Starbucks shop boots police officers because customer ‘did not feel safe’ around them: reports

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
https://www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.foxnews.com/food-drink/starbucks-shop-boots-police-officers-because-customer-did-not-feel-safe-reports.amp?fbclid=IwAR2LmCSMZHQg47AY0VxCAO5s1V04o3zluRSICR7zL9cver5seJGJ939cIEE
Some police officers in Tempe, Ariz., say they were asked to leave a Starbucks coffee shop on the Fourth of July because a customer complained they “did not feel safe” with the cops present, according to reports.

Five officers were drinking coffee at the Starbucks location prior to their shift beginning when a barista asked them to move out of the complaining customer’s line of sight or else leave, the Tempe Officers Association wrote in a series of Twitter messages.

Rob Ferraro, president of the police union, told FOX 10 of Phoenix that such treatment of police officers seems to be happening more often these days
perhaps the sentiment would go away if more cops were held accountable for actions that would land others in jail, that said MOST cops IMHO are good ones but like anything else it's the rotten apples that make the news.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
I was waiting too :)

At any rate, very idiotic behavior by the SBUX staff.
Maybe.

As I discussed earlier, the crux of this may lie on the fact that the employee was supposedly fulfilling a customer request. So this wouldn't be like an earlier incident, this was an employee actually doing what he was supposed to. The question is how could the employee win. The other factor is that police association put this on Twitter, where it blew up, in a strange way with an unusual amount of savage backlash & the usual support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
Maybe.

As I discussed earlier, the crux of this may lie on the fact that the employee was supposedly fulfilling a customer request. So this wouldn't be like an earlier incident, this was an employee actually doing what he was supposed to. The question is how could the employee win. The other factor is that police association put this on Twitter, where it blew up, in a strange way with unusual amount of savage backlash.
the cops were customers themselves , they could have turned it around on whomever wanted them to move but were not smart enough to do so :p
 

raqball

macrumors 68000
Sep 11, 2016
1,947
8,887
perhaps the sentiment would go away if more cops were held accountable for actions that would land others in jail
Or maybe attitudes would change if people stopped making hyperventilating and blatantly BOGUS comments like you just did?

Do you hold accountants to the same standard because less than 1% of them are are dirty and embezzle money? What about doctors? Ya know some sexually assault their patients? What about instert_profession_here? Blah, blah, blah....

Another day in fake news, hyperventilating, bogus mumbo-jumbo....
 
  • Like
Reactions: deuce1794 and mgguy

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
Maybe.

As I discussed earlier, the crux of this may lie on the fact that the employee was supposedly fulfilling a customer request. So this wouldn't be like an earlier incident, this was an employee actually doing what he was supposed to. The question is how could the employee win. The other factor is that police association put this on Twitter, where it blew up, in a strange way with an unusual amount of savage backlash & the usual support.
The employee can win by simply determine if there's an actual risk, and if there isn't then tell the complaining customer that he can't do anything about it. Last thing we should do is to have customers in restaurants win a complain about other customers when nothing is actually happening.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
the cops were customers themselves , they could have turned it around on whomever wanted them to move but were not smart enough to do so :p
It's a matter of who asks first it seems. The customer felt uncomfortable about the presence of that number of police, so they felt strongly enough to bring it to the attention of the employee. The employee acted upon the customer request.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
Or maybe attitudes would change if people stopped making hyperventilating and blatantly BOGUS comments like you just did?

Do you hold accountants to the same standard because less than 1% of them are are dirty and embezzle money? What about doctors? Ya know some sexually assault their patients? What about instert_profession_here? Blah, blah, blah....

Another day in fake news, hyperventilating, bogus mumbo-jumbo....
it's ok Racball , say goes on.

It's a matter of who asks first it seems. The customer felt uncomfortable about the presence of that number of police, so they felt strongly enough to bring it to the attention of the employee. The employee acted upon the customer request.
see post 7. someone making claims just not makes it so, cops were simply sipping their over priced lattes. someone got triggered by the amount of cops there.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
The employee can win by simply determine if there's an actual risk, and if there isn't then tell the complaining customer that he can't do anything about it. Last thing we should do is to have customers in restaurants win a complain about other customers when nothing is actually happening.
That's a nuance you are adding. I don't know if that is anywhere in the Starbuck's employee handbook.

I do know as an employee they do get a bit of the "customer is always right" ( which as a former manager of an Art Store I can tell is completely untrue ) mantra, drilled into their heads. That is what comes first.
[doublepost=1562599114][/doublepost]
see post 7. someone making claims just not makes it so, cops were simply sipping their over priced lattes. someone got triggered by the amount of cops there.
Does NOT matter. If the customer feels uncomfortable, like you or anyone else, they are allowed to mention it.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
It's a matter of who asks first it seems. The customer felt uncomfortable about the presence of that number of police, so they felt strongly enough to bring it to the attention of the employee. The employee acted upon the customer request.
Cops were enjoying a coffee, and doing nothing wrong. Uncomfortable customer could've left the building as no one was threatening him.
Can someone get black customers kicked out because they feel uncomfortable, using crime stats as a basis?
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
That's a nuance you are adding. I don't know if that is anywhere in the Starbuck's employee handbook.

I do know as an employee they do get a bit of the "employee is always right" ( which as a former manager of an Art Store I can tell is completely untrue ) mantra, drilled into their heads. That is what comes first.
[doublepost=1562599114][/doublepost]
Does NOT matter. If the customer feels uncomfortable, like you or anyone else, they are allowed to mention it.
common sense, far easier to tell one customer to move vs telling 5 other people just sipping coffee to move.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
Cops were enjoying a coffee, and doing nothing wrong. Uncomfortable customer could've left the building as no one was threatening him.
Can someone get black customers kicked out because they feel uncomfortable, using crime stats as a basis?
1. Why should the customer leave if they were there first?

2. I believe Starbucks managers can, which was sort of a big deal.
[doublepost=1562599270][/doublepost]
common sense, far easier to tell one customer to move vs telling 5 other people just sipping coffee to move.
Doesn't matter. You're deciding that one group holds precedent over another. Which is not how things go. Police already often get free drinks if they choose to accept them. That's a preference already.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
1. Why should the customer leave if they were there first?

2. I believe Starbucks managers can, which was sort of a big deal.
[doublepost=1562599270][/doublepost]
Doesn't matter. You're deciding that one group holds precedent over another. Which is not how things go. Police already often get free drinks if they choose to accept them. That's a preference already.
1 we don't know who was there first
2 hope they don't use race as the motive, as a race people are protected, cops are not a race so not protected.
[doublepost=1562599398][/doublepost]
1. Why should the customer leave if they were there first?

2. I believe Starbucks managers can, which was sort of a big deal.
[doublepost=1562599270][/doublepost]
Doesn't matter. You're deciding that one group holds precedent over another. Which is not how things go. Police already often get free drinks if they choose to accept them. That's a preference already.
I do have the feeling the managers somewhat shared the sentiments of the patron who asked the cops to leave , so in that case the manager did what he/she thought was best.
 

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
However, Starbucks apologized, which basically means they agree that this wasn't handled properly. For me it's case closed. Just provide 6 months of free coffee to the cops and they will be happy like unicorns on rainbows :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
1 we don't know who was there first
2 hope they don't use race as the motive, as a race people are protected, cops are not a race so not protected.
[doublepost=1562599398][/doublepost]
I do have the feeling the managers somewhat shared the sentiments of the patron who asked the cops to leave , so in that case the manager did what he/she thought was best.
1. The impression in many reports that it was a customer already there, which is what I was going by. Not someone who walked in and freaked out when seeing all the cops, which can happen.

2. Historically if you ask Philly, that wasn't the case.

I have not seen anywhere where a manager was involved. Just an employee passing on a request from a customer.

However, Starbucks apologized, which basically means they agree that this wasn't handled properly. For me it's case closed. Just provide 6 months of free coffee to the cops and they will be happy like unicorns on rainbows :)
Actually it was a given Starbucks would apologize with people bringing up Philly again. So Starbucks was apologizing whether they thought the employee was right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
Actually it was a given Starbucks would apologize with people bringing up Philly again. So Starbucks was apologizing whether they thought the employee was right or wrong.
An apology is an apology, which is an admission of wrong. If they believe it or not, I have no idea as I can't read minds. Starbucks apologized, sent executives to talk to Tampa police, and started a Coffee with a Cop initiative. This is good enough for me.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
An apology is an apology, which is an admission of wrong. If they believe it or not, I have no idea as I can't read minds. Starbucks apologized, sent executives to talk to Tampa police, and started a Coffee with a Cup initiative. This is good enough for me.
No, actually it isn't.

In retail management one of the first things you learn when dealing with an irate customer is to apologize.

It doesn't matter that it isn't your fault that product was defective or another employee rude or something. You just apologize for the inconvenience, to diffuse any combative nature, and to demonstrate empathy. Since YOU personally did NOT do the customer any wrong, you are to take it as no skin off of you, but it's your job to make the customer happy.

Apologies are just words in retail.

What Starbucks did was address a customer who blew something up on Twitter. It's in Starbucks interests to address it in a manner that makes themselves look good ( i.e. See Nike ), and hopefully minimize any greater harm to the brand. On that self same Twitter, it was the police association who took the bigger hit, and Starbucks got support.

I promise you if a version of BLM peacefully went in for drinks with the intention of leaving after getting their order. If someone got upset and asked them to leave, when BLM or someone else blows that on Twitter, Starbucks will be meeting with them and offering drinks.
 
Last edited:

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
No, actually it isn't.

In retail management one of the first things you learn when dealing with an irate customer is to apologize.

It doesn't matter that it isn't your fault that product was defective or another employee rude or something. You just apologize for the inconvenience, to diffuse any combative nature, and to demonstrate empathy. Since YOU personally did do the customer any wrong, you are to take it as no skin off of you, but it's your job to make the customer happy.

Apologies are just words in retail.
It was not a simple apology for the inconvenience (which basically means, we're sorry for you). The apology is as follows:

"When those officers entered the store and a customer raised a concern over their presence, they should have been welcomed and treated with dignity and the utmost respect by our partners (employees). Instead, they were made to feel unwelcome and disrespected, which is completely unacceptable.
What occurred in our store on July 4 is never the experience your officers or any customer should have, and at Starbucks, we are already taking the necessary steps to ensure this doesn't happen again in the future.
"

So, they admit fault, big time. It's not a simple sorry for the inconvenience as it even mentions a review of whatever policy.

What Starbucks did was address a customer who blew something up on Twitter. It's in Starbucks interests to address it in a manner that makes themselves look good ( i.e. See Nike ), and hopefully minimize any greater harm to the brand. On that self same Twitter, it was the police association who took the bigger hit, and Starbucks got support.
Well yes, of course it's in their interests.
 

JayMysterio

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2010
659
11,958
Rock Ridge, California
It was not a simple apology for the inconvenience (which basically means, we're sorry for you). The apology is as follows:

"When those officers entered the store and a customer raised a concern over their presence, they should have been welcomed and treated with dignity and the utmost respect by our partners (employees). Instead, they were made to feel unwelcome and disrespected, which is completely unacceptable.
What occurred in our store on July 4 is never the experience your officers or any customer should have, and at Starbucks, we are already taking the necessary steps to ensure this doesn't happen again in the future.
"

So, they admit fault, big time. It's not a simple sorry for the inconvenience as it even mentions a review of whatever policy.



Well yes, of course it's in their interests.
If that makes you sleep better at night. Sure.

Note they do emphasize that it's not the experience officers or customers should have.

It's a concern basically for all customers no matter who they are, which is what they emphasize.

What will be interesting is the reaction afterwards by others. One thing not covered, which I covered elsewhere is the context involved, because of where this took place, which may also have been an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronntaylor

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,584
24,447
Texas
If that makes you sleep better at night. Sure.
Nah, what makes me sleep better is the knowledge that a good cup of coffee will be ready as soon as I open my eyes.

Note they do emphasize that it's not the experience officers or customers should have.
It's a concern basically for all customers no matter who they are, which is what they emphasize.
Well, I am not sure what you're arguing. It's a decent apology on a single situation among 1 gazillion daily interactions that was handled badly.

What will be interesting is the reaction afterwards by others. One thing not covered, which I covered elsewhere is the context involved, because of where this took place, which may also have been an issue.
Could be. My guess? In the next few hours we'll have the next twitter scandal and people will forget about this one until a similar incident happens, and so on until the end of times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,907
Criminal Mexi Midget
Nah, what makes me sleep better is the knowledge that a good cup of coffee will be ready as soon as I open my eyes.



Well, I am not sure what you're arguing. It's a decent apology on a single situation among 1 gazillion daily interactions that was handled badly.



Could be. My guess? In the next few hours we'll have the next twitter scandal and people will forget about this one until a similar incident happens, and so on until the end of times.
you close your eyes at star bucks till your order is ready? :p