Well, sometimes things and attitudes come back to bite you right in the behind, and such is the saga of Starbucks in Philadelphia.
The company, which has literally bent over backwards to be the most politically correct company in the world, is now, itself, embroiled in a scandal related to political correctness, and because of their own inane stupidity, trying to rectify what happened, in the eyes of some, is like trying to punch your way out of a paper bag.
It seems two men, who happened to be black, came into a Philadelphia Starbucks and asked to go to the bathroom.
They were told that without making a purchase, they could not use the bathroom, which is standard company policy.
They are not the only concern that practices this policy. It is a policy that is used to keep vagrants out of such venues.
But when you have to go, you have to go.
Anyway, it is not known whether the two men told the person who told them they could not use the bathroom without making a purchase that they were waiting for others to come there for a meeting, where plenty of coffee would have been purchased by the group.
This is a key component to this whole story that is being missed by seemingly every news outlet covering this story, but let me proceed.
Someone form Starbucks called the police, because the men would not leave.
The police came, arrested them, and when the situation was worked out, let them go.
Now, of course, since this involved people of color, other people have shown outrage about this, moaning that this is a racial incident, and they have protested right outside the Starbucks in question. They are yelling about racial profiling, and they are yelling about how the police handled the incident.
To save face, the chief executive officer of Starbucks, Kevin Johnson, wrote a letter of apology to the two men in question, and did not back his employees at the Philadelphia store in the process.
This is all such utter nonsense, but the press loves this stuff, so it is being covered as if it happened to be a major news story in the annals of history, which it isn;t.
My goodness, this is not about two black men who tried to sit at the counter of a drug store and were turned away because they were black.
This is a story about two men, who happened to be black, who wanted to go to the bathroom in a place that requires a purchase to use the facilities, much like dozens if not hundreds of other venues, and who were turned down and when refusing to leave and were causing a commotion, were arrested.
The whole thing was sorted out. It could have easily been two white guys, and nobody would have cared.
It is two black guys, and people get hysterical, charging racial insensitivity--against Starbucks, the world leader in PC culture?
I could say that Starbucks deserves what they get. Their insistence at buying into this idiotic culture sets them up for such a situation to happen.
I could also say that Mr. Johnson is an idiot for apologizing and not backing his Philadelphia store team, who must have felt good reason to notify the authorities when these men were loitering in the store.
All I am going to say is that Starbucks found, the hard way, that you cannot have it both ways.
You have to practice what you preach, and if two men, who happened to be black, who happened to be causing a commotion in their store, who happened to need to go to the bathroom, who might not have told store workers that they were meeting others there, you must let them loiter and cause a commotion and use the facilities because if you don't, you will get your PC nonsense shoved up you know what.
And how stupid is all of this?
I remember years ago, I was eating in a Nathan's in Manhattan, and somebody came in, and asked where the facilities were. He was told he would have to buy something to use the bathroom, and I remember so distinctly what he said: "If you don't let me go to the bathroom, I am going to do what I have to do right here!"
They let him use the bathroom, and that was that.
No racial incident, no loitering, no story.
Much like this.
Perhaps Starbucks should simply change their rules about bathroom use.
And perhaps they should back their employees when they feel that the police are needed in such an incident.
And perhaps those protesting--including the reprehensible Black Lives Matter group--should just calm down a bit.
But I guess when you are looking for something, you will find it.
And this time, it is Starbucks.
Heck, maybe it just serves the coffee chain right for buying into this idiotic culture to begin with.
Larry, you’re way off base here. You don’t buy coffee and you don’t patronize Starbucks, and you don’t understand the Starbucks corporate culture or how these stores are run. If you and I did exactly what those two gentlemen did, no one would approach us, no one would tell us we can’t use the bathroom, no one would call the police to have us removed. The woman who videotaped the incident said that in all her years patronizing that Starbucks, she had never seen anyone treated in the manner these two gentlemen were treated. And that’s the problem.
ReplyDeleteTrue, I don't patronize Starbucks, but my wife does. The place, or the entire system, I am not sure which, has a rule, no purchases, no bathroom. Many places have this rule, and whether it is right or wrong, it is done to prevent loiterers from using the restaurant as a constant pit stop. These people were told this, refused to leave, evidently gave no explanation why they were there in the first place--I do believe if they had, none of this would have taken place--and the employees did what they had to do with any loiterers, whether they be black, white or orange; they called the police. As loiterers, and again evidently not telling the police why they were there, they were arrested. For the CEO of Starbucks to bow down to this duo, and not back his employees, is reprehensible. To fully brown nose these people for PC's sake is even more reprehensible. Starbucks is so PC that when it impacts them negatively, they have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. I do understand their culture of inclusiveness, but loitering is loitering, and that is what the men were doing. Again, this is not two black men sitting at the drug store counter and being turned away because of their color; this is the case of two men who innocently went to a Starbucks, need to go to the bathroom, were refused that privilege because of store or company policy, and refused to say why they were there in the first place. If it is a company policy, change the company policy about bathroom use. If it is simply a store policy, that policy was put in place for a reason, but of course, nobody wants to hear that. This is a tempest in a teapot, in my estimation, and don't talk down to me. I get it. I understand it. I also understand that the PC mentality works both ways, and you can't have your coffee and drink it too.
ReplyDeleteI go with the witness. She said these gentlemen did nothing wrong and that she had never seen anything like it at Starbucks.
ReplyDeleteHow long do you think the witness who took the video was there, working on her laptop, making full use of the free WiFi? Bet no one ever asked her to leave Starbucks.
My former boss used to sit for hours on end in Starbucks, no one ever asked him to leave.
I’ve never seen a sign in any Starbucks that says “bathroom is for patrons only”.
The bottom line is that the girl behind the counter racially profiled these two men. It was disgusting and the CEO is right to apologize
You buy something, you can use the facilities. Let's find out first whether this is companywide policy, or was instituted in that particular store because, well, let's say, they have had problems ... . And no, it is not insensitive to ask someone to remove themselves from your premises if they are doing nothing but loitering. Did they say why they were there? This is the point I am trying to make; did they add to this mess by not saying anything? You cannot just hang around in a Starbucks, which has a small footprint compared to a department store, if you are just hanging around. And for the CEO not to back his employees ... I guess he has PC diaper rash, and I hope those employees don't lose their job over this.
ReplyDeleteAny CEO is about the bottom line and the shareholders. These employees did nothing but create a big mess and are lucky if they merely get reinstruction and are not fired.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think the employees created a mess by calling the police. Nobody wants to say it, but I will. If the bathroom rule is simply for that particular restaurant, it was instituted because people were abusing the right to relieve themselves there without buying anything. I am sure that Starbucks customers themselves complained about this situation, so the store created this rule, which, again, is a rule that many restaurants and other establishments also have. If this rule is a company-wide rule, then the CEO is saving his own butt, blaming lowly employees for simply following a non-PC policy from a company that bleeds PC. What a total non-story this is!
ReplyDeleteFunny, this new story got way more airplay than this one from a few years back? Gee, I wonder why? https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Post-Alleging-that-Center-City-Starbucks-Refused-to-Let-Officer-Used-Restroom-Goes-Viral-327183651.html
ReplyDeleteAs for what the above article says, it is "for the safety of the baristas" that the bathrooms are only for customers, although an exception, in this case, should have been made for an on-duty police officer. Thus, I would say the same thing I said above, there were probably some past incidents with non-customers using the bathroom, and the store simply made a rule that NO ONE USES THE BATHROOM WHO IS NOT A CUSTOMER. This further leads me to believe that in the more recent story, the duo refused to tell the staff, when questioned, what they were doing there, and thus, were loitering, and thus, the police were called. End of (non-) story.
ReplyDeleteSelective enforcement, what a concept
ReplyDeleteIt is not "selective enforcement" at all. The store, or is it the company, made the bathroom rule, and the employees were following that rule when they turned the men down. Now, with the CEO trying to save face, you just know two things: someone's head is,about to roll, if it hasn't already, and it certainly won't be the CEO;and thst place of business will now be taken over by every lunatic screaming "racial injustice," and who in their right mind us going to go there now? There is so.much thst has nor been revealed about this case, such as if this is a store rule only, or is it company policy, and if the men did not explain why they were there in the first place, and then summarily refused to leave. I mean, these facts still need to be teleased. Right now, although many would not like it to be this way because they are looking for the next fire to run to, it is a blown out of proportion story at best. The Starbucks CEO should really have not done anything until all the facts were in, but all he did was put the onus on his company and the particular restaurant needlessly.
ReplyDelete