Starbucks – Grumpy

by The Scarlet Harlot on December 14, 2005 · 77 comments

in Uncategorized

I don’t see many Starbucks commercials anymore, but I think this one fits me to a ‘T’.

Mmmmm-mmm.  Doesn’t a steaming hot cup o’ joe sound good right about now?  See if you can trick a co-worker into bringing you one.

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • Heretique

    Starbucks has commercials?

  • Cananopie

    No. This commercial isn’t joking. Starbucks customers literally, actually, and not at all exaggeratingly are IDENTICAL to these people. It’s funny because it’s a clean cut, colorful commercial with silly things like a paper thrown at a paper boy, a dog just laying there, and a single old lady on an empty road… but Starbucks loyalists are some of the most bitchy, needy, rude, dick-faced people on this planet. And they DO yell at you for being kind to them and they DO yell at you if things don’t go exactly perfect for them.

    These people need to be dropped off in Somalia for a reality check, not given the coffee theyre heartlessly addicted to at home.

  • The Good Reverend

    I take it this is a sore point with you, Cananopie? wink

  • Heretique

    Hey! Shut the f*ck up!

    </Starbucks customer>


  • panfluteboy

    Re:  they DO yell at you for being kind to them and they DO yell at you if things don’t go exactly perfect for them.

    What do you expect?  They just paid $4 or more, for a f*cking cup of coffee.  smile [dumbasses]

  • The Good Reverend

    Researchers have just released a report saying that coffee is America’s number one source of antioxidants.  So I’m not paying $4 for coffee – it’s anti-cancer medicine, dammit!

  • .alphamonkey.

    Wow! Way to over generalize.  Maybe your turnpike Starbucks customers are dicks but, hey…they’re already on the turnpike.  Life sucks for them already.

  • labrazio

    Sounds like Cananopie needs a nice warm cup of Starbucks coffee…one of those ones with the kittens in it.

  • Cananopie

    I understand those of you who might enjoy the multi-billion dollar psuedo-caring coffee corporation. I’m not saying everyone who ever bought a coffee from there is a jerk but the fanbase they have typically are jerks. I have worked at one for over 5 and a half years and have many friends who’ve worked at other Starbucks. There are 2 groups who work for them- those who fall into the corporate single minded mindset and those who dont. Those who don’t are the ones who typically think for themselves. Same goes for the customers, they obsess all day for a STARBUCKS coffee… not a coffee from the local coffee shop- Starbucks. And they actually are relieved to see one whether they’re on the NYS Thruway or not, my knowledge in to Starbucks is not limited through my ex-job. I’ve spent years learning about it and thinking about it, and I’ve learned from the harder side of it to be fair, you can’t really judge what a Starbucks is without immersing yourself in it for years. You can joke highway travellers are different but the highway travellers are usually the foreign ones or the truckers- those who come in almost praising Starbucks are the people I’m talking about and they are not few and far-between.

    Starbucks is simply the McDonalds of fast-coffee. They strategically position themselves to take local coffee shops out of business across the nation and pretend they care about the growers or some other shit with “fair-trade” but the fact is they aren’t one of the fastest growing corporations in the world because of their caring. You simply don’t get ahead in a capitalistic driven world by being “caring,” but it’s a good front. Just because McDonalds has the Ronald McDonald house that doesn’t mean that they’re a sustainable and community caring corporation.

    Believe in them if you really want to but I’ve never found any benefit in believing in a corporation. They are never typically “good” in nature and esepecially when one devotes so much to exploiting our third world countries and competition in our own country. It’s competition that makes our society work, not elimination of competition and unity. Maybe Starbucks is willing to work for you now but it is not a place you should trust in like you trust a family member.

    And Starbucks spends billions a year making you feel thats what they are- a family member. Literally you might laugh but it obviously works on many many people. I see it when they come to the counter, they have the look that someone finally understands them- and that is any random Starbucks employee. It’s pretty sick is all I’m saying, I’ve seen it first hand and heard it secondary many many years. Any proof you have to the contrary I’d like to hear it. If you doubt it, take a vacation from your current job and get a job at a Starbucks and see for yourself.

  • The Good Reverend

    I’m sorry for your Starbucks troubles.  But I’d like to make a couple points.  Not of contention, but just to throw out for thought/debate/whatever:

    1.  Regarding your statement that the majority of Starbucks customers are jerks – I think that’s just Americans in general.  I believe you are wrongly accusing “Starbucks customers” because that is possibly your greatest exposure to people.  Many moons ago I worked retail as well, at CompUSA.  The customers there were also assholes for the most part.  I think people are just giving less and less of a shit about others in general.  It ain’t a “Starbucks thing”.

    2.  Starbucks, as with any corporation, is out to make money.  But some do do it more conscientiously than others.  I don’t know Starbucks from the inside as you do, but I did do a fair amount of research before becoming a stockholder.  They practice in “fair-trade” (which may be a sham if I understand you right.. would like to know more), pay a decent wage for the work, and is one of the only coffeeshops I know of that gives part-time employees health insurance.  That was actually the clincher for my choice to invest in them (well, and their profits smile ).  Starbucks isn’t giving all their profits to charity, but they seem to be a corporation better than many for unskilled labor to get paid ok and be able to go the doctor when they break their leg.  But like i said, i fully admit I may not know the whole story.

    I have more points, but the corporation that I’m chained to has just cancelled my half-day off and called me to the office for some emergency. :\ Cananopie, you have the floor!

  • Cananopie

    I do enjoy a good debate every now and again and I am not angered that you disagree with me.

    About the Starbucks/jerks mentality I am not unaware how most of America functions, especially unthinkingly. Chances are we can pull out a random passerbyer whose clothes were produced in Sweat Shops, including shoes, jacket, hat, shirt, pants, underwear, and socks. More than likely they don’t have a problem with fast food or that illegal immigrants are working in slaughterhouses across the nation so the employers can ensure no benefits for them thusly earning more profit for the corporations like KFC and McDonalds who threaten to take their business to a cheaper source if these places want to employ workers with rights. This is why pandemics such as Bird Flu and Mad Cow Disease are always on the verge of running rampant because corporations protect slaughterhouses and the like from national inspections- in other words, they’re being paid off. The average American doesn’t think about this and usually cares less.

    The problem is that Starbucks puts up a very good front, it is applaudable from any corporate CEO on how Starbucks assumes that they are caring about the environment and farmers. Pretty much in any Starbucks you’ll find a shelf with Fair-Trade coffee and Starbucks has the audacity kindness to even put up posters around stores across the nation and most likely world that they help third world children go to school.

    But Transbuddha is not filled with idiots. I’d assume we all know that corporations, all of them, do far more to harm and create 3rd world conditions than help or contribute help to them. The result of Fair-Trade being such a big deal and blown up by Starbucks so much was because there were many activists pushing Starbucks, the largest coffee corporation (at least with stores, I’m not sure if Folgers or something is bigger) to provide Fair Trade coffee. Only through a request from Global Exchange, multiple protests, and bad publicity from a child labor news report did Starbucks bring Fair Trade in to their stores… and only on the shelves. So if you walk in and order a latte to a frappucino that is not Fair trade coffee- no bar drinks are and they make up 50% or more of the drink sales from my experience. But neither is the coffee they brew in the urns either (the other 50%). The fair trade only sits on the shelves. Before I quit this fall (because I’m not out to condemn Starbucks for even doing something right) they did have a promotional week where Fair- Trade was FINALLY brewed. But it was a one-time-only special event. TECHNICALLY, also, if you’re a customer you have the right to ask for the employees to brew you a whole pot of Fair-Trade coffee if thats the only coffee you’re willing to purchase but the problems with that are numerous. Starbucks coffee now comes prepackaged and pre-ground, most Starbucks do have a grinder and a scale, but this whole process would take about 10 or 15 minutes… I guess if you’re not in a hurry for your morning coffee then this is a fine process but it is also a wasteful process… something Americans also are habitual. Also you’re not making any friends behind the counter when asking for this, especially if the Starbucks is busy (and they usually are). Also the associates are not properly informed about the situation either, upper management tries every way possible to portray to the customers (and stockholders) that Starbucks is VERY Fair-Trade friendly. Our manager told us once that he got an e-mail from corporate saying that ALL Starbucks coffee is now Fair-Trade… which isn’t true, but it was obviously another attempt and when you are working at a place like that you can’t do anything about it even if they lie straight to you.

  • Cananopie

    On TOP of that according to Fair Trade Labeling Organizations International, Fair Trade farmers sell only about 20% of their coffee at a Fair Trade price. So even if you have fair trade coffee chances are it’s not even sold at a fair trade price… I dont even know how that even works.

    Much of this information I’ve given you and more can be found on This Global Exchange website or the links that come off of that page. I suggest reading the history at the bottom of the page for a more obvious understanding.

    The point is corporations cause these conditions to exist in the first place. People in 3rd world countries would be able to fight for their rights if businesses with more power than most countries (or perhaps all countries) didn’t rule over them and continue oppressing them. Also on that site it mentions how coffee is typically bought for about $1 a pound, but Starbucks goes as far to sell it for $10, $11, $12 to $15 a pound. It’s great that you are gaining profit by backing their corporation with your hard-earned money and becoming stock holder, and as you noted yourself you’re enjoying the PROFIT they’re making (not the investing in to a sustainable world)… but overall the profit you’re recieving as a shareholder is mostly coming from oppression… and if you can sleep easier at night because they offer partial health insurance to part-time employees in America then that’s your priority.

    My beef isn’t so much with Starbucks as it is with all corporations with this argument. And the point of my original statement on this topic is because Starbucks has this psuedo-caring attitude people genuinely look at it as a caring corporation and the loyalists (not everyone who has ever walked into one, but the loyalists, who are plentiful such as the Wal-mart loyalists are plentiful) act as if they DESERVE what Starbucks has and have attitudes similar (though not exactly) to those in this commercial.

    If you want something to support and to really feel like you’re helping out the little people (which obviously is a concern with the part-time health benefits… PS- Starbucks goes out of their way to make sure very few of their employees work full time to earn full-time benefits to pay for these part time benefits so actually most Starbucks employees aren’t making anymore than the typical burger flipper… also Starbucks uses franchises such as the one I worked at to cut down their employee costs, we were given 0 benefits Starbucks employees were given but had to treat the customer similarly and we were denied tips), put some stocks into a local business- yea- you won’t get as much of a return… but you’ll probably feel a whole lot better about yourself and you really WILL be helping people. Corporations in general are the problem and while Global Exchange is trying to make a difference in Starbucks it is not a worthy corporation to support yet… in fact I have yet to find one that is. Starbucks is hurting the farming industry with their massive demand of low-paying beans and miniscule partial demand of their fair trade beans that they’re equivilant to the Wal-mart of the coffee-world.

    That global exchange site has a really neat flyer here that sums up a lot of what I am trying to say.

    Support something with a heart is all my argument really is. Not one that tricks you into thinking they have a heart.

  • labrazio

    Holy crap…those poor abused Starbucks workers.I think the next time anyone buys a cup of coffee, they should tip their server with a big *sniff* hug…and maybe a kitten,too.

  • Cananopie

    Thats adorable labrazio. I bet you’re the type of person who’d be the first one to fill out a complaint card when the person behind the counter treats you with the same contempt that you treat them with.

    Starbucks employees shouldn’t be “grateful” they’re making below poverty level at their job. I’m sure you’re earning one of the middle class incomes that are shrinking in this country where you’re actually paid enough to spend it on luxuries no matter how small. If it’s a job someone should be grateful for as your sarcastic statement seems to make it, why don’t you quit your job and work there?

    If the answer is because it’d suck and you wouldn’t make as much there you go. The sad thing is because of the widening class gap young adults are having a harder and harder time finding a job that pays middle class wages, especially without 4 to 6 years of schooling.

    Go to your local Starbucks, if each employee isn’t SMILING at you, you can complain and that store will get in trouble from corporate office. Do you have a job where they force you to smile at even assholes who don’t have common courtesy and respect while making below poverty level? Obivously not or else you might actually make a real argument out of your sarcastic comments.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Whoa there, Cananopie.  You know, just about every retail store has compliment/complaint cards as well, ya know.  The fact is Starbucks pays BETTER than a goodly chunk of the retail/food service jobs out there, and provides health insurance for part timers (which is pretty fucking rare, I assure you).  Hey, you’re bitter..that’s fine, but chill already.

  • Cananopie

    I am aware of the compliment/complaint system in all stores. I was pointing out the fact that the whole corporate system Starbucks runs on creates poorer conditions. If you would have read my other posts I have pointed out that it isn’t Starbucks specifically that I have a problem with, but all corporate chains, I was just making it a point that those who make below-poverty-level incomes at these jobs are forced to smile while doing it. I’ll take a quick guess that you don’t have to do that and you aren’t micromanaged completely throughout the day, yet you can sit back and become a proponent of that system so long as it works to your benefit (which means you aren’t on the server end. If you love this system so much why aren’t you a part of it?). Starbucks HAS put very minimal effort towards giving its workers better care, but the actual money comes from the customers that they serve, Starbucks pays no more or hardly anymore than McDonalds. They can offer part time benefits because they make sure they have a staff of minimal full time employees… and when you are making below poverty level you need to pretty much be working full time.

    Corporations in general are the problem. I’m not bitter because I worked under one and I had to deal with it, I’m bitter because Starbucks continues to be an unsustainable, competition eliminating, 3rd world country abusing, employee belittling corporation and because people who can’t afford to live in a shitty apartment downtown on the bad side of the city with this pay but recieve health benefits they should be jumping for joy. Wow, you’re right, Starbucks is a really caring corporation.

    Nobody has even commented on the fact that Starbucks exploits just as much as Wal-mart or an oil company. It’s easy for us in America, especially when you’re well-to-do, and find nothing wrong with the system in which we live our daily lives in… which has become most of American’s culture. The culture you are defending is exactly the culture the current president we all love to hate is propogating.

    I’ve always known this to be a more than liberal site, but I don’t understand where your problem is with a president who promotes outsourcing and the elimination of smaller businesses and most of the wealth going to the rich when you apparently want the exact same thing… SO LONG as there are SOME health benefits STRICTLY for the American part-time employees and less than 1% of all the sales the farmers MIGHT get a fair pay.

    You are about as caring as the president with that mentality.

    Starbucks is the only corporation many people still cling to as a “decent” corporation because of that shitty part time health benefits crap. Most of the employees payment comes from the customer directly with tips even though if you’ve ever worked waitering or waitressing or another job where tips are a main source of income taxes do a good job of taking “their fair share” of it as well. Promoting ANY corporation that pulls in profits like Starbucks does is promoting an automaton society that is no longer regulated by law but is regulated by corporate rules.

  • Cananopie

    The only point I was making about comment cards and the like is that when you are getting paid $6/$7 an hour part-time you shouldn’t have to pretend you’re some special, magical employee of a wonderful business as the Oompa-Loompas were to Willy Wonkas chocolate factory and that is what they expect. And what I mean by that is that smiling to each and every customer is a requirement, not an option, so is saying “Welcome to Starbucks,” and so is upselling a pastry that was opened from a cardboard box that was in a freezer for 8 to 12 months stuffed with preservatives to a customer who stupidly thinks it’s fresh “today”… all these things are required or a secret shopper (the Gestapo of the corporate world) will catch you on it and you will be reprimanded. If you are willing to take that kind of treatment with your job with what you are currently getting paid, I’d like to hear you say it is all I’m saying…

    It’s very easy to have passed through this lower-end of the corporate food chain and say “It’s not that bad” because it’s over for you and has been for a long time, even 10 years ago working for any corporation wasn’t as strict as it is today. I am no longer part of Starbucks or any corporation and I am very thankful to not be anymore, and I will never have to be again, but that is not the truth for most people today. It is this mentality of “Waa waa, the stupid teenage fry cook is being a baby about his job” that promotes the sheer murder of our planet and the slow and methodical enslavement of the human race… yea, compared to those farmers the Starbucks employees behind the counter should be kissing the CEOs feet for being treated so good… but then again being micromanaged isn’t something we should be grateful for, is it? Or do you really believe it is?

    Your sole argument Alphamonkey is that since Starbucks is only 99% as destructive, hurtful, and evil as any other corporation we should all be very thankful for that and praise them for their good deeds. I’d really like to know how you can sit there and make fun of our president for being the idiot that he is, yet rejoice in the same beliefs he holds. It’s much larger than Starbucks I’m talking about here, my problem with Starbucks is that they get people like you to THINK they care when facts prove they care pretty much just as much as any other corporation.

    A below-poverty-level barista should be glad they get health care for working part time… but wouldn’t you think with CEOs of these corporations making billions of dollars a year that this should just come standard for any business that pulls in over XX billion a year? Plus that doesn’t even make up for the fact on how if you support Starbucks you basically support slavery of the bean-growers. It’s easy not to care when you have everything you want like a little witty website with funny links (which I enjoy by the way, I’m not ripping on the site) but you shouldn’t DEFEND the practices… not if you really are someone who disagrees with the presidents beliefs at least.

    My argument doesn’t end with the micromanaging complaints. I am sincere in asking you whether you’d keep your current job if you had secret people who purposely came up to you to check if you were doing benign things to make sure your place of employment is running as ideally as possible, or if you had someone constantly watching what you were doing making sure you never took a 32 minute break or were talking to a coworker when you could be doing more work… and I’m not even asking you to lower your income to where you couldn’t support a house/family/website for it. Remember, if you propogate a system like that it will not be long you will help be forcing everyone to work like that.

  • Thundarr

    Wow, nice debate, but a little too intense and highbrow, I’ll leave these words of Bill Maher to lighten the mood (or explode the situation in venom and hatred, whatever)

    “The more complicated the Starbucks order, the bigger the asshole. If you walk into a Starbucks and order a “decaf grande half-soy, half-lowfat, iced vanilla, double-shot, gingerbread cappuccino, extra dry, light ice, with one Sweet-n’-Low and one NutraSweet,” ooh, you’re a HUGE asshole.”

  • The Good Reverend

    I’ll have you know that I am a “triple grande iced 2-pump, no-whip, half-lowfat mocha” customer, and yet I am always cordial and tip well.  So go to hell. wink

  • Cananopie

    I am intense when I debate but I don’t hold grudges, I just tend to get passionate. I hope you don’t interperate my passion as being “highbrow,” because I’m not condemning the way anyone else goes about their daily life, I’m simply condemning the defense of corporations which exploit our world, something that we all share.

  • labrazio

    I never fill out comment cards, and my coffee order is the easiest one…tall…no room for cream…hell,I don’t care if you put the lid on right or not.All the coffee servers I’ve ever know are damn cool, and I’ve never been an asshole about any type of service I get. This is probably because I’ve worked plenty of retail myself, and I know people can be dicks.Of course, I don’t piss and moan about it too much because experience has taught me that hey, some folks are just assholes and some aren’t-and I’m not gonna let some jackass ruin my day.I think Cananopie has been doing to much of her own product and is just a wee bit high strung.What other explaination is there for lashing out when someone offers you a kitten?Switch to decaf,baby.

  • Cananopie

    I’m a he, not a she. I don’t drink coffee, it gives me headaches. And I don’t appreciate being called “baby.” I’m a very easy-going person but I am passionate on debate with those who defend the practices of corporations. Would you be willing to be micromanaged at your current job and allow people to secretly spy on what you are doing to make sure you’re doing it 100% correctly even for the pay you’re making now?

    Chances are you’d say no, so why are you a proponent of a system that does it to people who make below poverty level incomes? I was harsh on you because of your insincerity. Do you care that your tall coffee you drink every day with no cream was grown by someone who makes an average of $300 a year? No, you don’t, but at least you’re easy-going when it comes to recieving it, and condescending to anyone who speaks up against the practices of it.

    I don’t care if you don’t care about any of it because I can’t force you to care, but at least don’t defend the practices or belittle those who believe in trying to change things for a more equal and sustainable world.

  • .alphamonkey.

    What’s funny about this is that well….Labrazio has worked at a job where there was little pay (less that Starbucks), was micromanaged, and got spied on by secret shoppers.

    I worked there, too.

  • Cananopie

    yea, has and used to aren’t now… by being proponents of this system you are going to make jobs like yours currently, whatever they may be, handled in a similar fashion because you are promoting a corporate world now, not an individualized one.

    I even said in my post to you above Alpha that I know you probably USED to have a job doing it, but if you enjoy the system that is used so much why aren’t you STILL working under it? You believe you have the right to force other people to live under it because it was only temporary for you? For a lot of people a job like that isn’t temporary, even when you move up the managerial ranks, they fire you with almost absolutely no reason just because you’ve been employed by them for too long.

    The fact is your argument so far has only been with a small portion with what is wrong with Starbucks, not even the worst part, and you haven’t defended why you are okay with a corporation who practically enslaves most farmers and that grows at an unsustainable rate… you’re clinging to the argument that “Hey, they’re making $7 an hour and getting part time health benefits, they should be so thankful.” How can you support a corporation who does to the world, not just the micromanaging and spying, what it does?

    Your argument is incredibly weak and you are only focusing on the side you don’t think you can feel guilty about because you “did your time,” as if that’s even a reason to propogate a system that doesn’t treat humans like humans. The whole point of my argument on that is that you left a system that spied and micromanaged on you, why? Because it sucked? So why are you a proponent of them? If you enjoy being micromanaged and spied on then by all means start your argument there… but the fact is nobody here likes being treated that way and when we’re adults with adult responsibilities like jobs we shouldn’t be treated as children without minds. Starbucks allows room for no individuality, it is propogating an automaton mindset. And that isn’t even half the argument I’m making, you’ve all ignored scores of evidence that Starbucks isn’t a sustainable or kind corporation yet you continue to defend it… why? Because you think you deserve that cup of coffee? What is it? At least drink it in humility knowing what you’re doing by supporting it. Don’t be proud enough to defend it because of “part time health benefits”… they’re helping ruin the world just like almost every other corporation.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Hey, I’m okay that you want to rail against the machine(tm), but jeez…calm down already.  You know why I don’t go the nearest indie coffeeshop in my neighborhood?  Because I don’t like their service, I’m not particularly fond of their coffee, and I absolutely hate the hipster/neo-bohemian atmosphere.

    You know why I go to the closest Starbucks?  Because hey, I actually like the coffee.  I genuinely like the people who work there (some of which are ex co-workers of mine), they make my drink the way I like it without me having to ask, and because (regardless of your narrow-minded view of the corporation) Starbucks is indeed one of the most progressive thinking corporations in America.  And hey, when I buy a $4.50 dollar cup of coffee? I tip 3 dollars every single time. 

    I’ve read your rants about Starbucks on your own site, and I can’t agree with you on a lot of it, because often it seemed like you were pissed off about being held to a standard that YOU AGREED TO UPHOLD when you took the job in the first place.  Yah, secret shoppers suck, but 99% of the time all you have to do is actually follow your job description and stated duties to score 100%. 

    If I recall correctly, you worked at a turnpike Starbucks, which is a licensee, not an actual corporate run Starbucks.  So yah, the standards are a little differnt, but hey, I did the same thing by managing a B&N cafe.  So it’s not like I don’t know the environment that you worked in.  In fact, since my position meant I had to adhere to Starbucks standards and the often contradictory B&N standards, I’d wager that my enviornment was much more difficult.

    But really, none of that is either here nor there.  The real point is that it’s not your place to judge someone because they support a business model that you don’t agree with, especially when you don’t know anything about our experiences with said business.  Let it go, already.

  • Cananopie

    If you want a more calm response I can give it to you.

    I don’t know what it was like when you were growing up but you aren’t given a choice to agree/disagree with certain standards and beliefs of any corporation you join. Not to mention what you’re agreeing to is usually a book as thick as your hand is when you lay it down flat on the table. Yea, I’m sure everyone has taken all the standards that they make you sign and considered them very carefully before taking up the job.

    Nobody does that because it’s hard enough to get a job even at a low-paying place like Starbucks or McDonalds today. You simply can’t bring your lawyer to your job interview and be like “Section B, Class 7- My client believes that he shouldn’t have to follow ‘every order given within the law’ (which is basically what you’re signing up for) can we change that?” Because it’s not going to happen, we are a culture that it is now becoming almost mandatory to work for a corporation- corporations who make it a point that nobody who understands the oppression they’re creating is allowed to really do anything about it.

    Alpha- are we not people? Do we not deserve to, if employed somewhere to at least have opinions? Because when you work for Starbucks, or any corporation for that matter, you sign away having opinions that go against the grain of the corporation as well… and with such a supportive mentality in people that are liberal like you to the conservative president it will undoubtably make its way to law that while clocked in or clocked out, if you’re employed by a corporation you’re not allowed to speak negatively of the place… even if it doesn’t impose a security risk or anything for the corporation, because apparently all they have to do is “agree” to it… but unfortunately when every single place of employment makes you “agree” to something it’s not an agreement anymore, it’s forceful.

    You have simplified the secret shopper thing a bit much. Let me give you an example with 2 different customer interactions.

    Associate: “Hey, what can I get for ya” (no smile on associates face, but appearingly genuine)

    Customer: “Tall coffee”

    Associate: “Alright, anything else?” (same sincerity and genuinity)

    Customer: “Nope, all set.”

    Associate: “Alright, there ya go, have a nice day”

    Do you see any problems with that conversation? How about this one?

    Associate: “Welcome to Starbucks, what can I get for you today?” (forced smile, incredibly fake tone of voice that holds no hostility but undoubtably put on as a show)

    Customer: “Tall coffee”

    Associate: “Okay, and would you like a delicious lemon bar with that today that compliments our Breakfast blend that we’re serving?”

    Customer: “Uh… no. Just the coffee”

    Associate: “Alright sir. The breakfast blend is an excellent choice, it is one of my own preferred Starbucks drinks, is it one of your favorite too?”

    Customer: “Uh, sure. Yea, I like it pretty good.”

    Associate: “Alright! Well, there ya go sir! Have a good day sir and thank you for choosing Starbucks”

    Unless you’re absolutely friendless, you’d probably prefer the first interaction. It’s filled with a lot less bullshit and a more genuine interaction. However that interaction would recieve no higher than a 60% on an actual Starbucks Snapshot.


    Because it’s mandatory to greet every customer with “Welcome to Starbucks” and when they leave to say thank the customer. Each is worth 10 points on the Starbucks Snapshot already making it an 80%… also you must advertise to every single customer, known as “upselling” by offering a pastry or ANYTHING to them just to try and squeeze another $1 or $2 out of them, if you choose not to be a talking bilboard then you’ve lowered yourself to 70%. I added another 10% discount because there is also a requirement on the snapshot that the associate needs to be focused on the customers order and create conversation with them and it is obvious the first associate was just being efficient.

    The way the first associate scenario was ran was the way I’d run my register. Because there was always a line I focused on being efficient to get rid of the cusomers in a respectful manner, in fact I was one of the most respectful of all my coworkers. I didn’t try to be efficient so the store could make money but because I wwanted a break, I moved customers through that line faster than anyone else simply because I was always working to have 10 seconds of no customers (literally, not even 1 minute, that was very rare) but all of that is beside the point.

  • .alphamonkey.

    You’ve already forgotten that I’ve been responsible for making a starbuck’s licensee cafe meet the exact same secret shop requirements.

    There were many, many, many times when I didn’t want to be cheeful or smile at work, but you know what?  I did it anyway because I know that if I were a customer the last thing I’d want to do is buy coffee from Frowny McMope.  Sorry, I have zero agreement with you on that one.  You’re there to do a JOB, not explore your feelings.  It’s not up to the job to accomodate your moods, it’s up to you to leave your personal life at home and do the work you’ve already agreed to do.  If you didn’t read the handbook, or felt like some aspects of your job description was unreasonable, then sorry..that’s entirely you’re fault for taking the job.

    There’s a reason it’s called ‘work’ and not ‘happy feel good fun time’, ya know.

  • Cananopie

    Alpha- did you keep reading after that first post? I had to post 4 times because I had too much to say in 1 post. I said that if your mood affects dealing with the customer in a respectful manner then you shouldn’t be working… I understand what work is, but I was arguing that they can’t USE my emotions, not that I can’t use any emotion I want there whenever I feel like it… theres a difference.

    They and you apparently want the customer to be smiling at all times. Not serious or interested, or any look but a look that has a smile on it. Why? If I’m not happy I have no reason to smile, that is an emotion that is sincere to a body. But if I’m upset you will have to conceal it because it will affect your job. But there are more than upset and happy for emotions and you can be having a good day even without a smile at all and it is interperated through voice and recieved by the customer (remember, these employees are not children, they are adults), this is how every day works.

    But you’re ignoring the most important parts of the questions I ask, as if my argument was solely based on secret shopper agreements. My argument runs much deeper than yours, my only point with the emotion thing (the one thing you chose to disagree with me one) is that if your boss at your job said “I want to see you smiling every single moment of this day, and if I catch you not smiling on my money I will fire you” you’d know the ridiculousness of such a request and how it’s just a form of excersising power over people… but all of a sudden it’s important when it comes to jobs such as Starbucks, as if they employees can’t be kind and respectful without a stupid fake smile on their face.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Honestly, if the person signing my paycheck said to me ‘Hey, part of your job description is that you need to present a cheerful and pleasant demeanor to custormers’ then quite frankly I’d abide by that.  I’m capable of some apocalyptic bad moods, but I made it a point to never, never let it show to customers.  Why?  Because it’s got nothing to do with them. If you can’t be cheerful and/or pleasant when dealing with customers 99.0% of the time (barring some kind of problem customer), then you shouldn’t be working with the public.  That’s just the way it is.

  • Cananopie

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse Alpha, I never said to you that I believe if an employee is in a bitchy mood they should express it, did I? Please point it out to me if I did.

    I did say if an employee doesn’t feel like smiling then that should not be a requirement. Are you telling me it’s impossible to be kind, courteous, and respectful (which is, essentially, what an employer should be able to control when they pay you) while not falsely smiling? Mind you- Employers don’t want REAL smiles (I’m sure they wouldn’t mind if you had one), but they just want you to give the impression to the customer that you’re not just okay, or average, or normal… but… HAPPY. You are a HAPPY employee.

    And that’s demeaning. I have served thousands upon thousands of customers and I was very cordial with them, even the ones that didn’t deserve it. But I never put on a fake smile because that is giving off an illegitimate mood to give a better impression. If the employee is naturally a smiling person then the corporation should allow that.

    What they can’t allow is rudeness, grumpiness, faces of hatred, bad moods to take over a personality, Alpha, we agree on this topic- a business, corporation or not, has the right to tell an employee they can’t let their negative moods affect work… but they dont have to be SMILING to do it. That is my argument…

    if you think there is no way to show kindness, respect, cordiality, and corteousness without a FAKE smile then let me know, otherwise it is just an exercise of power to exert over the employees.

    Alpha, you are so strong in support of Starbucks yet you are bickering with me about whether smiling should be required which, at best, is one of the pettiest of my arguments on what is wrong with Starbucks, but still not entirely dismissable.

    You never explained to me why it’s okay to support a place like Starbucks but, unless I’m wrong, you won’t support a business like Wal-mart. Both are very “forward thinking” corporations and exploit respectively. If you can give me a reason on why you can differentiate Starbucks from the corporations you don’t like, let me know.

  • .alphamonkey.

    There is nothing forward thinking about Wal-Mart.  They don’t contribute to the community (in fact they leech it dry), they don’t support their employees in the least, and their business model is designed to destroy competition. And then there’s that whole ‘sells goods made by Chinese prison labor’ thing.

    Starbucks on the other hand supports it’s employees (name another company that gives those kinds of benefits to part time employees), actually encourages competitive growth, and works toward social change via their policies. I know a good deal about the ‘fair trade’ practices, and I know that Starbucks actually goes above and beyond a lot of those requirements outside of the fair trade certification, for which they recieve no credit.

    As for your smiling hang-up…maybe you don’t spend enough time on the other side of the counter (or maybe you just don’t care), but there’s a difference between cordial and pleasant treatment. And that difference can make or break the experience of a customer. Perhaps it’s social skills thing that you just don’t register, but it does make a difference.  The biggest portion of any job that involves the public is to make their experience as good as you possibly can.  I say that from the perspective of an employee, an employer, and as a customer.  You’ve blown basic customer service into some kind of psuedo thought crime, which shows nothing more than that you simply shouldn’t work with the public if you find that work so arduous.

  • Cananopie

    I would love to know in what ways Starbucks “contributes to the community” in the sense that Wal-mart does not. You say it happens but I can not take your word for it, I gave supportive sources to my claims.

    You gave the claim that your KC Starbucks was right across the street from the local place. Same here in Buffalo (amongst about 12 in the entire dead city). You also claimed that this was a trend to “boost” competition and local businesses. If that is the case why isn’t Wal-mart equivilant?

    Obviously Wal-mart steals from local businesses because of their placement putting them out of a job, but because you don’t see the effects of your local coffee shop (because of your admittance to being such an avid customer there to understand how its business is doing) you are just willing to assume Starbucks INCREASED its sales? That is ridiculous. If there is something I’m missing please supply a source for your information.

    Maybe Wal-mart doesn’t give part time benefits. But it does allow employment to the disabled, the mentally challenged, etc… Starbucks does NOT do any of that. So while you feel part time health benefits are the be-all end-all of a good “forward thinking” corporation, Wal-mart hiring people that Starbucks would reject in moments by fault not their own is not helping out the community in the same way part time health benefits help? Please explain the difference.

    Just because a corporation offers 1 thing out of the ordinary doesn’t make it so great. And as I’ve proven Fair-Trade represents about 1% of all Starbucks sales… wow, you’re right, they really do push the envelope with that. They obviously really do care. And where do you think Starbucks merchandise (anything not coffee) comes from? It is all made in China by…? chances are they’re being produced right next to your Wal-Mart prison slave labor workers.

    I’d love to know (with proof) this “above and beyond” you speak of that Starbucks goes through with fair-trade? Do they really sell 1.25% of fair-trade as opposed to the 1% they’re only credited with? The fact is 99% of their profit on coffee comes from exploitation, does it not? How is that forward thinking in the least? Yea- Starbucks was guilt-tripped (because of bad press) into selling an equivilant to a pinch of fair-trade coffee, and that was a huge step… for the proponents of fair-trade… not really for a corporation. A corporation would make a huge step by paying fair wages ACROSS THE BOARD and becoming sustainable in their product. We are a million miles away from that and people like you who support Starbucks and other people supporting places like Wal-mart we will never progress to live on an earth that isn’t stripped of all its bare essentials and where people are virtually enslaved for basic needs (not even health benefits will be included in our not too distant future).

  • Cananopie

    And it’s true- I do spend the least amount of time on the buying end of any business because I simply don’t have the money to spend $4.50 a day on a cup of coffee, let alone a CD every 6 months, and also let alone the $3 tip but I do know what I appreciate when I am a customer and that’s a personality formed by the individual and not formed by the place they work for. It’s genuinity. And even though you seem to push for a corporate world, everyone shouldn’t be forced to live in it with you.

    If I made up a world that was ideal to me and forced you to work under it and you complained about it and I told you to shut up because thats what I’d expect you probably wouldn’t be that appreciative. I’m not saying the specific way someone should act (because I understand that these people behind the counters are humans with their own distinct personality) with my argument, I am saying allow them to act however they please so long as it is genuine and respectful and courteous and cordial and all those things. I am NOT saying it’s okay for them to bitch when they’re feeling bitchy- that is NOT okay.

    A fake smile and a fake attitude shouldn’t be what pulls people in to a business… Sincerity should. The fakeness you seem to want to force other people to conform to is the reason why corporations end up being so oppressive in the first place. I’m not saying you have to like the place you work for, I’m just saying that even if you don’t like it the place you’re employed shouldn’t force you to adopt an attitude of insincerity. I can’t be fake and sincere, that is also an oxymoron. I can’t put on a smile and say “Welcome to Starbucks” to each individual as if it were a magic place. When you get getting paid $7 an hour there should be no forced emotion upon you. I might even let it slide if they were getting paid poverty level, but there are more demands on any $7 an hour person than there are on most $100k+ workers. The person making that much money isn’t micromanaged and is trusted at their job. You are treated as a child and an inmate when you work at a place like Starbucks where there is absolutely 0% true responsibility… and responsibility is what makes 20 year olds who still worship Britney Spears adults. And responsibility isn’t defined as “Serve hundreds of customers in your best fake happy attitude ever.”

    Jobs with standards as ridiculous as Starbucks creates more people to turn to crime. I actually work at a school for At-Risk students now (students who are at-risk of dropping out) and many of them are very intelligent and they’re too intelligent to sit there and play your game (I say your because it certainly isn’t something I’m a proponent of)of “act completely fake to everyone so you can earn your corporation billions of dollars while you don’t earn a penny more than $7 an hour from the corporation” tips don’t count- they are given by the customer, not Starbucks, and plus baristas don’t deserve to get tipped anymore than burger flippers in the first place… they both work just as tediously.

    A job like that requires tremendous patience, more than even being a teacher because a teacher doesn’t have to put up with the shit these bottom feeders of corporations do. And yet you always want to raise their standards (as if the standards meant anything in the first place), if you’re for a world that will politely (with a smile damnit) ruin itself as opposed to a genuine world where people actually try to make a difference, that’s great… but you seem to be backing Starbucks with little proof and still with the mindset that it’s worth 99% of coffee sales to be unfair so long as 1% is fair and there are health benefits for American part timers. Has anyone ever nominated you to be the next Mother Teresa? How could I have been so wrong?

  • Thundarr

    I just love happy feel good fun time LOL

  • Cananopie

    The point is that you’re arguing because I “agreed” to thank every customer after they annoyed me by showing up in front of me and to greet every customer with a fake “Welcome to Starbucks” with a fake smile and a fake interest in your drink all while being an advertisment on top of it (aside from the uniform I “agreed” to wear). I don’t believe a corporation or anyone should force ingenuinity and force emotions on their employee. If a person doesn’t feel like smiling no law or rule should force them to do so- then you are just hiding the truth of reality for pleasantries. I’m not saying that an employee shouldnt treat people with respect, because everyone always deserves to be treated with respect even if you don’t see eye to eye with them. So if you don’t feel like smiling AND feel like being a dick to a customer then that is something completely different because you’re allowing your emotions to interfere with the customer interaction… but fake smiles as if most of these people are happy to work there is ridiculous. Smile if you feel like smiling, even at work, but if you don’t you shouldn’t be docked points.

    By the way- nothing less than 100% on a secret shopper is acceptable.

    It’s true that I don’t agree with this corporate model, and it goes a LOT farther than the secret shoppers, that is just the 1 part you have consistently focused on out of the myriad of reasons on why not to support Starbucks.

    But I beg to differ that my view of Starbucks is “narrow minded” when I have incorporated everything from the third world countries that it helps continue to oppress, to the environment it helps continue to ruin, and the businesses it helps continue to fail (Wal-Mart has run many businesses out of business as is the trend with virtually every other corporation… you will need proof that Starbucks actually jumpstarted the coffee-economy, I’m not going to take your word that when a Starbucks pops up next to an indie coffee shop Starbucks actually helps improve their business)… because without the Starbucks across the street or down the road then the indie place would have that many more customers, right?

    Especially when, surprise surprise, here in Buffalo the one indie coffee shop in the area there was a Starbucks built right across the street from their one location and a few stores down from their other location. This is a business-move Starbucks makes across the country to help indie coffee shops gain business?

    And the Iraq war was a war to stop terrorism, right?

    You are using the exact same mentality. The friendly atmosphere you get at your local Starbucks isn’t percolated through all Starbucks, they are that good to you because they KNOW you, when they all leave or quit that same sincerity will be gone, or equal or better sincerity will be given at a local coffee shop. I understand how absolutely awful those “hipsters” must treat you when you’re in there to support their business, they must be so rude to you. I understand going to a place a friend is employed at is better because you’re treated on a more personal level, but if you get rid of your friends you’re basically telling me you’d prefer people with no personality to serve you as opposed to those with a personality… which is a very liberal mindset. right?

    If those hipsters treat you negatively in any way, I understand you not supporting their business, but because they give the air of holding different viewpoints than your own that are probably not harmful in the least you choose not to support them? You prefer to support a place bent on oppression and creating employees with no personality as opposed to a place with opinions you might not see eye to eye with…

    I understand how corporations work… I understand that it is essential to oppress and to restrict rights when you’re trying to run something that is so international…

    I just ask you, Alphamonkey, and anyone else who is supporting your view which seems to be almost everyone, are you willing to trade in your current job for a job that does what Starbucks/Wal-mart/Home Depot and all the rest are doing and work under those conditions, EVEN for the same pay you’re getting currently? I have never said “You don’t understand” to anyone and blamed anyone for not working under those conditions… my argument never stood there so don’t accuse me of it… if you have personal experiences you want to bring in to this discussion I will not stop you but I won’t wait until you allow me the privelege to hear about your working experiences under corporate rule to tell you why it’s wrong.

  • Cananopie

    We all know it’s wrong. We know that Starbucks is oppressing 3rd world countries and we know corporations create more problems for America and the world than smaller businesses. We know of Starbucks scandalous treatment of 99% percent of its coffee growers… undoubtably everyone here is against slavery and wouldn’t even consider reinstating it in our country… so why is it okay to support a corporations who reaps billions (fucking billions! not hundreds of thousands) on virtual slavery. $300 a year for the average grower. You want to live on $300 a year? Then why are you okay with forcing other people to do it.

    As I said I’m not an idiot and I don’t even expect anyone here to stop drinking coffee (or even stop going to Starbucks, I was simply making a point that is vehemently taboo around here apparently) but if you’re okay with supporting a corporations who reaps billions of dollars every year why you’re not willing to admit you wouldn’t mind living under such rules. I’m sure the coffee growers in Venezuela would understand that they “agreed” to the terms Starbucks gave them when they said they’d pay them $300 a year. It doesn’t seem like a fair agreement, does it?

    I also understand going to the local coffee shop will probably not change the fact that the farmer your changing to is still probably getting $300 a year (unless those hipsters are kind hipsters and order only fair-trade) BUT you won’t be propogating a system that is reaping billions a year from it, we’d have more competition and we’d be able to finally choose the ones that are treating the farmers the best. If your local coffee shop decided to become unruley and start opening locations all over the country paying the farmers shit still then stop supporting them!

    I’m not asking you this so I can be satisfied with you saying “You know what, I wouldn’t be okay being forced to live under a rule like that,” I will not be smug about it, I simply ask that because if you’re not okay with it, REALLY, why do you support it? Why are you putting yourself above all these people who are locked into situations like this?

    This whole post was made very calmly, and yea, I apologize for having a lot to say… but you keep telling me to “lay off” and if you don’t enjoy a good debate then I guess you don’t have to respond though I do respect your opinions even though I find this one that you believe in sincerely wrong just because it’s so hypocritical. You’re basically using the argument that the HUMMER driver uses when he buys a HUMMER… I don’t HATE HUMMER drivers but it’s a pretty hypocritcal and harmful mindset to have.

  • Cananopie

    I mean it’s great that you enjoy your Starbucks cup of coffee you believe you so deserve but I’m just asking you not to defend the practice of it. a “progressively thinking” corporation is practically an oxymoron and shows your naivity about corporations if you really think that any of them are out to make this world a better place over make their corporation a better profit. A progressively thinking corporation would be one that is willing to spend time on making their corporation sustainable. Starbucks is unsustainable, oppressive in both 3rd world countries and to their employees in the states making sure they are constantly monitored and given no true responsibility except for being a breathing puppet (literally), it’s obvious a trend they enjoy is building Starbucks locations directly across from small-business competition (as you say it creates local business growth- get back to me on those statistics whenever you can), and they are singularizing our world, and people aren’t supposed to live under one mindset.

    If this is honestly what you support then why aren’t you supporting Wal-mart (they like to give local businesses boosts too by setting up stores across the street too) and why won’t you fess up you’d have no problem getting the restrictions put on you that corporations pretty much give blanket to everyone. Part time health benefits is all you can come up with and that is so damn weak. Wal-mart hires mentally and physically challenged people… so why aren’t they progressive in though? Why aren’t you hopping on the Wal-mart band wagon? Just because it’s chic to like Starbucks and hate Wal-mart?

    I don’t mean that demeaningly, but seriously… if you want to stand up for a multi-billion dollar corporation that practically enslaves its farmers and micromanages its employees in a country where treating workers humanely is mandatory because of part time health benefits and less than 1% of sales going to fair trade farmers then what is the difference between that and Wal-Mart who employs people who couldn’t find a job almost anywhere else?

    I’d love to hear a response that isn’t “narrow minded” like mine. I’m not asking you to submit to me, I’m just asking you to please not defend the practice and admit that you support an atrocity of this world smile thats all. I’m not arguing for me, I’m just stating the truth and it bothers me that people want to try and code it with flowery “part time benefits” and “fair trade coffee” so they can sleep at night contributing to such a global oppressor.

  • The Good Reverend

    I agree with you on one point – I would hate another dude calling me “baby”.

    I am not defending corporations by any means, but I don’t lump them all together anymore either.  Like many, I went through my cliched “activist liberal college student” phase where I assumed that all corporations are bad and that the only way to live was to buy from the local coffee shop, read lots of Marx, attend Noam Chomsky lectures, and smoke only fair-trade weed. wink I have had the exact same sentiments as you toward corporations.

    But in blanket statements against “The Man”, we are ignoring 2 simple facts of human existence: competition and opportunism.  People, in general, will go for the best deal.  Now, because we have consciences, we won’t necessarily grab the best deal regardless of other circumstances.  I wouldn’t buy a sweatshop shirt if I knew of its origin.  However, most people are simply not going to pay twice the price for the same product.  Especially those low wage earners that you have championed the cause of.  They are the most likely to be sustaining the greedy corporations you despise.  And I’m not blaming them – I am blessed in that my salary allows me to make a conscientious decision to not do business with Walmart.  Low wage earners don’t have that luxury.

    So, people are generally opportunistic.  This drives companies that sell stuff (not just corporations, but the mom-n-pop shops too) to seek out the best way to provide the most value to their customers.  This value is not limited to, but is largely defined by price, which can generally only be brought down by lowering overhead.  Thus, the big bad corporation.

    Although I look at my college mindset as a bit naive, I have not lost those values.  But I have to go about it a different way.  One cannot just say “get rid of big corporations!” First of all, those big corporations are what have funded the world’s best highway system, the ability to defeat the Nazis and Japanese in WWII, and the steroids that have beat back the emphysema in my grandfather’s lungs so that I can enjoy a few more years with him.  Big money can and does do wonderful things along with the pillaging and raping you mentioned.

    Second, even if America was to say “no more large-cap companies” and regulate them to keep them smaller, it wouldn’t work.  We are a global economy and America would quickly be beaten to hell by China and the EU.  Because guess what – they’re still competing.

    Unless we are able to somehow quash a competitive instinct that was millions of years in the making, corporations are here to stay for awhile.

    So our only choice as consumers is to make small choices here and there that, when totalled with the small choices of millions of other consumers, directs corporations.  They will follow our money.  It is an immense power we wield, really.  You might be interested to know that in the past 2 years, Walmart’s stock has gone down.  I am greatly oversimplifying here, but one reason for that decline has been the bad press.  Enough people have “had enough” and voted (with their dollars) against Walmart.  If I were to go to my friends and say, “Down with Walmart!  They are greedy capitalist pig-dogs and must be boycotted!”, they would laugh in my face.  But instead I tell them, “I don’t shop there because they are 1% of our GDP and through the deals they drive with other companies actually put other American companies out of business, which allows easier entry into many industries by foreign companies, weakens the U.S. dollar and inevitably hurts the American economy”.. well, then they listen.  I have convinced several people not to shop there anymore.

    I don’t want corporations to go away.  I simply want to make sure they are playing fair.  And some progress is being made.  After all, shareholders get much more pissed off than treehuggers when a corporation is being dishonest, I assure you.  Corporations that mess with people’s money (especially institutional investors) don’t last long.  Greater accountability and disclosure is what we should seek in corporations – then let the people decide.

    Cananopie, I am totally with you in your sentiments about getting people a fair wage, respect in the workplace, etc.  I’m sure everyone that has commented is as well.  But you must offer a workable solution.  I don’t know if my solution is “making a difference” or not.  But it’s the best one I got going right now.. that’s realistic.  Now that you’ve ennumerated the various ills of corporations, I’d like to hear how you plan to solve it.

  • The Good Reverend

    Oh, one more example of money in action.  If you want Starbucks to make fair-trade brew a de facto standard at their locations, you have the ability to send a complaint letter to the company.  However, being a shareholder, I can go to the shareholder meeting, stand in front of the top executives with my issue, and even try to vote them out of power – after all, I am their boss (or at least .000001% their boss smile ).

    I know it seems counterintuitive, but you should consider buying shares in the companies you hate the most and then attend their shareholder meetings.  If all the anti-corporate activists were to do that and show up to the shareholder meetings, think of the impact.  And you’d be making money off your share while doing it!  Win-win!

  • Cananopie

    I am not saying all corporations have only done bad things. I am not for a world without corporations, well not in my lifetime at least. What my argument was here is that Starbucks isn’t one of the “good ones” or one that we should embrace and support for their, let’s face it, dickish ways. I originally started explaining how Starbucks loyalists really do act like the people in the commercial if they don’t get their STARBUCKS beverage exactly the way they like it… and the purpose for that mentality is because they believe Starbucks is one of the “good ones,” and that they “really care,” with things such as Fair Trade which we learned is less than 1% of their sales and health benefits for part time employees…

    The same reason you choose not to shop at Wal-mart is the same reason I do not support Starbucks, essentially they really are hurting America and the world… they are eliminating the smaller coffee shops just like Wal-mart is eliminating smaller retail stores or whatever else they’re eliminating. And Starbucks is also contributing to weakening the American dollar as well as Wal-mart. Once your a corporation that makes billions a year, you should be warranted with a few global responsibilities, let alone national.

    You are right about the international market and about the EU and China, undoubtably they have their own agendas and their own corporations. And I am not too naive to understand that America has its hands in about 70% of the worlds natural resources (or some ridiculous percentage like that) and that without our stakehold in that our country would deteriorate immediately. probably national- if not world- chaos. This is something we need to do in steps, such as find alternative energy sources so that we can say no to the oil companies that are producing the laws today etc etc…

    But I see no purpose in supporting a corporation like Starbucks and these psuedo-caring people who drink their Starbucks daily need to stop. I know even local coffee shops probably get the non-fair-trade coffee but damaging Starbucks because of their cruel action in abundance should and could be a really great move to proper corporate care- hell- if they dropped the health benefits and just served and brewed fair-trade coffee I’d be right behind them… they wouldn’t be perfect but they’d be a more than model company… right now they are no better than Wal-mart and you’ve proved nothing to show that they are something America/the world can’t live without, and if thats the fact then you’re just making excuses to support your coffee habit.

    And you can’t pretend you don’t have a coffee addiction because your drink only goes to the to someone who has thought about coffee long and hard. If you can give me a reason as to why supporting Starbucks is necessary to our economy or the world economy I’d like to hear it, otherwise you’re the one with the unrealistic attitude towards change for the better, you apparently just want change for an easier life for you…

    I’m not being condescending with that, I’m just asking why not supporting Starbucks is unrealistic because you are calling my belief as such.

  • .alphamonkey.

    The idea that Starbucks is hurting indie coffee shops is flat out wrong.  Since Starbucks has risen to national status, the number of independent coffee houses has RISEN every single year.  Why? Because it was Starbucks that created a national market for $4 dollar coffee.  Were it not for Starbucks, coffee shops would still be the sole domain of college kids and hipsters/hippies, instead of being a service that caters to a broad stripe of the populace.

    Here in Kansas City, a Starbucks opened up less than 25 yards from an established indie shop.  Did the old place close down because Starbucks took their business?  Nope, in fact the opposite occurred and now that cafe is more successful than they’ve ever been, because Starbucks created a larger market for the service.

  • labrazio

    Sorry, Canananaopie, I assumed since you went on and on and on so much, you were a woman (oh man, I’m gonna hear some shit about that, aren’t I?).

  • Thundarr

    You weren’t the only one

  • noochienoochie

    Ya know, if more people bothered to get that 4 to 6 years of education, Starbucks would also be forced to pay a little more than $7 bucks/hour b/c they’d have to compete w/ other corporations to hire/keep their employees. Fact is, it takes no more skill to work at Starbucks than McDonalds, yet Starbucks does bother to give their employees those extra benefits.

    On top of that, the local independent coffe shop does not have the resources to even attempt setting up some kind of Free-Trade program w/ their bean suppliers. Sure Starbucks could do more, but at least they’ve done something.

    On a different note, the CEO Howard what’s-his-face lives in my neighborhood and the few times I’ve run into him at our local “Starbucks Cafe”, he has appeared to be a total condescending prick.

  • Cananopie

    #1- Not everyone will/can get 4-6 years of college. You need 4-6 years of college to function at the middle class level in America today. Plus if everyone got 4-6 years of college that would be the new standard, the new high school diploma, below that you don’t even get a job, it’s almost like that today. It wasn’t the case 50 years ago. Because humans have been growing on this earth exponentially there will always be those who can’t afford college and they will always be thrown the dreg jobs that everyone here seems to support whole-heartedly… and interestingly enough jobs that nobody here actually still has.

    Basically if you can’t afford your way through college (which is virtually mandatory these days aside from trade-jobs) you will be stuck with an employer like Starbucks… was that the case 50 years ago when corporations didn’t have the vice-grip they have on society today? No. People actually didn’t HAVE to go to college to make enough to live on their own.

    Today making minimum wage there isn’t a county in the whole entire country someone can live on their own on that pay working full-time. That was a study I heard just the other day on NPR… they’re not making enough money to live on their own and yet because they recieve health benefits all is well… ridiculous.

    Once again your argument is people should be grateful that a corporation should be so kind to give health benefits to someone who probably can’t even support themselves independantly with that pay. I believe Starbucks does pay a slight more than minimum wage, but most employees are part time workers so it is equivilant to getting paid minimum wage, and I highly doubt the tips that everyone brags that they give so graciously is enough to bump the income UP to poverty-level.

    For example do you think you could draw any paralells between a King walking through his peasants fields and your run-ins with the CEO of Starbucks in his own domain… have you found any trends that are starting to be repeated? Do you think it’s okay those poor employees making $7 should have to kiss ass to a giant prick just because he makes 2 million dollars a year and could fire them if he’s feeling cranky? You are proud to give money to a place like this? A CEO who apparently sleeps well at night for virtually enslaving coffee-growers in 3rd world countries? A CEO of a corporation growing unsustainably and taking virtually no responsibility for it?

    I’m not trying to belittle you or say i’m better than you, I’m just asking if you’re okay with it. I stress it because everyone has skirted around most of the facts I’ve been presenting.

    I mean if you think this is a perfectly acceptable way of living thats fine. But nobody seems to say it’s okay, but they won’t stop defending Starbucks.

  • noochienoochie

    Your view of economics is skewed, my friend. More degree-holders in this world doesn’t mean there will be less for each of them. More education means more innovation, thus more progress and more affluency for those who contribute. Stop thinking we’re in a zero-sum game here. I agree that not everyone will go to college. But a lot more can go to college than currently do. I’m grateful and lucky that my parents allowed me to live at home while I was in school, but they did not pay a dime of my education. Uncle Sam was more than happy to loan me 20 grand and I’m more than happy to pay him back every month, b/c w/o his help and my own hard work, I wouldn’t be where I’m at today. And you know what? Uncle Sam will loan you 20 grand too if you want it. Hell, w/ your low Starbucks wage, he’ll even GIVE you money for free. Most people CAN afford to go to college today; they just choose not to. 50 years ago most everyone was on the same playing field w/ the same level of skills & education and that’s why as a whole, they were pretty damn productive (never mind the fact that they were living in a country still full of natural resources). But you’re just complaining that a 1955 level of skill isn’t competitive in today’s technologically-advanced world. Well, duh. Not happy w/ who you work for or what you do for a living? Then do something about it. There are two groups of people in this world. Those w/ a fatalist mindset, and those who, sorry for the cliche, pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. I’m not trying to put you down, but stop playing the victim card.

    I agree that Starbucks’ wages are not the kind that feed a family of four. But most of the people I’ve known that have worked there were part-time and going to school. To receive free health benefits while attending school is a rare opportunity for a college kid, and for that I think Starbucks has done better than other corporations.

  • Cananopie

    This isn’t a “victim card” I’m playing Noochie, and I am wondering if you’re even reading what I’m posting. I USED to work for Starbucks and I have had 5 and a half years of experience working there. I am actually on my 5th year of school and I will not stop until I recieve my Masters. And I have a nice “good old Uncle Sam debt” of 20 Gs in which wasn’t even near free when I worked at Starbucks.

    If you think about education, it is a system similar to corporations. Forcing people to go to school creates people to stay out of the job market longer and require debt. Once you’ve accumulated the debt of $20,000 (usually way more than that) then they put you out on the job market where you have to be very passive on your standards because you are in desperate need of money.

    Honestly, if someone chooses the path of no college should they be punished? People who go through college are not automatically more intelligent, very stupid people graduate all the time from college- that doesn’t make them intelligent. You can learn a lot more and a lot better than the United States educational system, it’s a holding pen pretty simply. You probably don’t remember a single thing you “learned” in 11th grade, and none of it was life applicable.

    Your faith in the educational system to produce bright, intelligent, individuals just puts through the best conforming ones. Why is that something to be so proud of?

  • Slumlord

    I was going to leave a comment. But suddenly I’m afraid, I’m very afraid.

  • The Good Reverend

    let er rip, Slumlord!

  • Skysurfer

    Personally, I prefer a Pret latte… If you don’t understand it, come to the UK… ‘nuff said zipper

  • labrazio

    Hey-the only reason I called that dude “baby” is because I thought he was a chick. Then again, he kinda cries like a baby. Anyway, all large corporations started small…and grew bigger because they provided a good product with good service and gave the people what they wanted. All those poor little coffee shops that Starbucks puts out of business (or so Cananopie says) would become million dollar corporate assholes themselves if given the chance. It just so happens that “Johnny Starbucks” got it right-and makes a damn good cup of coffee…and provides some good service. Hey “dude”-if you hate your damn job so much, why don’t you just get another? Why help support those people you despise so much? Until another company or “Grandma Moses” from across the street makes something better, I’ll be drinking Starbucks coffee. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • The Good Reverend

    hehe i was just kidding about the “baby” stuff.  In Cananopie’s defense, I don’t believe he works at Starbucks anymore.

  • Cananopie

    Well I’m glad you’re sexist in attitude as well labrazio and you call women “baby” that you don’t even know. Obviously you’re very caring towards other cultures and other peoples beliefs so you probably have a very educated view on all this.

    Only the companies who are willing to cut corners (virtually enslave farmers in 3rd world countries and oppress their employees by micromanaging and spying on them) are going to become those large corporations like Starbucks… not all local places have the heart to do that to their employees- Starbucks did, it’s not necessarily “right” as you put it, just cost-efficient. I understand as an American how you could get confused between the two.

    I don’t work at Starbucks anymore and if I can help it I will never work for a corporation again.  You are also using the HUMMER attitude… you buy a HUMMER because damnit, you have a right to, and even though it harms the environment and eats gas in a time where conserving gas is to the benefit of the world you don’t care… which is fine, you have a nice, well-rounded, hick attitude and 51% of voting America apparently applauds that, so keep up the good work.

  • labrazio

    Oh please…do you need a tissue to dry up some of those tears? I’ll bet you don’t eat tuna either, because of those poor dolphins. You’re probably a vegetarian,huh? A vegan, perhaps? Don’t even feed me that line of crap about the only successful corporations being soul-sucking abusers of the 3rd world…yeah,it happens,sure-but that’s not always the case.Unless you’re some hippy living on a farming commune or some shit, I seriously doubt that you haven’t purchased or consumed some product in the past few days that some poor exploited 3rd world bastard sweated blood over. We’re all a little guilty, are we not? What line of work are you in now? I suppose you’re selling braided hemp fiber bracelets on the street corner or something. By the way, since I’m such a sexist and all, I’ll have to add that the only “hummer” I’m gonna get in the future is from the cute chick across the street…or maybe from one of those sexy little Starbucks servers. Honestly, if I were to get a gas guzzler it would have to be a 70s muscle car…maybe a Barracuda or something. Anyhow, I have a sneaking suspicion you’re so bitter because Starbucks fired your ass for being such a tool.

  • Cananopie

    Labrazio, I have admitted there are some corporations we can’t make more managable and some we are forced to help profit, but with a corporation like Starbucks it is something that everyone can say “No, I’m not going to contribute to that.”

    I try and limit my corporate buying, and I do that very well considering I have virtually no spending money. If I do plan on buying something like a CD or a movie I have local places I go to and when I go out to eat I don’t go to TGI Fridays or Applebees, and even if I go to the movies I go to the local movie theatre that is owned and run locally. In fact we even have our own fast food chain business in the area that supports the local city very much, even the bank I belong to headquarters is stationed locally and they contribute a lot of money back in to the community. It is when a business does not care about what it is doing to a community or doesn’t contribute to the community as much as the community contributes back to them.

    I do eat meat and I don’t think thats wrong, humans have always eaten meat and that’s not going to change. I do believe in a better living environment for the animals where they can walk a little and aren’t pumped with hormones. I believe the employees of slaughterhouses should be Americans too instead of illegal immigrants. I believe the animals should be treated with respect right up until they die and not thrown against a wall as hidden PETA cameras have shown many employees do.

    The reason why we don’t have American’s working in slaughterhouses and a sub filthy living environment for the animals and the reason why we are always on the verge of pandemics with our meat is because corporations force them to very low standards and pay governments across the world to look the other way for safety.

    It has worked well enough up until now, and of course a hick would accuse someone who cares about the oppression of people a “hippy” because you aren’t being oppressed at all. If it’s not so bad why won’t you straight up trade with one of those 3rd world bean pickers, hmm?

  • daemoneyes

    Hell, I just think it’s ridiculous that people bitch about paying over $2/gal for gasoline, but they’re paying around $32/gal for coffee without blinking.  I’d say more, but like Slumlord, I’m afraid Cananopie will write the Magna Carta again.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Well, I’d agree with you except that coffee is a luxury item while gasoline is most assuredly a necessity.  Luxury items can command a higher price with little uproar from consumers. Indeed a higher price is often makes that item more desirable. 

    Gas, however, is a different story.  Seeing as most public transportation systems in the United States are lacklusters at best (outside of places like New York, etc.) along with the the added factor of unchecked suburban sprawl that most cities now have, and is it any wonder when the public goes ape over high gas prices?  Shell’s record setting profits last quarter (some 8 billion!) probably don’t help matters.

    Maybe the Big Three American auto-makers should get off their ass and start making more fuel efficient cars already. It’s not like this administration is going to encourage them.

  • Cananopie

    Corporations should have a Magna Carta of their own. If you have an argument on why it’s okay to exploit third world contries (their people, their health, their land, their time, their lives) then I will actively listen.

    I am just tired of the reasoning that because they give health benefits to part time employees they are a commendable corporation.

    Not a single person here has defended what Starbucks does out of this country to get them their coffee yet I have been mocked and ridiculed and strongly disagreed with by every commenter here.

    For instance if you are given a tour of a prison by prison guards you might see how well the prisoners are treated, but at a moment when the prison guards aren’t looking you walk further back in the prison and you notice that the people there are being tortured and beaten for almost no reason at all.

    The prisonguards will say “But look back up here, we treat them so well, IGNORE what you saw back there, we promise that they are getting treated well, maybe not as well as the prisoners up front here, but trust me, they are getting what they deserve”

    I’m not going to passively sit here while sarcastic comments are thrown at me about being naive, narrow-minded, and a hippy while nobody here can even defend the exploitative and unsustainable attitude of the Starbucks corporation.

    If you want to admit that you don’t care people are being exploited in other countries and that you’re damn proud to contribute to that, that’s fine, I will stop arguing because theres nothing I can do.

    But NONE of you have defended that part of the practice, which in large, is the real issue here with any corporation. Apparently everyone here is very happy with exploiting people they’ll never meet for the small cost of part time benefits for AMERICANS ONLY.

    I don’t need anymore snide remarks that your own burden has forced you to put upon me. Give me facts on why it’s okay to support Starbucks (INCLUDE mention of the third world countries they exploit, and keep in mind supporting one multi-billion dollar exploiter is a lot more harmful than supporting one multi-thousand dollar exploiter if you must have your coffee).

    Bonus points if you can point out the difference between Wal-Mart’s attitude and Starbuck’s attitude.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Well, try reading upthread for one. I did address the differences between the two.

    And two, the Magna Carta line by daemon was just plain funny.

  • daemoneyes

    Well, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit.  And not that it matters, but you don’t have to go to a so-called “3rd world country” (which really insults and pisses of the native population when you call them that) to find people being exploited by corporations.  It happens right here in the good ol’ USA, and in other industrialized nations around the world.  And having personally visited quite a few “3rd world countries”, I can honestly tell you that you can get by pretty damn well on $300/mo.  Just because you’d starve to death here, doesn’t mean that’s the case everywhere.  Now before Cananopie comes off the top rope with an atomic elbow drop (lighten up, dude, it’s a joke), I must say that I’m not arguing for or against Starbuck’s, their corporate policies, actions in other parts of the world, etc.  I don’t drink their coffee, but I don’t drink coffee at all, just never acquired the taste for it, and I don’t really like hot drinks.  I’ll take a nice cold Dr Pepper or Mountain Dew to get my caffeine fix, thanks very much.  And other than make some rather humorous commercials, I don’t think they’ve done anything to make the world a worse place to live.

    And Thundarr, if this isn’t the record, I don’t want to read the one that is. LOL

  • Cananopie

    $300 a year daemon. I am lucky to make $300 a month.

  • daemoneyes

    Where the hell do you work, a salt mine?  My next door neighbor’s son makes more than that with his paper route, and he’s 11.  I wish you luck with your education, maybe once you graduate, you can get a job making minimum wage.

  • noochienoochie

    Sorry, Cananopie, I was being brief, but did understand that you used to work there and are not any longer. Maybe I should have said this sooner; I am Howard Schulz. Sorry to hear you left our team, but I thank you for your years of dedication. Good luck with your schooling!

  • Thundarr

    Is the length of this a ‘buddha record yet?

  • noochienoochie

    C’mon, the Melissa Marchant posts are WAY longer.

  • labrazio

    Don’t splatter me with your verbal diarrhea. If you’re so concerned with the plight of the 3rd world beanpicker, maybe you should head on down to Columbia and get your facts straight. You could be like Diane Fosse…I could see “Beanpickers in the Mist” selling at least four copies. Of course, you wouldn’t want to profit off of their pain, now would you? Give me a break. Of course the exploitation of 3rd worlders is wrong-however, if the shoe were on the other foot, those 3rd worlders would do the same to someone less fortunate than themselves. Whether or not I get that cup of Starbucks coffee, people will continue to screw each other over for their own benefit. Where do you live? Perhaps you should move, since the land you sit on was stolen from Native Americans…Native Americans who have been treated far worse than any Columbian beanpicker. Go tell them your theories and see if they give a shit.I notice you also mention abuse in prisons…yeah, let’s all go knit some sweaters for all those poor rapists, child molesters, and murderers. Whatever. You’re entitled to your opinions, to be a hypocrite, and to talk out of your ass all you want.If you want to go liberate those poor beanpickers by boycotting Starbucks- then you go for it. Just don’t blame me for that sand in your vagina.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Okay, this is the last time I’m responding to this, because it’s reaching Rand like proportions, and I think we all know that Ayn Rand sucks.


    Concerning fair trade: First off, Starbucks sells 1% of CERTIFIED Fair Trade coffee, meaning that it buys a small portion of their beans from farms rich enough to change over to the fair trade system.  A lot of growers would have to shut down their operations for a year or more to make the changes needed to take part in the official fair trade process.  Starbucks buys from a lot of farmers who can’t afford that process, but pays the Fair Trade price of 1.20-1.25 a pound.  Now, they did have trouble with paying that price to middlemen (who were then gouging the growers), but each year they’ve dealt with more and more growers directly, ensuring that they recieve fair market value for their beans. 

    A good number of brews are made with Fair Trade beans, but can’t be labeled as such because often the batch isn’t 100% certified Fair Trade (usually half/half or some such), so they can’t display the sticker. That’s true of a goodly number of coffee shops, not just Starbucks.

    Contrary to what you might think, I do frequent a variety of coffee shops (it’s just that Starbucks happens to be the closest one to my house that I enjoy), and I’ve talked with a lot of owners and buyers who’ve confirmed what I stated above.  Even those owners/buyers who actively dislike Starbucks tend to begrudge that Starbucks goes above and beyond what they’re expected to do in regards to Fair Trade.

    As for encouraging growth:  There have been a number of studies done concerning the effects of Starbucks in new markets, and almost universally the number of coffee shops in those areas INCREASES every year. Again, Starbucks CREATED the mainstream desire for so called gourmet coffee, which drives people to try out other shops.  The Wall Street Journal has done a piece on this, as well as a couple business review trades.  The fact is that were it not for Starbucks becoming so popular, the previously existing market for gourmet coffee would not be enough to support the current number of coffee shops.  I defy you to produce any numbers that show that the number of independent coffee shops has decreased since the rise o’ the Starbucks. 

    The only way an independent coffee shop is going to run into trouble when a Starbucks enters their market is if the independent shop can’t compete in regards to service and atmosphere. Starbucks prices aren’t lower than the average, they’re HIGHER.  So you can’t say they’re unfairly competing, except on the grounds that their structure encourages better service and a more professional enviornment.

    Starbucks vs. Wal-Mart:

    Starbucks doesn’t go into a market looking to shut down any competition.  One, they don’t have to and two: it’s in their best interest to HAVE competition. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, sells it’s goods at a loss specifically to drive consumers away from local shops that can’t possibly compete at that price point.  They also use their corporate structure to force manufacturers to sell their goods to Wal-Mart at well below market averages, which those manufacturers have to make up by raising the prices for other retailers.  That’s predatory business to a ‘T’.

    Wal-Mart is also a drain on the local economy because, by paying substandard wages and not offering benefits, those employees are more likely to require some kind of fiduciary assistance from the local, state, or federal government in the form of food stamps, welfare, medicare, or housing subsidies. This is compounded by the fact that Wal-Mart employees tend to be older individuals who are often supporting families, which is nigh impossible to do on a Wal-Mart wage. Wal-Mart has been sued innumerable times for both their predatory business practices as well as the sometimes inhumane treatment of their employees (forced non-paid overtime, locking employees in the stores overnight, altering time cards, sexual and racial discrimination in hiring and promotion, etc. etc.)

  • Cananopie

    Obviously I understand you’re not going to reply to this and frankly I’m tired of the argument too. You have failed to give proof with any of your claims other than these “facts” that Starbucks is just working its damndest for the best. Is it even documented?

    You also give no reasoning to your claim that Starbucks actually encourages competition, if that were a fact they wouldn’t be building their coffee shops directly across the street from local ones.

    If you want to ignore the facts that Starbucks is still a harmful, unsustainable corporation that STILL buys from the unfair oppressive middle men any way you cut it, and that this was an active choice by the company when it was growing and is still an active choice today, that’s fine- but don’t deny it please. The strides Starbucks is taking are slow and will not be effective in the end. The only reason they began their fair-trade program was because they were under so much pressure about it.

    I’ll admit, I am pretty harsh on Starbucks compared to what it COULD be, but compared to what it SHOULD be I dont think I’m hard on it at all. The bottom line is they’re still causing more harm than good. Despite these baby steps you are commending so highly. Defending a corporate world that is unsustainable will only bring you grief in the end.

    I respect you Alpha, and you typically stand for the better causes. But any corporation, even ones that are 30% good (you can’t deny the fact that MOST beans come from the poorly paid growers even if you are so certain they have ‘other’ fair trade-esque beans with it, and the fact that their merchandise is made in China for a reason, the fact they are growing rapidly and unsustainably, and until you show me facts that setting up corporate chains across the street from local businesses is ‘promoting competition’ I’m going to have to say that’s poor corporate mentality too, and even though you disagree assimilation in to corporate mindset is typically a negative characteristic… all these together make at LEAST 70% bad) are still causing more damage to our earth, our people, and our lives. America needs to stop defending that mentality in all aspects just because they are one of the very few countries corporations benefit.

    And I understand you disagree, but I know after this monster post you won’t forget and maybe one day something I said will really hit home to you or any of the other readers or hecklers that checked this out or felt necessary to comment. We live in such a time and place that corporations are more than just businesses, they’ve become lifestyles, and right now a lot of people find that okay… but I have a sincere feeling it won’t stay that way, maybe I’m wrong, but I really don’t feel it.

    This’ll be my last post too in this thread. I did enjoy this debate even though it was long. Not Starbucks in particular, but all corporations and their practices are important to me and I do like discussing/debating it because it is almost a taboo topic for politics and media, you have to really search to find people who are really interested in the effects of corporations and you obviously have researched Starbucks fairly well and have found things you agree with them even if there are other things Starbucks does that I don’t agree with and I do want to thank you for seriously debating it.

    Just so it’s good, dead, and buried with no ill will I won’t be checking up on this thread again even if someone comments because a lot of them are snarky comments that don’t even focus on the issue at hand. Thanks again mainly Good Rev and Alpha for discussing this seriously with me.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Starbucks, on the other hand, offers a basic wage that’s higher than the national average. Combine that higher wage with the often lucrative tips, and baristas can take home even more per-hour wages.  By offering benefits to part-time workers Starbucks further ensures that it’s workers are less likely to be forced to rely on any kind of subsidized living program, as we all know that medical costs are one of the most debilitating financial factors in modern life.  Furthermore, Starbucks offers benefits to domestic partners (which Wal-Mart most certainly does not).  As for not hiring mentally and/or physically disabled employees…Starbucks has to follow the same ADA rules as any other company, but seriously.. Why not complain that the local construction site doesn’t hire a retarded person to work their sky hook? It’s a job with physical and mental demands that can very reasonably be considered less safe for persons with disabilities.  And that’s not even considering the insurance costs…

    There’s a lot more I could go on about, but frankly what’s the point?  You’ve already shown that you’re so anti-Starbucks that you simply refuse to recognize that they are the type of corporation we should be encouraging in this age of corporate malfeasance and chicanery, unlike Wal-Mart.

  • daemoneyes

    Again, the Monkey is right.  I work with OSHA on a daily basis, and all companies are held to the standards of the ADA, within reason.  Companies are allowed to set forth minimum physical and mental aptitude requirements for employees in order to ensure they can perform their assigned tasks safely.  In ceratin circumstances, companies can be compelled to adapt the working environment to allow physically or mentally challenged individuals to perform their tasks, but again, within reason.  And speaking of mentally challenged, “genuinity” is not a word.  Again, good luck with that education.

    To the topic of the original post, it is a pretty funny ad, and I can relate, as I’m told I can be a holy terror in the morning before I have my first dose of caffeine, although I’ve never thrown the paper back at the neighbor’s kid (yet).

  • .alphamonkey.

    My paper boys are three thuggish looking guys in a beat up van. I ain’t throwing nothing back.

  • Heretique

    Yes, have some.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Waaaaay ahead of you.

  • labrazio

    Amen.My thanks to alphamonkey for shuttin’ that guy up finally.Next time I see you I’m gonna bring you a nice venti Starbucks coffee.

  • Belve

    I missed this whole conversation/debate .. but no way am I asking it to be restarted.. But I would like to hear his thoughts on a corpration if a union is involved.

  • The Good Reverend

    I don’t think 3rd world beanpickers are unionized. smile

  • Chaud

    Ya see the corporations make money and do corporationy things in their corporation buildings. *nods*

Previous post:

Next post: