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.