BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Nice Starbucks?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Shortfatdyke
07:51 / 01.07.02
“Contributing positively to our communities and our environment” is a critical guiding principle in Starbucks mission statement and is the foundation for our involvement in coffee origin countries. We’re committed to addressing social and environmental issues in order to help sustain the people and places that produce Starbucks coffees.
Our purchases of organic, shade-grown, and fair trade coffees all contribute to greater social, economic and environmental sustainability of coffee production. Through these purchases, and through partnerships with organizations that share our concerns, we’re able to make a difference in coffee origin countries. We also make long-term investments, such as building schools, health clinics, and coffee processing facilities to improve the well being of families in coffee farming communities.


a good friend of mine is pretty high up in starbucks. we were talking the other night and i said i had a problem with the company, as a corporation. she's going to send me a copy of their 'coporate responsibility' report, which will make interesting reading, but i got the above from their website.

that aside (will comment more when i get the report), we were talking about conditions in our respective workplaces, and, bearing in mind i work for a trade union, starbucks rather put my workplace to shame, in terms of equal opportunities anyway:

my place has no non-white employees above the very basic clerical level.
her place, well, does. it is multicultural at all levels.

both workplaces have a commitment to equal opps - you can't be employed unless you sign a statement in agreement with that.
my place has big problems (if you're queer) with homophobia from fundamentalist christians and 'backs to the wall' type 'lad' culture.
her place doesn't. she sees dykes, again, at all levels in the company.

at my place, we had a meeting with union reps over a year ago about the harassment gay members of staff were recieving. we asked for, and it was agreed, that a notice would be sent to all staff, reiterating the equal opps statement, highlighting the fact that it also applies to sexual orientation. we are still waiting. my friend says this kind of shit just wouldn't be tolerated at her place.

so - the union can really help people, in lots of ways. i like a lot of the work we do - that's why i came to work here. but i find it galling that starbucks in more sorted in some respects than we are. am i in the wrong job?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
14:05 / 01.07.02
McDonalds have similar 'green' policies, and Nike and Gap can produce reams of data about how they aren't really involved with sweatshops.

Makes good toilet paper I find.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:27 / 01.07.02
But why? If you refuse to listen to a corporation telling you how it's cleaned up its act, what incentive does it have to do so?

Think of Nestle. For as long as I can remember, Nestle have been boycotted by every good little liberal because they kill babies. In big baby-killing factories. In the Gabon. For some years Nestle has been crying "No! Look! No baby-killing factories in the Gabon! We've turned them all into wet-nurse hostels! Look!" Whether this is true or not I don't kow. But it seems they have failed completely to communicate successfully that they have cleaned up their act.

So, if increasing costs by making an effort to behave ethically is not rewarded by increased business and higher public profile, because on eassumes that anything a corporation says is bollocks, what incentive do they have to behave ethically? And why do you trust companies who have never been called upon to put their house in order just because they've never been called upon to etc. etc. Does that make them less dirty, or lower-profile.

Especially when SFD was talking about things she had on supportable evidence from a friend on labour relations...
 
 
grant
14:50 / 01.07.02
I don't think people have ever objected to Starbucks on the grounds that they were lousy employers or corporate sinners - just that they breed like invasive exotic fungus, outcompeting homegrown coffeshops and stamping out local flavor.

Being really inclusive while they do so would only be another invasive adaptation, making them more able to move into new marketplaces.
 
 
gozer the destructor
16:02 / 01.07.02
As well as the fact that they are a growing bastion of capitalism, oppresing the workers by creaming profit from their labour.

Solidarity.

 
 
that
16:10 / 01.07.02
Should be a wake-up call to the good guys (like sfd's trade union) though, surely? I mean, the fact that the 'bad guys' could teach them something about equal opportunities and suchlike, in actualy *action* rather than just in theory...
 
 
Fist of Fun
17:39 / 01.07.02
sfd I am not sure about Starbucks, but in general the fast food industry is not that great with standards for workers.

McDonalds has an effective 'no unionised workforces' policy - at least, that is the way it appears from Fast Food Nation, and he does appear to have researched the point very carefully, and McDonalds haven't sued him, so I imagine it's correct.

The fast food industry lobby group (and I do mean lobby group, not some theoretical cabalistic society) persuaded the US Federal Government to avoid imposing minimum wage laws on under 18's, who are the majority of workers in the industry. (Hmmm, sounds like what happened in the UK - I wonder....)

Of course, McDonalds is very different from Starbucks. The former is franchised, the latter (I think) is not. The former is fast food, with an emphasis on cheap fulfilment, the latter is aspirational and therefore has a lot more to be worried about if its image is tarnished. The former is selling to just about everybody, the latter is concentrating (to a certain degree) on selling to a part of society which is likely to take issues of equal opportunity more seriously than the average.

As a matter of curiosity - does your employer face a very real prospect of losing income if it's image is tarnished? Or, do you work in the public/voluntary sector where different motivators apply?
 
 
Fist Fun
19:33 / 01.07.02
Doesn't an equal opportunity policy make good business sense? What profit is there in arbitrary exclusion of talent? It seems perfectly understandable why multi-nationals promote these policies.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
06:37 / 02.07.02
well, yes - there's an arguement for a good equal opps policy being good for business and for a company's public image (although i can find no evidence of starbucks parading the fact that lesbians are at managerial level) but you could also say that they can't win on this one - if they were homophobic, we could smugly point another accusing finger at them. so what are they to do?

it's also true to say that as i work for a trade union - who continually trumpet their commitment to rights for all teachers - they should back that up by not treating their own black and gay workers as third rate citizens, should not try and sneak cuts in our holidays at every opportunity and sneer that anyone who makes a fuss about it is a 'troublemaker'. i think the image of the union would be tarnished if this stuff came to light, but, as in most of the public sector, they milk the goodwill of the workers to the limit. but i'm intending leaving in the next year or so - and probably won't keep my mouth shut about the hypocracy of this place.

i like hanging out in cafes, and would always rather do it in an independent one than a big chain. everywhere i go there seems to be a starbucks opening up - they're opening in amsterdam soon, too - but my local area has lots of indy cafes and coffeebars and it does make the area more distinctive. starbucks have just tried to open in primrose hill (north london), and the local opposition was such (high profile - lots of celebs) that they gave up. but i should also add that my friend said she was extremely frustrated with dealing with the fairtrade people, who had messed them around and generally drowned her in paperwork for a year or so - a year they could've been selling fairtrade coffee. so, although i don't like the company, they're not all bad and the 'good guys' are most certainly not all good.

gozer - of course they make money: we live in a capitalist society. i've always worked in the public sector, but i have to buy food and stuff where i can afford it i.e. tescos and the like. which makes money out of exploiting its workforce. until the great revolution, we are kind of stuck with this, but i avoid the big corporations whenever i can.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:50 / 02.07.02
Haus has raised something I was thinking of bringing up a while back- at what point do you end a boycott? I'm not sure if I'd ever be able to go in a McDonalds if they were the most ethical place in the world- but if you're never going back, how does staying away give 'em any incentive to change?
I'm sure Barry Auckland'll have some stuff to say about Starbucks when he's back on the board...
 
 
passer
18:08 / 02.07.02
For the record, Starbucks is a corporation, only Starbucks kiosks (like those in airports or bookstores) are franchised.

Confession time: I've worked in a Starbucks. My only problems were with the idiotic customers. As a corporation, they're good to their employees. There are stock options after a year and they tend to promote from within. I loved that they offered health coverage for part time workers. My wages were well above minimum wage and tacked on to it was an average of 2.00 per hour in tips.

For the first few years I didn't understand why people hated Starbucks, but then I moved and things started to make sense. Before, I was in a suburban area where it was a twenty minute drive to the nearest coffee shop and another forty to find any other option besides that one. The coffee there wasn't terribly good and was terribly expensive. Starbucks opened up and decent coffee was a five minute drive away. I never got the sense of Starbucks shutting out local business until I moved to a city which is where I could see Starbucks strangling the competition. (And where I actually had options with better coffee.)

I think their business behavior is terrible, but as far as product production and worker conditions it's an improvement over McDonald's. On those fronts, most complaints against Starbucks are really complaints against capitalism.

As for boycotting, I think the issue is credibility and making genuine efforts to reform. Most companies that go the information blitz route are spending money on ads to buy back customers who'd prefer they spend the money fixing up their act, all without actually cleaning up their messes. My logic has always been that even if companies lose some customers for life, by improving their behavior they lessen the chances of losing more. Regardless of whether or not some individuals come back, if the organizations that called for the boycott are satisfied with a company's improvements people will return, even if it isn't everyone. The key, of course, is that companies bother to substantially alter their policy and behavior instead of just their marketing approach.

I think making fundamental changes can work. Of course, the only example I know of is Denny's in the US. After several discrimination lawsuits in the early 90s, Denny's made a concerted effort to not only fix their image, but their policies with the end result of being selected as on of the most diverse business in the US by Newsweek.

But all of this is, of course, an ideal and, as such, flimsily anchored in reality. So I'm going to slink away now. Thanks for reading.
 
 
Fist Fun
18:44 / 02.07.02
It is important to not get blinded by prejudice and decide that everything massive corporations do will be evil. It won't, it will be profit driven. Perhaps positive, perhaps negative, but always profit driven. I suppose the role of the state should be to cut down on the negative stuff while encourgaing the positive.
When SFD talking about poor working conditions it reminded me of some work I did in a french factory last year. I was there for a couple of weeks and one thing that really struck me was the structure of the workforce. Old, almost all 45+, white, most of the women were secretaries while men held almost all the senior roles. It was the first time I have ever really spent in that sort of environment. Still feel quite icky. I wonder if French social law and the strong trade union presence in the factory had anything to with it.
I have absolutely no experience of this but I imagine in a starbucks-style working environment it must be very easy to hire and promote the best people regardless of race, sex, age, etc. Probably easy to fire people for unacceptable behaviour regards these as well. How easy would it be to do that in a culture of entrenched labour rights and powerful trade unions?
 
 
Persephone
01:53 / 03.07.02
I worked both at Starbucks and at an independent coffee shop that was voted "most likely where you'd plot a revolution" --honestly, the word revolution was in there.

Starbucks was as passer says. The independent revolutionary place... first off, you had to work 40 hours/week to get health insurance (talk about your life measured in coffee spoons), and somewhere in the middle of my working there benefits for annual gyne exams were cut because "it's not fair to the men."
 
 
Baz Auckland
15:14 / 07.07.02
(deep breath). Okay.

I've worked for Starbucks (Sbux) on 4 occasions (shudder) for about 16 months over the last 3 years. I hate them and have vowed never to pay for one of their coffees ever again, or work for them.

They are evil, about on the same par as any lousy underpaid coffee monkey/service industry job. Although it being Starbucks you get the extra 'working here is morally wrong' feeling, which I think you should get a wage bonus for. I'll try and keep this to specific reasons they're evil, and not rant about why serving coffee can be hell...

When you join Sbux, they send you to Coffee School for 8 hours. This involves watching videos sent from Seattle about the Sbux Story and the Stock Options, how to Make Conversation(!) with Customers in order to sell them Golf Themed Mugs(?!) and other creepy topics. I find it really creepy that they tried to teach us to get to know the customers for the sole purpose of learning how to push merchandise on them.

The Sbux Story: Sbux was started by a couple of hippies in Seattle in 1971. For the next 16 years, they sold coffee from 2 or 3 stores in Seattle. One of their marketing guys, Mr. Shultz, went to Italy on a trip in the mid-80s and came up with the idea of having an 'Italian' coffee shop in the US. He returned to Seattle, and bought Starbucks from the hippies.
In 1987, Howard Shultz turned it into a corporation and started expanding. They now have over 4,000 stores and are opening 3 a day for the next 5 years or so, aiming to hit 10,000 as soon as they can. They are now in (partial list) Austria, Germany, UK, USA, Canada, Netherlands, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Philipines, and even have an outlet in The Forbidden City in Beijing. That is sick. They are moving into Spain and Italy in the next year. I hope they die in Italy. I can't see Italians going to an American knock-off for crap espresso from an automatic machine.

The spread of them in such a short time is probably the biggest reason people have for hating them. In Vancouver, there were 97. In Toronto, there are about 130 now, up from 4 in 1997.

According to No Logo, they will only move into an area when they can move in full force. When they first opened up in the UK, they opened 85 at once. Thankfully due to this policy, they can't be found outside of a few major cities in Canada.

Also according to the same book, they have a policy of buying out the lease from a local popular cafe in the area when moving in, so they have the location that people already frequent. This may explain why The Sanctuary goth club no longer exists in Toronto.

A similar chain in Canada is Second Cup. In Toronto, you will be hard pressed to find a Second Cup that hasn't had a Starbucks open up across the street. One of the first Sbuxes of course, was opened up diagonal from the most popular Second Cup shop at Queen and John in Toronto.

Sbux seems to work according to local labour laws, in the way that workers in Canada are better off in some ways, but worse off in others. There is no philosphy of the same conditions world wide. Examples:

In Canada/US, the schedules are done automatically by the computers. So instead of working, say 7am-3pm or 9-5, etc. You can end up working shifts from 645am-1045am or 4pm-8pm, depending on when the customers come in. In Can/US, you can work between 12 and 40 hours a week, depending on what the computer comes up with. And the days you work change every week, thereby preventing you to have plans and set days off. Why do they do this? Apparently because they can. In the UK, where labour regulations differ,

the Sbux workers at least get contracted hours and a week paid holiday every 3 months. The UK as well has more designated 'full time' employees, unlike back home where everyone pretty much except the manager is 'part time', equalling less pay. In the UK, you start at £4.50. After you finish the training (about 2 months) you get £5.30. No matter how long you work there, you never get another raise. Canadian workers start at $8.20 and move up $.20 every 6 months to a maximum of $10 I believe.

Sbux seems to follow McDonalds in the union front. When their Vancouver distribution centre unionised a few years back, they shut it down and moved it to Washington. Also, during the opening of the 97 stores in Vancouver, they actually reduced everyone's wages from $8 to $7.50 (source:No Logo)

And their 'Fair Trade' Coffee? Is only one of the 20 or so kinds they sell. And, it's only available in North America.

A lot of the evil depends on the manager. When I've had managers that didn't care, such as my manager in London, the store was less evil. WHen you have managers who enforce every directive sent down from Seattle, the store can be quite evil. Example: Employees being sacked for giving away expired pastries to the homeless instead of throwing them away, employees being disciplined for saying 'Grande' as 'grande'(silent e) and not 'grand-e'.

The markups on their products is insane as well. A plain bagel, no cream cheese, will cost you £1.40 in London. The acutal cost to Sbux? £.05. This may not be specific, but usually food prices are based on a cost of 30%, not 3%. I would never charge people full price if I could, just because you really shouldn't sell a drink that costs the company about £.20 to make for £3.50.

The second time I worked there, there was a contest on for which outlet could sell the most Frappicinos. Our store won! The prize? Our Manager got a cruise, the assistant manager got $100, the supervisors got $50, and we, the peons who actually sold the damn things and dealt with the customers? We got squat.

Sbux is evil because they pretend that coffee is more than coffee. If only they would stop pretending that it's NOT a new age philosophy that guides them. At least it seems that people in the UK don't buy in to it. Back home, you'll have customer that will actually talk to you about the different blends of coffee and who will actually only drink Starbucks and buy into the 'it's more than coffee'. These people scare me. The people who won't get a coffee some days because "it's not Sumatra." and look forward to new merchandise lines.

And now, the creepy bit, as this is now being carried out:

In the UK, every employee has to write a multiple choice test about coffee. Those who get 23/25, become a Coffee Expert and get a certificate and a fun pin to wear that says 'Coffee Expert'.
All the Coffee Experts in the store then write a test. The winner of this test becomes the Store Coffee Master. They get a Coffee Grinder, and get to wear A Black Apron while at work!!
All the Store Coffee Masters in the district then get together and write another test. The winner become the District Coffee Master. More prizes are won.
All the District Coffee Masters then get together and write ONE LAST TEST. The winner becomes the UK Coffee Ambassador. Their job will be to go to different countries and open Sbuxes.

Moominstoat said this sounded too much like the Masons or something. Especially with the aprons. I almost got sacked for getting caught wearing the Black Apron by the District Supervisor.

Okay, I just spent an hour thinking all this up. I think that's most of the specific reasons they're evil, apart from the general service industry hell reasons.

Whew. I feel much better now. Oh, and please avoid Sbux when possible. They don't need the business or the encouragement to destroy all other sources of coffee.

Please especially avoid the one at 22 Princes St, London, UK. The only supervisor left there is a complete bastard who has led most of the store to seek employment elsewhere in just the last month.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
15:32 / 07.07.02
. I find it really creepy that they tried to teach us to get to know the customers for the sole purpose of learning how to push merchandise on them.
as opposed to EVERY other retail job?


The markups on their products is insane as well. A plain bagel, no cream cheese, will cost you £1.40 in London. The acutal cost to Sbux? £.05. This may not be specific, but usually food prices are based on a cost of 30%, not 3%. I would never charge people full price if I could, just because you really shouldn't sell a drink that costs the company about £.20 to make for £3.50.


once again, this is a world based on profit making, markups are there for that reason. Starbucks does not = food service starbucks=retail.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
18:26 / 07.07.02
barry - thanks for all the info. one thing i should correct though: they do sell fairtrade coffee in england. i've seen notices saying to ask for it in the shops. although, of course, one fairtrade option is nothing like enough. and the fact remains that 'worthy' organisations, such as my trade union, and amnesty international - who were described by a co-worker as dreadful employers - are pretty damn hypocritical in the way they don't practise what they preach. now, who was it talking about setting up a barbelith commune?
 
 
Saint Keggers
03:40 / 08.07.02
Cool! Barbelith brand coffee.
 
 
Abigail Blue
12:29 / 08.07.02
< threadrot > Barry : Though I'm not a fan of Starbucks, for all of the reasons you've offerred (and more!), I've never laughed as hard as when I found out that the Sanctuary was going to become a Starbucks. It was a rumour for a long time, so long that we thought it was an urban myth, but then it happened! Right at the end of my street!

I felt sorry for the goths, but did you hear that Starbucks had the bad taste to hold a goth-themed opening party 'out of respect' for the Toronto landmark that they were replacing? That's so awful that it's fucking hilarious! Ahem. Carry on... < / threadrot>
 
 
Shortfatdyke
12:43 / 08.07.02
"Employees being sacked for giving away expired pastries to the homeless instead of throwing them away...."

this kind of stuff depresses and irks me a lot. i know someone who works for burger king - in a railway station that has plenty of homeless people hanging around - and they throw their food away, too. i assume the excuse is that slightly out of date food might make someone ill and they don't want to be sued, but that's all it is - an excuse. there was a 'fast food' place in england called spud-u-like who did give away baked potatoes at closing time, but it seems horribly rare. anyone who 'buys in' to the starbucks, ahem, lifestyle is quite sad in my opinion, although don't we all buy into something? (saying that, the bloke on the train yesterday with his awful spiderman print shirt and coca cola cassette player looked like he did it more than most of us.)
 
 
Baz Auckland
09:27 / 09.07.02
Abagail: I didn't hear about that! That is the funnies thing I've heard. I did hear that they all get to wear black aprons at that location though.

We all do sort of buy into brands, but my long history with Sbux just makes me shudder when I see customers that have become deeply involved in the company and are convinced that they are the leaders of a new-age lifestyle because of their coffee... grrrr...

but anyways, preferring one brand over another due to preference or experience does involve buying into them to some degree I guess. The difference may be in preferring a brand to having a visible logo on your clothes and belongings.

I remember a vice-principal back in high school that would lecture us for wearing band t-shirts, saying that we were just being used to advertise the bands. He was an asshole, but I did think that he was partly right years later... although it's bad to see music on the same level as a clothes or coffee company, even if it is true in some cases.

Did anyone ever see 'Zoolander'? There's a scence that nearly killed me, where Ben Stiller and his model friends all buy Frappucinos and drive around in an open air jeep in slow motion, enjoying their Starbucks....but then they all die horribly, so it's not too bad.
 
 
MJ-12
16:10 / 09.07.02
and they throw their food away, too. i assume the excuse is that slightly out of date food might make someone ill and they don't want to be sued, but that's all it is - an excuse

sadly, that's not restricted to the big companies. I recall a while ago some places having local grocers & such pouring bleach onto their trash to keep the homeless away.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:37 / 11.07.02
I know the "Benjy's" chain of low-priced (and low quality, too, but fuck it, I buy their stuff) sandwich/baked potato shops in Central London make a point of giving away all the unused food to some particular place for the homeless... St Martins, or somewhere like that... at the end of every day. (Or at least they say they do on their packaging).
 
 
Baz Auckland
00:36 / 23.05.03
..umm... please don't think less of me. But I may be going back to the Lesser Evil Empire (aka Starbucks) to work... I'm working for a big-box bookstore right now which is somehow showing itself to somehow be more evil than Starbucks.. at least domestically. They're not international thankfully...

...so I figure that if I have to work a crap job for the summer, and that since I'm stuck in the capitalist system for the next few years I may as well get paid more and deal with less management insanity... right? Is working for Starbucks equal to supporting them? I'll never spend any money there ever again, and haven't for years now...
 
 
LaureMarie9
05:26 / 20.04.04
I heard recently from an anarchist who may or may not have some clout (he was on his way to pick up Jello Biafra from the airport) that Starbucks has a private army in South America that murders people who demand fair trade. Is there any evidence for this or was he pulling my leg? I looked only but couldn't find anything remotely related to starbucks and international oppresion. But if something corrupt is brewing down there, I'd like to know and report on it.
 
 
rizla mission
10:49 / 20.04.04
I would have thought Starbucks weren't a big and bad-ass enough corporate empire to actually go in for the whole murdering people thing. I mean, do they actually own their own slave labour coffee plantations? I assumed they bought it in from other people's ones. Coke are the ones with the private armies and stuff..

But then, hey, who knows, maybe their insidious 'we're nice really' image has blinded me to their full-on murdering evilness potential..

I missed this thread the first time around, so I'd like to retrospectively thanks Barry Aukland for his account of Starbucks creepiness - interesting stuff.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:51 / 20.04.04
There's always rumours about the big multinationals, I hadn't heard anything about Starbucks, but I did hear a similar rumour that Nike did something similar with demontrators against their trainer sweatshops. It's usually impossible to confirm or deny and ends up being based on how prejudiced you feel.
 
 
Baz Auckland
13:14 / 20.04.04
Given that Starbucks sells Fair Trade coffee, it seems odd that they would kill people for demanding it... and yeah, they don't own any coffee plantations themselves...

Starbucks also only sells about 1% of the world's coffee, so they're not really a major player when it comes to buying the stuff...
 
 
Jester
08:56 / 21.04.04
I would have thought Starbucks weren't a big and bad-ass enough corporate empire to actually go in for the whole murdering people thing. I mean, do they actually own their own slave labour coffee plantations? I assumed they bought it in from other people's ones. Coke are the ones with the private armies and stuff..

I'm not sure about Starbucks specifically, but in general I understand it is not that direct. Rather than hire actual slaves - or pay slave labour wages, and stamp out unions under the corporate flag, big multinationals tend towards simply contracting out to companies that will do these thing. Whether or not they know about what goes on, or condone it, is therefore tremendously hard to prove because they can always say 'that's just a contractor! We gave them our corporate responsibility documents and told them to operate that way, and they didn't, so it's not our fault...'
 
 
rizla mission
21:29 / 21.04.04
That's what I thought. Supermarkets etc. do that of course..
 
 
Char Aina
02:38 / 22.04.04
this is a world based on profit making

well, yeah, randy.
the thing with the big bux is that they actually price their stuff higher to make it seem more appealing. (the idea is it will seem like a luxury item) while they are legally allowed to do this, it seems like a good reason to avoid them and go somewhere the price reflects the product.


Given that Starbucks sells Fair Trade coffee, it seems odd that they would kill people for demanding it... and yeah, they don't own any coffee plantations themselves...


well, they didnt in the late nineties. i remeber a friend and coworker from my time with the evil empire faxing, emailing and writing head office to ask if they could implement fair trade. they never replied.

is the coffee actually FairTrade, or are you talking about their starbucks people promise, or whatever they called it?
they used to talk a good game with no backup, as i recall.
 
 
wicker woman
03:52 / 22.04.04
One of the most disturbing Starbucks stories I've heard has to be that in some city here in the US, there is a Starbucks... right across the street from a Starbucks. I can't remember where, though, so if someone could back me up/verify this, it'd be appreciated.
 
 
Baz Auckland
03:54 / 22.04.04
Only one of the dozens of blends they sell is Fair Trade... they say if they demanded more Fair Trade, "it would put an unfair financial burden on the growers to get certified, which costs upwards of $10,000...."

Blah. Then help them get certified if you're really all new-agey coffee-is-life-and-community!
 
 
Baz Auckland
03:55 / 22.04.04
MC: They have those in many places... NYC probably. Toronto has over 120 Starbuckses now, and yes, there are two across from each other.... as well as two practically next door to one another...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:19 / 22.04.04
There is on the other hand this: Family of CocaCola Worker machine gunned.
 
 
Char Aina
11:11 / 22.04.04
man, even glasgow has one by the main station and one inside the main station.

when they bought the seattle coffee company, there were already three shops. now there are at least six.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply