Originally Posted by Withano (Post 9993223)

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

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9993208)

So it's rude, unless you do it.

What point are you making exactly?

Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 9993237)

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

Originally Posted by Cherie (Post 9993115)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9993296)

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.

Originally Posted by jaxie (Post 9993296)

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.

Originally Posted by Maru (Post 9992635)

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.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9993309)

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9993423)

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:.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9993474)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9993489)

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!"

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9993529)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9993532)

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".

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9993532)

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".

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 9993689)

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.

Originally Posted by arista (Post 9993714)

TS he has no choice
Customers that boycott
are dangerous Online

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9993722)

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.