this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
71 points (91.8% liked)

News

24633 readers
4241 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Can someone explain why this is so bad?

I feel like this would be a pretty positive change for workers to be able to kick out assholes who are rude and don’t even order anything. If we aren’t going to let them unionize or pay them more at least let their work be less annoying.

Like, idk I don’t expect Starbucks to “solve” the homeless problem they usually trespass homeless people anyways. So… is this really that bad?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm sure the workers will be excited to learn they get to deal with becoming bouncers too. The general population is so fun to deal with these days as it is.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s not like that’s new? They already gotta trespass people. Just an open door policy leads to people being even shittier because that’s corporate policy so you can’t kick me out and blah blah blah.

Just like… there’s a lot of other bullshit to be mad at Starbucks over this really doesn’t matter compared to their union busting or other bullshit.

[–] Windex007 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If someone is going to get belligerent about being asked to leave, I promise you that their beligerence is complete unphased by corporate policy.

[–] EmpathicVagrant 3 points 3 weeks ago

Exactly. Basically a paragraph long way to say ‘I have no retail experience’ without those exact words.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Uhg I wrote a post and got sidetracked before hitting post RIP.

Anyways point was more about being able to ask people to leave at all (from what I remember the change was very you can’t kick people out cuz the Philly store did a no no. Maybe that changed after the initial backlash or maybe I’m misremembering it as a specific person my friend who was a manager at the time wasn’t allowed to kick out for some specific reason, idk man it’s been ages since my friends worked there and since that change.) but also mostly just… idk I am not particularly saying it’s super good and perfect change just that it doesn’t seem like a big deal either way. People are acting like this is some big evil change and I don’t get it. Like it’s Starbucks, they’re a for profit company not a public park I don’t see why this matters much one way or the other. They weren’t offering some beautiful after school enrichment or anything super crazy they’re just going back to their old policy.

[–] Dkarma 1 points 3 weeks ago

They can kick them out anyway. They don't need this policy.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I kind of thought this was the policy in the first place...

[–] FlyingSquid 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This has been a very long-standing policy of theirs going back to when they were a little company in Seattle.

But capitalism takes away any possible benevolence.

[–] KazuyaDarklight 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

According to the article, the open door policy was established in 2018.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Perhaps that's when it was officially codified, but it certainly has been at least an unofficial policy since way before then. I used to know people back in the day that would literally spend all day at Starbucks, sitting on their laptop using the wifi.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No, some years ago there was a black guy waiting for someone in a Starbucks and they kicked him out. Corporate was pissed because it was clearly a racist employee. In response, they literally closed every Starbucks in the entire country for one day and had all of their employees attend mandatory racism trainings.

And they established a rule that none of their stores were allowed to deny access to bathrooms to the public. I was living in a car at that time, and it was awesome. Sad to see they're going back on it :(

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Basically unenforceable, they already tell you to leave if they got a lot of customers but otherwise I promise you no one really gives a shit when all you're doing is sitting and doing work without coffee

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like it's entirely enforceable, but often not enforced.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Stay the fuck out of those garbage places.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago

I don't drink coffee, so this doesn't affect me any.

I'm okay with this policy. commercial places should be for people who want to conduct commerce. from what I can tell this doesn't affect anyone who needs to run to the bathrooms, this is for the people who take their macbook airs and just sit down occupying space working on their manuscripts taking advantage of the free wifi and not buying anything, or for an extreme example that old pictures of a guy who set up his entire desktop at a mcdonald's monitor and all just for the free wifi.

if there are people who are really upset about that, the wifi signal extends outside the walls. no one says you can't sit in the car and use the starbucks wifi.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Denny's and IHOP are going to make a huge resurgence.

[–] SulaymanF 1 points 3 weeks ago

What will New York City do now?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Fuck. I used to go to Starbucks specifically because they made a rule that stores had to provide free toilets to everyone.