If you are Stinking Tramp in USA you can now use any Starbucks Store Bog

[arista]

Without Buying anything at all
The CEO is changing so much more
even letting in Stinking Rotten Tramps,


Give him a good Hand Shake,

https://wp-assets.onerent.co/uploads/The-Growing-Homeless-Population-in-Los-Angeles-CA-2.jpg
this fella is in LA



Sign Of The Times.

[Alf]

That will end well

Buy shares in Costa, Starbucks is commiting suicide.

[RileyH]

Great news for Jersey & Mont :clap1:

[arista]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160212160743-howard-schultz-starbucks-ceo-quote-780x439.jpg

[Alf]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160212160743-howard-schultz-starbucks-ceo-quote-780x439.jpgWhat a cuck!

[arista]

http://static1.uk.businessinsider.com/image/58e1f30add0895bc698b47ef/starbucks-new-ceo-tells-us-hell-never-be-howard-schultz--and-thats-great-news-for-the-brand.jpg
The new CEO on the Right Kevin Johnson
Key to the Bog

[arista]

What a cuck!

Sorry Alf
he is the old CEO.
Slick enough to get out in time.....

[Alf]

Sorry Alf
he is the old CEO.
Slick enough to get out in time.....So was this the Idea of Kevin Johnson? well then he's a cuck.

Does he believe that paying customers want to drink their coffee surrounded by loiterers and tramps?

And the toilet will be like the Trainspotting toilet within a month.

[thesheriff443]

So was this the Idea of Kevin Johnson? well then he's a cuck.

Does he believe that paying customers want to drink their coffee surrounded by loiterers and tramps?

And the toilet will be like the Trainspotting toilet within a month.

If people had some were to wash they would not stink if they had some were to sleep they would not be homeless if they had some thing to eat they would not be hungry.


It's humans that have created this word of rich and poor, and we are all to blame by being rats in a wheel.

[arista]

So was this the Idea of Kevin Johnson? well then he's a cuck.

Does he believe that paying customers want to drink their coffee surrounded by loiterers and tramps?

And the toilet will be like the Trainspotting toilet within a month.


Alf he has got to do this
Many are boycotting Starbucks USA stores
he must undo that FAST

[waterhog]

all you can do in this life is say sorry and hold up hands.

I like this move.

g2g no2 on way 0hhhhhhhhhhhhhh star where are you

[arista]

Alf
They can get the Store Manager or Supervisor
to Spray the Bog
clean after every Dirty Rotten Tramp
pops in.

[arista]

all you can do in this life is say sorry and hold up hands.

I like this move.

g2g no2 on way 0hhhhhhhhhhhhhh star where are you


Yes he is saving USA Starbucks
after the 2 Black fellas "innocent,"
got arrested...............................

[Alf]

Alf he has got to do this
Many are boycotting Starbucks USA stores
he must undo that FASTWho are the many boycotting? are they paying customers? or profesional protesters?

Paying customers will now go elsewhere for their coffee, rather than sit among loiterers and hobo's.

[arista]

Who are the many boycotting? are they paying customers? or profesional protesters?

Paying customers will now go elsewhere for their coffee, rather than sit among loiterers and hobo's.


Yes a Large Amount of Left Wing Americans


The Hobos have No Cash (spare)
but want to use the bog
they will enter , use it
then leave.

[Tom4784]

It's a kind gesture and one I approve of. It would take someone with a worrying lack of empathy to be truly opposed to homeless people using the bathroom....

[arista]

It's a kind gesture and one I approve of. It would take someone with a worrying lack of empathy to be truly opposed to homeless people using the bathroom....


How Nice.
Dezzy

In LA they are used to them
down under the Roads
safe from Rain and Trouble,
What I mean is they are sleeping out of the way
which I prefer

[Alf]

It's a kind gesture and one I approve of. It would take someone with a worrying lack of empathy to be truly opposed to homeless people using the bathroom....No place for empathy in business.

[Tom4784]

No place for empathy in business.

Or in anything else, going off of your posts.

[Alf]

Or in anything else, going off of your posts.Say's the person who just minutes ago made a post calling Trump a narcissist.

[Tom4784]

Say's the person who just minutes ago made a post calling Trump a narcissist.

What does that have to do with anything? What's the correlation? Explain.

[Alf]

What does that have to do with anything? What's the correlation? Explain.Well, you said my posts have no empathy (probably baiting me), while at the same time making a post about Trump, and showing no empathy for him.

[arista]

Well, you said my posts have no empathy (probably baiting me), while at the same time making a post about Trump, and showing no empathy for him.

Trump has Empathy
but Not for Left Wingers
Alf.

[bots]

is it a requirement that they have to be stinky before they are allowed in?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Typical fake American sentiment to get more dollars, they dont care for tramps anymore than most do

I will avoid this vile company at all costs now

[arista]

is it a requirement that they have to be stinky before they are allowed in?


Of Course not
but many are
it is a Fact of the Homeless.

[kirklancaster]

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

[Tom4784]

Well, you said my posts have no empathy (probably baiting me), while at the same time making a post about Trump, and showing no empathy for him.

Well, you see, one's a multi millionaire who chose to be the president and is doing a bad job of it, the other are people without homes or any money or resources to whom a little bit of kindness can go a long way.

I don't know what to say if you think those two situations are in any way comparable.

[Tom4784]

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

[Alf]

Well, you see, one's a multi millionaire who chose to be the president and is doing a bad job of it, the other are people without homes or any money or resources to whom a little bit of kindness can go a long way.

I don't know what to say if you think those two situations are in any way comparable.What happened to us all being treated equally, no matter what your background?

[Tom4784]

What happened to us all being treated equally, no matter what your background?

Right, I can see that you're just trolling and I won't rise to it.

[Alf]

Right, I can see that you're just trolling and I won't rise to it.Fair do's.

[smudgie]

Excellent.
Now if they could pop a shower in for them and a complimentary coffee that would be fantastic.

[Amy Jade]

Very kind. I do hope people do not take advantage though.

Travellers used to come into my place of work which have toilets you can use without being a customer and they would block the toilets to everyone else so they could wash. I have seen them block a disabled toilet for 20 minutes leaving a poor woman outside waiting until security kicked them out.

[The Slim Reaper]

What a cuck!

I know you're a big tough guy, and cuck is popular parlance amongst the frightfully tough alt-right, but how exactly does that sentence make him a cuck?

[Alf]

I know you're a big tough guy, and cuck is popular parlance amongst the frightfully tough alt-right, but how exactly does that sentence make him a cuck?That's right, I'm bad.


kLiJAX-MXcM

[Crimson Dynamo]

iv never heard of cuck and im as alt-right as one can be

[kirklancaster]

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

I KNOW all about empathy and sympathy and charity. I donate to several organisations from my battered bank account and directly into collection boxes and buckets when out and about.

None of the above has ANYTHING to do with allowing the homeless or any other NON-patrons to walk into a food eaterie off the street to use the toilet facilities.

Paying customers PAY for those facilities to be provided and maintained and hygienically cleansed because such costs are factored into the prices they pay for their food.

And Starbucks paying customers WILL see a rapid deterioration in the hygiene and conditions of those toilets and washrooms now this decision has been taken, AND they will see a rapid deterioration in the conditions within the eaterie and serving and 'waiting' areas too as those taking advantage of this new decision ABUSE it.

Not all homeless or bad people, but MOST of them - by the very nature of BEING homeless ARE not hygienic people and they and their clothes DO smell.

They have to WALK THROUGH most eateries to get to the toilets and therefore past customers in close proximity.

I do not think this will be a 'healthy' situation.

In addition, this new decision will result in Drunks and Drug Addicts taking advantage, and abusing this new rule.

As for 'not a political decision' - of COURSE, it is.

The organised furore which has cowered Starbucks into making this knee-jerk reaction is political - it is the same extreme left liberal anti-establishment rabble who are behind most of the other internet-driven 'protests' which rail against democracy.

Finally - give me a TRUTHFUL answer to this simple question:

You are sitting at home eating your dinner when there is a knock on the door.

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

One asks if they can use your toilet as there isn't a public loo nearby and they are all bursting to go.

Would you greet them and invite them in?

When I have asked a similar question on here - more than once - about whether certain members would take in 'Asylum Seekers' and let them live and sleep in their homes, I NEVER received an answer.

So here's looking forward to yours.

[Shaun]

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

I like how this has gone from a public business offering people to use the toilet to "if you don't allow gangs of drunks - not homeless people, DRUNKS - inside your home you're a bastard"

[Nicky91]

I like how this has gone from a public business offering people to use the toilet to "if you don't allow gangs of drunks - not homeless people, DRUNKS - inside your home you're a bastard"

:laugh2: :laugh2:


so true :clap2:

[Kazanne]

If people had some were to wash they would not stink if they had some were to sleep they would not be homeless if they had some thing to eat they would not be hungry.


It's humans that have created this word of rich and poor, and we are all to blame by being rats in a wheel.

Some humans choose to be homeless, and don't want others help

[kirklancaster]

I like how this has gone from a public business offering people to use the toilet to "if you don't allow gangs of drunks - not homeless people, DRUNKS - inside your home you're a bastard"

I never said anything about being a 'bastard' Shaun. That is unfair.

I KNOW from experience that a sizeable percentage of homeless people are either Drug Addicts or Alcoholics or both.

I also know that a sizeable percentage of drunken or drugged homeless - in addition to just drunks or druggies who are NOT homeless - WILL abuse this decision.

Again,' Time Will Tell' but I am stating that this decision WILL be abused and it will have a detrimental impact on Starbucks.

The costs of cleaning and maintaining the toilets will rise and the usual patrons of Starbucks WILL be adversely affected by this decision.

From shet all over the toilet seats to urine and vomit all over the floor, to syringes and burnt foil in the WC cubicles - life WILL NOT be the same.

From customers being hassled by drunken/drugged people for money/cigarettes to customers being made to wretch by the stench of unwashed clothes and bodies - life WILL NOT be the same.

I think that Toysoldier can illuminate us all here about any conflict between 'empathy' and the reality of allowing anyone but patrons to use the toilets in his shop.

EVERY bookies which I have been in now keep the toilets LOCKED and customers have to ask the staff for the key.

As a result, their toilets are much more hygienic and clean than they were when anyone could walk in from the streets and use them - and bear in mind that a lot of society's 'unfortunates' frequent high street bookies and ARE actually 'patrons'.

As for my hypothesis of 'three' drunken homeless, well let me reword the question to 'One non-drunk homeless man'.

[kirklancaster]

:laugh2: :laugh2:


so true :clap2:

NOTHING TRUE about that statement Nicky.

READ the post it refers to in order to ascertain the 'TRUTH' before putting tongue to the anus.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Whether their decision to eject the black customers was Right or Wrong - and whatever the truth is of the REAL circumstances behind the headlines, what Starbucks has now done is to pander to Leftist Liberal Political Correctness through FEAR.

They have succumbed to same cancer which is eating its way through the entire Western world and their lily-livered action is yet one more nail in the coffin of TRUE freedom and democracy.

:clap1:

[arista]

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.


Or Dezzy
the Clever CEO Kevin
has got Free Worldwide Publicity
made the store better in Policy.


Some of the Tramps in NYC
are Junkies.
So the Manager better keep double checking the bogs.
That's Common Sense

[Marsh.]

So was this the Idea of Kevin Johnson? well then he's a cuck.

Does he believe that paying customers want to drink their coffee surrounded by loiterers and tramps?

And the toilet will be like the Trainspotting toilet within a month.Well unlike the tramps you can go home to your own private toilet.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well unlike the tramps you can go home to your own private toilet.

most of the city ones do too

[arista]

Some humans choose to be homeless, and don't want others help


Yes they will not like the New Army Camps base
idea that could start in Greater London
first.

After 3 strikes
you could get sent to the Falklands
to a Special base to be set up there.

[arista]

most of the city ones do too

Yes the scammers
in USA and UK.

Both on Documentary's

[Matthew.]

It's a kind gesture and one I approve of. It would take someone with a worrying lack of empathy to be truly opposed to homeless people using the bathroom....

this

[arista]

Very kind. I do hope people do not take advantage though.

Travellers used to come into my place of work which have toilets you can use without being a customer and they would block the toilets to everyone else so they could wash. I have seen them block a disabled toilet for 20 minutes leaving a poor woman outside waiting until security kicked them out.

Yes thats all wrong.
USA Starbucks
are keep managers/supervisors
updated on that kind of mess up.

[Alf]

Well unlike the tramps you can go home to your own private toilet.That's because I earn my own money, sorry for that, but them's the perks.

[Twosugars]

If people had some were to wash they would not stink if they had some were to sleep they would not be homeless if they had some thing to eat they would not be hungry.


It's humans that have created this word of rich and poor, and we are all to blame by being rats in a wheel.

:clap1:

Well said, sheriff.
If there were enough public facilities that wouldn't be an issue. And since there are not enough, it's very kind of a private company to open theirs. Good on them for showing some empathy. It's us, people, who make this world as it is, for better or for worse.

[Brillopad]

That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one.

It's an issue of empathy.

The drama created by a mis-judged decision of a staff member who called the police after two black men refused to leave despite not buying anything and using the facilities was a political issue though. And it is obvious that Starbucks fearing a backlash have now acted in a way that could eventually put them out business if customers stop using them because the toilets are unsanitary.

There is huge competition in the business and customers can easily go elsewhere. I wonder will you have the same empathy for the business if and when it goes down or for the employees who loose their jobs - ultimately due to the fear instilled by PC. Or alternatively will it make you and/or others who support such strong-arm PC tactics feel strong and powerful.

[Matthew.]

what about people with inflammatory bowel problems though, such as Crohn’s, Colitis, IBS?


exactly. you can’t tell purely by looking at someone whether they have one or not as it’s not a physical disability

[Crimson Dynamo]

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

[Brillopad]

what about people with inflammatory bowel problems though, such as Crohn’s, Colitis, IBS?


exactly. you can’t tell purely by looking at someone whether they have one or not as it’s not a physical disability

What about them - are they unwashed due to a lack of facilities?

[Cherie]

It won’t end well, the sentiment will be abused and people who pay 5 quid for coffee and a biscuit will vote with their feet

[Alf]

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a riverPJW did a video on this sort of thing the other day, titled, "The truth about virtue signalling"


6JB0hNxuq9M

[Oliver_W]

Starbucks have every right to let anyone use their toilets, just like they have the right to refuse access to people who don't buy stuff. People are also allowed to whinge and withdraw if they don't want to go in a room that previously had a homeless person in it/

[Matthew.]

What about them - are they unwashed due to a lack of facilities?

im sorry, i dont understand what you mean - are you trying to prove my point or disprove it?

[montblanc]

i honestly can't believe some of what i'm reading but :skull:

[Matthew.]

because i think i know but i don’t want to reply with what i think you mean in case i’m wrong

[Withano]

I like how this has gone from a public business offering people to use the toilet to "if you don't allow gangs of drunks - not homeless people, DRUNKS - inside your home you're a bastard"

:joker: jesus, this is the first time Ive read through this thread. Its so weird.

[Mokka]

Starbucks was already on a decline in America and Canada due to stiff competition from competitors. The bad publicity they garnished over the story that started this didn't help. McDonald's, Tim Hortons and others now have espresso machines with everything Starbucks offers on its menu for cheaper. They are struggling and grasping at this point. McDonald's also provides free washrooms to paying or non paying customers... as do many others.
I just see thus move as them keeping up with their competition.

[Withano]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

[arista]

Starbucks was already on a decline in America and Canada due to stiff competition from competitors. The bad publicity they garnished over the story that started this didn't help. McDonald's, Tim Hortons and others now have espresso machines with everything Starbucks offers on its menu for cheaper. They are struggling and grasping at this point. McDonald's also provides free washrooms to paying or non paying customers... as do many others.
I just see thus move as them keeping up with their competition.

Good Points Mokka

[montblanc]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

honestly

[Greg!]

No place for empathy in business.

Says who?

[Greg!]

Do people who disagree with this just rather homeless people shat in the street or something

[Alf]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...It doesn't impact anyones life, but it will affect their business. Like I said, buy shares in Costa.

[Oliver_W]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

this, tbh

As long as they're not in there with me (Starbucks usually has one person toilets, rather than bigger ones with cubicles) what difference does it make?

[Mokka]

Do people who disagree with this just rather homeless people shat in the street or something

Yes...and also they are saying that buying their $5 coffee has earned them the right to live untouched by the vile dirty people in society :thumbs:

[Alf]

Says who?My post, so obviously I say.

[Greg!]

My post, so obviously I say.

Well you're incorrect. Many, many businesses have ethical practices and rules.

[Twosugars]

It doesn't impact anyones life, but it will affect their business. Like I said, buy shares in Costa.

Read what Mokka said. McDonald and others allow everybody use their toilets too.

[Matthew.]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

this this this this this

[Twosugars]

and arguments about drug use or being stinking and filthy are nonsense. paying customers can be all those things too. let's not stigmatise the homeless, treat them like human beings.

[Alf]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...That's what I'm getting at, they will.

I don't drink coffee anyway and have never been in a coffee shop in my life, but my point is, this is a terrible business move. Stop trying to turn it in to that people are somehow being against homeless people.

[Brillopad]

This is a good thing for thousands of people. If homeless people being allowed to use a toilet negatively impacts your life, I’d argue that you’re a bit of a ****. Buy your overpriced coffee elsewhere...

I’m sure that is just what Starbucks don’t want to hear as then they may well go out of business. I hope your concern and empathy extends to those that lose their jobs - or are you more interested in making a political point!

[Kazanne]

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

:joker::joker::joker:LT you do make me laugh. I do agree ,it's easy to say you'de do this and that,but would you in reality,I don't think so.

[Brillopad]

Read what Mokka said. McDonald and others allow everybody use their toilets too.

And. McDonalds is hardly the cleanest place to eat - and although I sometimes buy a Macci - I either eat it at home or in the car. I doubt I am alone in that - in fact I know I’m not!

[Kazanne]

Starbucks have worked hard to get where they are a nice clean classy coffee shop,but it seems now it will become the local 'dumping'(pardon the pun) ground for those who cannot be bothered to look for a public toilet, why should people who have worked hard investing in their business not have a say in who is allowed in ,besides it's rude imo to walk in somewhere and just use their loo without buying anything.

[Kazanne]

And. McDonalds is hardly the cleanest place to eat - and although I sometimes buy a Macci - I either eat it at home or in the car. I doubt I am alone in that - in fact I know I’m not!

I never eat Maccy ds, but you'de be shocked at the lack of cleansiness in most of them.

[Brillopad]

Do people who disagree with this just rather homeless people shat in the street or something

There are such things as public toilets you know! No need to use coffee houses or restaurants.

[arista]

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river


They can not Enter through the Gate.

No one can enter my Office and Home
unless I say so.

[Brillopad]

I never eat Maccy ds, but you'de be shocked at the lack of cleansiness in most of them.

I know - I only have to take one look at the tables and floors to decide to eat in the car. The toilets are a definite no,no.

[Matthew.]

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

[Twosugars]

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

exactly this

[Brillopad]

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

I haven’t seen a public toilet you have to pay to use in years.

[kirklancaster]

public toilets where you have to pay and sometimes you have to walk for ages to find one, like i said earlier particularly for those with bowel problems.

awful how in 2018 some public toilets require payment from those using it - going in to spend a penny and end up spending around 20 of them its disgusting

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

[Brillopad]

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

Oh don’t - it’s just such an unpleasant memory. Some toilets are disgusting and I guess each each to their own - but totally with you on this. I would rather pay although I would be annoyed I had to.

[kirklancaster]

Oh don’t - it’s just such an unpleasant memory. Some toilets are disgusting and I guess each each to their own - but totally with you on this. I would rather pay although I would be annoyed I had to.

:joker:

[Marsh.]

That's because I earn my own money, sorry for that, but them's the perks.Irrelevant comment.

[Matthew.]

That's fair enough Matthew, but I personally would rather pay a pound to use a spotlessly clean, hygienic, and well maintained Public Loo than some of the 'free' ones which are stinking, unclean, unhygienic dives that have dirty seats or missing seats and no loo paper and where you have to raise your trouser legs up so that they are not mopping up the pools of urine which cover the floor.

I get what you’re saying, I honestly do, but what I’m getting at is there are some people with health problems, like Crohn’s or IBS, that can’t be picky about what state the toilets are in or else they could end up having an accident in public.

[Twosugars]

Oops, thread's been pruned

[user104658]

Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea has never worked in a highstreet shop, frankly.

Is it OK to stop someone from using the toilet because they are homeless? Absolutely not, and that would show a shocking lack of human empathy. But that's not the point nor the problem here; the problem is, this policy is essentially saying that they cannot stop anyone from coming in to use the toilets for any reason as that person can then claim that they were discriminated against for other reasons.

Use of the facilities MUST ALWAYS be at staff discretion. Staff should be trained to be fair in how they uphold this and never to deny anyone for arbitrary reasons... BUT... making it a free for all will be a disaster.

They will end up with drinking in the toilets, problems with drugs / needles, and people passed out in cubicles. Not in every outlet - but in many of them.

I would never stop someone from using the toilet for being homeless or for their general appearances. I will absolutely every single time stop people from using them if they're significantly under the influence.

I can't see this policy successfully lasting, being honest. It's been announced by a panicking company bigwig overzealously "protecting company image", but one who quite clearly has zero idea of the practicalities of retail at the customer-facing level.

A very common problem :whistle:.

[Alf]

Irrelevant comment.You could be right, but nevermind, nobody got hurt. Chin up old boy!

[Marsh.]

i wonder what members would do if the local homeless banged on their doors and asked if they could come in for a sh1te?

amazing how lofty ideals can dissipate like snowflakes falling in a river

Private toilet versus public.

Dear me, basics aren't your strong suit are they?

[Tom4784]

I KNOW all about empathy and sympathy and charity. I donate to several organisations from my battered bank account and directly into collection boxes and buckets when out and about.

None of the above has ANYTHING to do with allowing the homeless or any other NON-patrons to walk into a food eaterie off the street to use the toilet facilities.

Paying customers PAY for those facilities to be provided and maintained and hygienically cleansed because such costs are factored into the prices they pay for their food.

And Starbucks paying customers WILL see a rapid deterioration in the hygiene and conditions of those toilets and washrooms now this decision has been taken, AND they will see a rapid deterioration in the conditions within the eaterie and serving and 'waiting' areas too as those taking advantage of this new decision ABUSE it.

Not all homeless or bad people, but MOST of them - by the very nature of BEING homeless ARE not hygienic people and they and their clothes DO smell.

They have to WALK THROUGH most eateries to get to the toilets and therefore past customers in close proximity.

I do not think this will be a 'healthy' situation.

In addition, this new decision will result in Drunks and Drug Addicts taking advantage, and abusing this new rule.

As for 'not a political decision' - of COURSE, it is.

The organised furore which has cowered Starbucks into making this knee-jerk reaction is political - it is the same extreme left liberal anti-establishment rabble who are behind most of the other internet-driven 'protests' which rail against democracy.

Finally - give me a TRUTHFUL answer to this simple question:

You are sitting at home eating your dinner when there is a knock on the door.

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

One asks if they can use your toilet as there isn't a public loo nearby and they are all bursting to go.

Would you greet them and invite them in?

When I have asked a similar question on here - more than once - about whether certain members would take in 'Asylum Seekers' and let them live and sleep in their homes, I NEVER received an answer.

So here's looking forward to yours.

It doesn't matter what charities you claim to support, it has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said. Much of your rambling in this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'm not entertaining it, this is not a political issue and your decision to make this about Asylum seekers is baffling and quite frankly desperate, you are trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges.

Whether Starbucks allows homeless people to use their facilities or not is not politically motivated no matter how much you reach for it to be so. It's a matter of empathy and giving a couple of quid to Charity every month doesn't matter one bit, it does not make your opinion anymore valid.

[Brillopad]

It doesn't matter what charities you claim to support, it has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said. Much of your rambling in this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'm not entertaining it, this is not a political issue and your decision to make this about Asylum seekers is baffling and quite frankly desperate, you are trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges.

Whether Starbucks allows homeless people to use their facilities or not is not politically motivated no matter how much you reach for it to be so. It's a matter of empathy and giving a couple of quid to Charity every month doesn't matter one bit, it does not make your opinion anymore valid.

As TS mentioned it won’t work - it can’t. Many homeless people using the facilities will be drunks and druggies and pose a risk to anyone else using them. Anti-social behaviour and potential violence will likely make them no-go areas for customers and staff alike.

No business or customer should be expected to tolerate that. As usual PC takes things too far and puts political ideals before practicalities, reality and the risks to others.

[Maru]

This was the inevitable conclusion of the "equality campaign" they were running after this incident went viral, so no surprise there. What should really be getting people's goad is that Starbucks has now found a way to "capitalize" on their "new found" empathy and infamy, as if they weren't always trying to pretend they were an empathetic entity... the reason this move had to be made is because they got caught trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted everyone to 'believe' Starbucks was everyone's local pit-stop... meanwhile, having policies where they removed non-paying customers, and not spelling this out in full to the public, kind of goes against the "mission" of being a community meeting space. It'd be like a library kicking someone out for not donating to keep the lights on.

I think this is a very arrogant move and this corporate strategy is just more denial-ism imo. It's because they are a capitalist company and are trying to pretend they're something they aren't. They are not an organization, nor a non-profit... they are utilizing identity politics to maintain their bottom line. Make no mistake. This is what politics has really become, a way for many organizations, authors, pod casts, etc to get their "name" out there and hock their goods.. brands have always taken advantage of our tribal nature. This was something I was taught in school, that consumers tend to think of themselves and their brands as "members of a Tribe". Apple fans, Sony fans, Samsung fans, etc... all operate like a tribe. but I think this has gone too far. Starbucks sells coffee. That's it. Some people believe religion is a farce, because they sell to you from the pulpit while telling you God doesn't see $$$... but companies that run these campaigns are doing the same thing, they're selling people on a set of values to push product into your lap. But at least with the church, they actually do organize activities to help the local community... and many of them have been a part of those communities for a very long time, know people's faces, reach out to help when there's a disaster, etc.

Empathy my foot.

[jaxie]

I would have thought, rather than saying you can use our customer toilets, which seems gimmicky, it would be a much nicer gesture if these large wealthy companies set up wash and brush up rooms where you can clean yourself up and get a bun and a coffee. A hot shower and the use of facilities would be an amazing boon to someone living rough I would think and its not like the company can't afford it.

[kirklancaster]

It doesn't matter what charities you claim to support, it has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said."

^ What a frankly ludicrous statement.

Here are your OWN words from a previous response to one of my posts: "That's ridiculous, allowing homeless people to use the bathroom is not a political issue, especially not a partisan one. It's an issue of empathy.

So when it suits your purpose in one response, this issue is about 'Empathy', and yet in this response, you claim that my supporting Charities has NO RELEVANCE to EMPATHY.

Perhaps you should invest in some simple research into the psychology of Charity Donating before uttering ludicrous statements on a forum.

Read up on Bekkers and Wiepking or Snyder and Clary where you will CLEARLY learn that EMPATHY is among other motivations for donating to Charity.

You have NO knowledge at all of whether I have ever been homeless or not during my long life so you cannot KNOW whether I have 'Empathy' or not for the 'Homeless' in this matter.

I HAVE been homeless when I lost EVERYTHING I had ever worked for during the Property Crash of 2007 and I had to work 18 hour days 7 days a week to 'claw my way' upright' again over a decade.

So clearly your statement above that my donating to charity "has no relevance to the topic at hand or what I said." is utter rubbish.

I donate because I have empathy, and empathy - in your own words - is what this topic is about.

"Much of your rambling in this post has nothing to do with the topic at hand so I'm not entertaining it,"

^ The above is a mere thinly disguised insult.

I do NOT ramble in my posts, far from it, because EVERY sentence is carefully crafted with PURPOSE.

Your claim that my post "has nothing to do with the topic at hand" has already been rebutted above and you are not "entertaining it" because you have NO genuine rebuttal.

I am still awaiting civil responses to several questions which I have asked of you in an array of debates that we have been involved in, so perhaps you ate not "entertaining" those either.

"this is not a political issue... "

^ The above from you is frankly as ludicrous as the earlier from you.

Of COURSE, it is a "Political Issue".

Starbucks ejected two customers whom it said were NOT patronising its establishment and yet were refusing to leave; akin to Toysoldier ejecting someone from his shop for not betting or any Nightclub ejecting someone for anyone of a hundred breaches of 'House Rules' - SUCH is the rights of ANY establishment which has rules - although a TOTAL NON EVENT and unnewsworthy in any rational man's language.

EXCEPT for ONE FACT: the non-patrons involved were BLACK.

PURE AND SIMPLE and HONEST TRUTH.

Had they been WHITE, this 'incident' would NOT have made one-tenth of a column in the LOCAL Free Press 'rag'.

However, the fact that they were black raised this non-event and made it a POLITICAL ISSUE from the very instant that a Left-liberal Keyboard Warrior seized on it for his own agenda and it 'snowballed' out of all proportion to its illogical culmination.

It is 'POLITICAL' and THAT is THE only reason why we are discussing it now on here - it has become yet one more political football to be kicked around by Lefties and Righties in the hopes of SCORING a goal.

THAT is why you are posting with barely concealed anger and why I am responding to you; because from inception to conclusion to aftermath, this issue is CLEARLY political. -.

"and your decision to make this about Asylum seekers is baffling and quite frankly desperate, you are trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges."

^ The above is disgusting and SHAMELESSLY blatant MISREPRESENTATION clearly affirming that YOU are the 'desperate' one here.

NOWHERE in my post did I EVER compare Asylum Seekers to the Homeless who are at the core of this issue.

I used a simile only in regards to YOUR reluctance to answer questions from me on other threads which pertained to the debate we were SPECIFICALLY having on THAT thread topic at the time.

Here is what I wrote:

"Finally - give me a TRUTHFUL answer to this simple question:

You are sitting at home eating your dinner when there is a knock on the door.

You answer it to find 3 shabbily-dressed - obviously - homeless drunks who are propping each other up outside your door.

One asks if they can use your toilet as there isn't a public loo nearby and they are all bursting to go.

Would you greet them and invite them in?

When I have asked a similar question on here - more than once - about whether certain members would take in 'Asylum Seekers' and let them live and sleep in their homes, I NEVER received an answer.

So here's looking forward to yours."

I think that the truth is plain to see for any rational, non-partisan impartial reader.

"Whether Starbucks allows homeless people to use their facilities or not is not politically motivated no matter how much you reach for it to be so. It's a matter of empathy and giving a couple of quid to Charity every month doesn't matter one bit, it does not make your opinion anymore valid."

^ I am NOT the one who is so desperately 'reaching' - YOU ARE.

As already detailed earlier above; this issue is POLITICAL - it is a minor non-event which has been inflated to be POLITICAL, but I am not letting politics dictate my contributions to this thread, I am just a long-lived, experience-rich, mature businessman who is speaking the truth as he sees it.

And the truth as I see it is echoed by other highly intelligent members - as I predicted that it would - as this excerpt from my post attests:

"I think that Toysoldier can illuminate us all here about any conflict between 'empathy' and the reality of allowing anyone but patrons to use the toilets in his shop.

EVERY bookies which I have been in now keep the toilets LOCKED and customers have to ask the staff for the key.

As a result, their toilets are much more hygienic and clean than they were when anyone could walk in from the streets and use them - and bear in mind that a lot of society's 'unfortunates' frequent high street bookies and ARE actually 'patrons'."

One only has to read Toysoldier's post to see that HIS DIRECT EXPERIENCE and opinion coincides with mine.


All in my opinion of course.

[kirklancaster]

This was the inevitable conclusion of the "equality campaign" they were running after this incident went viral, so no surprise there. What should really be getting people's goad is that Starbucks has now found a way to "capitalize" on their "new found" empathy and infamy, as if they weren't always trying to pretend they were an empathetic entity... the reason this move had to be made is because they got caught trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted everyone to 'believe' Starbucks was everyone's local pit-stop... meanwhile, having policies where they removed non-paying customers, and not spelling this out in full to the public, kind of goes against the "mission" of being a community meeting space. It'd be like a library kicking someone out for not donating to keep the lights on.

I think this is a very arrogant move and this corporate strategy is just more denial-ism imo. It's because they are a capitalist company and are trying to pretend they're something they aren't. They are not an organization, nor a non-profit... they are utilizing identity politics to maintain their bottom line. Make no mistake. This is what politics has really become, a way for many organizations, authors, pod casts, etc to get their "name" out there and hock their goods.. brands have always taken advantage of our tribal nature. This was something I was taught in school, that consumers tend to think of themselves and their brands as "members of a Tribe". Apple fans, Sony fans, Samsung fans, etc... all operate like a tribe. but I think this has gone too far. Starbucks sells coffee. That's it. Some people believe religion is a farce, because they sell to you from the pulpit while telling you God doesn't see $$$... but companies that run these campaigns are doing the same thing, they're selling people on a set of values to push product into your lap. But at least with the church, they actually do organize activities to help the local community... and many of them have been a part of those communities for a very long time, know people's faces, reach out to help when there's a disaster, etc.

Empathy my foot.

Thank God you are back.

[Brillopad]

All in my opinion of course.

Some people endlessly TALK of empathy whilst others quietly PRACTICE it. It’s the latter that are the doers - the ones that make a real difference. You are a doer my friend. Excellent post!!!

Talkers, doers, talkers, doers....

[Kazanne]

Some people endlessly TALK of empathy whilst others quietly PRACTICE it. It’s the latter that are the doers - the ones that make a real difference. You are a doer my friend. Excellent post!!!

Talkers, doers, talkers, doers....

Yes,it's easier to talk than do,as if you'de let some random people in your house for a pee, people like to think they are better than they really are.:wavey: This is the trouble with some people they think they have the right to encroach on anyones fortunes as though they are owed it.

[Cherie]

I would have thought, rather than saying you can use our customer toilets, which seems gimmicky, it would be a much nicer gesture if these large wealthy companies set up wash and brush up rooms where you can clean yourself up and get a bun and a coffee. A hot shower and the use of facilities would be an amazing boon to someone living rough I would think and its not like the company can't afford it.

Exactly Jaxie, put money into setting up a hostel with paid trained staff, what this company are doing now are putting the customers who put them where they are at risk, and expecting their minimum wage youngsters to deal with any issues, it only takes one needle stick injury or drunken attack to end in someone being seriously injured or worse

[Marsh.]

Some people endlessly TALK of empathy whilst others quietly PRACTICE it. It’s the latter that are the doers - the ones that make a real difference. You are a doer my friend. Excellent post!!!

Talkers, doers, talkers, doers....Quietly?

[Crimson Dynamo]

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

[Brillopad]

Quietly?

I wasn’t talking about me - but generally - although I consider I do my bit.

My point was that words are cheap - that applies to my words too, but I am not the one constantly spouting on about how caring I am and how full of empathy I am and how anyone that doesn’t share my views on certain issues lacks empathy. I do what I do but don’t constantly crow about it and that no doubt applies to many.

[Marsh.]

I wasn’t talking about me - but generally - although I consider I do my bit.

My point was that words are cheap - that applies to my words too, but I am not the one constantly spouting on about how caring I am and how full of empathy I am and how anyone that doesn’t share my views on certain issues lacks empathy. I do what I do but don’t constantly crow about it and that no doubt applies to many.

And also quite possibly the person you're trying to ridicule. Funnily enough for that very reason "doesn't share my views".

[Marsh.]

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79CEO of company earns more than waiter shocker!

[Brillopad]

And also quite possibly the person you're trying to ridicule. Funnily enough for that very reason "doesn't share my views".

Well if you suggest people you don’t know lack empathy - they may bite back! Swings and roundabouts.

[Cherie]

CEO of company earns more than waiter shocker!

Aren’t you missing the point though?

[Twosugars]

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

Disparity is too big, over thousand times. One of the things that have gone too far in capitalism

[Marsh.]

Well if you suggest people you don’t know lack empathy - they may bite back! Swings and roundabouts.Or he's quite clearly pointed out language that contains no empathy whatsoever. He hasn't claimed to know a person. Ironically, you have.

And in doing so twisted his point.

[Marsh.]

Aren’t you missing the point though?No. I'm not?

[Blue cat]

There's nothing wrong with making life a bit easier for the homeless.

[Brillopad]

Or he's quite clearly pointed out language that contains no empathy whatsoever. He hasn't claimed to know a person. Ironically, you have.

And in doing so twisted his point.

I don’t believe I have but no surprise you do. No one here is the ‘language’ police and they can interpret as they will. But when they attempt to present that interpretation as ‘fact’ they are skating on thin ice and will likely illicit a response that they may not see as very favourable.

[Marsh.]

I don’t believe I have but no surprise you do. No one here is the ‘language’ police and they can interpret as they will. But when they attempt to present that interpretation as ‘fact’ they are skating on thin ice and will likely illicit a response that they may not see as very favourable.Nobody's claimed anything as fact.

Someone's given an opinion you don't like and as usual you've presented your own "facts" to try and discredit them.

You have an alternative opinion, nothing more.

[Brillopad]

Disparity is too big, over thousand times. One of the things that have gone too far in capitalism

You see where I have an issue with this is that many of those decrying the excessive incomes of many high achievers/earners are uni students studying to become high achievers and in many cases high earners.

I see that as disparity and hypocricy unless of course they are planning to give a considerable portion of those higher earnings to the causes/people they defend on a regular basis - but I am inclined to believe a lot of it is just rhetoric. Youthful exhuberance, minus life experience, dotted with uninformed arrogance. They will learn.

I’m not exactly supporting the vulgar excessive salaries of some but we are a capitalist country who want to encourage entrepreneurs and doers to help improve our economy and that takes money. Money talks and all that.

[Withano]

There's nothing wrong with making life a bit easier for the homeless.

You’d think. You’re in TIBB though. There is something wrong with everything.

[bots]

i don't think letting unwashed people use the facilities is a particularly hygienic in a store that sell food and drink, and it is sure to put some off from using the place.

I see nothing wrong with organisations sponsoring public facilities though

[Kazanne]

i don't think letting unwashed people use the facilities is a particularly hygienic in a store that sell food and drink, and it is sure to put some off from using the place.

I see nothing wrong with organisations sponsoring public facilities though

Exactly,good post bots,would people be happy with these people walking into a hospital etc to use the facilities.

[Twosugars]

You see where I have an issue with this is that many of those decrying the excessive incomes of many high achievers/earners are uni students studying to become high achievers and in many cases high earners.

I see that as disparity and hypocricy unless of course they are planning to give a considerable portion of those higher earnings to the causes/people they defend on a regular basis - but I am inclined to believe a lot of it is just rhetoric. Youthful exhuberance, minus life experience, dotted with uninformed arrogance. They will learn.

I’m not exactly supporting the vulgar excessive salaries of some but we are a capitalist country who want to encourage entrepreneurs and doers to help improve our economy and that takes money. Money talks and all that.

People in general can be hypocritical about money, not just students. But from societal point of view such out of control disparaties are not healthy.
I'm saying there should be a ceiling. Say, 100 times. Unless the company is owned by those bosses, then that's nobody's business.

[The Slim Reaper]

i don't think letting unwashed people use the facilities is a particularly hygienic in a store that sell food and drink, and it is sure to put some off from using the place.

I see nothing wrong with organisations sponsoring public facilities though

I doubt they'd shuffle them behind the counter to start making chicken and rocket sandwiches though. It's helping the "unwashed" become the washed, by letting them use the bathrooms.

[Brillopad]

People in general can be hypocritical about money, not just students. But from societal point of view such out of control disparaties are not healthy.
I'm saying there should be a ceiling. Say, 100 times. Unless the company is owned by those bosses, then that's nobody's business.

I don’t disagree - but we have offer a lot to get the brightest and the best. It’s just such a shame that people get so greedy and want more when they already have more than they could ever spend.

[Cherie]

I doubt they'd shuffle them behind the counter to start making chicken and rocket sandwiches though. It's helping the "unwashed" become the washed, by letting them use the bathrooms.

they will still have to walk though the coffee shop to access the toilets which are usually at the back? anyone who has suffered with a work colleague with BO will attest that it is not condusive to a pleasant atmosphere, and just having a 'wash' and putting unwashed clothes back on will make little difference, a dedicated unit with some showers, a few washing machines/dryers and some staff would make much more of an impact on lives.

[user104658]

You see where I have an issue with this is that many of those decrying the excessive incomes of many high achievers/earners are uni students studying to become high achievers and in many cases high earners.

I see that as disparity and hypocricy unless of course they are planning to give a considerable portion of those higher earnings to the causes/people they defend on a regular basis - but I am inclined to believe a lot of it is just rhetoric. Youthful exhuberance, minus life experience, dotted with uninformed arrogance. They will learn.

I’m not exactly supporting the vulgar excessive salaries of some but we are a capitalist country who want to encourage entrepreneurs and doers to help improve our economy and that takes money. Money talks and all that.To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

[kirklancaster]

To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: a BRILLIANT post T.S.

If I had not had Direct Personal Experience on this topic I would massively credit YOUR Direct Personal Experience when evaluating my position on this.

[The Slim Reaper]

they will still have to walk though the coffee shop to access the toilets which are usually at the back? anyone who has suffered with a work colleague with BO will attest that it is not condusive to a pleasant atmosphere, and just having a 'wash' and putting unwashed clothes back on will make little difference, a dedicated unit with some showers, a few washing machines/dryers and some staff would make much more of an impact on lives.

The bit I was replying to in particular was about it being hygienic to let "unwashed" folks use the facilities in an environment where food and drink is served.

I fully agree with you about what would work better, but the homeless have been cast off and away from society as it is, so an organisation attempting to bridge that gap always deserves credit. There are better solutions out there, but I disagree with the notion that unless we can do everything, then it's not worth doing anything.

[Marsh.]

Tbf I imagine staff will continue to use discretion when it comes to the very small minority.

If a manager questions it and they respond with "they were intoxicated so asked them to leave." Or "they were taking drugs so are barred from the premises". I doubt anyone would have an issue with it.

[Brillopad]

To be fair Brillo... £150/hour is a high earner. £1000/hour is a very high earner. 9000/hour is insane.

For actual entrepreneurs who have built up something then sure. Even sports stars / actors is something different; they're basically freelance individuals hiring themselves out and people will pay what they pay.

But for corporate workers in a company where street-level staff are on close to minimum wage... A CEO earning more in two HOURS than most of their staff do in an entire YEAR is a massive kick in the teeth. Not least because most of these positions are gained through nepotism (having friends in the right places) rather than pure hard work.

Again like I said earlier in the thread... Especially if that CEO then tries to "put his foot down" and tell the customer-facing staff how to do their jobs, when most likely, he hasn't worked in a shop for decades (or probably ever). Protecting your billion(s) dollar company image and your own insanely high salary by putting your minimum wage staff at risk is just unforgiveable.


I just don't get people acting like this declaration about toilets is a victory for "the little guy". It's an absolute disaster. I'm not stereotyping homeless people or even saying that homeless people specifically will cause problems... Most will politely use the facilities and cause no hassle at all and those people SHOULD be allowed to use them... But that's not what this is about; it's about removing staff discretion and saying that ANYONE can use the facilities AT ANY TIME. 99.9% of people who use them will be totally fine but removing the staffs ability to say "lol no get out" to the other 0.1% I absolutely guarantee is going to make their jobs harder and in some cases straight up dangerous.

People in support of it mean well, I get that, but they are unfortunately wide of the mark on this occasion.

I pretty much agree with most of that - but they are a coffee shop - they are not in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

After a while the novelty value of putting up with ‘smelly’ patrons coming and going to use the facilities in a place where people eat and drink will wear off - I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, but is is what it is - people who have been homeless for a while will smell. And is not just the harmless ones. There will be bigger problems than that. It will eventually have a negative effect on the business.

What I object to most though is the bullying PC culture that has created this whole scenario. Tbh I think PC bullying will end up having a negative effect in many ways as some people can become hostile to such tactics and will be driven too far the other way out of anger and frustration. Bullying is bullying and PC bullying of this nature is no more acceptable than any other kind and is not as productive as the PC bullies like to think.

[Marsh.]

I pretty much agree with most of that - but they are a coffee shop - they are not in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

[Brillopad]

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

For paying customers only.

[Marsh.]

For paying customers only.And non-customers as most of them, especially chains, allow those to use the facilities too.

[Kazanne]

For paying customers only.

Yes,why don't people get that :shrug: I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.

[Marsh.]

Yes,why don't people get that :shrug: I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

[Cherie]

Except they are, because they do.

Most businesses open to the public are in the business of providing public toilet facilities.

Many businesses have signs saying facilities for customer use only, as well as you can’t eat your own food here

[Kazanne]

And non-customers as most of them, especially chains, allow those to use the facilities too.

What 'chains' are these marsh as I don't know of any, I know people sneak in without the owners probably noticing,like a supermarket or something,but they are not invited to use them as far as I have seen.I think they just trust people that use their facilities to shop there.

[Kazanne]

So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

Where did I say 'unless I do it' I did it once when my daughter was desperate,I didn't like asking them but I did for her sake and as I said I brought something on the way out, Imo it's rude to EXPECT to just walk in somewhere and have a pee.some people don't even ask, but some people think the world owes them a living.

[Marsh.]

Many businesses have signs saying facilities for customer use only, as well as you can’t eat your own food hereBut a hell of a lot do. Taking your own food into an eating establishment is a separate topic.

And I find the constant reference to "smelly patrons" vile. Not you, but within the thread.

[Withano]

Yes,why don't people get that :shrug: I would never ever walk into a place just to use their loos,how rude is that ? If I was desperate I would ask, if they said no I'de probably be a bit miffed but I would never insist,if you are polite they usually let you in an emergency anyway, I have done it once ,when my daughter wanted a pee she was only about 5,but even then, I brought a cake on the way out for her.

And starbucks have changed their rules regarding their loos. Why don’t people get that?

[Marsh.]

What 'chains' are these marsh as I don't know of any, I know people sneak in without the owners probably noticing,like a supermarket or something,but they are not invited to use them as far as I have seen.I think they just trust people that use their facilities to shop there.Coffee shops, fast food restaurants etc.

[Kazanne]

And starbucks have changed their rules regarding their loos. Why don’t people get that?

People do as far as I know,what's your point ?

[Marsh.]

Where did I say 'unless I do it' I did it once when my daughter was desperate,I didn't like asking them but I did for her sake and as I said I brought something on the way out, Imo it's rude to EXPECT to just walk in somewhere and have a pee.some people don't even ask, but some people think the world owes them a living."Its so rude. I wouldn't do it. Unless I was desperate"

Well... It's either one or the other regardless of if you're desperate or not.

Homeless people with no access to their own private toilet think the world owes them a living by using a public toilet that in most cases is open to all?

[Kazanne]

"Its so rude. I wouldn't do it. Unless I was desperate"

Well... It's either one or the other regardless of if you're desperate or not.

I wasn't desperate,my 5year old was and I felt bad, hence I brought something,that is my opinion, I think it is rude to walk in a somewhere just to use their loo.blimey it's not rocket science.

[Marsh.]

I wasn't desperate,my 5year old was and I felt bad, hence I brought something,that is my opinion, I think it is rude to walk in a somewhere just to use their loo.blimey it's not rocket science.No it's not rocket science so having double standard views makes the discussion confusing.

It's either rude or it isn't.

[Kazanne]

No it's not rocket science so having double standard views makes the discussion confusing.

It's either rude or it isn't.

Yes it's rude,I am rude infact I am a terrible person :wavey:

[Brillopad]

And starbucks have changed their rules regarding their loos. Why don’t people get that?

For now. The same reason that created this situation (fear that they would lose customers) will lead to them changing them back again as they will lose customers for all the reasons mentioned anyway. They were forced into it by the PC bully brigade.

The current climate of giving into PC bullying will change as people are already rebelling and will continue to do so.

[Brillopad]

So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

It was for a desperate child and she purchased something anyway. What point are you making exactly!

[Marsh.]

I am rude infact I am a terrible person :wavey:

:unsure:

[jaxie]

they will still have to walk though the coffee shop to access the toilets which are usually at the back? anyone who has suffered with a work colleague with BO will attest that it is not condusive to a pleasant atmosphere, and just having a 'wash' and putting unwashed clothes back on will make little difference, a dedicated unit with some showers, a few washing machines/dryers and some staff would make much more of an impact on lives.

Yeah that's more or less what I was thinking when I was talking about a dedicated wash and brush up room. It would probably be much more useful to the homeless that fiddling about in the toilets for half n hour. These companies could afford it, if more did something like that it would certainly be a start to helping the homeless.

[jaxie]

On a personal level I find it shocking that it's 20018 and we have homeless people and beggars on the streets. We are not a poor country and it's not the dark ages. If there was any kind of real will there would be help for those who find themselves in this dire situation.

Councils could provide dedicated shelter and places to clean up and wash clothes, local big business could help.

[Kazanne]

On a personal level I find it shocking that it's 20018 and we have homeless people and beggars on the streets. We are not a poor country and it's not the dark ages. If there was any kind of real will there would be help for those who find themselves in this dire situation.

Councils could provide dedicated shelter and places to clean up and wash clothes, local big business could help.

I would agree with his jaxie,instead of councils wasting the money they do, get showerblocks and toilets in every town,it would create jobs too.

[Brillopad]

On a personal level I find it shocking that it's 20018 and we have homeless people and beggars on the streets. We are not a poor country and it's not the dark ages. If there was any kind of real will there would be help for those who find themselves in this dire situation.

Councils could provide dedicated shelter and places to clean up and wash clothes, local big business could help.

Government money together with big business making regular contributions - a set percentage of profits on a monthly/yearly basis for example would be a much better and workable idea than coffee shops being forced to open up their toilet facilities. A proper plan - not a rushed idea from a desperate man.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its sad that people cannot seem to grasp the fact that most inner city beggars are just that and we have no idea if they have homes or not. This misty eyed "homeless person" myth is liberal hand-wringing bolloxio.

[Jamie89]

Their new policy isn't even really about homeless people, it's that they're going to let anyone use their toilets, and that's obviously a reaction to the recent bad press they've had. So there's a few things for me really...
-is it a good policy? I don't think so, even though it's a public place it's common sense to maintain discretion (as long as their discretion isn't based on bigotry).
-Should they have to change their policy because of bad press? That's just one aspect of running a business I suppose. In an ideal world the answer would be no but reputation is important and in the social media age they just have to adapt.
-Most importantly for me with this discussion, if they're going to allow anyone to use their toilets, is it ok to exclude homeless people? Definitely not imo. If they want to have a policy of 'no people that smell bad' or 'noone seemingly under the influence of alcohol or drugs' then they can do that (and those policies wouldn't only affect homeless people anyway). But if their policy is to simply allow anyone then it's dehumanising and cruel to say that homeless people shouldn't be included within 'anyone'.

This was the inevitable conclusion of the "equality campaign" they were running after this incident went viral, so no surprise there. What should really be getting people's goad is that Starbucks has now found a way to "capitalize" on their "new found" empathy and infamy, as if they weren't always trying to pretend they were an empathetic entity... the reason this move had to be made is because they got caught trying to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted everyone to 'believe' Starbucks was everyone's local pit-stop... meanwhile, having policies where they removed non-paying customers, and not spelling this out in full to the public, kind of goes against the "mission" of being a community meeting space. It'd be like a library kicking someone out for not donating to keep the lights on.

I think this is a very arrogant move and this corporate strategy is just more denial-ism imo. It's because they are a capitalist company and are trying to pretend they're something they aren't. They are not an organization, nor a non-profit... they are utilizing identity politics to maintain their bottom line. Make no mistake. This is what politics has really become, a way for many organizations, authors, pod casts, etc to get their "name" out there and hock their goods.. brands have always taken advantage of our tribal nature. This was something I was taught in school, that consumers tend to think of themselves and their brands as "members of a Tribe". Apple fans, Sony fans, Samsung fans, etc... all operate like a tribe. but I think this has gone too far. Starbucks sells coffee. That's it. Some people believe religion is a farce, because they sell to you from the pulpit while telling you God doesn't see $$$... but companies that run these campaigns are doing the same thing, they're selling people on a set of values to push product into your lap. But at least with the church, they actually do organize activities to help the local community... and many of them have been a part of those communities for a very long time, know people's faces, reach out to help when there's a disaster, etc.

Empathy my foot.

Yeah, there's a starbucks I sometimes go to that changed it's entire layout last year, and the reason for it was specifically to deter homeless people who'd come in and use the comfortable seating to rest/have some shelter. So I don't think this move comes from a place of genuine empathy either.

[user104658]

In response to the idea that "if you're against this you hate homeless folk"

I did in quite a lot of detail but for some reason, people are choosing to ignore it. I assume because it's not as easily countered with snippy zinger :shrug:.

To reiterate; the problem is NOT with homeless people, specifically, that confusion has arisen from the unfortunate choice of thread title.

The problem is the removal of staff discretion and essentially saying that any person must be allowed in, at any time, or that staff member faces the possibility of disciplinary action or dismissal.

I certainly don't "hate homeless folks" or "have a bone for Starbucks". What I do have, is a practical concern for the minimum wage street level staff of High Street establishments rather than an idealistic (and completely illogical) argument that there will be "no problems" with removing staff discretion entirely when it comes to who is and isn't allowed in the premises.

Opening up the facilities "without question" will - DEFINITELY - cause some serious issues. With people who have homes, with people who don't, it doesn't really matter, that's not the important factor, the important factor is acknowledging that there is a percentage of people - albeit a small one - who will abuse the facilities and that staff MUST have the authority to assess the situation and to ask those people to leave. Taking it away, is an absolutely idiotic and unsafe move.


As a side note; the closure of that thread is utterly ridiculous :facepalm:.

[Marsh.]

Probably because you made a good point.

People have more to say to a point they disagree with I suppose or one they have a counter point to?

But then there was a lot of responding without reading just for the sake of sniping so.

Good post anyway.

[user104658]

A proper plan - not a rushed idea from a desperate man.

I think that is the main problem really. If people don't have access to toilet facilities then that is a big problem. If people who are perfectly genuine are being discriminated against for arbitrary reasons in shops, then that's also a big problem... But these are issues that need a LOT of thought and creative solutions to achieve the best outcomes, without ignoring other factors. In this situation for example, there's no point making some peoples lives easier at the expense of exposing minimum wage workers (who already have to deal with a hell of a lot for what they're paid) to situations that they're not in a position to be able to handle, and in fact removing their ability to handle various situations in fear of their job security.

So by all means... Put together a group dedicated to finding real solutions to make people's lives easier / better and provide facilities but put some real THOUGHT into how it'll work. Starbucks are scrabbling together random, not thought through at all, ideas in a panic for the sake of their brand image. And that stinks more than any public toilet.

[Brillopad]

In response to the idea that "if you're against this you hate homeless folk"

I did in quite a lot of detail but for some reason, people are choosing to ignore it. I assume because it's not as easily countered with snippy zinger :shrug:.

To reiterate; the problem is NOT with homeless people, specifically, that confusion has arisen from the unfortunate choice of thread title.

The problem is the removal of staff discretion and essentially saying that any person must be allowed in, at any time, or that staff member faces the possibility of disciplinary action or dismissal.

I certainly don't "hate homeless folks" or "have a bone for Starbucks". What I do have, is a practical concern for the minimum wage street level staff of High Street establishments rather than an idealistic (and completely illogical) argument that there will be "no problems" with removing staff discretion entirely when it comes to who is and isn't allowed in the premises.

Opening up the facilities "without question" will - DEFINITELY - cause some serious issues. With people who have homes, with people who don't, it doesn't really matter, that's not the important factor, the important factor is acknowledging that there is a percentage of people - albeit a small one - who will abuse the facilities and that staff MUST have the authority to assess the situation and to ask those people to leave. Taking it away, is an absolutely idiotic and unsafe move.


As a side note; the closure of that thread is utterly ridiculous :facepalm:.

As I said before - I largely agree. People do not hate the homeless - a ridiculous analogy made by the same people accusing others of making snide remarks for the sake of it - Pot and kettle.

But like it or not homeless people are unwashed and smelly. Others have other problems such as drink and drugs. Anyone who can stop focusing on accusing people of hating the homeless should see it is not a practical or workable solution for anyone and has nothing to do with hate. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Starbucks is a business reliant on paying customers to survive and the reality is many would be unhappy at paying to eat somewhere where unwashed people are coming and going and others possibly causing other problems. That is not hate and to keep bandying that word around at the drop of a hat and undermining real hate is shameful.

Most people would like to see the homeless found homes or facilities that could help ease the stress and discomfort of living on the streets - but this is not the answer, something most can see when exercising some commonsense and not simply trying to undermine others.

On the plus side maybe the publicity gained from this will lead to someone coming up with something more positive for all.

[Marsh.]

Well when you go from a reasoned argument to the extremes of terrorism, it kind of feeds into an irrational hatred of homelessness.

That was there to see, not plucked out of thin air.

As for drink and drugs, there's many like that who aren't homeless and I don't think Any employee would get a scolding from a manager for asking an intoxicated customer/toilet user to leave the premises.

[user104658]

Well when you go from a reasoned argument to the extremes of terrorism, it kind of feeds into an irrational hatred of homelessness.

That was there to see, not plucked out of thin air.

As for drink and drugs, there's many like that who aren't homeless and I don't think Any employee would get a scolding from a manager for asking an intoxicated customer/toilet user to leave the premises.

The thing is, it isn't the managers that are a problem; it's the perception that anyone can just go to social media and kick off when they feel wronged, and more importantly, the very clear message to staff that corporate does not have your back and you'll lose your job to protect their image. Coupled with the fact that a lot of these entry level staff members will be young and inexperienced... And you end up with an anxious workforce that has no idea what they're "supposed to do". It's a real mess for all involved.

As for extreme arguments... Well... My current thinking is that those are now just the norm and that's the whole problem in a nutshell. CEO's making kneejerk decisions in a panic. A general public that doesn't say "This seems like a problem, let's have a discussion about what can realistically be changed for the better" but instead just bellows "I SEE PROBLEM! You fix right now! What mean how? YOU FIX!"

[Matthew.]

kinda shocked at some of the things said here but i agree with Marsh on his points.

https://media.tenor.com/images/380625ff53dda56dbb7e3697c8f10e2b/tenor.gif

[Marsh.]

The thing is, it isn't the managers that are a problem; it's the perception that anyone can just go to social media and kick off when they feel wronged, and more importantly, the very clear message to staff that corporate does not have your back and you'll lose your job to protect their image. Coupled with the fact that a lot of these entry level staff members will be young and inexperienced... And you end up with an anxious workforce that has no idea what they're "supposed to do". It's a real mess for all involved.

As for extreme arguments... Well... My current thinking is that those are now just the norm and that's the whole problem in a nutshell. CEO's making kneejerk decisions in a panic. A general public that doesn't say "This seems like a problem, let's have a discussion about what can realistically be changed for the better" but instead just bellows "I SEE PROBLEM! You fix right now! What mean how? YOU FIX!"

By and large, people whinging on social media aren't heard as it's a void of whinging about anything and everything so it's not something they should be concerned with.

Unless they're doing something wrong, discriminating or treating innocent customer's/toilet users with contempt, but I do see your point.

As for the young and inexperienced staff, well retail is one hell of a job, so they'll seen have a wealth of experience both good and bad that they can't be prepared for. :joker: Good luck to every single one of the poor blighters.

[user104658]

By and large, people whinging on social media aren't heard as it's a void of whinging about anything and everything so it's not something they should be concerned with.

Unless they're doing something wrong, discriminating or treating innocent customer's/toilet users with contempt, but I do see your point.

As for the young and inexperienced staff, well retail is one hell of a job, so they'll seen have a wealth of experience both good and bad that they can't be prepared for. :joker: Good luck to every single one of the poor blighters.But what goes viral is largely random and often bears very little resemblance to the actual facts... Just "outrage out of context" from some random other customer with a camera phone (who has invariably cut out 90% of the interaction). People on low wages just aren't going to take the risk of being the "next evil staff member to go viral".

[Marsh.]

But what goes viral is largely random and often bears very little resemblance to the actual facts... Just "outrage out of context" from some random other customer with a camera phone (who has invariably cut out 90% of the interaction). People on low wages just aren't going to take the risk of being the "next evil staff member to go viral".Oh there's not much that can stop the Twitter brigade when it comes to that. If it wasn't this they would find something to whinge about. Even down to how many coffee beans are used per cup.

[Crimson Dynamo]

But what goes viral is largely random and often bears very little resemblance to the actual facts... Just "outrage out of context" from some random other customer with a camera phone (who has invariably cut out 90% of the interaction). People on low wages just aren't going to take the risk of being the "next evil staff member to go viral".

Witness the whole ridiculous BLM movement

[arista]

"CEO's making kneejerk decisions in a panic"

TS he has no choice
Customers that boycott
are dangerous Online


Sign Of The Times

[user104658]

Oh there's not much that can stop the Twitter brigade when it comes to that. If it wasn't this they would find something to whinge about. Even down to how many coffee beans are used per cup.Well exactly... Which is why Starbucks is making a mistake by having their CEO scrabbling about like a headless chicken trying to appease the horde. Nothing will ever, ever be enough so what they should have done in response to the "original incident", is actually commit to giving the issue proper time and consideration to move forward in a more positive way, release a statement saying that, and then move on and ignore the rest of the inevitablr rabble.

Instead they're like "OK we fired the manager! We fired everyone! Everyone can use the toilets! Everyone can use Starbucks for anything they want! At any time! Free coffee for everyone! Why are you still complaining?? :bawling: OK ok ok come in and we'll give you free coffee, you can keep the cup, and I'll personally hand you a crisp £5 note. And my first born child! You want to shoot up, you say? Mandy! Fetch this gentleman a clean spoon. Please just stop saying bad stuff on social media! Please??"


... OK I got a bit carried away there... But anyway. My point is, I agree, it is impossible to please the social media swarm once it gets going and the absolute BEST thing you can do, is release an apologetic yet simple statement and then ignore it until it goes away.

[user104658]

TS he has no choice
Customers that boycott
are dangerous Online


They're attention seeking and they only cause bigger problems the longer you shine a light on them. They'll move on to the next drama if you let them.

[arista]

They're attention seeking and they only cause bigger problems the longer you shine a light on them. They'll move on to the next drama if you let them.


But some stores in the USA
are laying off staff.

That's something that matters
to the CEO

[arista]

"CEO scrabbling about like a headless chicken trying to appease the horde."

How Dare You TS
a manager , no less
have a go at Kevin?

https://cdn-starbucks.netdna-ssl.com/uploads/images/_framed/gqK1qScF-2400-1600.JPG
The CEO Kevin Johnson on the Right
getting feedback from a good worker

[user104658]

But some stores in the USA
are laying off staff.

That's something that matters
to the CEOIf they're laying off staff due to a slump caused by an incident mere weeks ago, then that's a complete overreaction.

[user104658]

"CEO scrabbling about like a headless chicken trying to appease the horde."

How Dare You TS
a manager , no less
have a go at Kevin?

https://cdn-starbucks.netdna-ssl.com/uploads/images/_framed/gqK1qScF-2400-1600.JPG
The CEO Kevin Johnson on the Right
getting feedback from a good worker

Not a good worker :nono:, a suck-up. He needs someone like me to tell it to him like it is. :hee:

[arista]

Not a good worker :nono:, a suck-up. He needs someone like me to tell it to him like it is. :hee:


Maybe

[Mokka]

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-detained-after-feces-throwing-incident-at-tim-hortons-1.3932604

Here's what happens when your staff decide who does and doesn't get use of washroom facilities

:umm2:

[arista]

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-detained-after-feces-throwing-incident-at-tim-hortons-1.3932604

Here's what happens when your staff decide who does and doesn't get use of washroom facilities

:umm2:

Yes not good for Canada

[Maru]

Starbucks hit by racism again: Latino customer says drink came with racial slur on cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/17/starbucks-accused-racism-again-hispanic-mans-drink-order-had-racial-slur/619842002/

A Latino man says that when he received his drink order at a Starbucks coffee store in a Los Angeles suburb, it came with a racial slur written on it.

On a label indicating the customer's name, the word "Beaner" was typed.

[arista]

Starbucks hit by racism again: Latino customer says drink came with racial slur on cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/05/17/starbucks-accused-racism-again-hispanic-mans-drink-order-had-racial-slur/619842002/


They will have to sack the Writer of that cup.

[Maru]

Starbucks Training Focuses On The Evolving Study Of Unconscious Bias
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/17/611909506/starbucks-training-focuses-on-the-evolving-study-of-unconscious-bias

https://i.imgur.com/bNjFoaQ.png

Starbucks has an ambitious plan to try to address discrimination and unconscious bias by training nearly 175,000 of its workers one afternoon later this month.

Following the inappropriate arrest of two black men at one of its stores in Philadelphia, Starbucks announced it would close more than 8,000 U.S. stores on May 29 to conduct racial-bias training.

No company has tried such training on this scale, says an expert advising the coffee chain, and the effort puts the science of behavioral change to the test. Starbucks' push comes as behavioral scientists' view of how best to address bias is evolving.

"Mitigating bias is one of the hardest things in human existence," says David Rock, director of the NeuroLeadership Institute, which he co-founded on the idea that brain science can inform leaders on how to better motivate their employees, for example, or help them learn more.

Eliminating bias would require people to become completely self-aware and objective about their own thoughts, and Rock says no one's found a way to do that.

"Any strategy that essentially relies on people to try not to be biased is doomed to fail; that's the heart of the problem," he says.

But people are adept at identifying the biases of their peers. In his work as a consultant, Rock recommends workplaces develop what he calls "if/then" protocols, which involve decision-making by teams.

For example: If a person asks for a raise, then take it to a committee. Or, if a man walks into a store and buys nothing, then consult colleagues about an appropriate response.

Rock says this is an effective way to reduce institutional bias.

"You've got to shift the focus from individuals trying not to be biased to teams being able to catch bias," he says. "There's decades of research showing that format of strategy actually is the best format for behavior change and habit formation."

In other words, create structures that don't rely on the individual to change.

Though the public is intrigued by the idea of Starbucks' half-day all-staff training on discrimination and bias, that is just the first in many steps the company plans to take to try to implement a better system, says Heather McGhee, president of Demos, a social advocacy group.

McGhee, along with former Attorney General Eric Holder and Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, are advising Starbucks on its training and policies.

"Starbucks has very aspirational goals for the values it wants to set, both within its company and in the world," McGhee says.

Because of Starbucks' reach, its public presence and large staff of about 175,000 U.S. workers, McGhee says she thinks of the company's initiative as a kind of ongoing public education program that she hopes will have broad reach.

"So few companies, if any, have taken the kind of responsibility that Starbucks has to have said, a) this was about race, b) this wasn't just one bad apple and c) we have the right and responsibility to do something about it," she says.

McGhee says her main goal for the training day is to create a shared language and understanding about why inclusion and diversity are critical for a company as public as Starbucks. She says she's glad the company was so quick to fully embrace that.

"If addressing bias is not mission critical for your company, then you shouldn't do it at all, because it's just too difficult to do if it's not something that is essential to making your company succeed," she says.

Howard Ross, an expert and consultant on bias training, says there are companies that have done this successfully. Denny's, the restaurant chain, faced a similar crisis in the 1990s, ultimately paying $54.4 million to settle a class-action suit brought by black customers.

"They didn't try to shun the responsibility for it," Ross says. "They started looking at their organization from top to bottom and put in place a number of different things that seemed to move the organization in a very different direction."

Within a decade, Denny's earned a reputation as one of the most minority-friendly workplaces — making Black Enterprise's list of "Best 40 Companies for Diversity" and topping Fortune's list of Best Companies for Minorities in 2001.

Ross says that in addition to systemic change, workers need constant reminders about the company's priorities — such as a bullet-point list of reminders at the cash register — and ongoing methods of assessing its reputation among customers and employees.

McGhee, the Starbucks adviser, agrees this is a work in progress — one she hopes will eventually spread to other companies.

"I know that other CEOs have reached out to the leadership of Starbucks and said, 'We assume and we know that we have a problem with this too, so thanks for going first and we'll be watching.' " she says.

[Alf]

I hope somebody secretly records these training classes and posts them online.

[kirklancaster]

"It's unclear what triggered the incident, but a spokesperson for Tim Hortons said it appears an employee had refused to let the woman into the restaurant's locked restroom.

"Our current understanding is that the (employee) used their discretion in this case and denied access … based on past behaviour," the spokesperson told CTV News in an email.

The worker was worried that letting her in could impact "the immediate safety" of customers and other employees, the spokesperson said, though the concerns were not specified.

It would appear from the above that the gross woman perpetrator was KNOWN to the staff member and had a previous history of violent behaviour at the restaurant, which - to me - JUSTIFIES the staff member's decision not to allow her access to the washroom.

In addition, the vile and violent actions of the woman after being refused access is confirmation that the staff member was CORRECT in his/her decision.

Incidents such as this should not be put forward as any type of evidence for a case that restaurants and eateries SHOULD give anyone and everyone MANDATORY access to their toilets because it actually DAMAGES that case and reinforces the opposing argument.

In any democratic society, to allow violence or the threat of violent reprisal to change rational policy is woefully wrong because it is succumbing to the lawlessness of the bully.

And that applies not only in the case of the bullies directly perpetrating violence and threat of violent reprisal but also in the case of all those who seize on these incidents to make political capital from them to suit their own anti-democratic anti-establishment agendas.

In my opinion.

[Kazanne]

"It's unclear what triggered the incident, but a spokesperson for Tim Hortons said it appears an employee had refused to let the woman into the restaurant's locked restroom.

"Our current understanding is that the (employee) used their discretion in this case and denied access … based on past behaviour," the spokesperson told CTV News in an email.

The worker was worried that letting her in could impact "the immediate safety" of customers and other employees, the spokesperson said, though the concerns were not specified.

It would appear from the above that the gross woman perpetrator was KNOWN to the staff member and had a previous history of violent behaviour at the restaurant, which - to me - JUSTIFIES the staff member's decision not to allow her access to the washroom.

In addition, the vile and violent actions of the woman after being refused access is confirmation that the staff member was CORRECT in his/her decision.

Incidents such as this should not be put forward as any type of evidence for a case that restaurants and eateries SHOULD give anyone and everyone MANDATORY access to their toilets because it actually DAMAGES that case and reinforces the opposing argument.

In any democratic society, to allow violence or the threat of violent reprisal to change rational policy is woefully wrong because it is succumbing to the lawlessness of the bully.

And that applies not only in the case of the bullies directly perpetrating violence and threat of violent reprisal but also in the case of all those who seize on these incidents to make political capital from them to suit their own anti-democratic anti-establishment agendas.

In my opinion.

What a 'foul' individual Kirk,just who would do that,you can't blame restaurants etc for not wanting people like that in their places, some people have no shame.https://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/angry/yuck.gif (http://www.thesmilies.com)

[Maru]

Saw this looking up another article. Very interesting... he's supposedly considering a 2020 run too for president... (but who isn't...)

In a way it's not all that surprising... Starbucks is a capitalist company and he and others succeeded in making it into it is by their own merit.

Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31492/outgoing-starbucks-chairman-howard-schultz-rips-emily-zanotti

Outgoing Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz Rips Democrats For Moving 'Too Far Left'

https://i.imgur.com/a8ylfYW.jpg

Howard Schultz, the controversial outgoing Executive Chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company — and now a prospective 2020 candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination — ripped the Democrats Tuesday morning in an interview on CNBC, suggesting the Democratic party needs a leader who won't let it veer too far to the left.

Schultz also criticized Democrats for overspending, for promising to enact a single-payer healthcare system, and promising to provide jobs to the unemployed.

Schultz's harsh words for Democrats might come as a shock: as CEO of Starbucks, Schultz reserved his criticism largely for conservatives. Schultz was vocally opposed to Donald Trump's so-called "Muslim" travel ban, was behind company-wide efforts to encourage "conversations" about race and gender, declared his cafes national "gun free zones," eliminated Christmas-themed decorations from the company's holiday cups and merchandise, and pledged to hire 10,000 refugees as a way of protesting the Trump Administration's immigration policies.

Those policies ended up costing Starbucks with consumers and with the company's own shareholders, something Schultz seemed fine with, so long as he was allowed to promote his leftist agenda through his coffee shops.

Now, charged with potentially handling more practical problems, it seems Schultz is trying to rebrand himself as a political and economic moderate, with a domestic policy agenda more similar to Hillary Clinton's than Bernie Sanders'.

"It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz told CNBC's "Squawk Box." "I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic."

"I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises," he continued. "I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations. The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."

It's nearly sacrosanct for a Democrat to suggest curbing entitlement spending, but Schultz is a businessman. It is hard to imagine, however, him succeeding in a crowded 2020 field with such . . . Republican . . . ideas.
)

[Vicky.]

Many companies say you cannot use their loos unless you buy something, this is not new so not sure why t there is hell on about starbucks doing it, UNLESS they usually let everyone use the loo and refused only because this person as homeless.

I hate this rule actually. Everywhere I have worked has had the rule, but I have ignored it everywhere too. If someone comes in and asks if they can use the loo, I let them. I would feel too awful if I said no and they peed themselves and am willing to take the crap off my boss for that tbh :shrug:

[Vicky.]

But I admit I have not read the thread except the OP so this question has probably been asked and answered tbh :laugh:

[Maru]

Many companies say you cannot use their loos unless you buy something, this is not new so not sure why t there is hell on about starbucks doing it, UNLESS they usually let everyone use the loo and refused only because this person as homeless.

I hate this rule actually. Everywhere I have worked has had the rule, but I have ignored it everywhere too. If someone comes in and asks if they can use the loo, I let them. I would feel too awful if I said no and they peed themselves and am willing to take the crap off my boss for that tbh :shrug:

They weren't homeless. They were two gentleman just using the Starbucks as a meeting area for a business meeting... and wanted access to restroom without paying. The manager called the cops instead... and well, because they are of color, it makes it seem like racial profiling.

I have a bladder disorder, so I never liked this kind of rule... but I get it. Anyway, the Starbucks near me doesn't have a lock and I don't know any that do?... this location probably had specific issues with loitering/bathroom access being abused.

[user104658]

Many companies say you cannot use their loos unless you buy something, this is not new so not sure why t there is hell on about starbucks doing it, UNLESS they usually let everyone use the loo and refused only because this person as homeless.

I hate this rule actually. Everywhere I have worked has had the rule, but I have ignored it everywhere too. If someone comes in and asks if they can use the loo, I let them. I would feel too awful if I said no and they peed themselves and am willing to take the crap off my boss for that tbh :shrug:

I think this was the issue actually.

TBH it would have been SO much simpler if they'd just gone the other direction and made it customers only :shrug:.

i.e. "We are very sorry that this happened and are looking into it with the staff member in question. Going forward, we have decided that use of the facilities will be for customers only, to avoid confusion."

Instead they went with "Anyone and everyone can use them whenever!" which is just a bizarre and unsustainable policy.

That said... I'm sure the original Starbusk "controversy" came about just because of people sitting in without ordering anything rather than a toilets use issue, and you can't really enforce a "no sitting" policy... because quite often people will be waiting for someone (who might be running late or whatever) and not want to get anything before they arrive. You really can't start kicking people out for sitting there minding their own business.

[Vicky.]

They weren't homeless. They were two gentleman just using the Starbucks as a meeting area for a business meeting... and wanted access to restroom without paying. The manager called the cops instead... and well, because they are of color, it makes it seem like racial profiling.

I have a bladder disorder, so I never liked this kind of rule... but I get it. Anyway, the Starbucks near me doesn't have a lock and I don't know any that do?... this location probably had specific issues with loitering/bathroom access being abused.

This thread is about tramps using the bathroom :suspect:

The one with the two blokes...I think is a bit dodgy too if starbucks usually let people sit in there without buying anything (which again is a bit odd)

[Vicky.]

I think this was the issue actually.

TBH it would have been SO much simpler if they'd just gone the other direction and made it customers only :shrug:.

i.e. "We are very sorry that this happened and are looking into it with the staff member in question. Going forward, we have decided that use of the facilities will be for customers only, to avoid confusion."

Instead they went with "Anyone and everyone can use them whenever!" which is just a bizarre and unsustainable policy.

Well yes...a bit nonsensical but if they usually let people use the loo, OBVIOUSLY its wrong to refuse just because someone is homeless. Its all or nothing, but its a strange decision to go with all. They may regret it when people start using their shop as a public loo :laugh:

That said... I'm sure the original Starbusk "controversy" came about just because of people sitting in without ordering anything rather than a toilets use issue, and you can't really enforce a "no sitting" policy... because quite often people will be waiting for someone (who might be running late or whatever) and not want to get anything before they arrive. You really can't start kicking people out for sitting there minding their own business.
I have also worked places where we had a 'no sitting' rule actually. It works quite well...but obviously you let them off if they are sat for like 10 mins waiting for someone, but not if they just come in to sit for hours. even if someone is running late, I think its a bit rude to sit for ages, I would definitely buy something, even if it was just a biscuit or something cheap to show I am not taking the piss!

Again though, if they usually let people do this, then its a bad decision to call the police on someone for doing whats allowed.

[Maru]

This thread is about tramps using the bathroom :suspect:

The one with the two blokes...I think is a bit dodgy too if starbucks usually let people sit in there without buying anything (which again is a bit odd)

Oh I forgot there were two threads :laugh: ... I just put Starbucks in my find function and went back a few pages until I found the thread so I could update with an article.

[Maru]

In most places I've been to, short of gas stations, I've never been refused bathroom access if I ask nicely... but I'm a small unassuming woman, so they probably don't think drug dealer or messy homeless person... but discretion opens up people to discrimination suits now... even though profiling is part of business practices in many cases. Sales, for example... will be interesting how it all changes in the next 10-15 years.

[Maru]

Wait... so because it says US in the OP, does it mean outside of the US, the bathroom policy is unchanged? :suspect:

[Kate!]

This thread. :laugh3:

[arista]

This thread. :laugh3:


Pre- Covid 2018
And a Great USA poster Maru
giving updates


Now in LA
June 2022
more Tramps are living on the streets
with no bog to use.