Comments by "Norma Mimosa" (@normamimosa5991) on "Mike Rowe's take: Man-babies and Starbucks 'shelters'" video.

  1. Went into a Starbucks the other day. A street sleeper, clothed in hardened, dirty clothes, was sleeping in a corner seat, taking up the corner table and two adjoining seats with his sundry bags and collections. The line of paying customers chatted about the scene, concluding that Starbucks didn't dare turn him out, after a couple of turning-out controversies hit the fake mainstream media. When street sleepers and the dispossessed start dictating how businesses are to be run and the business owners cave and acquiesce, then we have very serious societal issues that will ultimately land the cowardly business owners, society and economies very nasty blows.
    3
  2. @roal ik -- And of course, not getting out of bed involves the risk of avoiding risk. No food for those who don't get out of bed. Maybe they have enablers, but that never lasts. So great risk in not getting out of bed.
    2
  3. @Jay McKenzie -- Ah! Your lack of logic! Universities don't teach students to think logically any more. In my comment, I said absolutely nothing about the turning-out controversies or what I thought about them, so to accuse me of pathetic and flimsy false equivalency is totally assumptive and baseless. I simply stated that there were turning-out controversies. Initially Starbucks very unfairly asked two individuals to leave, and I believe the police were called. Highly inappropriate. After that incident, there were a few more incidents. The subsequent incidents were deliberate and staged to cause a controversies. The first inappropriate incident has absolutely no connection to the vagrant I saw in a Starbuck's corner, other than his likely not being asked to leave, because Starbucks turned yellow after the controversies. Also, I reiterate, when a business caves to demands from the public (other than for excellent service for paying customers), many of whom have never run a business, never had to be cognizant of the bottom line, and don't know a damn thing about brand, then that business is in peril. Businesses are private enterprises, whether publicly listed, or private. Their priority is their shareholders. Period. In my view, Starbucks, in the normal course of business, has always had an issue with people (mainly students) hogging tables with their computers for hours -- some not even purchasing anything (says something about ignorant, entitled individuals today). I can't tell you how many times friends and I have gone to Starbucks for a coffee, snack and chat and not been able to stay, because all the tables are occupied by the hoggers. Starbucks should have a right to have a policy about that. It should most definitely be able to turn out non-paying vagrants from their premises. Perhaps it should charging for WiFi. Brand is everything for a business. Break it and your business will be broken shortly afterwards. Businesses should have every right to determine and follow through with their brands, without interference. Those who don't like a particular brand can try another brand. If a brand is detrimental to customers or society as a whole, customers will flee. The brand will be reactively broken. If Starbucks follows through with allowing non-paying customers to fill its seats, including unwashed vagrants, then Starbucks will proactively break its brand, customers will flee, it will lose money, employees will lose their jobs, and it will have to close.
    1