Starbucks apologizes after employee calls cops on black men waiting at a table. - Sensationalist Headlines

Starbucks Philadelphia‬‬ arrest The chief executive of Starbucks apologized Saturday to two black men arrested at a Philadelphia store in an incident that has led to accusations of racial profiling by the company and police. In a statement to Starbucks customers and employees Saturday, CEO Kevin Johnson acknowledged “a disheartening situation in one of our Philadelphia-area stores this past Thursday, that led to a reprehensible outcome.” Cellphone videos captured the tense moment Thursday afternoon when at least six Philadelphia Police Department officers stood over two seated black men, asking them to leave. A man named Andrew Yaffe arrives to tell police that the two men were waiting for him. The officer says that they were not complying and were being arrested for trespassing. “Why would they be asked to leave?” Yaffe says. “Does anybody else think this is ridiculous?” he asks people nearby. “It’s absolute discrimination,” Yaffe adds. The two unidentified men are taken out in handcuffs soon after. They were released early Friday with no charges filed. Lauren Wimmer, the attorney for the two men, told The Washington Post that her clients told a Starbucks employee that they were waiting for Yaffe. Shortly after, a white female employee called the police, Wimmer said. Wimmer said Yaffe, who runs a real estate development firm, said that he was there to meet the men to discuss business investment opportunities. The two men, whom she declined to identify, were taken to a police station, fingerprinted and photographed. One officer suggested that they faced charges for “defiant trespassing,” Wimmer said. They were held for nearly nine hours before they were released, she said, after prosecutors said they would not pursue charges. Alt source if you're paywalled by WaPo: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/starbucks-police-boycott-black-men-arrest-philadelphia-racism-a8305381.html

Oh fuck off, at most it was whoever worked there that called the police that should be accused, don't rope in the entire company because one employee was being a racist jackass.

Right but also their managers shouldve uh not let some customers get arrested for "trespassing".

I don't understand this sentiment. You had more than one person representing Starbucks knowing what was going on. As a collective, they do represent the company and the company have to answer for them because if they are the ones to approve this team, then they should rethink their plan of action as a whole.

A employees actions reflect those of the company they represent, so ofcourse people will be pissed. Hope she's punished in some way for wasting police time.

Employers aren't mind-readers, they can't tell what sick shit their employees are thinking. Dude who sits next to you at work could be closet Nazi for all you know. It's ridiculous to put this kind of pressure on companies because one person steps out of line. Starbucks has 230,000 employees at 24,000 locations worldwide. If anything I'd say it speaks to their track record that "scandals" like this aren't common-place.

said a company official familiar with the incident, who did not wish to be named. The employee was doing the right thing according to store policy, the official told The Post, but the company is evaluating its guidance out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear. staff knew. and they followed a policy.

did he call the police on them because they were black or was it another reason?

First off - what is the store policy, then? Does it explicitly list racial profiling? Most likely: definetely not. If anything they have a "no loitering" policy, and the store manager applied a bias. But second: Store Policy =/= Company Policy. A Starbucks in LA won't have the same store policies as a Starbucks in Tokyo -and again, 24,000 stores worldwide. The blame does not fall on the company itself.

i'm just reading the goddamn article dude and it clearly states starbucks are rethinking their policy so they admit the blame. what are you even arguing when they admitted they will rethink their policy?

Hold up a moment. Before you go any further, I want you to pay attention to this part here: (...) out of concern that the options and decisions may not be clear. We don't know what "the policy" is exactly, but the way the PR response is worded sounds like "the policy" is basically "if someone's looking shifty in your store, take action" and those actions are notably to ask the person to leave or call the police. Judging by the fact Starbucks is a massively popular and well known company with international reach I sincerely doubt they have a policy which directs its employees to perform racial profiling. Furthermore, a company taking the blame is not exactly an uncommon PR move. They'd likely rather make it sound like a poorly worded policy taken out of context than say they hired a racist employee or that the managers failed to notice the problem before it escalated. Shifting an incident into an opportunity for improvement is a really common PR move. It doesn't mean whoever did the stupid thing is not responsible for the stupid thing.

the racial profiling is a secondary issue. the first issue is how employees handle the policy of "customers-only using their bathrooms". The focus here is on that aspect. If you want to talk about how to approach a situation where you feel intimidated to ask individuals to leave the store for fear of being hurt, then you've got another more complicated discussion. But for this matter, Starbucks have got to answer some questions. If I ran a department, and I acted in the best interest of the company which caused public outrage, the company would have to answer because I'm only following company values and policy in the first place.

As someone who used to work at a Starbucks, I do not remember having a store policy about just calling the police or kicking out someone if they haven't done anything wrong. Now if a customer is being insanely rude to the point of constantly berating other employees, we did have the right to refuse service. I could understand this decision if the person involved had a very negative history with these people (meaning not just as customers), but nothing about this seems right at all, and saying it falls under "company policy" sounds like a very loose interpretation of actual company policy at the very least. All in all, kinda glad I got out of Starbucks now. Between the Trump supporter complaints of not allowing open carry and hiring refugees, and now this, it feels like I missed out on many potential bombshells that could've made my stress I already had at the time even worse.

I think Starbucks just hires an above average number of cunts. Last year a homeless man was given money by a customer to buy himself a sandwich, but when he got to the counter they forced him to leave and threw the sandwich he had picked up into the trash. Then again this year a girl was told "not to waste her money and let nature take its course" by a staff member when she mentioned she was buying for a homeless person.

Honestly? That's not Starbucks hiring cunts, that's people being shitty. There are people like that everywhere, and they view things in a way I'd consider incorrect but that's not something we can bias all hires against because that's just creating a manipulative society of forced coercion and it's not okay.

Yeah for sure it isn't exclusive to starbucks. Maybe it's just because they have so many fucking stores but I never hear shit like this from any of the other coffee chains in the city.

It probably doesn't help that there's a lot more Starbucks than anything else out there.

I think most stores have loitering policies its just very few refuse to follow on it unless the customer is just being disruptive. Regardless of how stupid you think the policy is or if it is right or not- when an employee asks you to leave, do that..just leave. Then take it to social media, call the corporate office, etc. Once the employee tells you to leave and you refuse to leave, you are now trespassing. Once the cops are called and they ask you to leave (because the employee already asked) and you refuse to all you will do is get arrested. I think people really need pick and choose their battles, while I think the employee who told the two guys to leave and then called the police is an asshole, but it was stupidity on their part which got them arrested. Stores and shops are private property open to the public - they have every right to ask someone to leave and do not need a reason. Just blast them in a review, social media, or call up the corporate office and give them an earful. Vote with your wallet and don't give them business. When sales decline it sends the corporate office a clear message. Could have it been about race? We don't know. Is it plausible? Yes. Once you argue with the employee and refuse to leave, then get yourself arrested that is not racism that is just you being stupid and antagonizing the situation here. This isn't a civil rights issue where you were denied equal access to overprice coffee or the use of their bathrooms. It isn't a public rest-stop. While I think it is petty, I see a lot of articles blaming the police for the outcome. All they did was respond to the complaint and do their job, the legal system looked at the case, and declined to charge them for a crime. That is how the system works - complaint is called in, police respond, when you do not cooperate with the police, you get arrested, charges are pressed or declined. I think it is fair to say there is some equal negligence here. A key quote here is "Mr Ross said police arrested the men after they refused three requests to leave." So they were told by employees to leave, the cops asked them to leave three times, and refused. It is safe to say both sides antagonized the situation.

I second that. I have been to many starbucks and this is not normal behavior for any location. Loitering isn't discouraged at Sbucks and I've never personally even been addressed by an employee at any location ever over not ordering something, using the bathroom without ordering, etc. it's clear this situation was abnormal, not routine for a starbucks.

they had no reason to leave so upon being asked they likely felt accosted and felt no urgency to leave

I agree, but that does not change the fact that they should have just left. If I go into a restaurant and I am asked to leave, I will more then likely be pissed off. But, it does not change the fact that I need to leave. If I decided I wanted to make a point and not leave, the cops get called. Once the cops are there I should have enough sense to just leave, especially after being asked to leave 3 times by the police. I bet if they just left after the cops asked them to they would have been escorted off the premises and at most been issued a trespass letter at the request of the employee.

The question is, was it an employee asking for them to leave, or was it an actual manager (shift/assistant/store manager)? If it was an employee, then the guys could've been fully within their right to ask for a manager to clarify if they really need to leave or not. If it was a manager, then yeah, the best course of action would've been to leave (though I'd seriously question that manager if I was an employee). From my experience as a Barista, we never asked people to leave. Starbucks is supposed to be that "third place" that was brought up earlier. It's a place where you come to relax and hang out. If anything, telling them to leave shortly after arriving is probably the worst thing you can do, because the longer a customer stays in the store, the more chances they have to actually buy a drink or some food. Even then, your goal as a Barista is to make your store appear as welcoming and inclusive as possible.

It's wild to see that a fairly politically left company like Starbucks got roped into the outrage Olympics.

"outrage Olympics" At what point can people be upset at blatant bigotry without being labeled as somone who just wants something to be offended at?

Philadelphia city policy is to not allow people to loiter or use the restroom unless you have made a purchase. This accordingly applies to starbucks stores in philly. What's the outrage?

Uhhh telling someone to leave your property when they haven't bought anything isn't bigotry. When you refuse that, it's trespassing. It's startlingly simple. I don't see a way to frame this as bigotry unless you're looking for the next big breaking story of oppression to rage at.

Maybe because it was only enforced on those two men when others have done the same with no problems.

There's always more to the story than you really read on the news. Most likely something else conspired that made the staff decide that it's time to enforce the policy.

So what conspired then?

An employee said Starbucks company policy was to refuse use of the bathrooms to non-customers and asked the men to leave, according to Ross. The employee called the police when they refused. Right in the article guy.