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.
you failed to bold a crucial part of his statement, not surprisingly. here ya go.
Starbucks' official response to this movement: "We strive to create a welcoming environment for all of our customers. We do not have any time limits for being in our stores, and continue to focus on making the Third Place experience for every Starbucks customer.""
They should of spelled it out clearer.
Customer = someone that spends money in our business .
And the last time I checked, customers buy things.
Not if they are thrown out first
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Even if they had told the two black men that tables were reserved for paying customers, they would have had to tell white customers the same thing. Because at least one white person says he was there longer, without making a purchase.
Internet jackoffs - the men were loitering, throw them out
Starbucks - released a statement apologizing to the two men, adding that they are "disappointed this led to an arrest" and pledging to review their policies "to ensure these types of situations never happen in any of our stores." http://6abc.com/what-a-witness-says-...?sf186989648=1
From what I've read, Starbucks didn't fire the employee which started this.
Now, I would guess that Starbucks' management spoke with the employee and asked said employee why they were asked to leave and then the call to the police.
You would think that if the employee didn't have some plausible explanation, Starbucks would have fired the employee. Since the employee wasn't fired, it would appear that the employee must have provided Starbucks management with some plausible reason why these two individuals were singled out.
Starbucks should disclose the reason given by the employee.
That employee is no longer with Starbucks. Evidently by mutual consent.
These guys were customers, they were waiting for the rest of their party before ordering.
If the white guy they were meeting had got there first and wanted to wait for them, we would never be having this discussion.
That is undeniable, and that is where most people had an issue. The manager made her decision based on race. The CEO is doing the right things, while also protecting the company from lawsuits (also the right thing).
Since the employee wasn't fired, it would appear that the employee must have provided Starbucks management with some plausible reason why these two individuals were singled out.
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.
