Shame on Starbucks
 

There is a national news story about a policeman who ordered coffee at a Starbucks in Oklahoma on Thanksgiving. A Starbucks employee printed a receipt on the cup that said "PIG". Starbucks said that this was not appropriate, so they "suspended" the employee. Really? So, they still want this employee to continue working for them? Why would Starbucks want someone with these outrageous views and customer disrespect working for them ever. Why didn't they fire the employee immediately?

Suspended pending an investigation. That's really important. They'll find out if the barista who was logged in when the order was made, is actually the barista who took the order. In retail it's not common, but it does happen - someone goes on a break and forgets to log out, and the person filling in for them just keeps ringing on the break-person's login.

Not saying it happened that way, but the server would have to be some kind of stupid, OR be planning in rage-quitting his job anyway, for him to put that on the ticket that has his own login on it.

I could investigate this in about 30 minutes.

No need to any investigation for me anyway. I think you can still take people at their word without a link or attachment. If you possibly ever made a mistake I'm sure you would straighten it out. You are always accurate. For now, let's assume your story is spot on.

Did they happen to mention if the person was kneeling when they handed out the receipt with that filthy word on it to the officer and was the employee's name Colon?

Fire :boxing2: whoever is guilty. That's justice enough IMHO! OR :popcorn: A public apology would also solve the problem. It is the Holidays!

After hearing the story I would boycott Starbucks, but I can't since I have never been to one to begin with. Why would someone pay such an outrageous price for a cup of coffee when you can pop in a tasty K-cup that costs about 33 cents?

Great idea. Our kids are crazy for Star Bucks but they already quietly stopped going to Starbucks because of this issue. Probably won't last more than a few weeks though, they are weak. We'll see!

OP.............statement made prior to investigation.


There are so many employee-protection laws, Starbutt must work thru their internal process so they can terminate this employee appropriately and minimize risk.


Suspend, investigate (a/k/a document) and terminate.



This is such a minor story, we may never hear the final outcome. One individual making a mistake in life. This is not a Starbutt issue.


Full Disclosure: I hate Starbutt coffee. I'm not a stockholder.

You're Fired!
Starbucks has fired employee who gave Oklahoma officer order with 'PIG' printed on the label, company says - CNN

Steve

permissive attitudes and tolerance for wrong doing to avoid the risk of upsetting someone is a debilitating disease that has become epidemic.
Wrong (or right) has become less the measure!

agree


the investigation/documentation process was always a pain.....just to avoid/minimize litigation.

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
 

I SO agree with your statement, above, tophcfa.

I had forgotten why I had bad feelings filed somewhere in my brain about Starbucks. It was an earlier stand on a similar "social issue" a couple of years ago.

I never paid any attention to stuff like this before but calling an officer of the law "Pig" is a very disrespectful to the folks who put their lives on the line for us every day and night, 365 a year.

We all know that not all people in a profession are good people, but I feel that there has been an exaggerated publicity about "BAD" police officers in the last few years. And the "pen" is very mighty. And the "pen" is controlled by groups with whom I don't agree with anymore, a lot of the time.

Universal Studios temporarily denies entrance to patron who wore 'retired police officer' shirt

Vincent Champion, 55, a 22-year law enforcement veteran of the Ormond Beach Police Department who retired in 2009, told Fox News he was stopped by theme park officials Nov. 1 when he attempted to enter Universal Studios during a Halloween Horrors Night themed event.

Champion was wearing a T-shirt that read “retired police officer” on the front, and the phrase, “My time in uniform is over, but my watch never ends” on the back, according to Fox News. The shirt also had a design containing a skull with a blue line through it, representing police, the network reported.

“I have never been treated this badly,'' Champion told the Orlando Sentinel. "It’s usually quite the opposite.”

In a statement, officials at Universal Studios said they have tremendous respect for law enforcement, but they said they were concerned guests might have confused him for an actual police officer, according to The Associated Press.

One bystander offered Champion his shirt, which the retired officer put on, the AP reported. However, Champion was told he could not carry his own shirt into the park.

"The wonderful group of people behind us lost their minds as we stood in shock," Holly Bickel, who accompanied Champion to the theme park, wrote on Facebook. "They explained how disrespectful they were being to someone who puts their life on the line to protect people and could not believe they were treating him this way for a shirt.

"They then gave Vince an expensive Columbia shirt and thanked him for his service," Bickel wrote. "Vince then went to change shirts. While still standing in line, (the park official didn’t explain to him that he needed to put the shirt in the car and cannot take the shirt into the park."

https://cdn.ebs.newsner.com/wp-conte...1/police-1.jpg

I also recently read on Facebook, but I'm unable to find the story. Three active duty Jacksonville Police Officers were denied entrance to Universal Studios for wearing T-Shirts that had reference to them being police. Universal said, we don't want the patrons to think these men are on duty. They responded, as a police we're always on duty. They finally got into the park when patrons in line behind them gave them shirts they could wear over top.

BTW - I've never had a Starbucks in my life, I do like coffee but I drink it at home.

We stopped going to Starbucks years ago because of what we perceived to be their far left culture...

Remember When !!!
 

Remember when Starbucks said they would not ship to our troops overseas ?????

Remember when Starbucks asked several police officers to leave because they were making their customers nervous ???

I have never entered one nor will I ever !!!!

No, the investigation/documentation process is to protect innocent people from adverse consequences. It is as old as our Constitution and one of the bedrocks of our Nation. It is why we honor justice and condemn mob rule. It is why we abhor dictators, and don't even have a favorite dictator. It protects the weak and the poor from being trampled by the strong and the rich. It is the essence of America and the real meaning of liberty.

I think I'll get a second opinion.

I don't remember that, so I looked it up. FALSE rumor completely debunked. Google is your friend. Click on the link

This was a single employee in Tempe who relayed a complaint from a single customer. The matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the Tempe Police Dept.

If you have never been a customer then your boycott of Starbucks is not going to hurt them. But you might want to look at whether boycotting a company over the actions of individual employees is reasonable.
I understand and might even support boycotting a company over that company's corporate policies such as how they pay their workers, how they care for the environment, what issues they lobby for and against. But you cannot blame a company for the actions of each of its employees unless the corporation fails to respond. In both the pig case and the Tempe case both corporate and the local franchise responded giving support to the police.

ummmmmmmm, no



you are wrong for at least a couple reasons:


1) Employment at Will: we could terminate for any reason or no reason.


2) when we did an investigation, we had enough information for a justified termination, we needed to document and protect.

I'd be very interested in you giving your opinion of why we have due process and a judicial system. Why we have grand juries and trial by jury with the defendant entitled to representation. Rather than just what seems to be an attempt to disagree without substance. Please point out to me where I am wrong that before an employer fires a person for doing something wrong, they ought to be sure that person actually did something wrong. And that such an investigation is important, not just a nuisance to avoid litigation. That apparently tired old bromide about innocent until.. I am fairly sure that taught that to students in Ohio in the good old days.

Now I know I will never enter a Starbucks.

At-Willllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllll

I've never entered a Starbucks, nor have I ever had their coffee. I like Wawa coffee when I'm on the road.

The chief of police doesn't want to see the person fired. A closer perspective.

Police chief urges Starbucks not to fire employee who wrote 'PIG' on officer's coffee

Here is the headline that appeared in the national news:

"Starbucks suspends employee who sold coffee labeled 'PIG' to police officer"

So, Starbucks already knew who did it and they apparently intended to only suspend, not fire the employee. That is the way they chose to report the incident to the media. To me, an employee who used the Starbucks computer system and the Starbucks name to insult every police officer in the country, and basically tell them that they don't want their business, should not be suspended. That person should be fired.

And we need to carefully research. Folks could be giving us the wrong Apgar.

If you are fired "for cause" you can't collect unemployment benefits. However, if you were fired FALSELY "for cause" and as a result can't collect unemployment, and you can document this, that is lawsuit-worthy.

They can fire you for "no reason" but the moment they put an actual reason on your pink slip, they'd better be able to back it up.

That was why there was an investigation, and the subsequent firing of the employee who did that stupid thing at Starbucks.

Those who boycott Starbucks for DOING THE RIGHT THING are the ones who need their heads examined. There are plenty of valid reasons to not go to Starbucks. Doing the right thing is not one of them.

That would be incorrect. That article specified the employee was suspended PENDING INVESTIGATION. Headlines are meaningless taken out of context. Reading the actual report, and then maybe checking a source or two to do your own fact-checking, is meaningful.

No pink slips these days.

Here is a fact. This is the updated Starbucks statement issued more than 24 hours after they had said that the employee was "suspended". Everyone can have their own opinion about why they ultimately decided to fire the employee.

Statement from Starbucks spokesperson (Updated Friday, Nov. 29, 2019 at 3:45 p.m. PT):

This is absolutely unacceptable, and we are deeply sorry to the law enforcement officer who experienced this. We have also apologized directly to him and connected with the Chief of the Kiefer Police Department as well to express our remorse.
The Starbucks partner who wrote this offensive word on a cup used poor judgement and is no longer a partner after this violation of company policy.
This language is offensive to all law enforcement and is not representative of the deep appreciation we have for police officers who work tirelessly to keep our communities safe.

I'm glad that Starbucks fired the employee. But, I think they were slow to react. I believe there were many people who heard the story on Thursday who didn't like Starbuck's immediate response. In my opinion, it was a no brainer that required very little "investigation" to make the decision to terminate the employee.

Many, many posts have been removed from view as this discussion has deteriorated mightily into off topic, insulting, personal, political, angry rhetoric.

We have long since lost the topic of an isolated incident at a Starbucks.

If the discussion had remained on topic and civil, it would have continued.

Thread closed.