Read an article about regular Starbucks customers now being concerned about the stores becoming loitering havens for street people. With the new policy of allowing anyone to use the restrooms and hanging around whether they buy something or not the specter of bums basically living in Starbucks is possible. Where does one draw the line? Or are lines politically incorrect these days?
No one should be baffled by this policy change. Starbucks already has procedures in place for how staff should deal with paying customers who become disruptive. Those policies will now be clarified and expanded to include all guests in Starbucks stores, regardless of whether they're paying or not. For example, if you're sleeping, you'll be asked to stay awake, and if you fall asleep again, either asked again or asked to leave, at the discretion of the store.
I'm guessing that in high-traffic stores (high-traffic for Starbucks) where the doors are locked with an electronic PIN, that they'll still keep them locked, but you'll have to ask for the PIN in the usual way; the only difference being that they'll not require you to make a purchase in order to use the bathroom.
PS: Bravo to Donte Richardson and Rashon Nelson. We need more people like them. 🙏
"Designated iPads" will be part of May 29 training at more than 8,000 Starbucks locations nationwide.
Shortly after the early April arrest of two African-American men who were waiting to meet a business partner in a Philadelphia Starbucks location made nationwide headlines, the company announced plans to close all of its U.S. stores for a day in order to hold "racial bias training" for all 175,000 of its employees, on May 29. That training will incorporate iPads.
Starbucks will use "designated iPads" in the training, featuring a series of videos that will play on the devices, USA Today reported on Thursday. In a video posted on Starbucks' website, company founder and chairman Howard Schultz is seen addressing employees from an iPad screen.
A MacBook is also seen elsewhere in the video, on a table in front of one of the trainers, Alexis McGill Johnson of the Perception Institute.
It's unclear exactly how many iPads Starbucks bought, what they will be used for after the training, or what type of special deal, if any, the company made with Apple. When AppleInsider reached out to Starbucks for comment, a spokesperson told us that "we'll have more to share next week. Starbucks Newsroom will serve as the main hub for information, content, and assets related to the trainings."
To the nitwits who feel the ipad expenditures should have gone to employee raises..were you going to cover the lawsuit, legal fees and loss of revenue from a boycott? It was a racist employee who caused this mess likely because she was unhappy with her own life.
Rayz2016 said: The problem wasnt that the men were sitting for hours without buying what Starbucks laughingly calls coffee. The problem was that the men were treated differently to white customers who were doing the same thing.
Yeah, without being there, this sure seems like a pretty clear-cut case of despicable discrimination.
howieisaacks said: Liberals are the racists. They can't look at a person without noticing their race, or some other characteristic that supposedly makes them a "minority". The moment they notice someone is black or hispanic, or what ever, they immediately set low expectations on them, and treat them differently.
Maybe, and it is certainly being abused (cf. critical theory). But, that clearly didn't seem to be the case here and when you try to defend real racism, that certainly doesn't help your case in pointing out the problem.
Read an article about regular Starbucks customers now being concerned about the stores becoming loitering havens for street people. With the new policy of allowing anyone to use the restrooms and hanging around whether they buy something or not the specter of bums basically living in Starbucks is possible. Where does one draw the line? Or are lines politically incorrect these days?
Yeah, while this particular case seems clear, there are plenty of people who will have no shame in taking advantage to these kind of changes and policies (which are why they existed in the first place). Then they'll have to slowly try to re-implement them again once the attention is off them.
Bias training so that barristers won't say a thing if non-paying customers sit for hours at the expense of paying customers who can't find any empty seats. That said, using an iPad for training purposes is always a good idea.
No so that the managers and barista's can learn consistency. You can't let some people not follow the "rules" while others have to.
I personally can't say I have ever seen so many non paying customers in a Starbucks that there was no seating for those that bought something ? That seems out fo the norm? I also have only been at a Starbucks maybe a handful of times, so you or others may know better about that than me?
Bias training so that barristers won't say a thing if non-paying customers sit for hours at the expense of paying customers who can't find any empty seats. That said, using an iPad for training purposes is always a good idea.
I think you mean “baristas”. If barristers served coffee at Starbucks then it would cost £1000 per cup and would come with six hundred pages of legal briefs.
Only a grand? I refuse to have my beverages made by anyone other than a QC.
I've found that Starbucks is actually a pretty good place to get tea when I'm travelling (I don't drink coffee), since they use decent (pyramid) bags, and let you add the milk yourself, rather than messing it up like some places. (Sometimes, they even put the bags in before adding the boiling water, rather than handing you a cup of rapidly cooling water and a bag.) There are better places to get tea in the US, but they're usually less convenient. Starbucks are at least everywhere, so you don't even have to go to the same one twice.
I agree that bias training seems a ridiculous thing. The idea that people in this day and age need to be taught to not call the police just because some people are waiting in the corner is absurd. I can understand the staff might get upset with them, but I've never seen the police called for something like that, without actual violence happening first.
anome said: I agree that bias training seems a ridiculous thing. The idea that people in this day and age need to be taught to not call the police just because some people are waiting in the corner is absurd. I can understand the staff might get upset with them, but I've never seen the police called for something like that, without actual violence happening first.
Yea, either this is a textbook case of racism, and an employee that needs to be disciplined/go away... or there is more to the story we're not hearing.
For example, if I were in a Starbucks waiting for someone and was told I had to order something or leave, I might explain I was waiting for someone. If the employee insisted, I'd order something or go wait outside (or contact my appointment and change venue). In other words, I'd likely never become a news story in this way.
But, I could imagine a situation where 'rights' are asserted or racism is assumed, and things might escalate to end in arrest. My understanding is that this didn't happen in this case, but if it did, would we even know? It doesn't make it right either way, but I often find little details get left out.
It's a PR nightmare. The cops should never been called. However how many people would refuse several requests to leave by mgmt and the cops? There's probably no stats on retail trespassing arrests since most people just leave prior to getting that far.
If you're not a customer, don't make yourself known. Don't ask to use the bathroom. Blend into the background.
As for other non paying customers using the bathrooms, were they friends or regulars? There is so much information missing.
Comments
I'm guessing that in high-traffic stores (high-traffic for Starbucks) where the doors are locked with an electronic PIN, that they'll still keep them locked, but you'll have to ask for the PIN in the usual way; the only difference being that they'll not require you to make a purchase in order to use the bathroom.
PS: Bravo to Donte Richardson and Rashon Nelson. We need more people like them. 🙏
Maybe, and it is certainly being abused (cf. critical theory). But, that clearly didn't seem to be the case here and when you try to defend real racism, that certainly doesn't help your case in pointing out the problem.
Yeah, while this particular case seems clear, there are plenty of people who will have no shame in taking advantage to these kind of changes and policies (which are why they existed in the first place). Then they'll have to slowly try to re-implement them again once the attention is off them.
I personally can't say I have ever seen so many non paying customers in a Starbucks that there was no seating for those that bought something ? That seems out fo the norm? I also have only been at a Starbucks maybe a handful of times, so you or others may know better about that than me?
I've found that Starbucks is actually a pretty good place to get tea when I'm travelling (I don't drink coffee), since they use decent (pyramid) bags, and let you add the milk yourself, rather than messing it up like some places. (Sometimes, they even put the bags in before adding the boiling water, rather than handing you a cup of rapidly cooling water and a bag.) There are better places to get tea in the US, but they're usually less convenient. Starbucks are at least everywhere, so you don't even have to go to the same one twice.
I agree that bias training seems a ridiculous thing. The idea that people in this day and age need to be taught to not call the police just because some people are waiting in the corner is absurd. I can understand the staff might get upset with them, but I've never seen the police called for something like that, without actual violence happening first.
For example, if I were in a Starbucks waiting for someone and was told I had to order something or leave, I might explain I was waiting for someone. If the employee insisted, I'd order something or go wait outside (or contact my appointment and change venue). In other words, I'd likely never become a news story in this way.
But, I could imagine a situation where 'rights' are asserted or racism is assumed, and things might escalate to end in arrest. My understanding is that this didn't happen in this case, but if it did, would we even know? It doesn't make it right either way, but I often find little details get left out.
If you're not a customer, don't make yourself known. Don't ask to use the bathroom. Blend into the background.
As for other non paying customers using the bathrooms, were they friends or regulars? There is so much information missing.
And video only shows part of the action.