[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.

[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.

[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 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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by arista

But some stores in the USA
are laying off staff.

That's something that matters
to the CEO

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

[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

[user104658]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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

Maybe

[Mokka]

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-detained...tons-1.3932604

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Mokka

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/woman-detained...tons-1.3932604

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

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...lur/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]

Originally Posted by Maru

Starbucks hit by racism again: Latino customer says drink came with racial slur on cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...lur/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/2018/05/17/61190...conscious-bias

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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...-emily-zanotti

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

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

[Maru]

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

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Maru

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

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)

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

This thread is about tramps using the bathroom

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 ... 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.

[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.