Starbucks to pay college fees for US staff

US coffee chain firm Starbucks will pay college fees for US workers to complete a bachelor's degree online in a tie-up with Arizona State University.

US employees of the firm who work at least 20 hours a week are eligible for the Starbucks College Achievement Plan.

Starbucks staff who are successfully enrolled will receive partial tuition for the first two years, and full tuition for their final two years.

The annual fee for online courses at the university can exceed $10,000.

After they've completed their bachelor's degree, the employees are not obligated to return to employment with Starbucks.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

   the inequality within the country has created a situation where many Americans are being left behind”

Howard Schultz President, Starbucks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27863656

Starbucks staff looking to attend college online at Arizona State University (ASU) can choose from about 40 programmes including business, engineering, education and retail management.
'New precedent'

In a statement posted on its website, the university said the initiative was designed to 'support the nearly 50% of college students in the United States today who fail to complete their degrees due to mounting debt, a tenuous work-life balance and a lack of support.'

In that same statement, Howard Schultz, chairman and president at Starbucks said: "There's no doubt, the inequality within the country has created a situation where many Americans are being left behind. The question for all of us is, should we accept that, or should we try and do something about it.

Supporting our partners' ambitions is the very best investment Starbucks can make. Everyone who works as hard as our partners do should have the opportunity to complete college, while balancing work, school and their personal lives."



i bet they can afford it since they avoid paying tax in the uk

A lot of companies will pay you to take courses to increase your skills.
This isn't anything new.

Summers wrote:A lot of companies will pay you to take courses to increase your skills.
This isn't anything new.

I think that is true for certain, specific job-related courses. This is for a BA degree.

I'm still undecided about a online curriculum.

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/17/3449906/starbucks-tuition-plan-fine-print/

So the REAL news story is Starbucks has a NEW policy that is more generous BUT less flexible making it harder to Actually get.

Pretty good business move, make you look good and on paper you look super generous but in reality VERY few will be able to claim this new generosity. thus total cost is cheaper.

Starbucks is just trying to be a bit less evil, just look at how they've treated their barristas over the years to see what the real corporate philosophy is.

Not to mention that there used to be places in America (at least where I live) that tried to make a place you could socialize and have fun while paying a little money for some nice coffee or whatever else they served, and Starbucks has worked hard to systematically eliminate such places.

I can't go now to some of the places where my fondest memories were made, because Starbucks put them out of business. Fuck them ...

@ben

the Irony is Starbucks cant seem to get  a decent foot hold because it's coffee suck too much.

the Turks and Italians already gave each other stiff competition, Starbucks has tried to come in and realised ohh shit Aussies have High coffee standards. and they cant match it..... Plus you know we force them to PAY PEOPLE PROPERLY!!!!

veya_victaous wrote:@ben

the Irony is Starbucks cant seem to get  a decent foot hold because it's coffee suck too much.

the Turks and Italians already gave each other stiff competition, Starbucks has tried to come in and realised ohh shit Aussies have High coffee standards. and they cant match it..... Plus you know we force them to PAY PEOPLE PROPERLY!!!!

Burn it. Burn it to the ground, and salt the earth

Seriously though, there were places that I made the most meaningful connections to friends, girlfriends, etc. that are now gone because of Starbucks. You know me well enough to know where I'm going with this -- successful capitalists don't only do good, they do many things that are bad for human beings that fall well outside the territory of exploitation. They are responsible for crap TV, movies, music, books, food, all sorts of things that hold us back and make life more unpleasant     

 

STARBUCK'S Aussie master-franchise was bought out by a new management team last month ~ and that was after the old license holders had been bleeding money "hand over fist" for the last two or three years...

NEVER helped by the fact that their pretty ordinary coffee often costs double or more than just a few of their competitors. Plus the Starbuck's outlets are mostly located in big shopping centres, where the excessively steep rents cripple them "right from the get go.."  


IF Starbuck's wanted to be more fair and generous towards their employees, they could always do a deal with Macca's to enrol them in the 'Hamburger University', when they reach a certain stage in their progression  ~ at least McDonald's has a good reputation for the "industry best" standard of training they give their staff, even if they do pay them crap wages and sack the majority of workers before their 18th birthdays...    

Wow, that's interesting. It used to be gospel in the U.S. that if you wanted to locate your business properly, look out for where the next Starbucks was going up ...

I guess pride does indeed goeth before the fall ...

Mind you, besides my previously logged complaints, I also saw a very nice video-rental business I used to work for that was shuttered by Blockbuster ... which has in turn been put out of business by forces that can't even serve you up a classic comedy from the '80s or '90s ...

No. Capitalism is not always good for people. I've always said I don't want a government-made cell phone, but I shouldn't be forced on that basis to accept health care for profit, either (for example). Not everything works as a "let's make shitloads of money" venture, and I should know, I work for a newspaper

It would be nice if they paid their taxes here in UK first.....


"...The Seattle-based group, with a market capitalization of $40 billion, is the second-largest restaurant or cafe chain globally after McDonald's. Accounts filed by its UK subsidiary show that since it opened in the UK in 1998 the company has racked up over 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, and opened 735 outlets but paid only 8.6 million pounds in income taxes, largely due because the taxman disallowed some deductions.
Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units..."


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUSBRE89E0EX20121015

Tommy Monk wrote:It would be nice if they paid their taxes here in UK first.....


"...The Seattle-based group, with a market capitalization of $40 billion, is the second-largest restaurant or cafe chain globally after McDonald's. Accounts filed by its UK subsidiary show that since it opened in the UK in 1998 the company has racked up over 3 billion pounds ($4.8 billion) in coffee sales, and opened 735 outlets but paid only 8.6 million pounds in income taxes, largely due because the taxman disallowed some deductions.
Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units..."


http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUSBRE89E0EX20121015

Indeed
The point is that money they should have paid in tax in this country would maybe have helped our education system

Exactly.... but it is interesting that they avoided so much tax under labour isn't it!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Exactly.... but it is interesting that they avoided so much tax under labour isn't it!?

not just labor, though tommy the Torys have been in power for almost 4 years what have they done ?

"...Starbucks, one of the companies exhorted by the prime minister to "wake up and
smell the coffee" over tax, has handed over £5m to HM inland revenue..."


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/23/starbucks-pays-corporation-tax




Probably the biggest UK tax story in 2013 was the fight against tax avoidance. We had the introduction of the general anti-abuse rule in the Finance Act 2013 and a media campaign of ‘naming and shaming’ tax avoiders, although there was nothing illegal about what many were doing.
Things have gone slightly quieter at the start of 2014 but there is still plenty going on in the fight against tax avoidance.
In January this year, HMRC published a consultation document entitled Raising the Stakes on Tax Avoidance.The aims of this document are to:
Force high-risk promoters of avoidance schemes to provide details of their products to HMRCEnsure that users of high-risk promoters’ schemes appreciate the risks they are running and understand the consequencesEncourage users of avoidance schemes to settle their tax affairs after similar cases have lost in courtAt the same time, HMRC published another consultation document called Tackling Marketed Tax Avoidance.
This consultation sets out the Government’s next steps to tackle another specific problem in the system, which is disputed tax.
Currently, when an avoidance scheme is challenged in court, the tax system allows taxpayers to hold on to the disputed tax, no matter how small their chances of success might be. 
The taxpayers and scheme promoters are therefore incentivised to sit back and delay as long as possible. Despite evidence that in the vast majority of cases, when the dispute is resolved, tax is due.
The proposals to tackle high risk promoters were one step in addressing these behaviours. In the Autumn Statement 2013, the Chancellor announced another new measure to require taxpayers to pay the tax they owe if they have used the same avoidance scheme (or a similar scheme) as one which a court or tribunal has already ruled against. If they continue the dispute in the face of the evidence they risk a penalty.
However, the Government feels there is more that could be done on this issue and this consultation sets out some of the possible options.
Finally, there will be changes from 6 April 2014 about how partnerships and LLPs can legitimately be used in relation to tax saving. There is some concern over ‘manipulated profits’ and the avoidance of NIC in certain situations.
It has been suggested that the GAAR provisions could also be used in this respect.
It seems that tax avoidance is still very much at the front of the Government’s mind. As well as considering the possible implications of the reintroduction of the 50 per cent tax rate advisers should also be recommending tried and tested solutions when talking to high net worth clients.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/iht-tax-planning/government-is-tightening-the-net-on-tax-avoidance/2006908.article



And......


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10837249/There-is-nowhere-to-hide-from-the-taxman-now.html