Starbucks new bathroom policy.

neema

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Hey guys, just wanted to comment on this article on sott.net, and see what other members here think about this issue.

From article:
Everyone is welcome at your neighborhood Starbucks. This includes just hanging out or using the bathroom.
...

In my opinion this new policy by Starbucks is a very bad idea and unfair to paying patrons. In a free society a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they wish especially non-paying customers. And paying customers should punish or reward that business policy with their money.

As a male from the middle east, if I saw a business that had a policy of whites only, or females only, I wouldn’t give a sh*t. There is plenty of other business that would love my money.

Why can’t a bunch of ignorant people be able to practice their ignorance in peace in a free and democratic society?
 
There's a lot of tension and confusion with regard's to Starbucks in general, imho.

Though I'll patronize the establishment, I like Peets better. Mellow Barista's!

I get the impression SB's draws more a of a conservative crowd (depending on the city, and location). Where Peets Coffee seems to attract more of a liberal clientele.

Both are questionable with whether they even filter the local water in the process of there operations.
Not to mention all the sugar products they sell feeding the parasitic gateway of the 4dsts. Divide and conquer!
 
My friend's family had a small bar, where situation got out of control because the guests ordered one drink and then smuggled booze in the toilet and drank whole night their own drinks. Crazy!
 
Perhaps Starbucks implemented the bathroom policy after a women took a sh!t in front of the cash register at a Tim Hortons in Canada last week. She then picked it up with a napkin and hurled it at the worker.

There were reports that this happened at a Starbucks because they refused to let her use the restroom. I don't know which report is true- Tim Hortons or Starbucks, but the video went viral- despite how disgusting it was.
 
Perhaps Starbucks implemented the bathroom policy after a women took a ---- in front of the cash register at a Tim Hortons in Canada last week. She then picked it up with a napkin and hurled it at the worker.

There were reports that this happened at a Starbucks because they refused to let her use the restroom. I don't know which report is true- Tim Hortons or Starbucks, but the video went viral- despite how disgusting it was.

Wow! people really are starting to lose it. At most Starbucks it's a non issue I would think, because they're too busy to pay much attention to that. I've gone into Starbucks and gone to the restroom first before getting in line for coffee. No one raised an eyebrow. I'm sure I could have walked right out.
 
Perhaps Starbucks implemented the bathroom policy after a women took a sh!t in front of the cash register at a Tim Hortons in Canada last week. She then picked it up with a napkin and hurled it at the worker.

There were reports that this happened at a Starbucks because they refused to let her use the restroom. I don't know which report is true- Tim Hortons or Starbucks, but the video went viral- despite how disgusting it was.

My god, hadn’t heard about that. That’s just insane. :scared: If I’m not wrong that’s what primates do!

If this isn’t a CLEAR sign of devolution, I don’t know what would be.

And I had to go look up the story to believe it. What makes it so shocking for me personally is that I used to live in the area that this incident happened!

In general, since I left Canada couple of years ago now, every time I go back and visit I feel like I’m visiting an alien nation. Can’t put my finger on it, but everything seems a little off and not in a good way.
 
I've gone into Starbucks and gone to the restroom first before getting in line for coffee.
Inner city locations tend to have digital keypads on or otherwise require keycards for their bathroom doors, and outer city or otherwise rural / small town locations—not so much.
 
Hey guys, just wanted to comment on this article on sott.net, and see what other members here think about this issue.

From article:


In my opinion this new policy by Starbucks is a very bad idea and unfair to paying patrons. In a free society a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they wish especially non-paying customers. And paying customers should punish or reward that business policy with their money.

As a male from the middle east, if I saw a business that had a policy of whites only, or females only, I wouldn’t give a sh*t. There is plenty of other business that would love my money.

Why can’t a bunch of ignorant people be able to practice their ignorance in peace in a free and democratic society?


Well, I think this talk of paying and non-paying patron is a bit misguided. After the whole debacle occured. Quite a number of people admitted that they had gone to Starbucks just for wifi with nobody calling the police. Besides, even if we were to fault the two young men for not ordering anything, can we truly say that the staff's action was warranted? Calling the police seems more than a little excessive. What is especially surprising me is that in the case of Starbuck as in the cases that occurred in Waffle House, people seem fine calling the police even for very minor things. What about talking about your fellow human being (if he doesn't show any signs of violence)? A police state is developing (or entering the final stage) in the US and it seems to me that American are all but encouraging it.

Considering the history behind white only type of policy, I don't think I would be able to give a toss as you would. After all a society in which a certain group of people is not allowed to use certain property or do some thing because of their gender or race doesn't sound much like a free and democratic society.

It's funny that you call them ignorant. I've seen this word tossed around in reference to this case and to be honest I find it a bit bizarre. It seems less like a thoughtful observation of the situation and more like a defence mechanism.

Obviously, if the two men hadn't been black, what occurred would not have made the news, but I also feel that if they hadn't been black the police would probably not have been called on them in the place. The left has lost its mind over tribalism and identity politics. But that doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist anymore. People are unlikely to ever acknowledge it, but in general, being black and male is often synonym with being a thug. Now, if it turns out that calling the police on non paying people sitting in the cafe was common practice in that particular Starbucks, the discussion would be different. But so far this proof hasn't been provided
 
Starbucks Still Has Some Soul Searching To Do
May 23, 2018 @ 11:08 AM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2018/05/23/starbucks-has-some-deep-soul-searching-to-do/#29fca97067b0
38ce4b86b1c43422df5e38841859c129.png

Starbucks' new "Use of the Third Place" policy makes it official that it welcomes anyone, paying customer or not, but it has a fine line to tread before alienating loyalty customers. (Photo credit: HECTOR RETAMAL/AFP/Getty Images)

Starbucks has apologized and been doing a lot of damage control lately after the April incident involving a Philadelphia location manager calling the cops on two black men sparked cries of unconscious racial bias and boycotts.

The company has said it will close its more than 8,000 company-owned U.S. stores on the afternoon of May 29 to provide to its nearly 175,000 U.S. employees “racial-bias education geared toward preventing discrimination.” Both Starbucks founder Howard Schultz and CEO Kevin Johnson have apologized on behalf of the Seattle coffeehouse giant.

In recent days, Starbucks also officially declared a “Use of the Third Place Policy,” making it clear that anyone is a customer and is welcome to use its store space, including bathrooms, regardless of whether one makes a purchase.

“We are committed to creating a culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome,” the statement said. “We want our stores to be the third place.”

Yes, Starbucks SBUX +0.74% has expanded to where it is by positioning itself as that open and inviting community spot, where people can hang out between home and work. Its mission statement to “inspire and nurture the human spirit” is worth applauding; so are its moves to train employees against unconscious and implicit bias of different kinds.

But as I have sat at different Starbucks locations in New York lately and overheard conversations around me, I witnessed firsthand a new scene that I hadn't quite observed before: At times, stores were mostly occupied by non-paying customers with their own drinks and food while some paying customers looked puzzled and left frustrated without finding a seat. I have also seen customers inside a store being openly solicited for money.

While store employees were courteous and maintained an even keel as they tried to do their jobs, some expressed frustration and discomfort about having to suddenly tread a murky (and fine) line, not to mention the extra workload of needing to be on watch to clean out trash left on the table and floor by some customers.

Starbucks said in its new policy that it will “respectfully request that customers behave in a manner that maintains a warm and welcoming environment,” including “using space as intended,” “being considerate of others,” “communicating with respect” and “acting responsibly.”

But as one employee said to me, “It’s a very sensitive topic,” adding that the store dynamics had indeed changed recently. He gave an example of having to ask a group of non-paying young customers with their own food and drinks to lower their volume and not disturb others, only to see trash deliberately left behind as they departed that store.

"It's very difficult for us," the employee said.

The mission of a company to do the public good is important and is part of Starbucks’ stated DNA, but Starbucks is also not blind to its bid to deliver as a public company. A case in point: In seeking to stem its slowing North America sales growth, it has recently introduced a new loyalty rewards Visa credit card and continued to entice its loyalty customers with "Star Dash" games and challenges of different kinds to hook them to visit stores more often — and spend.

All this is taking place against the backdrop of consumers spending more time at home and brewing their own artisanal coffee while buying more ready-to-go drinks to match their on-the-move lifestyles. Starbucks has also acknowledged it faces growing competition, from quick-service chains like McDonald’s on the low end to gourmet coffeehouses like Blue Bottle Coffee on the upscale side, that are all eager to take some of its market share.

Customer experience and employee morale are some of the big retail industry buzzwords these days as brick-and-mortar chains, hurt by declining store and mall traffic, wake up to the importance of getting the basics right. Starbucks, while doing the right thing on one end, may be finding itself in a bind with the risk of alienating its loyalty customers and overtaxing employees. It will have some deeper soul searching to do to figure out who, and just exactly how, it wants to please.

After all, as the saying goes, you can’t please everyone.


MPC One Drink @ a Time :nuts:

 
Perhaps Starbucks implemented the bathroom policy after a women took a sh!t in front of the cash register at a Tim Hortons in Canada last week. She then picked it up with a napkin and hurled it at the worker.

There were reports that this happened at a Starbucks because they refused to let her use the restroom. I don't know which report is true- Tim Hortons or Starbucks, but the video went viral- despite how disgusting it was.

That was a Tim Horton's where that happened, which was even weirder because predominantly, they never lock their washrooms and you can easily use them without buying anything!

To add to the whole Starbucks not having a backbone, here's what one customer did in order to get 'reparations'. Mind you, from what I understand, this was meant to poke fun of the whole thing and he wasn't actually serious. So I agree with a lot of what you said @DianaRose94 about whether the employees would have called the cops or not if they weren't black, but I think it's more about how identity politics is actually making the whole situation worse.

 
Last edited:
In my opinion this new policy by Starbucks is a very bad idea and unfair to paying patrons. In a free society a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they wish especially non-paying customers. And paying customers should punish or reward that business policy with their money.

I can see the policy working in some locales but not others. Paying customers punishing and rewarding business policy is exactly what brought about the policy change the quoted individual is complaining about. I'm honestly having trouble seeing what all the fuss is about -- no business can please all prospective customers with their policies, service, and products. Is that news????

This would have been an enormous nothing burger hadn't race been part of the initial controversy. MSM knows how easy it is to manipulate people's attentional control panels :thdown:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ca.
Well, I think this talk of paying and non-paying patron is a bit misguided. After the whole debacle occured. Quite a number of people admitted that they had gone to Starbucks just for wifi with nobody calling the police. Besides, even if we were to fault the two young men for not ordering anything, can we truly say that the staff's action was warranted? Calling the police seems more than a little excessive. What is especially surprising me is that in the case of Starbuck as in the cases that occurred in Waffle House, people seem fine calling the police even for very minor things. What about talking about your fellow human being (if he doesn't show any signs of violence)? A police state is developing (or entering the final stage) in the US and it seems to me that American are all but encouraging it.


Very good point about people calling the police on everything little thing these days. But unfortunately that is the consequence of a society that encourages non responsibility.

With that said I’m not just talking about this incident. I’m advocating for the right of people to discriminate based on their fears and misconceptions. Mind you this kind of thought has come to me after many years of experience dealing with "racism" and discrimination. I also look at it from the perspective of both a business owner and a patron.

I have now come to believe true racism is very rare these days. Well at least in North America anyway. Yes, there is prejudice and discrimination but those are very different from truly hate born racism, osit.

Although I’m not aware of the exact details and the particulars of this specific situation, because I was not there, a blanket policy is never a solution.


Considering the history behind white only type of policy, I don't think I would be able to give a toss as you would. After all a society in which a certain group of people is not allowed to use certain property or do some thing because of their gender or race doesn't sound much like a free and democratic society.

Agreed but to a point. As all things it is not so black and white. (no pun intended) This is how I see it differently. Imo in a truly free society there should be options to cater to all members of that society. Everyone should not be forced to conform by law to a set of arbitatory moral values or ideology. As long as there are peaceful options for all there should be no problems.

I will share a personal example of what I’m talking about. For years there was a little-known bar in Vancouver Canada that had the sign “whites only.” Mind you it was located in a fringe remote part of town that was very isolated in an industrial area. Not many people were aware of it and no one made a big deal as the place was not something to write home about.

This is my point, these "ignorant" individuals were not bothering anyone, so why force an ideology on them that they are clearly not ready for. It didn’t bother me or my friends as there are plenty of other places and people to get to know.

It's funny that you call them ignorant. I've seen this word tossed around in reference to this case and to be honest I find it a bit bizarre. It seems less like a thoughtful observation of the situation and more like a defence mechanism.

Well I use the word ignorant as I see it perfectly fit to describe this type of thinking.

The word ignorant is defined as:

“lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.”

I find that most “racist” people often lack education and deeper level of exposure to the people they are racist towards, which from my personal observation seems to be coming from a level of anxiety and fear. This anxiety and fear is easily exploited by unscrupulous minority members of that group due to an agenda.

Obviously, if the two men hadn't been black, what occurred would not have made the news, but I also feel that if they hadn't been black the police would probably not have been called on them in the place. The left has lost its mind over tribalism and identity politics. But that doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist anymore. People are unlikely to ever acknowledge it, but in general, being black and male is often synonym with being a thug. Now, if it turns out that calling the police on non paying people sitting in the cafe was common practice in that particular Starbucks, the discussion would be different. But so far this proof hasn't been provided

In the climate today I tend to agree that race is probably exacerbating the situation further. But I theorize that even if the said individuals where white, had they dressed and looked in a way to create unconscious fear for those around them they too might have been asked to leave. How you dress and how you present yourself to the world goes a long way to add to or relieve from this unconscious fear. I have experienced this first hand.


Thanks for the responses, it has definitely made me think about the subject further.
 
Very good point about people calling the police on everything little thing these days. But unfortunately that is the consequence of a society that encourages non responsibility.

With that said I’m not just talking about this incident. I’m advocating for the right of people to discriminate based on their fears and misconceptions. Mind you this kind of thought has come to me after many years of experience dealing with "racism" and discrimination. I also look at it from the perspective of both a business owner and a patron.

I have now come to believe true racism is very rare these days. Well at least in North America anyway. Yes, there is prejudice and discrimination but those are very different from truly hate born racism, osit.

Although I’m not aware of the exact details and the particulars of this specific situation, because I was not there, a blanket policy is never a solution.




Agreed but to a point. As all things it is not so black and white. (no pun intended) This is how I see it differently. Imo in a truly free society there should be options to cater to all members of that society. Everyone should not be forced to conform by law to a set of arbitatory moral values or ideology. As long as there are peaceful options for all there should be no problems.

I will share a personal example of what I’m talking about. For years there was a little-known bar in Vancouver Canada that had the sign “whites only.” Mind you it was located in a fringe remote part of town that was very isolated in an industrial area. Not many people were aware of it and no one made a big deal as the place was not something to write home about.

This is my point, these "ignorant" individuals were not bothering anyone, so why force an ideology on them that they are clearly not ready for. It didn’t bother me or my friends as there are plenty of other places and people to get to know.



Well I use the word ignorant as I see it perfectly fit to describe this type of thinking.

The word ignorant is defined as:

“lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.”

I find that most “racist” people often lack education and deeper level of exposure to the people they are racist towards, which from my personal observation seems to be coming from a level of anxiety and fear. This anxiety and fear is easily exploited by unscrupulous minority members of that group due to an agenda.



In the climate today I tend to agree that race is probably exacerbating the situation further. But I theorize that even if the said individuals where white, had they dressed and looked in a way to create unconscious fear for those around them they too might have been asked to leave. How you dress and how you present yourself to the world goes a long way to add to or relieve from this unconscious fear. I have experienced this first hand.


Thanks for the responses, it has definitely made me think about the subject further.


I believe that our current race relations are far from being as good as people think. Behind the veneer of civility is hidden a great deal of hatred. I remember there was this guy Stephan Molyneux who admitted that though he chatted and laughed with Africans and Asians, he actually despised them and wished to get rid of them. There are a greater number of Molyneux than many assume, I think. Those people could be social and friendly in "polite" society and wait for the cover of anonymity that the internet offers to promote their true view.

In that regards, your opinion about the right to discriminate does sort of make sense to me. But, I also think that such a thing could only work in a much more sophisticated society than the one we're currently living in. In our world, it would only lead to a form of tyranny.

"But I theorize that even if the said individuals where white, had they dressed and looked in a way to create unconscious fear for those around them they too might have been asked to leave. How you dress and how you present yourself to the world goes a long way to add to or relieve from this unconscious fear. I have experienced this first hand."

I see your point there. But then what about freedom and personal liberty? Besides, for a work situation I understand the need to conform. However, on your own leisure time, are you to dress in a certain way to ensure that people do not call the police on you or that they do not engage in acts of violence physical or verbal? Of course, personal liberty should involve a level of personal responsibility. Hence, you should dress in a manner that is not too shocking or vulgar. You could also argue that dressing in a certain way is a mean to protect yourself from aggression. But then, if even something as simple as going to coffee shop require such level of thinking, one could wonder if he's living in a prison or in a free society. And if one decide that he lives in a prison, then it's now wonder that he would start protesting and agitating to break the shackles of his confinement.

In the case of Starbucks, I personally don't think the two men were dressed like thugs. But that is where personal bias and prejudice come into consideration. I've seen many comments online saying that the men were dressed like thugs and somehow deserved what happened to them because of that. I do not mind that some people think they were dressed like thugs. What bothers me is that I'm not sure their thinking is consistent. If the two men had been dressed the same way they did and had been white. Would people have still felt that they were thuggish looking? I doubt so. I have seen many cases of double standard where a set of behaviour done by someone from one race was wrong or threatening but done by the other, it was suddenly not so wrong and even endearing in a way.

I don't think that every situation where one race does not have as good an outcome as another can necessarily be explained by racism. However, I also don't think that because of the current identity madness, we should dismiss any claim of discrimination or pretend that it has become a non-existent issue as a lot of free-speech, anti-identity politics "activists" are doing.

You see what differentiate true racism from casual racism or simple discrimination? The line is very fine between all three. After all the feeling that somehow black boys and men are somehow more threatening (prejudice/bias) is what has caused many police officer to shoot or attack them and induce non-black to report them for no reason. What I'm trying to say is that simple prejudice can have dire consequence (i.e feeling that an Arabic men is dangerous etc.)

Well, I suppose that racism in North America and most European country is nothing of the kind you could find in let's say India or Kuwait. So in that sense, I guess you're right about there not being any true racism.
 
Back
Top Bottom