[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

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]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I am rude infact I am a terrible person

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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'.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 .

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 .

[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]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 .

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 .

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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. Good luck to every single one of the poor blighters.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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. 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.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?? 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]

Originally Posted by arista

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?


The CEO Kevin Johnson on the Right
getting feedback from a good worker