Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A kid making $8 an hour in the middle of extreme chaos and risk obviously did not think he had the authority to give cases of water away- whatever. That someone saw an opportunity to make this an issue says more about him than it does the Starbucks org.
It's too bad that there was nobody at Starbucks Corporate that had any idea that the Twin Towers had been hit. Starbucks Corporate had no idea they had a store right in the middle of ground zero. If they had been aware, I'm sure they would have told the employees of that store to give water and coffee to the first responders.
You are correct - the local employee didn't have the authority to do anything, but almost everyone has a Boss or some sort.
It's too bad that there was nobody at Starbucks Corporate that had any idea that the Twin Towers had been hit. Starbucks Corporate had no idea they had a store right in the middle of ground zero. If they had been aware, I'm sure they would have told the employees of that store to give water and coffee to the first responders.
You are correct - the local employee didn't have the authority to do anything, but almost everyone has a Boss or some sort.
Clearly you have no idea of the impact of 9/11 on all communications in lower Manhattan and even cell phones were rendered useless. Starbuck lost a few stores that day, too.
1) 12 years ago someone went into a store for water and thought they wouldn't have to pay, but they did.
2) The company reimbursed the purchaser for the water.
Wait, what's the outrage now again?
Somebody probably spilled some Starbucks coffee on themselves and it was too hot so they got burned. When Starbucks told them to learn how to hold their cup properly to prevent spilling, they dug up a decade old piece, which was a sad attempt at basically the same thing as this, to try and get another "boycott" going.
it says more about the local manager and employees really than about the company. I wander if the one who called really thinks they talked to the management at corporate offices.
There will be full page ads from the CEO of Starbucks in major newspapers tomorrow about "guns". I'm going to make a wild prediction that this does not work out well for them. It's usually a mistake for Corporations to become involved in controversial social issues or Great Debate issues like the 2nd amendment.
They admit to a lot of political pressure from the Left, but it appears very weak-kneed if they are going to do nothing about any enforcement - is it really going to be worthwhile just to pay lip service the Left and irritate the Constitutionalists? I doubt it. This is lose/lose from a business standpoint.
There will be full page ads from the CEO of Starbucks in major newspapers tomorrow about "guns". I'm going to make a wild prediction that this does not work out well for them. It's usually a mistake for Corporations to become involved in controversial social issues or Great Debate issues like the 2nd amendment.
They admit to a lot of political pressure from the Left, but it appears very weak-kneed if they are going to do nothing about any enforcement - is it really going to be worthwhile just to pay lip service the Left and irritate the Constitutionalists? I doubt it. This is lose/lose from a business standpoint.
I don't get it. Conservatives drone on & on that private companies can do what they want. What's your beef NOW? God, it's just endless b*tching. If you're so insecure that you can't walk into a shop to grab a coffee without your security blanket, you've got big problems. I suggest therapy, rehab, something.
There will be full page ads from the CEO of Starbucks in major newspapers tomorrow about "guns". I'm going to make a wild prediction that this does not work out well for them. It's usually a mistake for Corporations to become involved in controversial social issues or Great Debate issues like the 2nd amendment.
They admit to a lot of political pressure from the Left, but it appears very weak-kneed if they are going to do nothing about any enforcement - is it really going to be worthwhile just to pay lip service the Left and irritate the Constitutionalists? I doubt it. This is lose/lose from a business standpoint.
Whatever. I doubt the mass amount of normal money making people give 2 $hits about carrying guns into starbucks. In fact. . .starbucks would be pretty happy if you kept your guns, your truck, your sister/wife, and your dog outside of the stores.
Gander, Newfoundland, gave EVERYTHING away for free. Food. Water. Lodging. Medical care. Housing. Blankets. Babysitting. Dental care. Excursions. Laundry facilities. Prescriptions.
Too bad Starbucks couldn't even suck up $130 for their own citizens. http://www.therecord.com/news-story/...1-hospitality/
To charge people in a time of need would be absolutely heartless.
Oh, wait...you're a republican. Never mind; you'll never get it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
