Is Starbucks Racist?

[*bfine32*]

Not a huge Trevor Noah fan, but I found his take on it hilarious:

https://slate.com/culture/2018/04/trevor-noah-on-the-philadelphia-starbucks-arrests.html

[Griever]

(04-17-2018, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not a huge Trevor Noah fan, but I found his take on it hilarious:

https://slate.com/culture/2018/04/trevor-noah-on-the-philadelphia-starbucks-arrests.html

i got a good chuckle out of that

lets hope the person who called the cops no longer works there

not sure how you are going to tell 2 people to get out just because they are doing the polite thing and waiting for the guy they were waiting on to order

the employee (imi assuming manager) overreacted, and should be dealt with properly, before there is a lawsuit coming against the employee, the franchise (or company, not sure how they would go about that) and possibly against the PD or the city

[*michaelsean*]

I blame their friend.

[Griever]

(04-17-2018, 04:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I blame their friend.

that why im always early when im meeting my black friends somewhere

[fredtoast]

Little known fact.

Starbucks got its name from a chain of pre Civil War hipster slave stores called "Tar Bucks"

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2018, 05:21 PM)Griever Wrote: that why im always early when im meeting my black friends somewhere

But some times you can get held up through no fault of your own.

That is why I always have my black friends meet me outside of the county jail.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2018, 03:15 PM)Griever Wrote: i got a good chuckle out of that

lets hope the person who called the cops no longer works there

not sure how you are going to tell 2 people to get out just because they are doing the polite thing and waiting for the guy they were waiting on to order

the employee (imi assuming manager) overreacted, and should be dealt with properly, before there is a lawsuit coming against the employee, the franchise (or company, not sure how they would go about that) and possibly against the PD or the city

From my understanding, the employee that called the police is no longer at that Starbucks. But whether she is still with Starbucks or not has not been confirmed.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2018, 01:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have been asked to leave a place before for the same reason as these guys. I guess i was the target of some racial discrimination as well. Good to know.

(04-17-2018, 01:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't understand. They were asked to leave BY THE MANAGER and refused. That right there is breaking the law. I also don't see how it's considered racism when the police officers ASKED them to leave, as well and only arrested them when they refused AGAIN.

We need to stop allowing blacks (and guilty white people) to cry racism just because they get in trouble for breaking the law.

Where is it stated the manager asked them to leave before calling the cops? I haven't seen that reported anywhere, so I'm just curious.

(04-17-2018, 01:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Just yesterday, a white chick here in my branch was asked to leave because she'd been here for 45 minutes without doing any business. She said she was waiting for somebody. Doesn't matter. This isn't a waiting station.

What kind of business is this? I know for Starbucks this sort of behavior is extremely common. Different businesses operate differently.

(04-17-2018, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it breaking "the law"?  I'm asking seriously.  

As to the arrest, it still seems a bit extreme given how calmly the entire event went on the two videos.  Once they were outside who knows what happened.  Maybe they "resisted" so they HAD to go to jail.  

If you are asked by someone with authority over a location, such as a manager, and you refuse to leave then you are trespassing. At east that is how it works in most places I know of.

[Griever]

(04-17-2018, 05:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But some times you can get held up through no fault of your own.

That is why I always have my black friends meet me outside of the county jail.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F7LOXDA0A0Y

[SunsetBengal]

(04-17-2018, 03:15 PM)Griever Wrote: i got a good chuckle out of that

lets hope the person who called the cops no longer works there

not sure how you are going to tell 2 people to get out just because they are doing the polite thing and waiting for the guy they were waiting on to order

the employee (imi assuming manager) overreacted, and should be dealt with properly, before there is a lawsuit coming against the employee, the franchise (or company, not sure how they would go about that) and possibly against the PD or the city

What if there was a corporate directive, aimed at reducing loitering at busy inner city locations?  People just loitering around, taking up space that could be used for paying customers is definitely a point to consider.

Disclosure:  I did hear a regional Manager for Starbucks on a radio interview today.  He mentioned that there was a corporate directive to that effect.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2018, 07:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Where is it stated the manager asked them to leave before calling the cops? I haven't seen that reported anywhere, so I'm just curious.

Quote:The 911 call that brought police to a Starbucks in Philadelphia, resulting in the arrest of two African-American customers, lasted only seconds.


"Hi, I have two gentlemen at my café that are refusing to make a purchase or leave. I'm at the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce," a Starbucks employee told police last Thursday shortly after 4:30 p.m.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-17-2018, 09:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue at hand with this is that these two people were waiting for a friend, and had expressed that. This is something that happens all the time at these places, and white bystanders expressed that when the two men were being arrested. What happened was racial discrimination likely based on implicit biases.

That doesn't make the company racist. What happened was something that has happened for decades when it comes to the disproportionate application of these sorts of things. We are just in a new era of civil rights where social media has allowed for these incidents to be made more public and for people to share them and react to them in greater numbers.

There is no evidence that says implicit bias factors into any real decision making.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-17-2018, 09:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The issue at hand with this is that these two people were waiting for a friend, and had expressed that. This is something that happens all the time at these places, and white bystanders expressed that when the two men were being arrested. What happened was racial discrimination likely based on implicit biases.

That doesn't make the company racist. What happened was something that has happened for decades when it comes to the disproportionate application of these sorts of things. We are just in a new era of civil rights where social media has allowed for these incidents to be made more public and for people to share them and react to them in greater numbers.

That may have been their story, but the real issue is loitering and taking up space that could be occupied by paying customers.  I'm pretty sure there was a corporate directive, instructing inner city Starbucks Managers to get rid of the loiterers.  So, these guys just happen to be Black, in Philadelphia.  What a coincidence..  Doesn't make the Manager's actions racist, she was just following company line.

[Griever]

(04-17-2018, 08:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What if there was a corporate directive, aimed at reducing loitering at busy inner city locations?  People just loitering around, taking up space that could be used for paying customers is definitely a point to consider.

Disclosure:  I did hear a regional Manager for Starbucks on a radio interview today.  He mentioned that there was a corporate directive to that effect.

if that was indeed the case, starbucks would have just come out and said that, instead of closing down 8,000 locations to conduct racial-bias training to make sure this doesnt happen again

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2018, 09:01 AM)Griever Wrote: if that was indeed the case, starbucks would have just come out and said that, instead of closing down 8,000 locations to conduct racial-bias training to make sure this doesnt happen again

https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/6yhtu0/kicking_out_the_noncustomers/

Quote:So in my district we have a new directive from our DM where the shifts are supposed to go around the lobby every few hours and kick out people who are loitering (basically, everyone who hangs out for a few hours studying or working in the lobby) or those who are relaxing in-store but who haven't bought anything. I can see why corporate doesn't want non-paying people using the store's resources, but I feel like this is a really bad look for Starbucks and the "welcoming" brand image that we are supposedly about.


Any other districts doing this, or have rolled it out? What exactly do you say to the customers? I was at a different starbucks the other day and the customer getting kicked out was like, "this is ridiculous, I spend money here almost every day, I just didn't buy anything today!"

I feel like our DM is having us move farther and further away from our core values, but they are on the fast track to regional manager so it also seems like this is the direction the company wants to go in. It hasn't been about the partners for a while, but now it seems it's no longer about the customers either. I also feel like it's a very short sighted strategy and once the next backlash hits and business drops it will be the front-line partners who will be thrown under the bus again.

There was a district manager speaking out on such a directive, just last September.

[Griever]

(04-18-2018, 09:07 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/6yhtu0/kicking_out_the_noncustomers/



There was a district manager speaking out on such a directive, just last September.

yeah but that is about people hanging out for hours and not ordering

these guys were literally waiting for the rest of their group (1 guy i believe) before they ordered

and then we have the other incident with the black guy who wasnt given the bathroom code to use the bathroom because he hadnt ordered anything at that time, but a white customer who was in the same position was given the code

its not hard to admit there was racial bias here

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2018, 09:30 AM)Griever Wrote: yeah but that is about people hanging out for hours and not ordering

these guys were literally waiting for the rest of their group (1 guy i believe) before they ordered

and then we have the other incident with the black guy who wasnt given the bathroom code to use the bathroom because he hadnt ordered anything at that time, but a white customer who was in the same position was given the code

its not hard to admit there was racial bias here

No butts about it.  A directive came down from above to get rid of loiterers.

As for the racial bias, those are separate incidents.  Unless those examples happened in the same location, involving the same employee, on the same day, they mean nothing.  There must have been some sort of issue involving use of the restroom, at some point in time.  Otherwise why have a code lock on the door?

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2018, 09:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: <something that doesn't say what is being claimed>

Does that say they were asked to leave by the manager? I don't see that claim there. You're inferring that, but she doesn't even say that she asked them to leave or even spoke to them. No witness accounts describe the manager talking to these two men first.

(04-17-2018, 09:39 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is no evidence that says implicit bias factors into any real decision making.

This is either extreme ignorance due to not understanding the huge amounts of information out there on this subject, or it is a willful lie/refusal to accept the facts of the matter. Take your pick.

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2018, 09:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That may have been their story, but the real issue is loitering and taking up space that could be occupied by paying customers.  I'm pretty sure there was a corporate directive, instructing inner city Starbucks Managers to get rid of the loiterers.  So, these guys just happen to be Black, in Philadelphia.  What a coincidence..  Doesn't make the Manager's actions racist, she was just following company line.

If the application of the directive is applied disproportionately to black people over white people, then yes, the actions are racist. If a person gives more leeway to a white person over a black person on the loitering front, then that is racist. The fact that this directive was for inner city locations, where it would affect primarily minority customers does speak to the corporate effort, which is probably why Starbucks hasn't come out about that.

If there is a company wide memo about this talking about reducing loitering without purchases, fine. But when your application of such a policy, whether through the location selection or through the discretion by the manager, impacts minorities in a disproportionate way then it is a policy that is rooted in racial bias.

[*bfine32*]

(04-18-2018, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Does that say they were asked to leave by the manager? I don't see that claim there. You're inferring that, but she doesn't even say that she asked them to leave or even spoke to them. No witness accounts describe the manager talking to these two men first.


This is either extreme ignorance due to not understanding the huge amounts of information out there on this subject, or it is a willful lie/refusal to accept the facts of the matter. Take your pick.

For real? How would she know they refused to leave if they were not asked to do so? Are you inferring that the manager was lying?