Poor Progressive Starbucks

Far West

Far West

Pursuit Driver
I thought it would be fun to watch Starbucks hang themselves. Hmm.... are we a business, or a place for social justice warriors to direct homeless to go use chairs, bathrooms, and air-conditioning?

From my experience working downtown, homeless are not stable mentally... they may smear feces for no reason when they manage to sneak into your bathrooms.

Often their inconsistent diet means they have horrible diarrhea, which means they may not make it to the toilet. As in: a line of diarrhea from the entry door of your establishment to the bathroom stall. It is an awful task to clean it up. Everything must be sanitized.

Some will steal all the rolls of toilet paper and paper towels after they use your bathroom.

When they bathe in the sink, there is water allllllll over the bathroom floor, counter, and mirrors with paper towels left everywhere.


Starbucks Says Drug Use, Sleeping Unacceptable as It Clarifies Guest Policy

The Seattle-based retailer on Saturday had said it would allow all guests in its U.S. company-owned stores to use its cafes, including its restrooms, whether or not they make a purchase. That announcement, which attracted some support, also drew complaints that cafes wouldn’t have enough seats for paying customers and would turn into homeless shelters and drug havens.

At issue, in essence, is whether Starbucks views itself as a business that caters to customers, or a quasi-public place generally welcome to all. The uproar, which follows the arrest last month of two black men who wanted to use a Starbucks bathroom in Philadelphia, demonstrates the unusual spot that the nation’s biggest coffee chain holds in American culture.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/starbu...table-as-it-clarifies-guest-policy-1526918854
 
Another reason I'm glad I deleted my app even though I was at the Gold Star level. I prefer Daily Grind and other smaller coffee shops these days.
 
Last edited:
Guard Dad said:
When your liberal beliefs run head first into reality.
Click to expand...
I really think this has less to do with "liberal beliefs" than trying to get out of the horrible situation and backlash from Philly. While trying to amend that situation by stating that all are welcome, all (and some situations) were not considered and now they have the backlash of customers once again. I think they are really in a no win situation here. No matter what they say at this point, some group of people, customers or not, is going to be up in arms or have something to say about their policy.
 
If someone is inside a business and not doing business and refuse to leave when asked, they are committing the crime of criminal trespass, pure and simple. I don't care if the person is white, black or the green woman from Star Trek. Maybe one day these corporate types will learn to stand their ground and tell all these liberal, race bating, sex-bating, grievance industry types to seal that obnoxious hole beneath their nose and pound sand.

Until then, it won't stop.
 
Grey Colson said:
If someone is inside a business and not doing business and refuse to leave when asked, they are committing the crime of criminal trespass, pure and simple. I don't care if the person is white, black or the green woman from Star Trek. Maybe one day these corporate types will learn to stand their ground and tell all these liberal, race bating, sex-bating, grievance industry types to seal that obnoxious hole beneath their nose and pound sand.

Until then, it won't stop.
Click to expand...
I think it is poetic justice... the fear of offending anyone has blinded them to why the world needs standards. Such as; we are a business who sells drinks and food in an inclusive environment to sit and network, use our wifi... but we are a business so we maintain the right to ask you to leave if you are not a customer.

The Social Justice model works fine for unemployed college students and those who still live with their parents, however I don't think many businesses can embrace socialism and remain a profitable corporation.
 
Had a friend with a bar on Fulton Industrial. Let's just say it wasn't a classy place and had more motorcycles in the parking lot than cars. He had problems with homeless coming in and stealing beers, crapping in the floor, you name it.

He hit on a solution that I thought was pretty clever. He hired two homeless men under the table to "bounce" the other homeless. He paid them in food and beer, and let them clean up in the bathroom in the morning when there weren't any customers around. He would give them a few bucks every day as well, or pay them to help clean up. They knew all the other homeless and word got out that this place was off limits.

He said they were just about the best employees he ever had. One guy unfortunately died about two years into the deal, and my friend paid for the funeral. He never had a homeless problem after he hired these guys.
 
I saw a news report the other day where the Seattle city council passed an ordinance that those who own rental property are now legally prohibited from running criminal background checks on potential renters. Rental property owners are up in arms and say they will increase the rent on their property the next time they seek renters to keep the druggies and criminals from occupying them. The liberal city council seems to think this ordinance will clear up a housing shortage in Seattle for lower income people.
 
Boss 302 said:
I saw a news report the other day where the Seattle city council passed an ordinance that those who own rental property are now legally prohibited from running criminal background checks on potential renters. Rental property owners are up in arms and say they will increase the rent on their property the next time they seek renters to keep the druggies and criminals from occupying them. The liberal city council seems to think this ordinance will clear up a housing shortage in Seattle for lower income people.
Click to expand...
From what I understand there is no zoning for lower rent apartments there either, and the agressive building code also makes it hard to build anything that would rent for less than $1200 a month.

It's also hard to evict in Seattle, forcing a lot of rental housing growth outside the city.
 
lotstodo said:
From what I understand there is no zoning for lower rent apartments there either, and the agressive building code also makes it hard to build anything that would rent for less than $1200 a month.

It's also hard to evict in Seattle, forcing a lot of rental housing growth outside the city.
Click to expand...
And they wonder why there is a housing shortage!
 
JawJa said:
Is it just me...

Or is it obvious some serious change is about to hit Seattle???
Click to expand...
Seattle has gone very far to the left over the last 20 years. Don't be surprised to see more businesses move out of the city because they don't want to continue paying more increases in taxes and higher minimum wages imposed by the city council. I won't be surprised to see unemployment increasing there while the rest of the country benefits from a healthy economy, while Seattle's suffers.
 
Seattle is in a unique economic situation. Their direct competition is Silicon Valley, a location that is further left, higher cost of living, and higher taxed than they are. This hides some of the opportunity costs of their decisions.

Texas and North Carolina are actively recruiting there, and SC almost drew Boeing away, until the Obama DOL killed the deal. The next tech crash will see Seattle move back to being the weird ex-hippie uncle of the country.
 
Boss 302 said:
Seattle has gone very far to the left over the last 20 years. Don't be surprised to see more businesses move out of the city because they don't want to continue paying more increases in taxes and higher minimum wages imposed by the city council. I won't be surprised to see unemployment increasing there while the rest of the country benefits from a healthy economy, while Seattle's suffers.
Click to expand...
I moved up there in 1988, and no one up there could fathom living in California... quoting the traffic and cost of living. I had to be careful if I said that I was from San Diego because no one wanted Seattle to be like California. I assured them that since I worked for the airlines my true home was still San Diego, that I was just domiciled in Seattle... Most off my days off I flew back home, so they were not threatened that I would ruin their Seattle.

(I actually would agree that the traffic WAS awful and housing much more expensive because I did not want more people moving to my city!) :rofl: :nono:

Boeing and Microsoft were growing. Boeing was working on new aircraft 737-400, 747-400 and the 777 to stay ahead of Airbus. The airline industry had put in so many orders Boeing could not keep up with production. Microsoft had gone public and introduced their windows operating system, so they were also a stronger factor in employment in the area. That growth was bringing in more high paying jobs. Part of the reason people were leary of Californians who they saw arriving from Silicon Valley for the jobs.

There were still plenty of affordable waterfront houses, however there were more stories about it becoming less affordable. Housing was starting to experiencing inflation in prices. Traffic, never easy due to the lakes that must be crossed to get anywhere, had become more challenging.

Seattle was the HQ of Nordstroms when shopping malls were strong and there was no internet shopping yet. Fishing, lumber, and port job were still top employers. This was pre Amazon. Starbucks had some stores, but were regional as was Costco Wholesale ... grunge bands and the downtown grunge scene and craft beer was local...A university town. In the late 80's Seattle was rated one of the nation's most livable cities, with a low cost of living.

Now with Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco and other Seattle-area corporations there has been a proliferation of luxury condos, high-rise office buildings and the cosmopolitan lifestyle. I guess all those who would never want to live in California are living their nightmare... without the sunshine, beaches, and great weather. :angel:
 
Last edited:
Interesting...

Washington Post recently reported that Starbucks Executive Chairman Howard Schultz may seek the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2020. If that’s true, that could explain a lot about the company’s concern with pleasing leftist activists.

The actual substance of Starbucks’ new policy, announced in a letter to its employees, states that "any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer."

But that’s as crazy as saying that any person who enters my house, whether or not they are related to me, is considered to be a member of my family. I might as well tell anyone who wanders in from the street that they can help themselves to the steak dinner my wife has cooked, spend the day watching my TV, or crash in one of my kids’ bedrooms.

It’s as nutty as saying that any people who enter my country, whether or not they are here legally, are considered to be Americans. Come to think of it, perhaps this is a trend in left-wing thinking.

Starbucks also engaged former Attorney General Eric Holder as an adviser on diversity issues. He has a long history of making accusations of racial discrimination, often unjustified. And I imagine Starbucks is paying him big bucks for his services.

Meanwhile Chick-Fil-A – owned by a conservative family whose traditional views on marriage have earned the wrath of many left-wing cities and college campuses – has the highest sales per location of any quick-serve chain in the country, almost four times the amount of Starbucks. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned there for other American companies considering whether or not to capitulate to the social justice mob.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...americas-largest-chain-homeless-shelters.html
 
Sometimes I wonder...

If we are getting closer and closer to:

The (political, leftist) straw that broke the camels back...

:faint:
 
Far West said:
Interesting...

Washington Post recently reported that Starbucks Executive Chairman Howard Schultz may seek the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2020. If that’s true, that could explain a lot about the company’s concern with pleasing leftist activists.

The actual substance of Starbucks’ new policy, announced in a letter to its employees, states that "any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer."

But that’s as crazy as saying that any person who enters my house, whether or not they are related to me, is considered to be a member of my family. I might as well tell anyone who wanders in from the street that they can help themselves to the steak dinner my wife has cooked, spend the day watching my TV, or crash in one of my kids’ bedrooms.

It’s as nutty as saying that any people who enter my country, whether or not they are here legally, are considered to be Americans. Come to think of it, perhaps this is a trend in left-wing thinking.

Starbucks also engaged former Attorney General Eric Holder as an adviser on diversity issues. He has a long history of making accusations of racial discrimination, often unjustified. And I imagine Starbucks is paying him big bucks for his services.

Meanwhile Chick-Fil-A – owned by a conservative family whose traditional views on marriage have earned the wrath of many left-wing cities and college campuses – has the highest sales per location of any quick-serve chain in the country, almost four times the amount of Starbucks. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned there for other American companies considering whether or not to capitulate to the social justice mob.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018...americas-largest-chain-homeless-shelters.html
Click to expand...

I am a little confused why you think that is crazy or compared it to a persons home? A residence, or illegally entering a country is not the same as entering a business. I enter places of business all the time and they should assume I am a customer. I might or I might not purchase something at that time, but I am fairly certain that if you act like I am a criminal or demand I purchase something right that moment, I won't be back.
The "new" policy is basically what it has always been at Starbucks. I have waited there numerous times as I have in other places. Just Sunday I waited and was actually seated at a table at Carrabba's. I did not order anything until the rest of my party arrived. :dunno: They did not have an issue with me taking up a booth at a sit down restaurant, they assumed, correctly, I was a customer. Many places do.
What happened was very unfortunate. They are doing the best they can to run damage control and it seems as if now some other groups (I mentioned that above in my first comment) are still criticizing. Just a no win situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top