of grievances, the flyer calls out Niccol's leadership, recent cost-cutting bonuses for executives, the RTO order, and broader changes in the work environment, a photo shows.
"Getting 'Back to Starbucks' isn't just about comfy chairs. It's about our Culture, Values, Mission, and how we treat people and the environment," it reads. "This is the wrong direction. Please stop."
It appeared several days after Niccol sent a firm message to the company's corporate workers on Monday: Come back to the office four days a week or leave.
Some "people leaders" who manage teams had their remote status eliminated, requiring them to relocate to Seattle or Toronto. According to internal communications viewed by Business Insider, Starbucks offered voluntary buyout packages of between $20,000 and $100,000, depending on title, for those who would rather leave the company.
Four Starbucks corporate employees told Business Insider they're worried the strict return-to-office mandate contributes to an erosion of the company's "partner first" culture. A Starbucks spokesperson told Business Insider that the return-to-office mandate is about enhancing the company's culture, not further reducing head count. Starbucks formally laid off 1,100 corporate workers in February.
"I think for those of us who have been around for a while, we see a culture shift happening in the organization where our public face doesn't necessarily match our private face anymore," one Starbucks veteran, who has worked for the company for nearly 20 years, told Business Insider.
The latest RTO notices surprised the corporate Starbucks workers who spoke to Business Insider, and prompted others to immediately begin looking for new roles and sharing their concerns on social media.
"As Starbucks chooses to require all people-leaders to relocate to Seattle, I am placed in a position where I must consider exploring other opportunities and would appreciate your support," Kristina Lawson, a Starbucks program manager who has been with the company for more than 18 years, wrote in a post on LinkedIn.
Lawson did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Corporate America is in the middle of a return-to-office showdown. Business Insider has reported that major companies, from Amazon to Zoom, have implemented various RTO mandates. Each company's approach has been different, with some incentivizing employees to work in-office with perks like raises, and others threatening to fire workers if they don't comply.
Business Insider's Aki Ito reported in May that some suspect that strict RTO mandates are actually a way to get employees to quit — and they may be right, because voluntary resignations remove the company's need to pay severance or health insurance, resulting in a less expensive reduction in force than traditional layoffs.
"We are reestablishing our in-office culture because we do our best work when we're together," Niccol said in a statement to BI. "We share ideas more effectively, creatively solve hard problems, and move much faster."
Niccol's statement continued: "We're driving significant change across the company while staying true to our core values. We know we're asking a lot of every partner as we work to turn the business around. And we understand that the updated in-office culture may not work for everyone."
Niccol, who joined the company from Chipotle last September, has been leading the coffee giant through a "Back to Starbucks" revitalization initiative. He is attempting to reverse slumping sales, improve the customer experience, and address problems with its mobile ordering system and long wait times.
A recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows Starbucks is offering top executives up to $6 million in stock bonuses if the company meets its cost-reduction goals by the end of fiscal 2027.
One Seattle-based Starbucks employee who has worked in corporate operations for the company for over seven years told BI that several other anonymous flyers have been posted around the building with complaints about changes Niccol is promoting, and that some employees have voiced concern in open Slack channels.
While they won't be personally affected by the RTO order, the employee said they worry about how the company will operate if some of the most passionate partners decide to leave.
"There are some remote partners that have niche knowledge and skills that will leave massive Kool-Aid man-sized holes in the wall if they decide to take the exit payment," the employee said.
Update: Jul 20, 2025 — This story has been updated to include details of other employee actions cited by a Seattle-based Starbucks employee.
Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert at ktangalakislippert@businessinsider.com or Signal at byktl.50. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
3 key looming Trump decisions will shape the future of the economy
'It's ultimately up to the president to decide.' That's more or less the go-to line for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and a host of other top Trump aides and White House officials when they share the administration's plans for tariffs and trade negotiations. With the August 1 deadline for higher tariffs rapidly approaching, President Donald Trump has a week to make a number of critical decisions about trade that could shape the future of the US and global economies. Trump in early April paused most of his so-called reciprocal tariffs. They're set to resume next Friday. But one of the few tariffs that Trump put in place on April 2 that has since stuck is the 10% universal tariff on virtually all goods coming into the United States. In recent weeks, Trump has suggested that he could raise that minimum tariff — perhaps even doubling it. 'We're just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it's 20% or 15%. We'll work that out now,' Trump told NBC News on July 10. He has since floated 15% a number of times. Trump has sent letters to the leaders of more than a dozen countries over the course of the past few weeks, setting new tariff rates that are scheduled to go into effect August 1. But Trump has a crucial decision to make about every other country: What tariff will they pay? Most market observers expect the new universal tariff to be set at 15%, because recent trade agreements with Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam were all at or above that level. The Financial Times on Wednesday reported that the European Union is nearing a trade agreement with the United States that sets tariffs on EU goods exported to the United States at 15%. 'After seeing the 15% tariff levied on all Japanese imported goods, let's assume that the new baseline tariff rate will be that, instead of 10%, on all imported goods,' said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer of One Point BFG Wealth Partners, in a note to investors Wednesday morning. Trump's tariffs that are currently in effect have raised the effective US tariff rate — the average tax that US importers pay on foreign goods — from around 2% to 18%, the highest since 1934, economists at Yale's Budget Lab said in a recent report. That works out to $2,400 a year in added costs for the average American household. A higher universal tariff, if that's what Trump ultimately decides to implement, would add to that cost. With $3.3 trillion of annual imported goods, subtracting the $400 billion of tariff-exempted items from Canada and Mexico, that means roughly $2.9 trillion of goods each year will be taxed at 15% — $435 billion of taxes paid by US consumers and businesses, Boockvar noted. That's a lot of money: For comparison, that's only $90 billion less than what all corporations pay in US income taxes each year. Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would put major tariffs on pharmaceuticals that are manufactured outside the United States — the vast majority of US drugs — starting August 1. A crucial decision for Trump: What will that tariff be, how will it be rolled out, and which drugs will be covered under the new tax? Trump on July 8 said he would place 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals 'very soon,' but he noted they may not take full effect for some time to allow drugmakers time to make plans to move to the US. Trump has paused industry-based tariffs before, including autos and auto parts, after company leaders complained that the immediate tariffs gave them insufficient time to shift production to the United States — a costly process that can take years. It's not clear what Trump's timeframe or plans may be. Trump has floated drug tariffs for months, but has yet to provide any concrete plans. Patient advocates and drug supply chain experts warn that tariffs would probably lead to higher drug prices and exacerbate drug shortages. The Trump administration launched an investigation into pharmaceutical imports in mid-April, setting the stage to impose tariffs on national security grounds. The White House and some proponents have argued that the United States needs more domestic drug manufacturing so it does not have to rely on other countries for its supply of medicines. But any increase in US domestic drug production would probably take years to implement. Although some drugmakers — most recently AstraZeneca — have announced expansions of their US-based manufacturing initiatives, some were in the works prior to Trump taking office in January, and those factories would not be able to entirely supplant foreign exports to the United States. A last crucial decision: Trump needs to decide whether he will ultimately allow the massive new tariffs on countries around the world to go into effect — or to delay them again. After April 2, when Trump put the reciprocal tariffs in place, markets tumbled. By April 9, markets had flirted multiple times with bear market territory, tumbling nearly 20% from the record high they had hit just several weeks earlier. The bond market had also begun to show signs that it might break — until Bessent guided Trump away from his harshest tariff levels. But since then, Trump has recorded several trade agreements with foreign countries — most importantly, China and Japan — giving investors a significant sense of relief and certainty. Wall Street also believes that, if necessary, it can put significant pressure on Trump to refrain from his most aggressive trade policies — a theory that has generated the moniker 'TACO,' or 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' With the stock market once again trading at record highs and bond yields stable, Trump may have less incentive to 'chicken out' this time around. However, the better-than-expected agreement with Japan announced Tuesday suggests the White House may be reluctant to push important trading partners too hard, recognizing that the economic pain from high tariffs and potential tit-for-tat retaliation could prove unacceptable to businesses, investors and the public, noted Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, global head of equities for UBS Global Wealth Management. So, some of Trump's most aggressive threats, including a 50% tariff on Brazil as punishment for charges against former President Jair Bolsonaro for alleged attempted election fraud, may ultimately be reduced or paused. CNN's Elisabeth Buchwald, Lex Harvey, Luciana Lopez, Tami Luhby and Meg Tirrell contributed to this report.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
America Will Come to Regret Selling A.I. Chips to China
The Trump administration announced last week that it would allow China to purchase advanced artificial intelligence chips from the tech giant Nvidia. The decision, a reversal of the administration's past restriction on chip sales, is a profound mistake. It cedes the United States' greatest point of leverage in A.I.: control of the global computing power supply chain. Mr. Trump claims to champion American tech, releasing an 'A.I. action plan' this week. But permitting these chip sales threatens American dominance in A.I., undermines U.S. tech companies and risks our national security — all in favor of one chipmaker's near-term profits. Computer chips are the lifeblood of powerful A.I. systems. A.I. companies compete desperately to buy this hardware; many spend the vast majority of their funding on chips. (I do advisory work for some of these companies, including Anthropic.) American chipmakers, including Nvidia, sell more than 10 million of these chips annually. China relies on these chips to aid both its military and its A.I. companies, but can make only about 200,000 of its own per year, the Trump administration said last month. In other words, Nvidia's chips will give China's A.I. ecosystem, and its government, just what it needs to surpass the United States in the most critical arenas. A.I. technology could soon transform military operations, potentially enabling better hacking and sophisticated drone warfare. Ample evidence suggests that Chinese military suppliers prefer Nvidia chips and use A.I. systems trained on U.S. chips. The stakes are not hard to grasp: We should not allow American troops and intelligence officers to be targeted by Chinese A.I. trained on Nvidia chips. The first Trump administration understood these risks. Mr. Trump placed export controls on some chip-making equipment in order to hobble China's A.I. chip industry, while the Biden administration — in which I served as the White House special adviser on A.I. — went further, restricting the sale of additional equipment and of Nvidia's flagship chip, called the H100. Both administrations accused China of using advanced A.I. to modernize its military and to commit human rights abuses. Last year, in response to these restrictions, Nvidia created a chip called the H20, which is designed to elude U.S. export controls so it can be sold in China. The controls focused on processing power, so Nvidia gave the H20 chip mediocre processing but large amounts of high-bandwidth memory. That memory allows the H20 to outperform the H100 when running, as opposed to training, A.I. systems — a process called inference. Inference is becoming increasingly important: One analysis suggests that it will make up more than 70 percent of A.I. needs by 2026. This memory, and other components of the H20, could have been used to make H100 chips for American companies. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Weak Dollar Showing Signs of Exhaustion: 3-Minute MLIV
Anna Edwards, Guy Johnson and Mark Cudmore break down today's key themes for analysts and investors on "Bloomberg: The Opening Trade." (Source: Bloomberg)
