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.
I would think the wealthy would be the ones less likely to have a quarter. I dont carry around a lot of change, so wouldnt always have a quarter. My SO doesn't carry any cash, so definetly wouldn't have a quarter. I don't see what is so amazing about that. A lot of people use credit or debit for a majority of their purchases these days.
I'm not "wealthy," and I don't carry change around. I have a jar at my desk with change in it, and I routinely keep $5-$20 cash in my wallet just for convenience, or for emergencies. I really don't see why people would go around carrying change these days.
I'm not "wealthy," and I don't carry change around. I have a jar at my desk with change in it, and I routinely keep $5-$20 cash in my wallet just for convenience, or for emergencies. I really don't see why people would go around carrying change these days.
I almost religiously carried two quarters and two dimes as part of my pocket stuff for years and years. It was nice not to have to break a bill or end up with a pocket of jingle-jangle for small transactions, and have a quarter for a paper or a meter or whatever.
But I have gone coinless for a decade now. Only remember when I buy something small and it rings up at $1.19, and I end up with an unwanted handful of change.
It's not just the homeless, not by a long shot. When I worked in a convenience store, our policy was employees only (and the cops). We started by allowing perfectly normal people use the restroom and found out many of them would go in to shoot up, get drunk and sit on the toilet forever, make out, and other stuff. Letting kids go in was the worst. We'd have shaving cream on the toilet seat and pee and crap all over the floor. One kid unscrewed and stole the handle to the hot water faucet.
My manager finally put her foot down when a customer using a bathroom in a business slipped and fell and sued all the tenants of that building.
The attitude that customers are owed a restroom is summed up by a woman who wrote into Letters to the Editor. She really - no kidding - wrote that she did this. She wanted to take her son into the store bathroom. She was told it was for employees only. So she said she took her son into a corner of the store and let him pee there.
Can you imagine what she'd do in a bathroom?
These are the kinds of people who want to use a public restroom and why we don't let them. They're also the reason we can't have nice things.
The attitude that customers are owed a restroom is summed up by a woman who wrote into Letters to the Editor. She really - no kidding - wrote that she did this. She wanted to take her son into the store bathroom. She was told it was for employees only. So she said she took her son into a corner of the store and let him pee there.
Can you imagine what she'd do in a bathroom?
These are the kinds of people who want to use a public restroom and why we don't let them. They're also the reason we can't have nice things.
I think that's absolutely fantastic. I'm on her side.
I think that's absolutely fantastic. I'm on her side.
Really?
IMO there should be toilets available to the public for a fee of a dollar. And there should be a timer so that no one stays in a stall too long. Otherwise, the public is not owed free toilet facilities. Toilet paper, sewage removal/water usage, and sanitation of said facilities all cost money. And those who use that facilities ought to pay for those services.
And no, I don't believe that Starbucks owes a non-customer access to their toilets for free.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 3 days ago)
35,613 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50634
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
Really?
IMO there should be toilets available to the public for a fee of a dollar. And there should be a timer so that no one stays in a stall too long. Otherwise, the public is not owed free toilet facilities. Toilet paper, sewage removal/water usage, and sanitation of said facilities all cost money. And those who use that facilities ought to pay for those services.
And no, I don't believe that Starbucks owes a non-customer access to their toilets for free.
That's fine to say "should", but you're still left with a public downtown and a need for restrooms.
If you don't offer them, you'll have human waste on the sidewalk.
Which, apparently, some downtowns are willing to deal with.
It was not a new policy. Starbuck's has always let anyone use their restroom.
Maybe in your neck of the woods in Texas, but not as of last winter/spring in Philadelphia's downtown locations, including the ''infamous'' one from last April.
"Bathrooms for customers only'' as of last March or so until the worldwide media frenzy descended on that Phillly location in April. Since then, haven't been in that location or any Starbucks. Some of the other Philly downtown locations were dangerous to be in at times. I'm done with Starbucks and its social work sideshow so who cares what the bathroom policies are.
All I can say is that I am very glad and grateful that I live in a NICE suburb, and we don't have to deal with such things and issues (so far, anyway).
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.
