The New Starbucks Policy

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

...Letting people use bathrooms and sit in Starbucks without buying anything is a effort to put right a situation which seemed quite wrong to most people. Do people think the situation was OK? That they did the right thing in Philly? Is that the objection, that Starbucks is trying to right something that was never wrong? I wonder if anyone wants to get behind that idea?
.

I do not know the particulars of the situation in Philly.

Based upon my own personal observations, "Restrooms for customers only" is a very common sign/policy in small retail establishments, and an almost universal policy in bars/restaurants.

[EdEd]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

I have to say it is interesting to see people...not sure if rooting for this to fail is the right phrase, but certainly there does seem to be some anticipatory schadenfreude around this. Almost as if such a failure would confirm some deeply held beliefs.

Letting people use bathrooms and sit in Starbucks without buying anything is a effort to put right a situation which seemed quite wrong to most people. Do people think the situation was OK? That they did the right thing in Philly? Is that the objection, that Starbucks is trying to right something that was never wrong? I wonder if anyone wants to get behind that idea?

People have said the rule is stupid, and will ruin Starbucks' business. OK, let's look at that. Starbucks has also said, and curiously not mentioned here, that they will continue to remove people for behavior like sleeping, disruptions, noise, etc. Did people not hear that part of the rule? Not think there would be leeway in applying the rule? Do we just assume the management is self-destructive?

Seemed and still seems pretty obvious that driving out good, paying customers isn't wise, and seems pretty obvious that they would retain the right to control their spaces. The propensity to assume stupidity on the part of Starbucks management seems odd, and fueled by something. Can't quite put my finger on what, but I don't like the feel of it.

None of us were there so we’ll never know exactly what transpired.

The question seems to be whether the young men involved were treated the way they were because they were black. Starbucks seems to think there was at least enough of an appearance that they should take the action they did. Good for them for taking responsibility, even if it was just a business decision.

Ed

[catdaddy]

If your new small business involves cleaning restrooms you can not only hang out, but you won't even have to move to collect your paycheck.

[EdEd]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

If your new small business involves cleaning restrooms you can not only hang out, but you won't even have to move to collect your paycheck.

Huh? That comment is so obtuse it needs an explanation.

Ed

[slide496]

Yuck sorry to hear that. I stopped going in the early AM- I used to have my morning coffee and read the papers before settling in to freelance work.

I don't think Starbucks has any right to burden their staff with removal of some of the sleeping, noisy, disruptive people that I have encountered. And the staff usually doesn't where I live.

IMHO its safer all around to have the policy at the front door that most places have : No change, bathroom, seating for non patrons.

[Heroditus]

Starbucks seems to have crafted a very unusual business model with this latest announcement. Time will tell how it plays out for them. In the meantime, it looks like they have just become the largest chain of homeless shelters in the country.

[Gmountain]

Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman

People have said the rule is stupid, and will ruin Starbucks' business. OK, let's look at that. Starbucks has also said, and curiously not mentioned here, that they will continue to remove people for behavior like sleeping, disruptions, noise, etc. Did people not hear that part of the rule? Not think there would be leeway in applying the rule? Do we just assume the management is self-destructive?
.

I think they said that today, after they realized the utter stupidity of their policy. Businesses exist for one purpose- to make money. Once they stop making money, they cease to exist.

I am sure they will return to a more normal policy of buy something if you want to sit in here and take up the space that paying customers would use. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how businesses operate.

[RedJoker]

No offense but I'm willing to bet Starbucks thought this through more than us bunch of guys on a guitar forum. You don't grow to 27,000+ stores by just "winging it" even if we don't like their coffee.

Maybe I'm wrong though... I'm not in the coffee business so I'm just guessing too.

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by Gmountain

I think they said that today, after they realized the utter stupidity of their policy. Businesses exist for one purpose- to make money. Once they stop making money, they cease to exist.

I am sure they will return to a more normal policy of buy something if you want to sit in here and take up the space that paying customers would use. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how businesses operate.

They clarified their policy a few days ago because certain media sources in the business of manufacturing outrage were at it again.

I think more to the point, that such flexibility needed to exist would be apparent to anyone giving the policy genuine consideration.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by RedJoker

No offense but I'm willing to bet Starbucks thought this through more than us bunch of guys on a guitar forum. You don't grow to 27,000+ stores by just "winging it" even if we don't like their coffee.

Maybe I'm wrong though... I'm not in the coffee business so I'm just guessing too.

Yeah, the armchair directors have it easy - little or no penalty for failure and often working in perfect 20/20 hindsight.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by imwjl

Yeah, the armchair directors have it easy - little or no penalty for failure and often working in perfect 20/20 hindsight.

Unlike the real directors with their multi-million-dollar golden parachutes, eh?

[Basalt Beach]

Originally Posted by EdEd

You hate the coffee, the place, and the policies... sounds like complaining just to complain.

What’s next, “get off my lawn”?

Ed

+1 Agreed..... and perhaps it will become trendy among the pretentious

[Tahitijack]

My personal code of conduct says when I use restroom or other free amenities in a place, I at least make a small purchase like a bottle of water, snack or newspaper.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Unlike the real directors with their multi-million-dollar golden parachutes, eh?

I hope I'm not mischaracterizing that, but directors with compensation like that is not the norm, and you can do some research to find out more boards do have to do their job. Maybe you're mistaking directors for CEOs?

I also hope that's not the resentment and animosity that seems to be more and more common. News will point out bad examples but in most cases boards do a good job and sustain or grow the organization. If it's the title director in a company, those are usually senior and competent staff.

Originally Posted by Tahitijack

My personal code of conduct says when I use restroom or other free amenities in a place, I at least make a small purchase like a bottle of water, snack or newspaper.

I tend to feel that way but make exceptions when it's a chain or firm that I patronize on the whole. When it's a small business taking the risk to make it on their own I for sure feel it's important to help.

[slide496]

Originally Posted by Tahitijack

My personal code of conduct says when I use restroom or other free amenities in a place, I at least make a small purchase like a bottle of water, snack or newspaper.

Mine as well.
harriet