Starbucks "Racism"

yannick

Established
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Messages
227
Likes
339
#41
If I had a Starbucks and anybody came crawling in, I would offer him or her something for free first, making him or her at ease, and then engage a good conversation with him or her! Anybody's priceless for sure! :)
 





Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
1
Likes
3
#42
I have been in enough Starbucks in Philly to know that many of them are used to conduct one on one meetings and even interviews. In most cases the laptop warriors sit most of the day and work or play on the net without a coffee in site. I have never witnessed anyone being asked to leave. I have bought a cup of coffee and sat for hours working off my laptop.... I'm talking 4 or 5 hours at a time. We have Starbucks listed as a mobile touchdown spot at my job, so there is obviously this "sense" or "belief" that you can touchdown in them and conduct business. I have done it on numerous occasions without purchase, but with the intent of purchase and changed my mind. "Regulars" tend to not get heckled or questioned, so I don't think a manager can pick and choose who they ask to leave. All patrons (active and potential) should be treated equally- from high powered suits to the homeless. Now with regard to racism, I can't determine a race issue from what I saw from the recordings. However I did find the police presence overkill. Many black males are already hyper-sensitive to police as it is, so I think the entire scene could have been handled differently. Did she warn them that she would call the police or did she just call? That makes a major difference in this case... if she called without warning then I too would feel that I was being singled out. That opens up the argument on several motivating factors... racism being one of them.
 





Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,391
Likes
5,914
#46
If I had a Starbucks and anybody came crawling in, I would offer him or her something for free first, making him or her at ease, and then engage a good conversation with him or her! Anybody's priceless for sure! :)
By using this tiny font I can only conclude that in effect you are low talking...:)
;)
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
2,604
Likes
3,025
#47
I have been in enough Starbucks in Philly to know that many of them are used to conduct one on one meetings and even interviews. In most cases the laptop warriors sit most of the day and work or play on the net without a coffee in site. I have never witnessed anyone being asked to leave. I have bought a cup of coffee and sat for hours working off my laptop.... I'm talking 4 or 5 hours at a time. We have Starbucks listed as a mobile touchdown spot at my job, so there is obviously this "sense" or "belief" that you can touchdown in them and conduct business. I have done it on numerous occasions without purchase, but with the intent of purchase and changed my mind. "Regulars" tend to not get heckled or questioned, so I don't think a manager can pick and choose who they ask to leave. All patrons (active and potential) should be treated equally- from high powered suits to the homeless. Now with regard to racism, I can't determine a race issue from what I saw from the recordings. However I did find the police presence overkill. Many black males are already hyper-sensitive to police as it is, so I think the entire scene could have been handled differently. Did she warn them that she would call the police or did she just call? That makes a major difference in this case... if she called without warning then I too would feel that I was being singled out. That opens up the argument on several motivating factors... racism being one of them.
The OP says that they were given the chance to buy something and stay there, but they refused.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
1,367
Likes
1,471
#49

This is about business and common sense, not racism. No restaurant or cafe wants people loitering. The main reason is tables and seating space (and homeless people God bless 'em) or even groups of teenagers just hanging out (until there's a fight). It's not that they aren't making any money, it's that they are losing money when tables are taken up by non-paying customers. Save money on all the bullsh*t and just put a "NO LOITERING" sign up like most businesses have. Donate that money they're wasting to a good cause. The gentlemen had a chance to either make a purchase or leave or get arrested so they got arrested. Entirely their choices. However, as you can see the crazy SJW's will use ANY pretense to cry racism even when racism has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just more crazy people bullsh*t. I mean f*ck being in the same ballpark. This isn't even in the same neighborhood. False equivalence. I'm thinking the screwed up food and water (not to mention pharmaceuticals) combined with media/social media have literally driven some of these people bat sh*t crazy...
The guy in the first video is a former cop..... case closed.
 





Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,948
Likes
5,650
#51
lol, as soon as I saw the article about how Starbucks released a statement that everyone could hang out in Starbucks even if they didn't buy anything I knew something like this would happen. Maybe people are not so familiar with the difference between simple things like how stores in some parts of the city where there are more homeless people have signs on their bathrooms saying that they are for customers only because every homeless person within the area is trying to use the bathroom, and the stores on the other side of town don't have to do that. A rule like this is just not going to work in every part of the city.

There are some parts of town where I live where you should just not allow people to come into your business and hang out for as long as they want if they aren't going to buy something. They are going to take you seriously and pretty soon you will be going to Starbucks and there will be some dude sleeping on the bench inside Starbucks using his backpack as a pillow, and even the sweet smell of freshly ground coffee won't help after a while. That was such a ludicrous idea.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
1,367
Likes
1,471
#52
lol, as soon as I saw the article about how Starbucks released a statement that everyone could hang out in Starbucks even if they didn't buy anything I knew something like this would happen. Maybe people are not so familiar with the difference between simple things like how stores in some parts of the city where there are more homeless people have signs on their bathrooms saying that they are for customers only because every homeless person within the area is trying to use the bathroom, and the stores on the other side of town don't have to do that. A rule like this is just not going to work in every part of the city.

There are some parts of town where I live where you should just not allow people to come into your business and hang out for as long as they want if they aren't going to buy something. They are going to take you seriously and pretty soon you will be going to Starbucks and there will be some dude sleeping on the bench inside Starbucks using his backpack as a pillow, and even the sweet smell of freshly ground coffee won't help after a while. That was such a ludicrous idea.
As much as Id like to disagree with this, the reality is you have a solid point here. Or perhaps st some Starbucks locations this will just become the norm and customers who choose to support those locations can still do so. I could see that as an outcome, but SB is a massive & wealthy corporation, they could take the hit for standing on their principles. All that aside, your point is still very valid.
 





Joined
Mar 27, 2017
Messages
2,391
Likes
5,914
#53
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,948
Likes
5,650
#54
As much as Id like to disagree with this, the reality is you have a solid point here. Or perhaps st some Starbucks locations this will just become the norm and customers who choose to support those locations can still do so. I could see that as an outcome, but SB is a massive & wealthy corporation, they could take the hit for standing on their principles. All that aside, your point is still very valid.
I'd like to disagree with me too, but it is just not a realistic expectation for Starbucks to allow people to hang out there without buying anything in certain areas where homelessness is high. It is not fair to the employees who are not trained as psych nurses because many people who are homeless suffer from some degree of mental illness that there families are not willing to support. It is a very sad state of affairs because some percentage of the homeless population would be reduced if the families of these people were willing to help them get treatment and support them as an advocate in some way that could work towards finding a better solution to this reality.

However, most employee working at Starbucks are college students, and Starbucks does provide fairly good benefits for college students, but they are not people who are prepared or equipped to deal with the needs that the homeless community requires.

If Starbucks wanted to initiate some effort towards engaging in meeting the needs of the homeless population, they are more than capable of doing this. However, when these opportunities present themselves outside of a situation like this where they probably only made this decision because it had the potential to alleviate negative press, they object to this.

Seattle just passed the Head tax that requires all businesses within Seattle generating revenue over 20 million to pay an additional tax that is supposed to benefit the homeless population. Starbucks has complained about this.

"Seattle-based Starbucks had harsh words for its hometown leaders. It accused the city of spending without accountability while ignoring that hundreds of children sleep outside.

"If they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a 5-year-old child, no one believes they will be able to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction," Starbucks' John Kelly said in a statement.

But worker and church groups and others cheered the tax as a step toward building badly needed affordable housing in an affluent city where the income gap continues to widen and lower-income workers are being priced out." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-tax-seattle-20180515-story.html

The reality is that the city is not really getting a whole lot in taxes. Most of our taxes go towards the Federal government who then redistributes this money to the states after keeping the largest portion to expand our military like we live in a communist country. So the city is getting a very limited distribution of what is collected by the Federal tax in addition to whatever money is collected by the state, which is a smaller percentage of the taxes that most people don't pay a whole lot of unless you own a very expensive house or are purchasing very expensive items where the state property tax and sales tax would apply.

So it is very reasonable for Seattle to find a way to generate revenue to help the homeless in the city without creating a burden for the average citizen who already is burdened by the Federal tax and whatever state taxes apply to them. I oppose taxes, but I support this because I support local initiatives. This demonstrates the way the US should work where states have the freedom to initiate things like this that have a direct benefit on their local community. This is a primary way that most of the house and the senate have failed their constituents because they have been bribed, bought, or whatever to support centralized government instead of advocating for the local communities they represent.

So Starbucks is sending very mixed messages about the subject of homelessness, but I am sure that if no one realizes this or complains about it, they aren't going to do anything to change this. They are going to continue on this path as long as they are not getting anymore negative press for it.
 





Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
1,367
Likes
1,471
#55
I'd like to disagree with me too, but it is just not a realistic expectation for Starbucks to allow people to hang out there without buying anything in certain areas where homelessness is high. It is not fair to the employees who are not trained as psych nurses because many people who are homeless suffer from some degree of mental illness that there families are not willing to support. It is a very sad state of affairs because some percentage of the homeless population would be reduced if the families of these people were willing to help them get treatment and support them as an advocate in some way that could work towards finding a better solution to this reality.

However, most employee working at Starbucks are college students, and Starbucks does provide fairly good benefits for college students, but they are not people who are prepared or equipped to deal with the needs that the homeless community requires.

If Starbucks wanted to initiate some effort towards engaging in meeting the needs of the homeless population, they are more than capable of doing this. However, when these opportunities present themselves outside of a situation like this where they probably only made this decision because it had the potential to alleviate negative press, they object to this.

Seattle just passed the Head tax that requires all businesses within Seattle generating revenue over 20 million to pay an additional tax that is supposed to benefit the homeless population. Starbucks has complained about this.

"Seattle-based Starbucks had harsh words for its hometown leaders. It accused the city of spending without accountability while ignoring that hundreds of children sleep outside.

"If they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a 5-year-old child, no one believes they will be able to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction," Starbucks' John Kelly said in a statement.

But worker and church groups and others cheered the tax as a step toward building badly needed affordable housing in an affluent city where the income gap continues to widen and lower-income workers are being priced out." http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-tax-seattle-20180515-story.html

The reality is that the city is not really getting a whole lot in taxes. Most of our taxes go towards the Federal government who then redistributes this money to the states after keeping the largest portion to expand our military like we live in a communist country. So the city is getting a very limited distribution of what is collected by the Federal tax in addition to whatever money is collected by the state, which is a smaller percentage of the taxes that most people don't pay a whole lot of unless you own a very expensive house or are purchasing very expensive items where the state property tax and sales tax would apply.

So it is very reasonable for Seattle to find a way to generate revenue to help the homeless in the city without creating a burden for the average citizen who already is burdened by the Federal tax and whatever state taxes apply to them. I oppose taxes, but I support this because I support local initiatives. This demonstrates the way the US should work where states have the freedom to initiate things like this that have a direct benefit on their local community. This is a primary way that most of the house and the senate have failed their constituents because they have been bribed, bought, or whatever to support centralized government instead of advocating for the local communities they represent.

So Starbucks is sending very mixed messages about the subject of homelessness, but I am sure that if no one realizes this or complains about it, they aren't going to do anything to change this. They are going to continue on this path as long as they are not getting anymore negative press for it.
"It is not fair to the employees who are not trained as psych nurses because many people who are homeless suffer from some degree of mental illness that there families are not willing to support. It is a very sad state of affairs because some percentage of the homeless population would be reduced if the families of these people were willing to help them get treatment and support them as an advocate in some way that could work towards finding a better solution to this reality."
I hadnt considered that, its a really salient point. However, I think many families would like to help their relatives in that condition, its just out of their financial means to do so.

As for the Seattle situation, all the resources necessary to fund the programs to address the various social ills that money can have a positive effect on are already there.... the issue is the Seattle ptb wont commit to it. Its a ridiculous situation watching the neo-liberal "progressives" turn penny pinching nimby. They dont really want to help the situation, they want to have meaningless rallies and BLM/"safe space" placards take the place of actual action. There "actions" are to make themselves feel good, not help those in need. They are hypocrites of the highest order.