We previously discussed how companies were barring political protests or paraphernalia at the workplace and how such rules are entirely enforceable. That made a recent story interesting when Starbucks workers across the country stopped working for a silent protest over the deportation of unlawful immigrants. Starbucks does not appear to be moving to stop such protests in the workplace, which is its prerogative. Customers, however, may find the extra shot of politics with their Mocha Java to be a bit much in the morning.
The protest itself was rather anemic, with a work stoppage lasting just a few minutes as workers stood in silent solidarity with those being deported.
It would ordinarily not be something that a commercial chain would relish. Prior polling shows that 83 percent of Americans support deportations of immigrants with violent criminal records and almost half support mass deportation of all undocumented persons. Even less pronounced polls reveal a majority supporting deportations generally with a third supporting deportations of all unlawful immigrants.
Postings show Starbucks workers leaving shops or reading statements denouncing the Trump Administration’s deportation policies.
With an increasingly competitive coffee market and Starbucks struggling to slow a drop in revenue, it would not appear an opportune time to tie the brand to a controversial political issue. Think BudLight with a shot of espresso.
The management either does not want to confront employees on the issue or supports the public opposition to the immigration policies. The question is how stockholders and the board view the protests as a corporate policy. As discussed earlier, shareholders and board members of these corporations have been raising the cost of such entanglement with political and social controversies. A boycott movement has already arisen after the protests.
The danger is that a company like Starbucks can become the BlueSky of coffee shops, serving a fraction of the population with high-priced beverages to enjoy in a political echo-chamber.
Me and my wife gave up on Starbucks a long time ago. The main reason was cost but then it was service. Generally they sell you a coffee at too expensive, usually not how you ask for it, and not hot enough. This worked out better for me to skip Starbucks. Once in awhile my wife will go to them when I am not with her and she is out and about but she has to be desperate as it is easier to wait at home for a cup to brew.
I stopped buying Starbucks since their Covid tactics.
This is why I bought a Keurig with a milk frother. It makes terrific breve lattes without contributing to the enemy.
Bye.
EXCELLENT TRUTHFUL COMMENT!!
Nothing has kicked in— yet you are out of your heads like little old biddies!
The total opposite of the Mission BBQ restaurants. Every day at noon all employees stop what they are doing and sing the National Anthem.
Guess it will takesomeof them getting Laken riliedor kate Steinled by an illegal to”smell the coffee”
Must be great for Starbucks share price. The CEO is a Seattle centric jac***s who thinks everyone is like the woke idiots in Seattle. Not so. Of course there are many other places to get a latte that is probably better than Starbucks, without the bs. Bye Starbucks and good riddance. Your coffee is too expensive and not that great anyway
If migrants don’t need a process to get into the country, they shouldn’t get one to leave.. Where were you leftist idiots raised anyway.. Cuba, USSR, China? Try your due process thru them.