A July–October 2025 investigation by China Labor Watch (CLW) into Starbucks’ Southern China stores provides a rare window into the company’s labour practices and compliance gaps. Based on visits to more than 20 stores and interviews with 110 front‑line workers, the report portrays a two‑tier workforce strategy reliant on student and part‑time labour to deliver rapid expansion while keeping costs low. Interviewees said student workers performed the same duties as regular employees—making beverages, handling cash, cleaning and closing—but were paid less than the legal minimum wage and were excluded from social security and overtime benefits. Most were recruited via company websites, in‑store applications or employee referrals and were required to work at least 20 hours per week, with no upper limit; many reported working more than 26 hours weekly, raising questions about the legality of these “work–study” arrangements and their impact on academic pursuits. CLW notes that the Higher Education Work‑Study Regulations require employers to apply through universities, yet students said this step was often skipped.

The report alleges that Starbucks’ local subsidiary implemented a “comprehensive working‑hours system” that allows employers to calculate total hours over a longer period rather than adhering to an eight‑hour‑day/40‑hour‑week standard. CLW found no public evidence that the company obtained the government approval required by China’s regulations on non‑standard work‑hour systems; employees also said they were pressured to sign consent forms to adopt the system in July 2025. This flexibility, combined with an unlimited work‑hour policy for student workers, created a flexible but precarious labour pool that CLW warns may violate Chinese labour law and contravene Starbucks’ own ethical commitments. Full‑time employees, by contrast, typically worked 8.5‑hour shifts with benefits such as social insurance and paid leave; however, entry‑level baristas still earned less than 4,000 yuan/month (US$556), which many considered inadequate for their workload and living costs.

CLW further documents unpaid training and overtime. New hires undergo hands‑on store training and complete 18 mandatory online modules totaling around nine hours, but interviewees said they received no pay for either and had to redo modules from scratch if they paused. Workers also reported uncompensated closing duties and being required to clock out before finishing tasks such as cleaning or restocking. Although Starbucks’ internal policy states that training counts as work time, employees said managers considered training hours “voluntary” and penalised those who complained. In addition, staff described a high‑pressure work culture with strict service metrics and constant surveillance, leaving them mentally and physically exhausted. Break policies were inconsistently applied—contracts promised a 15‑minute unpaid break every two hours, but stores often only offered 10‑minute paid breaks every four hours and a 30‑minute unpaid meal break for shifts over six hours; bathroom or water breaks required manager approval and were discouraged during peak periods.

Occupational health and safety concerns were pervasive. Workers said stores did not provide adequate personal protective equipment (no heat‑resistant gloves for ovens; insufficient protection when handling caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and potassium carbonate). Safety oversight fell largely to store and regional managers, as Starbucks lacked a formal safety committee; online safety training modules were viewed as perfunctory and had to be completed off‑shift. Interviewees also noted delays in processing injury reports and described poor maintenance of basic safety equipment such as fire extinguishers. Food safety and hygiene suffered under staff shortages and high customer volumes: workers said hair and stains in customer areas were common, cockroaches were viewed as “normal,” and employees rushed food preparation with little time for cleaning. Official food safety inspections were infrequent and inconsistent.

Beyond working conditions, CLW flags systemic barriers to worker voice. Employees were largely unaware of formal grievance mechanisms, union structures or benefits; none of the interviewed workers belonged to the All‑China Federation of Trade Unions, leaving them without collective bargaining rights. Starbucks reportedly encouraged feedback through its internal mobile app, which CLW says contradicts the company’s commitment to provide safe, confidential, accessible complaint channels for all individuals affected by its operations. Some respondents witnessed supervisors verbally reprimanding staff, especially new part‑time workers; while the employee handbook prohibits harassment, there is little independent oversight to enforce these standards.

In its recommendations, CLW urges Starbucks to halt use of the comprehensive working‑hours system in Southern China until explicit government approval is obtained and to compensate all training and work hours consistently. It calls on the company to extend core benefits—social insurance, injury protection and paid leave—to all employees, ensure wages meet or exceed local minimums, and uphold equal pay for equal work. The report advocates for establishing independent, multi‑channel complaint mechanisms and supporting the formation of store‑level unions, with regular dialogue between worker representatives and management. It also recommends regular health and safety audits, formation of dedicated safety committees, adequate staffing to maintain hygiene, and provision of protective equipment and training in line with China’s labour law.

CLW concludes that although its findings are based on a limited regional sample, the patterns observed—overreliance on part‑time and student workers, sub‑minimum wages, denial of social benefits, unpaid training and closing tasks, and unapproved working‑hour schemes—appear inconsistent with both Chinese labour law and Starbucks’ own Code of Conduct. These practices pose legal, ethical and reputational risks for the company and highlight the need for genuine alignment between corporate policies and on‑the‑ground realities.