[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by 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

exactly this

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Matthew.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

[Greg!]

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

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Greg!

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Greg!

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[kirklancaster]

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.

Thank God you are back.

[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.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The CEO of Starbucks earns $9637.00 per hour

Average Starbucks employee gets $8.79

CEO of company earns more than waiter shocker!

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

CEO of company earns more than waiter shocker!

Aren’t you missing the point though?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Aren’t you missing the point though?

No. I'm not?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

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.