Why would they shut down all their locations at once, losing hundreds of thousands in income, if not for the media and social attention it would receive?
Simply put, why close business when these trainings can be done staggered or off store hours? That's my line of thinking.
I have kneejerk reactions sometimes to actions like this, thinking "oh they're just doing this for the PR", but I've recently start to consider what would it take for me not to have this reaction -- and I realized that I would likely have that just-for-pr reaction to any action they took, and I'm likely entirely too cynical.
Closing 8,000+ stores for an afternoon feels like a sizable response, and I am going to suspend my cynicism for this and recognize that they do give a damn (even if it is influenced by PR).
I doubt it will be for a whole afternoon. My bet is on a "webinar" mode: 1-2hrs closure, with with something like: 20min intro; 20min talking head video; 20min "any questions?" They'll make new employees watch it and they'll post it on the corporate website ("make available").
I attribute these sorts of things to companies doing what they are designed to do; make money. The goal of this move, like most others by similar companies, is to either make more money now, make more money in the future, or minimize any future monetary losses. Not being hated by the public just happens to facilitate the aforementioned primary goal.
I think those who run starbucks...are very astute to their 'crowd' ... and I think a lot of liberals/progressives go to starbucks. (I'm a progressive / Voted for Bernie). I think this is in part to save face and help with PR, but I think there really might be some people high up in Starbucks who truly do care.. either way though they do seem to run things more ethically than a lot of companies regardless of the motive. In the end does it really matter why someone does something or just that they do it?
As an additional data point, SBUX FY 2017 revenue was 22.3 bil. Works out to almost 80 mil per day. The US has about half of their stores, but potentially a larger share of revenues. So this is costing them roughly 50 mil in lost revenue.
The question is are they making a real sacrifice at that amount or paying a small sum for the PR?
Sure, wait a month then go to a starbucks store and peacefully and politely hang out for a few hours without purchasing anything. If nothing happens up till then, try to use the restroom too. Then hang out some more before leaving.
If you don't spend the night in jail, then you have one data point suggesting not PR.
Have a reasonable sample of people repeat the experiment in multiple locations and multiple times and carefully record and report the results to you.
Collate the data points and report on the number of people arrested during the experiment.
Feel free to include Starbucks in a tweet about your results when you publish.
If nothing happens up till then, try to use the restroom too. Then hang out some more before leaving.
This whole thing is going to have huge variation between locations. Suburban or drive - to locations often don't ever lock the bathrooms, while ones in cities are more likely to.
2. Are all retail locations of all businesses now expected to let anyone use the restroom for free? I do not know the specifics of this story other than "black person tries to use the bathroom, isn't allowed, doesn't leave, gets peacefully removed from premises". If a store doesn't let people use the restroom for free, isn't that their prerogative?
I'm confused by your 2nd point -- I think you have this confused with a different story? Two black men were arrested while waiting for a friend in a Starbucks, use of restrooms had nothing to do with this.
Two men wanted to use a SBUX restroom without purchasing anything. I guess they had to ask for a key or something? Otherwise how would sales intervene? Anyway, they were told they weren't paying customers so they couldn't. They then squatted and cops were called.
I really don't know the details, and it's easy to assume either or both parties were asinine. Maybe they really were doing nothing wrong, or maybe they were disturbing customers. No news I've read characterizes the incident. In any case, even if an employee handled it poorly, it sounds like an overreaction.
Other patrons who were there at the time said they were not disturbing anyone nor doing anything different from other customers - some of which have not ordered either but were not asked to leave.
None of us know the details, but each of us has filled the void with "what most likely happened" based upon our own personal worldview, so we can argue about it on social media which conveniently spreads the story so more people can see how virtuous SBUX is for taking such dramatic corrective action (all SBUX locations closed on the same day, interrupting routine customer behavior to make a point about how virtuous they're being here).
Does anyone else kinda just hate all capital-B Brands now, as they increasingly pull this crap? Or is everyone else falling for it, actually having their opinions about these Brands influenced by the grand public gestures they make, spending tons of money on PR people to spin said gestures in the most positive way possible?
Is there really a secret anti-black undercurrent in the management staff in any reasonable number of SBUX locations, such that this grand gesture of corrective action actually has any demonstrable effect on anything at all, aside from making people think more positively about SBUX as a brand?
Can someone explain to me what Starbucks did wrong here? As far as I've read, there were a pair of men loitering in the store for an extended period of time. They did not purchase anything so this is the very definition of loitering. The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to leave. They refused. At that point, the same person from Starbucks called the cops because they refused to leave.
The cops came, and eventually arrested them after they refused to comply with instructions. They were taken to the police station, but Starbucks did not intend to press charges so they were let go.
What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store?
When you're Starbucks, have marketed yourself for years as a "third place" where people can hang out, and have a policy to not kick out people who aren't causing trouble, and you call the cops on the two black men, but not on the white people also sitting in the same store without purchasing anything, you've done something wrong. Other customers were speaking up, pointing out white customers sitting there without purchases, as the cops were leading the two black men out of the store in handcuffs.
I can buy that, but then I can't understand why they refused to leave.
There is an unwritten contract between any cafe and the public: purchasing any item - even the tiniest coffee - and you also get the option of staying at the cafe for a period of time. Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract.
Speaking of unwritten rules, there were actual written rules that black people had to give up their seats when asked by a white person, couldn’t drink from the same water fountains, etc.
actual. written. rules.
So even though she paid her fare, the rules at the time were that she had to give up her seat when asked.
So not the best counter-point, unless you agree that, whether or not money has been paid, and written or not, bullshit is bullshit. And getting kicked out of a cafe when there are other peaceful loiterers who were not also kicked out, is bullshit.
It is not a counterpoint, just a way to show the limits of an overblown analogy. You should appreciate the moral difference between Parks' and Gandhi's deliberate approach and the entitled arrogance of those two gentlemen, whose actions would be of no relevance if not for their skin color. Strange times. But but! If I'm wrong and the guys were acting a protest against overpriced dairy product shady dealers -- then they will have all the support that my limited means offer and unlimited appreciation.
She didn’t get on the bus that day going “I am going to deliberately bring attention to this country’s domestic problem today”. She just did not feel like getting up and surrendering her seat.
what happened afterwards is what made it a historic act. Before the year-long bus boycotts began, she was just some black lady who got arrested for disobeying the law.
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were going to order when the guy they were waiting for arrived. People settle down and wait until the entire party shows up all the time, it's not unusual. It certainly makes sense that people who are going to meet for coffee want to drink the coffee together.
Unwritten contracts are often enforced with disparate impact, which is why you should be explicit in your expectations.
Regardless, Starbucks has explicitly stated they do not have this policy, so your opinion of unwritten coffee house expectation is wrong and immaterial.
Obviously you don't know how many people were asked to leave that day/month/year and their skin color. You're inventing your own contrapositive that you want to believe is true.
I'm sure lots of people have been asked to leave at lots of starbucks of all stripes. And then they did, so it didn't get to the trespassing/police part.
I see it a few times a month, generally in response to belligerent homeless people being overtly confrontational and/or aggressively panhandling. At most one of the cases I've witnessed involved any African-American.
We also have a few 911 responses (paramedics, Public Safety), generally involving homeless as well.
No, but I think people do get asked to leave a lot, and then they do leave, so no police call is necessary. Do you understand that is what most people do when asked to leave?
These people were asked to leave and stayed 20 minutes after that, until the police showed up, who also repeatedly asked them to leave, before finally removing them.
i heard about this situation from a clickbait article that stated something along the lines of "starbucks removes customers from store for being black", but this is the first time hearing the narrative of them loitering and refusing to leave.
the original videos of the situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs) only goes so far in terms of clarification. it certainly seems like management overstepped at some point, but when?
They told the manager they were waiting for someone, and they were - to discuss (IIRC) real estate - the guy they were waiting for showed up while they were getting arrested, obviously very distraught. If two middle age white guys were waiting in a Starbucks for a colleague to show up, there no way in hell the manager would ask them to leave - that's literally what Starbucks is for.
That's what the Starbucks manager did wrong - the men knew they were being asked to leave because they were black men, not because they didn't order. They weren't causing trouble and weren't doing anything different from the white patrons - during the arrest some white patrons were pointing out that didn't order either yet weren't asked to leave.
The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to leave.
Do you have a link for this? My understanding was that one of the men asked for the bathroom code and was told the bathroom was for paying customers only. When he sat down, the manager called the police. I haven't seen any indication that management actually asked them to leave (but I certainly may have missed it).
I can't understand why they refused to leave
They were waiting for the rest of their party to show up.
The man being refused the bathroom code before making a purchase was a separate story and location on a bad weekend for Starbucks.
From being told about it, he was refused the code because "the bathrooms are for customers," then started recording on his phone as he asked a white guy leaving the bathroom whether he'd ordered anything and whether he'd had any problems when he requested the code.
You're referring to the LA location incident that happened a few months ago and just popped up recently. Last week's Philly incident also involved a black guy being denied a bathroom code.
Starbucks the organization did nothing wrong. The Starbucks manager on behalf of the organization violated stated Starbucks policy (both nationally and in the region) by requiring people in their space to purchase something to remain; Starbucks the organization is now taking corrective action to ensure that everyone who works for or is a patron of Starbucks has the same expectations going forward.
The argument is not nor has it ever been, "is a patrons only policy wrong?" The argument is "telling patrons they don't have to purchase an item every time they are in your store and then abrogating that agreement only if you're black" is wrong and illegal, and secondarily (not that you even asked) that the cops should not have arrested anyone once they got there; they should have deescalated the situation. The bystanders were right, and the authority figure was wrong; they listened to the wrong people.
As far as what you've read: in this moment they were meeting a friend. Waiting to order your coffee until your friend gets there so you're drinking coffee together is polite, and is kind of the whole point of meeting for coffee. Meeting for "oh I already finished my coffee, now isn't this awkward" isn't a plan I've ever made.
> What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store?
State that up front and enforce it without a racial disparity.
Starbucks want people to always come to their stores to meet and hang out because they sell more coffee that way. It's in their interest to not enforce a purchaser only policy.
Does anyone else think the guys looked like homeless people and that contributed to calling the police. Why weren't the guys at fault. They should have just left the store. That wha a reasonable person would have done. I've seen baristas ask white people to leave before and they've all done that.
Excuse me? The law is very clear that public businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on skin color. There were white women who didn't purchase anything in that location at that same time who weren't asked to leave. That's both illegal and a shitty thing to do.
Really, because the guy in the brown jacket had a incredibly coiffed beard? Is that what made you think they were homeless?
Your sophistry is all about equating asking a homeless smelly white dude with two perfectly respectable men waiting a couple minutes for their third to arrive.
When you go out with someone to eat, do you order as soon as you arrive and begin to eat even if the other person hasn't shown up yet?
I wasn't there in person so I can't tell whether they smelled or not and I'm not a guy so I'm not an expert on beards and can't tell whether it's clean or not.
In any case they should have left when they were asked to and just waited outside like a normal person. I've seen baristas ask white people to leave and all of them did without any issues. Why wouldn't those guys leave? Why did they cause problems?
Isn't it unusual for guys to go out and about wearing sweatpants. I haven't seen guys other than the homeless do that if they're not at the gym.
Wow. I'm impressed by the shear density of racism in such a short post. Bold move posting as "anon90". So, I guess you know it's racist or you'd use your real account.
I'm white, I wouldn't leave if I was just waiting for a friend at Starbucks and was asked to leave. If the employee threatened to call the police, I would assume they're joking and ignore him or her afterwards.
Unfortunately this isn't a Starbucks problem. This isn't something that can be trained for. It is the culmination of 400 years of hardcore racism pounded into the consciousness of western civilization that equates blackness with criminality, and holds us in social bondage. What you're seeing here is just a normal part of every day life for blacks in the US.
The Rastas have a word for this: Babylon. While it exists, no black person can ever be free.
How do you feel about Starbucks denying access to homeless people in the same way? There is a commonality in the way humans discriminate and I feel like its a disservice to leave other marginalized groups out of this conversation.
Foul-Mouthed Zen Master says: This is one of those problems (and there are many) that the manager could've avoided by just not giving a shit. Racism for example is nothing but giving a shit about something that doesn't deserve to have a shit given.
Why even get involved with anything happening on the other side of the counter? Take the money, dispense the coffee, collect your paycheck, and read the community-college catalog so you can get the hell out of there someday!
If someone is genuinely "in the way", people will repeatedly jostle past them annoyingly until they get the hint. It's a self-correcting system.
If someone is such a foul presence that they're driving away customers, that's Starbuck's problem, and not really a big one for them either. You as the manager, meanwhile, have less to do because of it, not more; use that time to read the community-college catalog.
If someone is actively threatening or harassing someone else, yelling at the top of his lungs, or committing some other actual literal crime, THEN you call the cops.
I find it highly unlikely that if this same scenario occurred with two middle-aged white men dressed in chinos and dress shirts, we get the same ending with cops being called and an arrest.
All I have to say about this topic is: it's always interesting to see how Starbucks manages to put itself in the news about once or twice a year, because of some controversy... and they never end up being the bad guy!
The guys had ~20 minutes to leave before the cops showed up, and still refused after the cops asked several times. Per the police commissioner:
> On 3 different occasions, officers asked the males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing. Instead, the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees previously, and they told the officers that they were not leaving. When the call was initially made the Starbucks employees had told the males that they were going to call the police and they said go ahead and call the police we don't care. So the police get there and they are confronted with the same type of attitude. They repeatedly told that they were not leaving. In fact, there's some alleged rhetoric about 'you don't know what you're doing, you're only a $45,000 a year employee' or something to that regard.
86 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadSimply put, why close business when these trainings can be done staggered or off store hours? That's my line of thinking.
Closing 8,000+ stores for an afternoon feels like a sizable response, and I am going to suspend my cynicism for this and recognize that they do give a damn (even if it is influenced by PR).
The question is are they making a real sacrifice at that amount or paying a small sum for the PR?
If you don't spend the night in jail, then you have one data point suggesting not PR.
Have a reasonable sample of people repeat the experiment in multiple locations and multiple times and carefully record and report the results to you.
Collate the data points and report on the number of people arrested during the experiment.
Feel free to include Starbucks in a tweet about your results when you publish.
This whole thing is going to have huge variation between locations. Suburban or drive - to locations often don't ever lock the bathrooms, while ones in cities are more likely to.
2. Are all retail locations of all businesses now expected to let anyone use the restroom for free? I do not know the specifics of this story other than "black person tries to use the bathroom, isn't allowed, doesn't leave, gets peacefully removed from premises". If a store doesn't let people use the restroom for free, isn't that their prerogative?
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/us/philadelphia-starbucks-911...
I believe you are incorrect.
Two men wanted to use a SBUX restroom without purchasing anything. I guess they had to ask for a key or something? Otherwise how would sales intervene? Anyway, they were told they weren't paying customers so they couldn't. They then squatted and cops were called.
I really don't know the details, and it's easy to assume either or both parties were asinine. Maybe they really were doing nothing wrong, or maybe they were disturbing customers. No news I've read characterizes the incident. In any case, even if an employee handled it poorly, it sounds like an overreaction.
Well, we can rule that out because you can hear other customers telling the police they did absolutely nothing.
Also, the reason for being in the store in the first place is that they were waiting for a friend. They had a purpose to be there.
Other patrons who were there at the time said they were not disturbing anyone nor doing anything different from other customers - some of which have not ordered either but were not asked to leave.
Does anyone else kinda just hate all capital-B Brands now, as they increasingly pull this crap? Or is everyone else falling for it, actually having their opinions about these Brands influenced by the grand public gestures they make, spending tons of money on PR people to spin said gestures in the most positive way possible?
Is there really a secret anti-black undercurrent in the management staff in any reasonable number of SBUX locations, such that this grand gesture of corrective action actually has any demonstrable effect on anything at all, aside from making people think more positively about SBUX as a brand?
The cops came, and eventually arrested them after they refused to comply with instructions. They were taken to the police station, but Starbucks did not intend to press charges so they were let go.
What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store?
There is an unwritten contract between any cafe and the public: purchasing any item - even the tiniest coffee - and you also get the option of staying at the cafe for a period of time. Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract.
Because they were being asked to leave on a discriminatory basis.
> Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract
Attempting to enforce a contract with racial bias is illegal and, ultimately, unenforceable.
Why did Rosa Park not give up her seat? Or Why did Gandhi choose to be thrown out of the train rather move out of first class?
Because they knew that they were being treated unequally.
actual. written. rules.
So even though she paid her fare, the rules at the time were that she had to give up her seat when asked.
So not the best counter-point, unless you agree that, whether or not money has been paid, and written or not, bullshit is bullshit. And getting kicked out of a cafe when there are other peaceful loiterers who were not also kicked out, is bullshit.
edit: gratitude, not appreciation, silly me.
what happened afterwards is what made it a historic act. Before the year-long bus boycotts began, she was just some black lady who got arrested for disobeying the law.
Regardless, Starbucks has explicitly stated they do not have this policy, so your opinion of unwritten coffee house expectation is wrong and immaterial.
Do you understand why they called the police in the two black men loitering, but not on any of the white people in the store who were also loitering?
I'm sure lots of people have been asked to leave at lots of starbucks of all stripes. And then they did, so it didn't get to the trespassing/police part.
We also have a few 911 responses (paramedics, Public Safety), generally involving homeless as well.
This is in suburban Sunnyvale.
These people were asked to leave and stayed 20 minutes after that, until the police showed up, who also repeatedly asked them to leave, before finally removing them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8cysu4/starbucks_will...
No, that's not the definition of loitering. They had a purpose to be there. They were waiting for a friend.
Rudimentary research skills?
As usual, rules become guidelines for the privileged.
I’m just going to come right out and say it. Your post is racist bullshit.
the original videos of the situation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdFJAKFvVNs) only goes so far in terms of clarification. it certainly seems like management overstepped at some point, but when?
That's what the Starbucks manager did wrong - the men knew they were being asked to leave because they were black men, not because they didn't order. They weren't causing trouble and weren't doing anything different from the white patrons - during the arrest some white patrons were pointing out that didn't order either yet weren't asked to leave.
Do you have a link for this? My understanding was that one of the men asked for the bathroom code and was told the bathroom was for paying customers only. When he sat down, the manager called the police. I haven't seen any indication that management actually asked them to leave (but I certainly may have missed it).
I can't understand why they refused to leave
They were waiting for the rest of their party to show up.
From being told about it, he was refused the code because "the bathrooms are for customers," then started recording on his phone as he asked a white guy leaving the bathroom whether he'd ordered anything and whether he'd had any problems when he requested the code.
The argument is not nor has it ever been, "is a patrons only policy wrong?" The argument is "telling patrons they don't have to purchase an item every time they are in your store and then abrogating that agreement only if you're black" is wrong and illegal, and secondarily (not that you even asked) that the cops should not have arrested anyone once they got there; they should have deescalated the situation. The bystanders were right, and the authority figure was wrong; they listened to the wrong people.
As far as what you've read: in this moment they were meeting a friend. Waiting to order your coffee until your friend gets there so you're drinking coffee together is polite, and is kind of the whole point of meeting for coffee. Meeting for "oh I already finished my coffee, now isn't this awkward" isn't a plan I've ever made.
> What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-customer that refuses to leave your store?
State that up front and enforce it without a racial disparity.
Starbucks want people to always come to their stores to meet and hang out because they sell more coffee that way. It's in their interest to not enforce a purchaser only policy.
They didn't cause problems. The problems were brought to them. They were just sitting and waiting for a friend.
Not all of us like to respect unjustified requests, especially when there's a reason for doing what we're doing.
You leave when requested or you are trespassing. It is that simple.
Even buying a coffee doesn't entitle you to stay against the owner's wish.
Why did they look homeless? Because they were bearded black men?
Your sophistry is all about equating asking a homeless smelly white dude with two perfectly respectable men waiting a couple minutes for their third to arrive.
When you go out with someone to eat, do you order as soon as you arrive and begin to eat even if the other person hasn't shown up yet?
In any case they should have left when they were asked to and just waited outside like a normal person. I've seen baristas ask white people to leave and all of them did without any issues. Why wouldn't those guys leave? Why did they cause problems?
Isn't it unusual for guys to go out and about wearing sweatpants. I haven't seen guys other than the homeless do that if they're not at the gym.
EDIT: Like a cockroach infestation your comments on the thread are small, numerous, dispersed, fast-moving and all look the same.
No.
These men refused to be discriminated against. They're far braver than someone hiding behind a fresh anonymous Hacker News account.
I'd love if there was an aging requirement for posting. I'd like a "lurk and listen before you open your big mouth policy".
The Rastas have a word for this: Babylon. While it exists, no black person can ever be free.
Why even get involved with anything happening on the other side of the counter? Take the money, dispense the coffee, collect your paycheck, and read the community-college catalog so you can get the hell out of there someday!
If someone is genuinely "in the way", people will repeatedly jostle past them annoyingly until they get the hint. It's a self-correcting system.
If someone is such a foul presence that they're driving away customers, that's Starbuck's problem, and not really a big one for them either. You as the manager, meanwhile, have less to do because of it, not more; use that time to read the community-college catalog.
If someone is actively threatening or harassing someone else, yelling at the top of his lungs, or committing some other actual literal crime, THEN you call the cops.
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8cysu4/starbucks_will...
The guys had ~20 minutes to leave before the cops showed up, and still refused after the cops asked several times. Per the police commissioner:
> On 3 different occasions, officers asked the males politely to leave the location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they were trespassing. Instead, the males continued to refuse as they had told the employees previously, and they told the officers that they were not leaving. When the call was initially made the Starbucks employees had told the males that they were going to call the police and they said go ahead and call the police we don't care. So the police get there and they are confronted with the same type of attitude. They repeatedly told that they were not leaving. In fact, there's some alleged rhetoric about 'you don't know what you're doing, you're only a $45,000 a year employee' or something to that regard.