For our readers in the northern hemisphere, it’s time to get back to work – or almost. Millions of French people will be crisscrossing the country today as la rentrée is in full swing and families hustle back to base to prep the kids for school and parents shuttle into the office for rallying summits to get them motivated till the Christmas holidays. The Italians still have a bit of time off. So too the Spaniards and Portuguese. In the UK, it’s a bank-holiday weekend, and next week is among the quietest on the calendar, with Londoners on the coast, in Tuscany or somewhere further afield. Many of our Canadian and American readers still have their respective “labour” and “labor” days to look forward to before it’s back to the home office, work desk or conference table on the 59th floor.

The work-from-home debate took an interesting turn this week with news that the freshly appointed CEO of Starbucks had negotiated to work from his residence in Orange County, while also being able to use the company jet to fly up to Seattle for days in the office. While much of the fuss was centred around the high-flying privileges of the post, most of the discussion missed a fundamental point. What happened to a CEO setting an example with their presence on the shop floor rather than spotlighting his living room and the wife he wants to spend time with? Why was there concern about how often he should be at his desk when the problems facing the coffee giant are in its outlets – not its Seattle HQ?

It’s not easy taking the reins of a brand that’s at once loved and loathed by hundreds of millions across the globe. But couldn’t the Starbucks comms team have done a better job of putting the story into context? Never mind that this type of corporate-jet use is going on at all kinds of companies, both private and public (it comes with the job and is baked into US corporate culture), the message should have been that Starbucks’ new leader would be putting the plane to full use to mark a new day for the company and putting an end to the crunch of sugar crystals underfoot throughout its branches, reducing order complexity by limiting special adaptations to less than 29 toppings, milks and syrups for the upcoming spiced-pumpkin-cardamom-whipped Hallowe’en season and implementing super-advanced spelling classes for frontline staffers who have to cope with tricky names shouted over milk-frothing and boarding announcements for the next Vueling flight to Valencia.

Somewhere between the chatter about sky-high privilege and how many days other employees have to be in their offices, the discussion somehow overlooked the fact that the overwhelming majority of Starbucks staffers lack the luxury of pouring sprinkles and rinsing blenders from their living rooms. Instead they need to be at malls, railway stations, roadside service stations and, most annoyingly, neighbourhood shops where WFHWers (work-from-home whiners) pull up for their ultra-complex takeaways, lift the lids and ask the completely stressed-out employees if they “really put in five pumps of caramel?” I witnessed this first-hand at 06.30 in a Beverly Hills branch of the ’Bucks. Astonishing – but then again, not really.

I return then to Monocle’s recent call for a global awards programme recognising excellence in the service industry, with special citations handed out to the suffering thousands of Starbucks employees (and those working for the competition) who have to endure a service culture that has allowed too many customers north of 30 to turn into oversized infants.