Starbucks will be closing for a few hours today

[Lilaclady]

They will be closing all the stores and offices to address the issue that happened in Philadelphia and discuss how to make Starbucks a place where everyone is welcomed.

i thought that was quite cool of the CEO 

[Night Elf]

I hadn't heard about this. That's crazy. I've sat in a Starbucks waiting on someone without purchasing anything more than once. I guess I was lucky because of my race? I'm glad Starbucks is taking this so seriously.

[Lanny]

It will be very interesting to see how this works out for Starbucks and their paying customers and their employees.  It will probably take 6 to 12 months for this to shake out.   Probably some of their locations, where there are large numbers of Homeless and/or Drug Addicts going into Starbucks, will eventually be closed.  Probably the majority of their locations will not have major issues and will continue in business.  

It is a publicly traded (NASDAQ)  company, so if the shareholders do not like the financial impact of this (assuming that is a major issue going forward) they will replace the President and CEO and show their displeasure with the results.

 

[marbel]

30 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

The fact that they’re having to make a day of it is a bit head smacking.  But okay.  The “don’t behave in prejudiced ways toward customers” thing should be ground level basic these days.

Agreed.  It should be, and probably is in most/many places. Philadelphia is a difficult area in terms of race.  The problem should be dealt with, of course; rules may need clarification and manager(s) who don't enforce them properly should be dealt with appropriately.  From comments I've heard and seen, Starbucks isn't doing themselves any favors by doing this and taking other actions (such as saying anyone can hang out in the stores, use the restrooms, etc., without buying anything). 

(BTW I've no dog in this fight; I only go to Starbucks when traveling and in dire need of coffee and there is no other place to go.  Or on the rare occasion I need to "rent space" in Barnes and Noble for some quiet reading.  So, this means 1 - 2 times per year if that.)

ETA I'd better add that from what I understand about the Phila incident, Starbucks was wrong.  Everyone needs to be treated the same and if I could sit around a cafe and wait for a companion before ordering, everyone else should be able to as well.  As AM said, ground level basic.

[poppy]

Old tactic would be to fire the idiot manager who called the cops on the two guys.

New tactic is publicly losing money one way (closing stores) to avoid a boycott.

I guess I approve.  I'd much, much rather see a "we screwed up" than a "just a  bad apple" defense.

 

[poppy]

12 minutes ago, peacelovehomeschooling said:

Starbucks stores inside grocery stores may be open.  The one we stopped by this afternoon was.  It seems that the stores inside grocery stores, Target, and in airports may not be corporate owned or something?

While we are discussing Starbucks I will voice what irritates me about them.  They are small stores with limited seating.  It is getting increasingly difficult to find a seat when we go because they are all taken up with people working on laptops.  Of course, those people have a right to be there, but when my daughter and I just want to get our drinks and sit and talk while taking a school break, it is so frustrating to have every seat taken by people working on computers.   I miss being able to just sit and talk.....it is something we like doing.   If the seats were taken by people just talking and hanging out, it wouldn't bother me, but it seems that the computer people have taken over the place.  At least at the time of day we go.

 

Yeah, I don't get Starbucks culture. 

Panera another big one. I've had many meetings at Panera for various nonprofits- sometimes 3 people, sometimes more like 12.  I usually buy  a coffee to offset me sitting there for 2-3 hours but many people who come to those meetings don't, which I find a little rude.

[Annie G]

7 minutes ago, peacelovehomeschooling said:

Starbucks stores inside grocery stores may be open.  The one we stopped by this afternoon was.  It seems that the stores inside grocery stores, Target, and in airports may not be corporate owned or something?

While we are discussing Starbucks I will voice what irritates me about them.  They are small stores with limited seating.  It is getting increasingly difficult to find a seat when we go because they are all taken up with people working on laptops.  Of course, those people have a right to be there, but when my daughter and I just want to get our drinks and sit and talk while taking a school break, it is so frustrating to have every seat taken by people working on computers.   I miss being able to just sit and talk.....it is something we like doing.   If the seats were taken by people just talking and hanging out, it wouldn't bother me, but it seems that the computer people have taken over the place.  At least at the time of day we go.

Airport, Target, grocery store, Barnes and Noble Starbucks aren’t corporate, and they are open today according to the email I got from Starbucks this morning.

Probably not going to be any easier for you to find a seat there if non-customers take up seats.  

FTR I think if someone needs a restroom a store should be willing to let theirs be used. But I understand it’s tricky because in some areas restrooms are used for sex and drugs. 

Starbucks was wrong to call the police but the police were wrong to mishandle the guys. 

So what does this mean for loitering laws? 

 

 

[marbel]

1 minute ago, Annie G said:

Airport, Target, grocery store, Barnes and Noble Starbucks aren’t corporate, and they are open today according to the email I got from Starbucks this morning.

Probably not going to be any easier for you to find a seat there if non-customers take up seats.  

FTR I think if someone needs a restroom a store should be willing to let theirs be used. But I understand it’s tricky because in some areas restrooms are used for sex and drugs. 

Starbucks was wrong to call the police but the police were wrong to mishandle the guys. 

So what does this mean for loitering laws? 

 

 

 

Do loitering laws apply in private businesses or just public spaces?  Someone did tell me that the arrest in Phila was legal because of the city's loitering laws. But that makes no sense to me since Starbucks is not a public space. And clearly people "loiter" in places like Sbux with impunity all the time.

(I'm not asking anyone to google loitering laws for me.)

[Annie G]

3 minutes ago, marbel said:

 

Do loitering laws apply in private businesses or just public spaces?  Someone did tell me that the arrest in Phila was legal because of the city's loitering laws. But that makes no sense to me since Starbucks is not a public space. And clearly people "loiter" in places like Sbux with impunity all the time.

(I'm not asking anyone to google loitering laws for me.)

I see ‘no loitering’ signs in places sometimes but I have no idea whether it’s valid or not. I’m wondering more if loitering is going to be difficult to enforce in public because of this. We have an area of town where people hang out and the police always have a car there to have an officer on the scene when fights, drug deals, etc. break out. They currently use loitering laws to keep people from congregating but it’s a tough job. This is on a public street less about a mile from my house. Totally different situation than what goes on at the Starbucks that’s also a mile from my house (different direction) but I wonder if when things change for the better at SB if it will really be what we want. 

[SKL]

I think they could have done this without closing, but I guess they decided this was a better marketing decision.

Don't really care.  Their coffee is overpriced and doesn't taste good.  Their seating is not pleasant either.  No amount of promotion is going to change that.

I mean, I care that they treated someone differently because of their race ... or their uniform ... or anything else that doesn't make sense.  But how dramatically they apologize does not matter to me.

[ktgrok]

That people think a company taking the time to train it's employees on the importance of overcoming implicit racial bias is somehow  bad thing blows my mind. That trying to be more racially equitable is seen as something that could hurt it's bottom line breaks my heart. 

I don't understand people anymore. 

 

[Roadrunner]

1 hour ago, peacelovehomeschooling said:

Starbucks stores inside grocery stores may be open.  The one we stopped by this afternoon was.  It seems that the stores inside grocery stores, Target, and in airports may not be corporate owned or something?

While we are discussing Starbucks I will voice what irritates me about them.  They are small stores with limited seating.  It is getting increasingly difficult to find a seat when we go because they are all taken up with people working on laptops.  Of course, those people have a right to be there, but when my daughter and I just want to get our drinks and sit and talk while taking a school break, it is so frustrating to have every seat taken by people working on computers.   I miss being able to just sit and talk.....it is something we like doing.   If the seats were taken by people just talking and hanging out, it wouldn't bother me, but it seems that the computer people have taken over the place.  At least at the time of day we go.

 

We are one of those people with computers. ?

We commute every day for activities into town and usually when our AOPS class starts we are somewhere waiting for my other kids’ activities to finish, so Starbucks is our stop for free WiFi to attend the classes. Otherwise I will have to sit in the car for the class. I pay a lot for this since we tend to buy drinks and food there on those days. I am so grateful for the place where I can pay and have internet and bathroom and shelter in winter. 

[poppy]

8 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That people think a company taking the time to train it's employees on the importance of overcoming implicit racial bias is somehow  bad thing blows my mind. That trying to be more racially equitable is seen as something that could hurt it's bottom line breaks my heart. 

I don't understand people anymore. 

 

 

Not at all surprised there is some backlash.  Talking about race is frowned upon by many in the US.  I mean, it's always OK to say the KKK and slavery are bad. Beyond that you will always get people upset.

[marbel]

41 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

That people think a company taking the time to train it's employees on the importance of overcoming implicit racial bias is somehow  bad thing blows my mind. That trying to be more racially equitable is seen as something that could hurt it's bottom line breaks my heart. 

I don't understand people anymore. 

 

I don't know who said or implied that?

It seems that at this point it should not be necessary anymore.  I used to attend "diversity training" sessions at work 25 years ago.  That companies are still doing this as a separate thing leads me to think it doesn't work. I know all it did where I worked was cause resentment, because we couldn't get our work done, and still had to get it done after the meetings were over. And we were very happy to work with our racially diverse coworkers, who also resented the wasted time.  

But sure, the cynic in me can think that this is grandstanding, virtue signaling by Sbux.  

As I said upthread, Center City Phila is a rough area.  Maybe the company should focus on places where there are problems, such as there, and not everywhere?  

I'm not being snarky, if anyone thinks so.  It's a problem that needs solving; I'm not sure the company is doing it the right way, though I can't say I have better ideas. Well, better policies and enforcement of same, with consequences for managers who don't follow them.  And perhaps policies that fit the place.  Drug use in public bathrooms is a real problem in Philly, and other places as well I'm sure, but not everywhere. (ETA: I'm not implying the men arrested in the incident that prompted this were using, or planning to use, drugs in the bathroom.  I'm just saying it is a problem and perhaps - I do not know - limiting bathroom use to paying customers helps to keep drug-users out of those bathrooms. 

[poppy]

 If it did no good AND made people resentful, I can't see how you think it solved anything back then......it sounds like you just don't think diversity or racial justice training is ever appropriate.

14 minutes ago, marbel said:

I don't know who said or implied that?

It seems that at this point it should not be necessary anymore.  I used to attend "diversity training" sessions at work 25 years ago.  That companies are still doing this as a separate thing leads me to think it doesn't work. I know all it did where I worked was cause resentment, because we couldn't get our work done, and still had to get it done after the meetings were over. And we were very happy to work with our racially diverse coworkers, who also resented the wasted time.  

But sure, the cynic in me can think that this is grandstanding, virtue signaling by Sbux.  

As I said upthread, Center City Phila is a rough area.  Maybe the company should focus on places where there are problems, such as there, and not everywhere?  

I'm not being snarky, if anyone thinks so.  It's a problem that needs solving; I'm not sure the company is doing it the right way, though I can't say I have better ideas. Well, better policies and enforcement of same, with consequences for managers who don't follow them.  And perhaps policies that fit the place.  Drug use in public bathrooms is a real problem in Philly, and other places as well I'm sure, but not everywhere. 

 

[Laurie]

If anyone here attended the training session today, or knows someone who did, I'd be interested in hearing what role Common played.   Did he sing a song or have a lengthy speaking role?   

I had never heard of Common before, but apparently he has been controversial in the past because of a song he sings about this woman:  https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/joanne-deborah-chesimard  

Couldn't Starbucks find a different celebrity/activist to assist them?   Two wrongs don't make a right. 

  

[marbel]

9 minutes ago, poppy said:

 If it did no good AND made people resentful, I can't see how you think it solved anything back then......it sounds like you just don't think diversity or racial justice training is ever appropriate.

 

Well, you are right.  I was a little contradictory there. 

I know how I, and my coworkers, reacted to it back then.  It was pointless. We didn't deal with customers face-to-face, just over the phone/email.  We didn't have problems working together. It was a diverse area and workforce.  The only person I remember being harassed - I am not making this up - was a guy who kept a picture of Jesus in his cubicle. He was told to move it so it wasn't visible to anyone passing the doorway.  (I had forgotten about that but this thread reminded me.)  Diversity training didn't address that sort of thing, as I recall.  

Thinking more about this... I don't think attitudes can be trained out of people.  If someone is biased against people of a certain race or ethnicity, will making them sit through training sessions help?  Or would clear policies and procedures for dealing with customers (and non-customer visitors to the business) with consequences for not following them be a better way to go about things?  

BTW many of my working years were spent in training employees, both in work skill areas and in policies and procedures. Often, when someone messed up, it was blamed on lack of, or poor, training. I'm sure sometimes it was. But sometimes it was just that the person didn't want to do what they were supposed to do, kwim?   

Everything isn't a training issue.  

[Ravin]

21 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think this whole thing is for show.  So they shut down today to “train” the employees they have.  Woo who.  It’s Starbucks.  I can’t imagine turnover at the store level is all that much different than turnover any other place. Which means that at the store level, almost every single person trained today will no longer be Starbucks employees next year.  But the story isn’t about what exactly they are changing about the training they have, it’s about how they are shut down today.  It’s for show.  They are probably hoping to write off the money they lose shutting down as a marketing expense.  

This is part of a larger retrenching of their training on the company philosophy and policies. Logically, incorporating anti-bias training into new employee orientation will also be part of it.

[Annie G]

Dd is home and says it was well done. A lot of instruction on conscious vs unconscious bias, and they broke down into small groups to work through some material. They went through their new policies and what it means and doesn’t mean, and they watched a movie/video of some sort.  For the poster up thread who asked, Common was part of the video presentation, though not rapping, but rather as an activist. 

Not trying to defend Starbucks, but dd works there part time because her ESL teaching job at our community college offers her no benefits and Starbucks does.  

[marbel]

4 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

That people think a company taking the time to train it's employees on the importance of overcoming implicit racial bias is somehow  bad thing blows my mind. That trying to be more racially equitable is seen as something that could hurt it's bottom line breaks my heart. 

I don't understand people anymore. 

 

I don't disagree with you but I am not sure that it's being more racially equitable that has people worried about the bottom line.

I haven't studied this exhaustively, but it is on people's minds (and my facebook feed, etc) because the incident was in this area. 

The concerns are that Starbucks has said that anyone can come in and hang out anytime without buying anything.  Or, perhaps I should say, people perceive that as what Starbucks is saying. So I'm seeing jerky comments like "Can't wait to take my Dunkin Donuts coffee into Starbucks and sit down and hang out using their free wi-fi all day."  Those people may be in a minority, may just be making stupid jokes, may not even ever go to Starbucks anyway.

But I have seen real concerns expressed about people using the bathrooms for drug use, to bathe, etc. I have seen commentary (I don't know where at this point) that in some areas employees who have to clean bathrooms have had to deal with syringes and bodily fluids beyond what is normally encountered in retail bathroom cleaning, and there are concerns that it will get worse if Starbucks opens their doors to non-paying guests.  Now some people have said Starbucks has always had that policy (open to non-paying guests), and lots of people hang out there without buying.  I don't know if that's true or not. I have never gone into a cafe and not bought something nor have I ever been with anyone who hasn't bought something.  But of course that doesn't mean people don't do it. 

Policies saying "employees, this is how we treat our customers and we treat them all the same, regardless of this and that, everyone is treated with respect and by these store rules" is not worrying anyone, as far as I can tell. 

Starbucks becoming a place to hang out without spending any money, wash more than one's hands, shoot up, etc., thus driving away paying customers, is what is worrying people, again, as far as I can tell.  People may move away from Starbucks because of it. They may lose revenue.  Investors are in it to make money. If it looks like a company is going to institute policies that lose them money, investors are going to sell their stock. 

That's just business.  It's not personal and it's not emotional.  

(I do not own stock in Starbucks.)  :-)

[SKL]

I assume the new policy means they will also no longer be allowed to stop policemen from using the bathroom.  Of course that didn't justify a half day shutdown, but surely they covered it in the training. ....

[goldberry]

NOTE: Satire

https://resistancehole.clickhole.com/waste-of-time-starbucks-closed-down-for-anti-bias-trai-1826399378

Waste Of Time: Starbucks Closed Down For Anti-Bias Training Today Even Though We’ve Moved On And Are Mad About Other Things Now

[ktgrok]

10 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, my issue is that they even had to do it.  That’s what boggles my mind.  The initial arrest incident was completely ridiculous and the cumulative bad judgment of the staff there was appalling.  But if your policies or employee attitudes are so poor that it happened, more than once, there are bigger issues at play that can’t be fixed by a day of training.  It’s a culture, an attitude problem.  And the biggest perps aren’t the ones who would be magically fixed by a day camp.

I didn't mean you thought it was bad, I meant that if this negatively effects their business as some here are saying, that means large parts of the population think fighting racial bias is a bad thing. That boggles my mind. 

And yes, it is pathetic that we are still dealing with this, but we very very very definitely are. And honestly, implicit bias is probably biological/neurological, so it isn't an easy fix. 

As for the tones that need it the most not being fixed by a day, well yeah. But now they can't claim they "didn't know" when they get fired. 

[ktgrok]

And I'd say that if people are saying, "I'm going to take my dunkin donuts into starbucks" because of this, they are jerks and I wouldn't be surprised if they were also racist, honestly. 

The number of people that can get upset about a company being nice, and expressing what one could arguably call Christian values (despite not being a Christian company) is always a shock to me. 

Starbucks: We can't fix implicit bias and institutionalized racism, but we can at least attempt to educate OUR employees on the matter and hope it helps. And we will give our customers the benefit of the doubt and assume positive intent if they are in our stores, even if they haven't ordered a drink right then. 

World: well, that's dumb

Sigh. 

[Lanny]

10 hours ago, marbel said:

I don't disagree with you but I am not sure that it's being more racially equitable that has people worried about the bottom line.

I haven't studied this exhaustively, but it is on people's minds (and my facebook feed, etc) because the incident was in this area. 

The concerns are that Starbucks has said that anyone can come in and hang out anytime without buying anything.  Or, perhaps I should say, people perceive that as what Starbucks is saying. So I'm seeing jerky comments like "Can't wait to take my Dunkin Donuts coffee into Starbucks and sit down and hang out using their free wi-fi all day."  Those people may be in a minority, may just be making stupid jokes, may not even ever go to Starbucks anyway.

But I have seen real concerns expressed about people using the bathrooms for drug use, to bathe, etc. I have seen commentary (I don't know where at this point) that in some areas employees who have to clean bathrooms have had to deal with syringes and bodily fluids beyond what is normally encountered in retail bathroom cleaning, and there are concerns that it will get worse if Starbucks opens their doors to non-paying guests.  Now some people have said Starbucks has always had that policy (open to non-paying guests), and lots of people hang out there without buying.  I don't know if that's true or not. I have never gone into a cafe and not bought something nor have I ever been with anyone who hasn't bought something.  But of course that doesn't mean people don't do it. 

Policies saying "employees, this is how we treat our customers and we treat them all the same, regardless of this and that, everyone is treated with respect and by these store rules" is not worrying anyone, as far as I can tell. 

Starbucks becoming a place to hang out without spending any money, wash more than one's hands, shoot up, etc., thus driving away paying customers, is what is worrying people, again, as far as I can tell.  People may move away from Starbucks because of it. They may lose revenue.  Investors are in it to make money. If it looks like a company is going to institute policies that lose them money, investors are going to sell their stock. 

That's just business.  It's not personal and it's not emotional.  

(I do not own stock in Starbucks.)  ?

 

This is what I referred to in my first reply to this thread. Few people, if any, have anything against Diversity or Diversity training or being tolerant of others who are of a different race, religion, etc.

The issue here, for me, is what I saw they are going to do, which is to throw their stores wide open to Homeless People and to Drug Addicts.  They already had some issues with people doing drugs, etc., in their stores.  With the new policy, welcome to Homeless people and to Drug Addicts, there are certain areas, where I suspect they will eventually lose so many customers, they will need to close some of their stores.

 Recently, I saw a video of a BART station in the San Francisco Bay area. People in the tunnel where the passengers go to their trains and leave their trains, shooting up drugs, going to the bathroom, etc. In places like that, there will probably be a lot more of them in Starbucks restrooms and sitting at Starbucks tables.

It is a Health and Safety issue. That's the priority.

Nobody would argue with Diversity. Health and Safety, yes, I'd argue for that.

 

 

[ktgrok]

4 minutes ago, Lanny said:

 

This is what I referred to in my first reply to this thread. Few people, if any, have anything against Diversity or Diversity training or being tolerant of others who are of a different race, religion, etc.

The issue here, for me, is what I saw they are going to do, which is to throw their stores wide open to Homeless People and to Drug Addicts.  They already had some issues with people doing drugs, etc., in their stores.  With the new policy, welcome to Homeless people and to Drug Addicts, there are certain areas, where I suspect they will eventually lose so many customers, they will need to close some of their stores.

 Recently, I saw a video of a BART station in the San Francisco Bay area. People in the tunnel where the passengers go to their trains and leave their trains, shooting up drugs, going to the bathroom, etc. In places like that, there will probably be a lot more of them in Starbucks restrooms and sitting at Starbucks tables.

It is a Health and Safety issue. That's the priority.

Nobody would argue with Diversity. Health and Safety, yes, I'd argue for that.

 

 

There is no new policy. This is the same policy they always had. 

[marbel]

28 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

There is no new policy. This is the same policy they always had. 

I'm copy/pasting a big chunk of an article because it's from the WSJ and behind a paywall and I don't know how to circumvent that.  But I will add the link.

If it has always been their policy, it has been unclear.  Again, it is not the training that is causing people to wonder about Starbuck's continued profitability.  It is the concern that they will start to lose money if they allow people to hang out in their stores, use their resources, etc., without buying anything.There are probably a lot of places such a policy has been fine and will continue to be fine, but there are places it may not work so well. 

If Starbucks finds that there are locations that become problematic/less profitable because this policy has become more clear and publicized, they may have to close those stores.  It just makes business sense.

OK, here is the chunk of the article, and here is the link:  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/starbucks-lacks-clear-guidance-for-employees-on-non-paying-customers-1524308400?mod=article_inline

"Interviews with current and former Starbucks managers and baristas across the country suggest that the coffee company’s guidelines on how to treat lingering nonpaying customers in general are vague at best—if they exist at all.

The people interviewed said they were unaware of a written policy on how long customers are allowed to stay in a Starbucks cafe without buying anything.

Contributing to the lack of clarity, employees said, is that Starbucks and its business model foster the idea of its shops as the “third place” in customers’ lives, a place to hang out that isn’t home or work.

The people interviewed said training hasn’t taught employees—Starbucks calls them partners—to deal with lingering customers, instead focusing on what to do in the event of a theft or armed robbery. They said their understanding is decisions about whether and when to ask nonpaying customers to leave and whether to bar bathroom access are left to the discretion of individual store managers.

“It’s been a gray area at Starbucks for a long time,” said a Starbucks executive who used to manage stores.

A spokeswoman for Starbucks said because it has 28,000 stores world-wide, “different regions, circumstances and cultural norms necessitate different guidelines” for each. 

The company’s own explanation of its guidelines for employees in the Philadelphia store appears contradictory.

“In this particular store the guidelines were that partners must ask unpaying customers to leave the store, and police were to be called if they refused. Of course there are circumstances where the police should be called, for example when there’s a major disruption or dangerously aggressive behavior, but that was not the case in this situation. The police should never have been called,” the company spokeswoman said in a written statement.

 

[Selkie]

Re. drug use in bathrooms, I just read an article the other day - can't remember where, maybe the Chicago Tribune -  about the increasing problem of people overdosing in the bathrooms of fast food restaurants. Restaurants are having to deal with people passing out or dying in their bathrooms, customers being scared away, customers and employees being exposed to needles left in the bathrooms, etc. One woman locked herself in the bathroom of a fast food place and fatally overdosed, and her family is now suing the chain, saying they should have prevented her from dying.

[Ravin]

11 hours ago, marbel said:

I don't disagree with you but I am not sure that it's being more racially equitable that has people worried about the bottom line.

I haven't studied this exhaustively, but it is on people's minds (and my facebook feed, etc) because the incident was in this area. 

The concerns are that Starbucks has said that anyone can come in and hang out anytime without buying anything.  Or, perhaps I should say, people perceive that as what Starbucks is saying. So I'm seeing jerky comments like "Can't wait to take my Dunkin Donuts coffee into Starbucks and sit down and hang out using their free wi-fi all day."  Those people may be in a minority, may just be making stupid jokes, may not even ever go to Starbucks anyway.

But I have seen real concerns expressed about people using the bathrooms for drug use, to bathe, etc. I have seen commentary (I don't know where at this point) that in some areas employees who have to clean bathrooms have had to deal with syringes and bodily fluids beyond what is normally encountered in retail bathroom cleaning, and there are concerns that it will get worse if Starbucks opens their doors to non-paying guests.  Now some people have said Starbucks has always had that policy (open to non-paying guests), and lots of people hang out there without buying.  I don't know if that's true or not. I have never gone into a cafe and not bought something nor have I ever been with anyone who hasn't bought something.  But of course that doesn't mean people don't do it. 

Policies saying "employees, this is how we treat our customers and we treat them all the same, regardless of this and that, everyone is treated with respect and by these store rules" is not worrying anyone, as far as I can tell. 

Starbucks becoming a place to hang out without spending any money, wash more than one's hands, shoot up, etc., thus driving away paying customers, is what is worrying people, again, as far as I can tell.  People may move away from Starbucks because of it. They may lose revenue.  Investors are in it to make money. If it looks like a company is going to institute policies that lose them money, investors are going to sell their stock. 

That's just business.  It's not personal and it's not emotional.  

(I do not own stock in Starbucks.)  ?

 

What I don't get is how you read into the policy that they are going to be chill with the behavior you describe? I really doubt they are going to refrain from trespassing someone who they catch trashing their restroom, for instance. Nothing like the "problem behavior" you describe here happened in the incident which sparked this--which is why it was an incident. These men were assumed to be more likely to do something like the above because they were black--not because they were actually doing anything untoward. Waiting for someone you are meeting up with before ordering is perfectly reasonable. People do it all the time. No one should get the cops called on them for it. That's the point. When you raise all these unrelated issues, you appear to be confounding the race discrimination with reasonable caution about problem behavior--which it isn't reasonable to do.

[Ravin]

36 minutes ago, Selkie said:

Re. drug use in bathrooms, I just read an article the other day - can't remember where, maybe the Chicago Tribune -  about the increasing problem of people overdosing in the bathrooms of fast food restaurants. Restaurants are having to deal with people passing out or dying in their bathrooms, customers being scared away, customers and employees being exposed to needles left in the bathrooms, etc. One woman locked herself in the bathroom of a fast food place and fatally overdosed, and her family is now suing the chain, saying they should have prevented her from dying.

 

This sounds like a good reason to have naloxone on hand and train shift managers how to administer it in an emergency. Someone using drugs in the bathroom isn't necessarily not a paying customer. They may well order a latte or a big mac, then go in there and shoot up. So policies about "only paying customers may use the restroom" aren't going to solve the problem.

[marbel]

13 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

What I don't get is how you read into the policy that they are going to be chill with the behavior you describe? I really doubt they are going to refrain from trespassing someone who they catch trashing their restroom, for instance. Nothing like the "problem behavior" you describe here happened in the incident which sparked this--which is why it was an incident. These men were assumed to be more likely to do something like the above because they were black--not because they were actually doing anything untoward. Waiting for someone you are meeting up with before ordering is perfectly reasonable. People do it all the time. No one should get the cops called on them for it. That's the point. When you raise all these unrelated issues, you appear to be confounding the race discrimination with reasonable caution about problem behavior--which it isn't reasonable to do.

 

I'm not reading that into the policy, but rather saying that lot of people are, based on comments I am reading online (such as people on facebook, etc). I think I said earlier - I'm sorry if I didn't - that from everything I have read and seen, it seems obvious that the guys in Philly did nothing wrong, should not have been kicked out, should not have been arrested. 

I'm reporting on what I'm seeing, you might say.  I'm not expressing my own opinion.  Nothing Starbucks does is likely to  change my personal Starbucks habits.  And I'm responding to the notion that companies and shareholders in publicly-traded companies are wrong to be concerned that company policies may cause the company to lose money.  I am not predicting that Starbucks will lose business and money; just saying that it is a concern I have seen expressed.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, marbel said:

 

I'm not reading that into the policy, but rather saying that lot of people are, based on comments I am reading online (such as people on facebook, etc). I think I said earlier - I'm sorry if I didn't - that from everything I have read and seen, it seems obvious that the guys in Philly did nothing wrong, should not have been kicked out, should not have been arrested. 

I'm reporting on what I'm seeing, you might say.  I'm not expressing my own opinion.  Nothing Starbucks does is likely to  change my personal Starbucks habits.  And I'm responding to the notion that companies and shareholders in publicly-traded companies are wrong to be concerned that company policies may cause the company to lose money.  I am not predicting that Starbucks will lose business and money; just saying that it is a concern I have seen expressed.

 

 

 

I think the issue is that these concerns are themselves rooted in bias. It’s more likely that I’ve enjoyed a latte next to a khaki-clad pharma salesman than that I will be forced out of a yuppie haven by roving bands of so-called drug dealers (who might happen to enjoy a hibiscus refresher as much as I do). The concern is not actually with what people are doing in the establishment (you really think LEOs won’t be called if someone is dealing in a store?) but the perception of who someone is/what they do based on appearance.

[marbel]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I think the issue is that these concerns are themselves rooted in bias. It’s more likely that I’ve enjoyed a latte next to a khaki-clad pharma salesman than that I will be forced out of a yuppie haven by roving bands of so-called drug dealers who might happen to enjoy a hibiscus refresher as much as I do. The concern is not actually with what people are doing in the establishment (you really think LEOs won’t be called if someone is dealing in a store) but the perception of who someone is/what they do based on appearance.

Sure.  I agree with that.

But if enough people stop going into Starbucks because they believe/think/fear that the place is going to be taken over by nonpaying guests messing up the facilities, it might affect the company's profits.  That is all I have been saying, obviously poorly.  

 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, marbel said:

Sure.  I agree with that.

But if enough people stop going into Starbucks because they believe/think/fear that the place is going to be taken over by nonpaying guests messing up the facilities, it might affect the company's profits.  That is all I have been saying, obviously poorly.  

 

 

No, I understood what you were saying. I just put that out there because these ‘concerns’ are exactly what confronting implicit bias is meant to tease out. It seems clear to me that we could use more of that not less.

[marbel]

43 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

This sounds like a good reason to have naloxone on hand and train shift managers how to administer it in an emergency. Someone using drugs in the bathroom isn't necessarily not a paying customer. They may well order a latte or a big mac, then go in there and shoot up. So policies about "only paying customers may use the restroom" aren't going to solve the problem.

I just went and looked up naloxone.  I was thinking about this comment and wondering how a person would know to use it - what I mean is, how would a store employee know if an unresponsive person had overdosed, or had some other problem (seizure, heart attack, stroke...) and whether or not it would be safe to use.

Am I right in understanding that it is safe to use anytime and has no negative side effects if opioids are not present?  So could be used on any unresponsive person without endangering them while waiting for emergency personnel?

[Ravin]

6 minutes ago, marbel said:

I just went and looked up naloxone.  I was thinking about this comment and wondering how a person would know to use it - what I mean is, how would a store employee know if an unresponsive person had overdosed, or had some other problem (seizure, heart attack, stroke...) and whether or not it would be safe to use.

Am I right in understanding that it is safe to use anytime and has no negative side effects if opioids are not present?  So could be used on any unresponsive person without endangering them while waiting for emergency personnel?

 

That is my understanding, yes. 

This website has more info about it: http://harmreduction.org/issues/overdose-prevention/overview/overdose-faqs/

[SKL]

Starbucks is gambling that they are going to make more profit by pleasing certain people's senstivities than they are going to lose by welcoming more non-paying customers.

Time will tell if they are right.

I don't believe for one second that this isn't motivated by profit though.

[poppy]

Zero surprise from  me that WTMers spend more time analyzing and pooh-poohing this than the actual incident that preceded it.  

It kinda reminds me of the Roseanne thing.  Woman says obnoxious thing, people who are on her "side" politically have come out of the woodwork to say yeah that's bad but here are 6624 bad things other people said. Minimize minimize minimize.   We don't talk about the woman who was compared to an ape. We don't talk about how two regular-joe everyday Starbucks customers were treated like criminals because of racism, which makes so many other people just like them wary and cynical.   We talk about how Starbucks sucks, and ABC sucks, for making a go at trying to do something about it.

[ktgrok]

42 minutes ago, poppy said:

Zero surprise from  me that WTMers spend more time analyzing and pooh-poohing this than the actual incident that preceded it.  

It kinda reminds me of the Roseanne thing.  Woman says obnoxious thing, people who are on her "side" politically have come out of the woodwork to say yeah that's bad but here are 6624 bad things other people said. Minimize minimize minimize.   We don't talk about the woman who was compared to an ape. We don't talk about how two regular-joe everyday Starbucks customers were treated like criminals because of racism, which makes so many other people just like them wary and cynical.   We talk about how Starbucks sucks, and ABC sucks, for making a go at trying to do something about it.

Agreed. And try to do everything possible to focus on hypothetical drug addicts while ignoring actual factual racism. 

[wathe]

4 hours ago, marbel said:

I just went and looked up naloxone.  I was thinking about this comment and wondering how a person would know to use it - what I mean is, how would a store employee know if an unresponsive person had overdosed, or had some other problem (seizure, heart attack, stroke...) and whether or not it would be safe to use.

Am I right in understanding that it is safe to use anytime and has no negative side effects if opioids are not present?  So could be used on any unresponsive person without endangering them while waiting for emergency personnel?

Yes and no.

Naloxone itself will not cause harm.   No negative side effects if opiates are not present.  If opiates are present, it will neutralize them.   A person who is not breathing because of opiates will wake up and start breathing within seconds.  If someone is not breathing because of an opiate OD, of course administering naloxone is the right things to do.

But, administering naloxone is not risk-free for other reasons:  1) It will completely reverse the effect of the opiate.  Which will  put opiate dependent person into instant withdrawal.  They will feel really , really, really, terrible.  Agitated.  Perhaps irrational.  For sure not on their best behaviour.  Perhaps not very grateful toward the well-meaning person who has abruptly caused them to feel this way.  Violence may follow.  2) Naloxone may wear off before the opiate does.  If user refuses EMS, or leaves before EMS arrives, or EMS never gets called bc user now seems fine, user may wander off and drop in a more isolated place.  (One would hope that if one uses narcan on a customer, one places a call to EMS as the next course of action.  Training should address this).

EMS here are reluctant to use naloxone in the field without police backup.  These patients often wake up swinging.  If EMS can adequately assist respiration, they will defer narcan until hospital.  Once that patient reaches hospital, it is common practice here to restrain and have security standing by before administering naloxone.