Starbucks

General Discussion on any Off Topic subject
post

Re: Starbucks

Postby Deuce » Wed May 30, 2018 2:48 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Deuce wrote:
So what if the black woman was first and the white couple was denied? How is that better?

Then there would have been no public reaction based on any real or perceived racism. It’s actually substantially better...

Again, I’m not saying I agree with the firing of the employees or the need to write a massive apology... But those employees deciding that 9:06 is a lot different than 9:03 created a problem. Both parties showed up after closing, but one got served and the other didn’t. It doesn’t have to be racism... it’s actually bad customer service to allow one customer an exception but not another.


Eh, maybe, maybe not. I've worked retail and been in that position before. You have to draw the line somewhere. Also, counterpoint- it was good customer service to take a late customer but unfortunate for the black woman that she was 6 minutes late.

The fact that, if the races were switched, this wouldn't be a story, bothers me.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby IchabodCrane84 » Wed May 30, 2018 3:07 pm

Is this going to be like Sensitivity Training in Rescue Me?
Image
User avatar
IchabodCrane84
 
Posts: 1874
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:29 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, FL
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 339 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed May 30, 2018 3:27 pm

Deuce wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Then there would have been no public reaction based on any real or perceived racism. It’s actually substantially better...

Again, I’m not saying I agree with the firing of the employees or the need to write a massive apology... But those employees deciding that 9:06 is a lot different than 9:03 created a problem. Both parties showed up after closing, but one got served and the other didn’t. It doesn’t have to be racism... it’s actually bad customer service to allow one customer an exception but not another.


Eh, maybe, maybe not. I've worked retail and been in that position before. You have to draw the line somewhere. Also, counterpoint- it was good customer service to take a late customer but unfortunate for the black woman that she was 6 minutes late.

The fact that, if the races were switched, this wouldn't be a story, bothers me.


Sadly in America.....for racism to have happened someone simply has to feel aggrieved. I don't know a single thing about these workers. But I give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to saying their motivations were racist. Just as if the woman claimed they were misogynist.

If the employees have a habit of doing this, then its a whole different ball game...but I've yet to see any evidence of this.


Every day we make exceptions for people (i do it all the time in my job) -- the elderly, children, etc. that is one of the greatest things about humans. we show compassion. sadly idiots use this against us. I think sheer empirical statistics would show that the vast majority of times where one customer gets to come in late and the next one follows gets turned away, its simply employees trying to do a good thing but having to draw a line somewhere.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 326 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Wed May 30, 2018 8:47 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:Then there would have been no public reaction based on any real or perceived racism. It’s actually substantially better...

Again, I’m not saying I agree with the firing of the employees or the need to write a massive apology... But those employees deciding that 9:06 is a lot different than 9:03 created a problem. Both parties showed up after closing, but one got served and the other didn’t. It doesn’t have to be racism... it’s actually bad customer service to allow one customer an exception but not another.

So, by not locking the door at 9:00, they should have stayed open all night. Got it.


If that's what you got from what I wrote, then I hope your head injury heals nicely.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Caradoc » Thu May 31, 2018 7:24 am

Ken Carson wrote:
Buc2 wrote:So, by not locking the door at 9:00, they should have stayed open all night. Got it.


If that's what you got from what I wrote, then I hope your head injury heals nicely.



It's the logical inference of your statement. At some point a line needed to be drawn, they needed to close. If 9:06 isn't a lot different than 9:03, then 9:12 isn't a lot different from 9:09, etc. At what point are they allowed to turn back customers after closing? Is ther a particular time you say it's OK, or do they just wait for the next white couple and then close and it'll be OK? What if they tell a black women they are closed at 9:33? Is that OK?
Caradoc
 
Posts: 4554
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Thu May 31, 2018 7:36 am

The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.

It’s really funny how badly it seems you guys want me to be in favor of the firings, which I repeatedly have said I am not. I’ve even said I don’t think the employees were in any way racist.

Bottom line is that they selectively enforced a policy, and it bit them in the ass. They had three options:

1.) Enforce the closing hours on everyone who came in after 9pm.

2.) Allow all customers to be served until there were no longer people waiting.

3.) Allow a subset of customers who did not arrive before closing to be served.

Taking race out of it, there is pretty obviously one option that is the worst in terms of customer service.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu May 31, 2018 8:09 am

Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.

It’s really funny how badly it seems you guys want me to be in favor of the firings, which I repeatedly have said I am not. I’ve even said I don’t think the employees were in any way racist.

Bottom line is that they selectively enforced a policy, and it bit them in the ass. They had three options:

1.) Enforce the closing hours on everyone who came in after 9pm.

2.) Allow all customers to be served until there were no longer people waiting.

3.) Allow a subset of customers who did not arrive before closing to be served.

Taking race out of it, there is pretty obviously one option that is the worst in terms of customer service.

Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby NYBF » Thu May 31, 2018 8:59 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.

It’s really funny how badly it seems you guys want me to be in favor of the firings, which I repeatedly have said I am not. I’ve even said I don’t think the employees were in any way racist.

Bottom line is that they selectively enforced a policy, and it bit them in the ass. They had three options:

1.) Enforce the closing hours on everyone who came in after 9pm.

2.) Allow all customers to be served until there were no longer people waiting.

3.) Allow a subset of customers who did not arrive before closing to be served.

Taking race out of it, there is pretty obviously one option that is the worst in terms of customer service.

Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Yup. If you're spending money, I'd hope I've got an employee smart enough to take it.
Image
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 504 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Deuce » Thu May 31, 2018 9:34 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.

It’s really funny how badly it seems you guys want me to be in favor of the firings, which I repeatedly have said I am not. I’ve even said I don’t think the employees were in any way racist.

Bottom line is that they selectively enforced a policy, and it bit them in the ass. They had three options:

1.) Enforce the closing hours on everyone who came in after 9pm.

2.) Allow all customers to be served until there were no longer people waiting.

3.) Allow a subset of customers who did not arrive before closing to be served.

Taking race out of it, there is pretty obviously one option that is the worst in terms of customer service.

Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Yes and no. You also have to consider your employees. As absurd as the "open all night" argument is, you've posted a closing time and told your employees that they're off at a certain time. If the owner was there himself, he definitely should stay as long as possible and help everyone. But I see no reason to expect employees to stay late and help customers who arrive after closing time.

I worked at Publix for many years and store managers (who receive a % of store sales as a bonus) would lock the doors when we closed. Sure, if someone was jogging up as they were locking the doors, they'd let them come in and grab a few things. But others would knock on the doors or try to come in with cart collectors five or ten minutes after and the answer was "sorry, we're closed." Saw it happen a million times and there was never any controversy, other than a slightly miffed customer.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby RedLeader » Thu May 31, 2018 9:36 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.

It’s really funny how badly it seems you guys want me to be in favor of the firings, which I repeatedly have said I am not. I’ve even said I don’t think the employees were in any way racist.

Bottom line is that they selectively enforced a policy, and it bit them in the ass. They had three options:

1.) Enforce the closing hours on everyone who came in after 9pm.

2.) Allow all customers to be served until there were no longer people waiting.

3.) Allow a subset of customers who did not arrive before closing to be served.

Taking race out of it, there is pretty obviously one option that is the worst in terms of customer service.

Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Maybe. But a 'bad businessman' does not a 'racist' make.

Which i believe was the point...
Last edited by RedLeader on Thu May 31, 2018 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Caradoc » Thu May 31, 2018 9:47 am

Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.


The ad absurdem is of your own making. You knocked the employees for subjectively deciding what time after closing by saying they should have made a different subjective choice and stayed open longer. And you conveniently left no endpoint, no "hard closing time", no "this is when they should have called it", just that "they made a bad choice".
Caradoc
 
Posts: 4554
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu May 31, 2018 10:31 am

If I was the business owner and had nothing to do when the store closed, I would absolutely serve a customer that walked in after 9 and the next one and the next one. But if I have other plans that night, I wouldn't. The context would drive my choice.

If I was the business owner and had hourly employees closing the store, for many reasons, I would dissuade (but not mandate) them from keeping the store open after 9
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 326 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu May 31, 2018 11:51 am

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Maybe. But a 'bad businessman' does not a 'racist' make.

Which i believe was the point...

It doesn't matter. Offense is a matter of perception, not intent. Whether or not a crime or tort was committed is where intent comes into play. The rest is just media noise.

Thousands of businesses run into "we're closed" scenarios every single day. Most of us have been there and in my experience I was grateful for the chance to sneak in at the last second and mildly pissed when I couldn't. Such is life.

A good businessman would stay open until all customers are served unless we're talking about last call at the bar, or some other legal requirement to be met.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Thu May 31, 2018 12:27 pm

Caradoc wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The ad absurdem argument is always a nice touch.


The ad absurdem is of your own making. You knocked the employees for subjectively deciding what time after closing by saying they should have made a different subjective choice and stayed open longer. And you conveniently left no endpoint, no "hard closing time", no "this is when they should have called it", just that "they made a bad choice".

You may want to look up the definition of ad absurdum. I wasn’t making the situation about forcing the store to stay open until 9:30...

Not sure why I need to clarify a hard end point... I’m not making an argument for how late a business should stay open. I’m pointing out how selective enforcement of a policy can lead to an angry customer who may cause a really big problem. It’s quite simple.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Thu May 31, 2018 12:28 pm

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Maybe. But a 'bad businessman' does not a 'racist' make.

Which i believe was the point...

Yes, I did make the point that the employees were very likely not racist (and shouldn’t have been fired).

But why are you arguing that again?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Buc2 » Thu May 31, 2018 12:45 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Buc2 wrote:So, by not locking the door at 9:00, they should have stayed open all night. Got it.


If that's what you got from what I wrote, then I hope your head injury heals nicely.

I was being facetious.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11512
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 952 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Thu May 31, 2018 2:04 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:
If that's what you got from what I wrote, then I hope your head injury heals nicely.

I was being facetious.

Yeah, that isn’t what that word means...
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Buc2 » Thu May 31, 2018 2:47 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I was being facetious.

Yeah, that isn’t what that word means...

??

facetious (fəˈsiːʃəs)
adj
1. characterized by levity of attitude and love of joking: a facetious person.
2. jocular or amusing, esp at inappropriate times: facetious remarks.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11512
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 952 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu May 31, 2018 2:50 pm

I think facetious or sarcastic both work fine in that spot

but i also think keira knightly is hot so take it with a grain of salt
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 326 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Caradoc » Thu May 31, 2018 4:07 pm

Deuce wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Yes and no. You also have to consider your employees. As absurd as the "open all night" argument is, you've posted a closing time and told your employees that they're off at a certain time. If the owner was there himself, he definitely should stay as long as possible and help everyone. But I see no reason to expect employees to stay late and help customers who arrive after closing time.

I worked at Publix for many years and store managers (who receive a % of store sales as a bonus) would lock the doors when we closed. Sure, if someone was jogging up as they were locking the doors, they'd let them come in and grab a few things. But others would knock on the doors or try to come in with cart collectors five or ten minutes after and the answer was "sorry, we're closed." Saw it happen a million times and there was never any controversy, other than a slightly miffed customer.


Yeah, there is more to it than just "a good businessman always stays open if there's a customer available". Some people just prefer things in absolutes.
Caradoc
 
Posts: 4554
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Has thanked: 239 times
Been thanked: 134 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby RedLeader » Thu May 31, 2018 6:04 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
Maybe. But a 'bad businessman' does not a 'racist' make.

Which i believe was the point...

Yes, I did make the point that the employees were very likely not racist (and shouldn’t have been fired).

But why are you arguing that again?


Lol. Wasnt referring to you.. or about you, bub.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby MJW » Thu May 31, 2018 11:27 pm

NYBF wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Any good businessman will tell you option 2 is the best option.


Yup. If you're spending money, I'd hope I've got an employee smart enough to take it.


I would hope you'd be a manager/owner smart enough to incentivize your employee to stay later than agreed upon. Because otherwise, the after-closing crowd should get rightly swatted.



The only mistake made was letting the first idiots wander in after close.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8831
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 385 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Deuce » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:45 am

MJW wrote:
NYBF wrote:
Yup. If you're spending money, I'd hope I've got an employee smart enough to take it.


I would hope you'd be a manager/owner smart enough to incentivize your employee to stay later than agreed upon. Because otherwise, the after-closing crowd should get rightly swatted.



The only mistake made was letting the first idiots wander in after close.


No. There was no mistake made by the business. The black lady has a right to be upset. But her recourse should have been "I'm not shopping here again." She could have told her friends and family. The business would have been slightly hurt by not going out of their way to help her. This should not be a news story. This public outcry crap has gotten out of control.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby deltbucs » Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:32 am

Deuce wrote:No. There was no mistake made by the business. The black lady has a right to be upset. But her recourse should have been "I'm not shopping here again." She could have told her friends and family. The business would have been slightly hurt by not going out of their way to help her. This should not be a news story. This public outcry crap has gotten out of control.

I honestly don't feel like she has much of a right to be upset. How are you going to be mad for not getting served when you show up after a place is closed? I won't even show up to a fast food joint within 15 minutes of closing. I think showing up within 5 or even 10 minutes of closing is kind of a **** move.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby NYBF » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:10 am

MJW wrote:
NYBF wrote:
Yup. If you're spending money, I'd hope I've got an employee smart enough to take it.


I would hope you'd be a manager/owner smart enough to incentivize your employee to stay later than agreed upon. Because otherwise, the after-closing crowd should get rightly swatted.



The only mistake made was letting the first idiots wander in after close.


Absolutely.
Image
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 504 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:30 am

I agree. The business made the mistake of selectively enforcing the closing hours, which caused this issue. It never happens if no one is served after 9pm.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:35 am

That’s absolutely true if they stick to a fast and hard rule it wouldn’t have happened


Just as 99.9% of the time when they allow an extra customer or two and then someone gets turned away it’s not national news


But cry racism with absolutely zero proof and you’ll find lots of news stations exploit your idiocy for ratings

Win / win for everyone

(Except those with rational common sense)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 326 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Deuce » Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:54 am

Ken Carson wrote:I agree. The business made the mistake of selectively enforcing the closing hours, which caused this issue. It never happens if no one is served after 9pm.


Yeah. I guess we'll all be happier when we're 10 seconds late somewhere and they lock the doors in our face from now on. What a utopia we're building.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:19 pm

Deuce wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I agree. The business made the mistake of selectively enforcing the closing hours, which caused this issue. It never happens if no one is served after 9pm.


Yeah. I guess we'll all be happier when we're 10 seconds late somewhere and they lock the doors in our face from now on. What a utopia we're building.

Except black people. Let them have an extra 5 minutes.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Starbucks

Postby Super K » Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:23 pm

Ken Carson wrote:I agree. The business made the mistake of selectively enforcing the closing hours, which caused this issue. It never happens if no one is served after 9pm.


Or, ya know, if the customer didn't make it about racism....

Kind of like I didn't make it about racism when a (black) Walmart cashier told me she was "closed" and the guy she was ringing out was the last one...even after I pointed out that her light was still on (she promptly flicked it off)...

Did I swear under my breath? Damn right..but I just shuffled over to stand in the mega line and wait..
User avatar
Super K
 
Posts: 7528
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 221 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Heidguy, Teitan and 15 guests