Starbucks rightly gets petard-hoisted

Former Philly area regional Starbucks manager Shannon Phillips rightly got $25M from StarBux. As with unionism, a reminder that most companies that appear socially conscious will always throw someone under the bus as needed. Given that the manager of the actual individual store where Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson were arrested was Black, and his assistant was the one who actually called Philly cops, and faced no actions, the suit was reasonable.

Starbucks, in this piece by the Philly Inquirer, claims she was fired because she didn't do anything afterward to address community issues. In the first link (Daily Mail) Phillips expressly not only denied that but listed what she DID do. And, most the stories of several note a Black district  manager spoke up for her.

Here's her claim in more detail via the LA Times:

After the arrest, Phillips, who as a regional manager oversaw nearly 100 locations across Philadelphia, south New Jersey, Delaware and parts of Maryland, said in a 2019 complaint that she had taken steps to allay the community’s concerns and to keep staff and customers safe. She said those efforts included arranging a roundtable meeting with CEO Howard Schultz in Philadelphia and organizing teams of management-level employees to work at the approximately 20 Philadelphia locations because hourly workers feared going to work amid all the protests.

Versus Starbucks on CNN:

Starbucks, which denied the claims at the time, said in a 2021 court filing that after the incident, “senior leaders and members of Partner Resources all observed Ms. Phillips demonstrate a complete absence of leadership during this crisis.” Phillips, the company argued, “appeared overwhelmed and lacked awareness of how critical the situation had become.” Phillips’ manager ultimately decided to dismiss her “because strong leadership was essential during that time,” according to the document.

Given the fullness of the trial, and given what I noted above about Starbucks and union-bashing, I don't believe it. (And, two days later, the WaPost has a longish read about a fired former Starbucks union activist.)

Sadly, among #BlueAnon types, the fact that Hot Air, Red State etc are all playing this up means they'll all downplay it.

#Bloomberg, anti-sugar idiot

I didn't realize until today, when I read that a New York judge struck down New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-sugary-drinks law, that:

1. It only applies to sodas and not other sugar-laden drinks (that's YOU, Starbucks, we're talking about, among top offenders with sugar-laden dairy drinks) and
2. It only applies to restaurants, not convenience stores.

The first is bad enough, and per a Facebook friend, appears to have been influenced by New York's dairy lobby.

The second is simply idiotic.

If Bloomberg is really worried about sugar intake, then wouldn't C-store "Big Gulps" be No. 1 on the "hit list"?

Does 7-Eleven have lobbying office in Gracie Mansion?

Then there's this:

The ruling stunned the Bloomberg administration, which was deep into preparations to begin enforcing the ban and had even boasted on Monday that it should be applied nationally as a remedy to rising obesity rates. Mr. Bloomberg had scheduled a news conference for Tuesday morning to celebrate the inauguration of the new rule, when he would stand with lawmakers who supported the initiative, according to a person told of the plans. 

"Stunned"? Why? Justice Milton Tingling's ruling is, frankly, absolutely correct legally on Item 1. It's absolutely correct morally on Item 2, if not legally as well.

Now, the $64 question. Is Bloomberg a political naïf (to be polite), or is he Just.Another.Politician.™?

I lean more toward the former, based on this:

At a news conference on Monday, hours before the ruling, Mr. Bloomberg predicted little resistance to the measure. “I think you’re not going to see a lot of push back here at all,” he said. “I think everybody across this country should do it.”  

Earth to Bloomberg? Maybe you didn't tax Starbucks Frappucinos because you need to smell the coffee yourself?

That said, I think the judge is wrong on another point:

The judge also appeared to be skeptical of the purview of the city’s Board of Health, which the Bloomberg administration had maintained has broad powers to seek to better the public’s health. That interpretation, the judge wrote, “would leave its authority to define, create, mandate and enforce limited only by its own imagination,” and “create an administrative Leviathan.” 

Regulatory agencies in general have powers that are often broad, and sometimes "latitudinarian."

Meanwhile, it appears this is just part of a larger pattern of behavior by Bloomberg, making decisions without city council members' approval. It's why, going back to Ross Perot, this idea of a big businessman having some magical skills to use as president, is laughable. They all want to be like Bloomberg or Perot — authoritarians ignoring Congress.

Which doesn't work, at least not on domestic policy.

Dear Starbucks – no decision is a decision

Howard Schultz and Starbucks, versus the "open carry" pistol advocates — PISTOL-carry advocates, not GUN-carry advocates — say that they just want to be left alone, out of the politicization of pistol-carrying rights, etc.

That said, the "open carry" movement has specifically targeted Starbucks, so "no decision" on banning pistol-carriers from Starbucks, rather than letting state laws apply, is itself not just a decision, but a politically charged decision.

Also, in California at least, some "open carriers" are breaking the law, yet the weaselly LA Times op=ed board, by opposing this group's petition drive to get Starbucks to give pistol packers the boot, says:

The Brady Campaign is spraying ammo at an innocent bystander.

Fail.

Meanwhile, up in Starbucks' home, the Seattle Times has a pro-con on the issue. Even the columnist supporting the "right" to carry can't muster too much support.

That said, Starbucks has the right, per laws in all open carry states, to ban open carrying of pistols in its stores. That, if anything, would depoliticize the issue.

Wake up and ... smell the coffee, Starbucks.

UPS cust service has lies and contradictions

This is an update of an earlier blog post of mine, detailing first the foibles, and now the outright contradictory information, apparent anti-customer attitude and more, of UPS.

Nickel version of my original blog post: Friend buys me Starbucks, via its website, I presume, and ships. UPS is only shipper Starbucks uses. First day, driver either never hits my apt door or else doesn't leave note. Second day, driver will not leave package despite my being told I could leave a handwritten note absolving UPS of liability. Third day, driver won't leave pkg despite me, per further UPS instruction to sign back of official UPS note from second (first?) visit, absolving UPS of liability.

Well, the package is its way back to a warehouse in Ohio, unless I want to try an intercept on it. And, given UPS policies and delivery times, why? And, given contradictions, or possible lies, why?

UPS called this morning and said that yesterday counted as a third delivery attempt, even though the driver did not leave a second note, did not comment on my liability note, etc. I heard lies or contradictions on the phone today, too.

One was that it was a regular driver who made the first attempt. Either that was wrong today, or that was wrong two days ago, when I was told it wasn’t. Finally, the person who spoke to me today admitted that, whoever it was, he/she did not leave a UPS note.

The second was that they don’t leave boxes at apartment manager’s offices. Either that’s a lie, or a change in policy from three years ago.

The third is that it is OK to leave boxes at apartment doorsteps. If it isn't, then why was I told to sign a note to that effect in the first place?

In any case, they said the package was headed back to Ohio. The lady said I could do an intercept on it, but I’m in no mood to do anything but write UPS another 500-character limited webmail. With a link to this blog post as part of that.

And, yes, it's hard to say much in 500 characters, counting spaces. Between that, and UPS not having phone numbers to call listed in its website, I have to conclude that it is deliberately anti-customer service. And, since it claims it will not deliver to apartment manager's offices, despite having done so in the past, I am telling people never use UPS and absolutely never use it to ship to an apartment. I am also telling people that if a third-party company shipping is UPS only, no options, like Starbucks, then don't buy from that company.

Don’t use UPS – and don’t ship Starbucks except on your own

Why? (Updated at bottom.)

A friend sent me a package — Starbucks. The driver Tuesday, new to the route, never showed at my apartment. My friend e-mails, and when I say, “no show,” she calls the UPS 1-800 tracking number, gives them my cell, and is told they will call me.

Nope; never happens.

Today? Dallas office calls after I call 1-800 number. A person there said if I left a note with my signature, the package tracking number, and the note saying “leave package at door, I accept liability,” the driver would leave it. Well, the driver DIDN’T leave it. Just left standard UPS note.

I call 1-800, raise hell. UPS delivery manager said to sign the back of UPS note to same end as my original note, and the driver will leave the package. We’ll see.

But, wait, that’s not all!

My friend said Starbucks never sent her the promised tracking number at time of shipping. An agent said she’s resend, but never did, so she had to look up the order herself.

Moral? Ship stuff yourself, rather than via third-party company shipping.

And, be a good laborite, as well. Use the U.S. Postal Service instead of FedEx.

Update, July 9: I sign the back of the official UPS note, etc. Leave at my apartment. I come back from the DeSoto library at 8 p.m. NO PACKAGE! Again!

Call 1-800 tracking number. Really unload. Tell person to pass on to Dallas office that I'm a newspaper editor. She claims there was a delivery attempt. Well, either the driver is a liar, incompetent to not take the note, can't read English as an immigrant, or is an illiterate American. She says somebody from Dallas will call me by 10 a.m.

I just e-mailed my friend:

If I don’t get it today (Friday), I suggest you tell Starbucks to cancel UPS shipping AND order. If it is non-responsive, tell them you’ll refuse to pay, if you used credit.

Update 2, July 10: Well, the package is its way back to a warehouse in Ohio, unless I want to try an intercept on it. And, given UPS policies and delivery times, why? And, given contradictions, or possible lies, why?

UPS called this morning and said that yesterday counted as a third delivery attempt, even though the driver did not leave a second note, did not comment on my liability note, etc. I heard lies or contradictions on the phone today, too.

One was that it was a regular driver who made the first attempt. Either that was wrong today, or that was wrong two days ago, when I was told it wasn’t. Finally, the person who spoke to me today admitted that, whoever it was, he/she did not leave a UPS note.

The second was that they don’t leave boxes at apartment manager’s offices. Either that’s a lie, or a change in policy from three years ago.

The third is that it is OK to leave boxes at apartment doorsteps. If it isn't, then why was I told to sign a note to that effect in the first place?

In any case, they said the package was headed back to Ohio. The lady said I could do an intercept on it, but I’m in no mood to do anything but write UPS another 500-character limited webmail. With a link to this blog post as part of that.

Big Biz LOVES binding arbitration – except in EFCA

Curly, Moe and Larry of pseudo-progressive businesses Starbucks, Whole Foods and Costcoo (actually, Costco is somewhat more progressive on the matter at hand than the other two) have now shown why they’re offering an alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act – they HATE being “bound” by binding arbitration:

Whole Foods Market chief executive John Mackey said that binding arbitration is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

Really, John?

Let’s say Whole Foods starts offering home food delivery, and I sign a contract.

Are you going to tell me you WON’T have a binding arbitration of disputes clause in there? Stop lying to me.

Oh, why are these folks the Larry, Moe and Curly?

Well, Starbucks has been pretty decent on environmental issues. It’s been middle-of-the-road on fair trade coffee. BUT — it’s no slouch in its anti-unionism.

Whole Foods? Pretty weak in its commitment to food sustainability, and most of its organic stuff is Big Ag produced. It’s damn good at marketing a burnished image, though.

Making this worse, Curly and Moe also go apocalyptic on us:

Giving organizers the ability to use card check, Schultz said, would lead to a slew of separate bargaining units at a company like his, leading to “havoc and significant cost and disruption.” Mackey had an even grimmer view. “Armed with those weapons, you will see unionization sweep across the United States and set workplaces at war with each other,” he said. “I do not think it would be a good thing.”

So, John Mackey also stands exposed as an anti-capitalist.

Larry, Costco CEO James D. Sinegal, is being more low-key. And, tis true that Costco has a much flatter salary structure than rival Sam’s Club.

Maybe we need to not forget the Shemp of the issue, former Clinton advisor and triangulation squish Lanny Davis. Davis makes clear that’s his angle on this issue — he wants to give President Obama a triangulation option.

Starbucks OK with EFCA alternative; SEIU involved?

In fact, the Seattle coffee giant is actively exploring a legislative option to the Employee Free Choice Act, thereby drawing the fire of pro-business groups like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Vice President Stefan H. Gleason called Starbucks' position “totally unacceptable.”

The story says Starbucks is “engaged in dialogue” on the possible alternative, but doesn’t say with whom.

Off the top of my head, I guess Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union. Given that he has a history of being employer-friendly, and a parallel history in being aggressive in seeking out new union turf, this would be his type of move.

Update: It turns out the Starbucks option ain’t much of an option, from a labor POV. Even Andy Stern can’t be short-sighted enough to sign off on something like this, either.

Instant coffee at Starbucks?

If this idea ain’t either smearing lipstick on the pig or Starbucks officially jumping the shark, I don’t know what is.

And, who the Hell is going to pay a full buck for instant coffee?

Starbucks need not fear Mickey D

McDonald’s highly-touted premium coffees and coffee drinks are about as financially tasty as old Folger’s run through a percolator.

A chart of the six major areas where the company is selling the drinks shows that sales in most markets peaked about three weeks after the drinks launched, then declined in the following weeks, in some cases sharply, according to company documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In Kansas City, Mo., for instance, the average number of specialty coffee drinks sold per restaurant peaked in early December at 359. As of the last week in June, that average had fallen to 217.

And that’s not the half of it. Read the full story for more.

Starbucks feedback is good idea

Yes, critics may call the idea stale, but Howard Schultz’s idea of getting direct feedback from the public, via MyStarbucksIdea, as smart business. Schultz built and grew Starbucks on the idea of community, and that’s what the website does. And some observers agree:

Most brands do not put out a welcome mat for feedback,” said Pete Blackshaw, executive vice president of strategic services for the market research firm Nielsen Online. “Generally feedback is viewed as a cost of doing business rather than an opportunity. Starbucks is saying this is an opportunity.”

As for specific changes, I’d love a dime a cup off mine for bringing my own mug or thermal cup, for example. A punch card for frequent visitors? Yes. And, because you have to sign in to list ideas or vote.

And, since you have to sign in to vote on the site, it’s a way for Starbucks to market to you. Since 100,000 other people have already listed ideas, I didn’t think I needed to add to the list.

Starbucks vs. Dunkin’ Donuts on Dem coffee divide?

This is 10 times sillier than “soccer mom” or similar. Probably Mark Penn is talking about micro-microtrends.

What about people who prefer Seattle’s Best, which, ironically, is owned by Starbucks, which therefore must not be Seattle’s best? Or Pete’s? Or La Madelaine, if that’s in your area?

Or, a local coffeehouse, if you have one that makes coffee at least as good as any of the above? Wouldn’t true progressives favor that above all others?

(Stipulation: The local coffeehouse has to be as good as any of the above. In my area of suburban Dallas, I don’t have such.)

Starbucks: use different beans!

I think I figured out part of why Starbucks ain’t all that for me. It uses too many Latin American beans for its different coffees. I like the hard, dry earthiness of East African coffees and the damp earthiness of Indonesian area coffees more than the winey flavor of most Latin American coffees; no matter the roasting level, I think you always have some of the wininess, or the different types of earthiness come through.

Starbucks in DFW Airport, closed at 7 p.m.?

At least the one in Terminal E was. What’s up with that?