Tweet: "The real problem isn't a coffee company"

[EffieBlack]

“The entire morning shift at my regular @Starbucks was staffed by people of color today. Boycott them if you must but please know: the real problem isn’t a coffee company. The real problem is white people calling the police on us for existing.”

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. It is not Starbuck's, it is white privilege and systemic racism.

I am sure the CEO will go overboard to fix this, those thousands of stores are owned by HIM (not really as it is a public corp) in that as CEO he is responsible for them as they are NOT franchised.

It is a difficult task to not hire racists, you dont know they are racists until after they are hired.

[EffieBlack]

3. So true

But he’s sending the right message that Starbucks is not a haven for racists - and maybe they might want to find somewhere else to work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. If only all companies reacted like this. If only our president wasnt BOMBING Syria while REFUSING

to let refugees from Syria to come here. grrrrrr

[Blue_true]

4. Right on with the part about racists.

The days of calling people names are gone, racist today will work with anyone, even clueless people who are members of the groups they hate to hurt targeted people in those groups.

[mcar]

19. This!

[MontanaMama]

2. Simple and profound. N/t

[uponit7771]

5. K&R

[JI7]

7. Exactly, just like that gym. Just like Tamir Rice, Trayvon martin

And so many others doing what anyone else doing, especially a white kid would be seen as normal.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. And these children became the next generation to learn

"the rules" of white supremacy -

(note that this happened in 2009 and the facility was sued, eventually went bankrupt, and shutdown completely).

[EffieBlack]

8. An addendum

“The real problem is white people calling the police on us for existing, the police arresting us based on these racist and baseless accusations, and too many white people defending the police and blaming us for not doing enough to keep ourselves from getting arrested.”

[brer cat]

10. Oh, yes!

"...blaming us for not doing enough to keep ourselves from getting arrested."

[raven mad]

17. "...blaming us for not doing enough to keep ourselves from getting arrested."

What?? Like this???



FUCKING IDIOTS.

[Cha]

9. And, much worse.. when the police are there. :(

Mahalo, Effie

[BobTheSubgenius]

12. I hate the unintended consequences that inevitably fall on the innocent and powerless..

This is an example right here...and embargoes on countries because their leaders are bad actors. Who bears the brunt? Not the privileged, the ones that sanctions are aimed at.

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. Fantastic tweet and thank you for posting it. nt

[pangaia]

14. ON THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!

And a few days ago I criticized starbucks... I should delete that post...

[FailureToCommunicate]

15. That's pretty much it.

[Abu Pepe]

16. Starbucks is a pretty progressive company

I worked their during the recession. It paid a bit better than other part time service industry stuff and I actually had pre ACA insurance.

[Honeycombe8]

18. They were told to leave because they wouldn't buy a coffee. Not because of their color.

Now, if they had bought something, and were STILL told to leave....THAT is unmistakable discrimination.

But when an overzealous worker insists that the co. rule of buying something for the privilege of sitting there, be followed...that is not racism because the person is black or Asian or Hispanic, or sexist if the person is female, or homophobic because the person is LGBT. (Unless there's something else that happened that makes it discriminatory.)

It's because the person didn't buy a stupid cup of coffee. So, buy a cup of coffee for hte privilege of sitting in someone's business. They have employees to pay wages to, products to buy, utility bills to pay. It's the right thing to do.

[mcar]

20. Except there were white people there who also didn't buy anything

They weren't hauled off in cuffs. This has been covered many times so that excuse is bogus. Also, when, ever, does a restaurant require someone who is waiting for their full party to arrive to place an order beforehand?

[EffieBlack]

22. They were the only people in the place asked to leave for not buying anything

Although several people said they had not bought anything either but weren’t asked to leave.

Even her employer acknowledged she was wrong and fired her. So why are YOU still insisting she did nothing wrong?

Please stop trying to justify unjustifiable behavior.

[Honeycombe8]

23. That's not what I read. I read that htey stated...

they had in the past not bought things there before. But not at that time, on that day. And they said that only when the guys were being arrested, I think...but not sure. WE DON'T KNOW. We don't have an audio.

They should not have been arrested. But maybe because I've been told to leave somewhere before, and because my brother has been banned at several places...I see this as more of a "behavior" thing. IT HAPPENS TO WHITE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, but it's not an incident.

If I had been arrested at that service station years ago, it wouldn't be on the news, there would not be a boycott, no one would know or care. Same thing with my brother.

I suppose that some are predisposed to see racism when one of the people is a minority (or sexist, when one is a female...etc.), whereas others require proof. I just don't see any proof here of that, without being there and seeing or hearing it, or knowing the place or the manager or the gys....because it always come back to that one thing: They didn't buy a stupid cup of coffee, and were adamant about not doing it. Behavior. (Which was why I was kicked out, and my brother was banned.)

It could have been racism. But I'm not seeing proof of that. If they had bought something, but were still told to leave...that would have been racist, on the face of things. But that wasn't the case.

[EffieBlack]

24. The fact that people have not been required to purchase anything, whether on that

day or previously helps to prove that purchasing something was not a condition of remaining in the store. That, along with no written policy, nothing posted, and no apparent history of ever asking anyone to leave in the past demonstrates that this was not a condition and, therefore, under Pennsylvania law, the men were not trespassing since they had a legal right to be there as long as they complied with the conditions imposed on the general public. And since their failure to purchase a drink was the ONLY reason the manager gave for their alleged trespass although this was not a condition imposed on the public, they had a full legal right to be there and manager had no legal right to force them to leave.

[MaryMagdaline]

26. People are only predisposed to see racism when they've been subjected to racism.

Other customers completely backed them up. Why are we comparing this to other incidents of non-racism?

[torius]

27. They were not asked to purchase.

They were asked to leave.
They were waiting for someone. They were not loitering.
A white customer said she had been sitting there for hours without buying anything. No one said a thing to her. One of the guys asked to use the bathroom. They denied it, in accordance with policy. You have to buy something to use the bathroom. Though tons of people go into Starbucks and get in line to the bathroom and no one says anything.
The guys were not pushy or loud. They did nothing wrong.
There was some secret policy at that particular store where the manager could ask people to leave for "excessive loitering." By all accounts those guys were only there for a few minutes. That particular area has had many racial profiling incidents as it's right near a wealthy area.
She had asked people to leave in the past a few times. And had called the police. She never told people she was going to call the police.
The policy had no set rules about what constituted loitering.
There are coffee shops around here that have rules like "no laptops at the table from 11am to 1pm." That makes sense. It doesn't require judgement on the part of a manager.
Starbucks doesn't require people to buy. They don't want people to look inside and see everyone holding a purchased item. They want to be a meeting place. That's a customer-retention strategy. If you let people not buy sometimes, they buy at other times. Tons of people use Starbucks for the bathrooms and free water. Or free coffee grounds or free food they throw out at night (unless there is a homeless shelter in the town they throw out the food.)
I can't understand people who simply refuse to believe racial profiling exists or that the manager did nothing wrong. She got fired. Starbucks has apologized and is implementing training in thousands of stores so it doesn't happen again. They have admitted that the secret policy they had was wrong and led to wrong outcomes. So why are people still insisting that what happened was fine?

[EffieBlack]

28. All of this

Every word.

[KitSileya]

29. No to mention, a white woman got to use the bathroom without buying anything.

It is very clear that many are willing to be racists in their defense of cops who "had to arrest them". They are willing to defend the manager and the cops in this situation. It is clear racism, and defending racism makes you a racist.

There's no doubt in my mind that these people - some here on DU - would be the ones who, if not siccing dogs on lunch counter protesters, would have no problem making an extra tasty lunch for those who did and thanking them for their hard work.

[tblue37]

21. + a brazillion! nt

[spanone]

25. K&R...