[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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

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 .

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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

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

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.