Starbucks CEO Talks About Race, Backtracks, Then Talks About Religion

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Howard Schultz, the white multibillionaire CEO of Starbucks, recently surprised/embarrassed Starbucks employees by getting involved in "race conversations". Out of the blue, he decided Starbucks would take part in "opening up conversations about race relations" in America. The issue of race relations had been around for hundreds of years in America, and so Schultz thought that all we needed was that extra push. Little did America know, we were all waiting for a fast food coffee chain that was brave enough to start this kind of discussion. There was nothing substantial told to employees in order to prepare them for this. Employees were told of how publicized the initiative was, and were told of all of the newspapers that ran ads for it. But literally nothing was ever said in regard to the actual topic, or how to deal with the backlash that it would get from customers. 

 

So basically, this happened. And there was lots and lots of negative feedback all across the board. From employees, peers, business journals, etc. 

 

In order to grab the headlines again, Howard Schultz is taking yet another stand on yet another issue that no one asked him about. He's telling employees to sell their shares of the company if they don't support gay marriage. He is telling people, most of whom are Christian, to stop working for the company or to suck it up. It just seems like a major dick move for a billionaire CEO to talk down to the employees like that for having opinions and personal beliefs. Are people going to quit the job? Maybe someone will, somewhere. But most won't, probably. Many people probably will suck it up, because you know, they like to provide for themselves and earn a paycheck. I am not saying "those poor Christians!" I am saying that it's a topic that should never come up at all in a fast food restaurant. It's just really irresponsible of a boss/CEO to throw around his political views while workers are trying to simply make wages and live their shitty lives. Starbucks employees have had to sit down and watch videos of Howard Schultz talking about his personal beliefs. Not as a training video or a "welcome to the company, here are our core values" kind of thing. It was "I'm Howard Schultz, here are opinions". This will happen periodically throughout the job, whenever Howard Schultz is feeling lonely and wants someone in Forbes to interview him.  

 

So like, he is in the news again. I guess the strategy to deal with a controversial, offensive, bold, headline-grabbing initiative is to create another controversial, bold, headline-grabbing initiative. Being a multibillionaire must be harder than it looks. 

 

I know that he's a business leader and not a politician, but if you ever needed an example of a fascist, egotistical, and intolerant liberal, just google "Howard Schultz".

I imagine this thread will be ignored.

Edited 29 Mar 2015 by L.L. Bean's Menswear (see edit history)

[Knuckle 484]

I would actually do stuff like this if I were a CEO, for better or worse :X

 

Like, publicly denouncing anyone in my company who might have weird/bad views about different orientations and stuff. The race thing seems like a bad idea since that's a crisis of mediation rather than awareness, but bullying silly people who think non-heterosexuals don't deserved to be married is fine by me because hey, those people have outdated ideas and need to get some sense metaphorically slapped into them.

 

But yeah, his race idea was dumb. And while I understand that these homophobes (Some people say being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic but I disagree, and would be happy to expand on why if you want) do need to make money and all, it's pretty important to put pressure on them in some way to make them stop being so crappy. I don't know if this is the best method for pressuring them, but it's one of the few that I'm seeing tried by any rich white guy with a ton of corporate influence.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

do you guys remember when the fast food workers recently gathered together and finally legalized gay marriage

No?

Wait, you mean the state's legislature is in charge of it? Say whaaaaaaaat

Like it would make more sense to literally bribe the congressmen of individual states to allow gay marriage.

It'd actually make him less of an asshole

[Knuckle 484]

That's looking at it the wrong way, Legalization is worth relatively little compared to public opinion. Think about the Civil Rights Movement; JFK and the Supreme Court might have gotten the federal government to condemn segregation, but that didn't magically cause the south to stop being full of racists and Klansmen. The same principle applies here, you can't have social change without social acceptance.

 

Schultz isn't trying to force anyone's opinion; he isn't combing the ranks of his stores to fire suspected homophobes or anything like that. He's just basically saying "We're a pro-gay marriage company, and if you're gonna be working in my stores you better be prepared to embrace that. Otherwise, it's best if you leave." No finger-pointing, no witch hunting, he's just standing up for people who deserve to be able to marry.

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

No finger-pointing or witch hunting. You're right. But also no actual initiative to change or accomplish anything.

It's the equivalent to taking a stage to talk about what a brave person you are

My point is that he has a history of histrionics and that this is no different. I support gay marriage but I found this to be incredibly mishandled, just like his unnecessary stance on race and gun violence a few months ago.

It's just annoying that this is not a big enough issue for people to quit en masse, so he basically gets to get away with it and gets to pat himself on the back again for not actually doing anything. The quintessential Seattle guy

Edited 30 Mar 2015 by L.L. Bean's Menswear (see edit history)

[Skippy 82]

Just going to say this, public opinion is very important, but you aren't going to change anyone's mind by bullying employees who disagree with you. At no time and under no circumstance is that an appropriate or effective method of management or leadership.

[Necropolis 763]

Have you ever fundamentally changed your opinion of a political mater at a coffee shop? Does espresso make you chomp at the bit to express your political viewpoints? 

 

 

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

Howard Schultz is a dumb egotist, but on the other hand, the stocks increased by a lot. I got moneyyyyyyy. But he's still lame.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

The thing I heard was that the race thing was like, poorly presented, and the workers weren't adequately trained to even get the point across, and that most people didn't really care. But isn't that so backwards from how we should be thinking? I thought coffee shops were supposed to be somewhat open atmospheres to conversation. I guess that's not totally true now though; I think the modern impression of a Starbucks is a lot of self-absorbed people keeping to themselves. We're always talking about starting a conversation for these tough topics though, and any attempts to do that are better than to just let issues die. So I appreciated the attempt, however contrived it might be.

 

Do you remember the recent story of the students who were expelled and their fraternity was disbanded because they were caught singing a racist song? That's kind of a similar situation here. Sure it may not have been the best approach available, but the overarching point here is that intolerance is not tolerated. A CEO telling his powerless workers that they're not welcome if they don't support equality is nowhere near as terrible of a thing as a CEO telling his powerless workers that they're not welcome if they're already marginalized by the masses. Bullying people who have the dominant opinion that makes other people's lives worse is called standing up for the weak. Not guilting, but direct condemnation. It's a sign that society is ready to say that there is a power shift, that we're starting to realize that this discrimination has gone on for long enough. And the damning rhetoric he used makes it seem like less of a slimy business tactic and more of an actual sign of principle. Target, for instance, has a training video that mentions that they support equal rights, but in terms of who they exchange money with, it's not so clear. To me it looks like they just realized that most people support equality, so it's better for business to say they're on board with it.

 

To me it looks like you're saying that we should all just be chill and not talk about issues and then somehow they'll just be solved. Never express your opinions because it makes you look like a tryhard.

[Skippy 82]

Coffee shops generally are open places, the thing is Starbucks is a fast food chain draped in a coffee shop, this movement doesn't work when your core clientele are upper middle class whites who want a decent and quick cup of coffee on their way to work.

You would find this movement better placed at any of several local owned specialty coffee shops rather than a Starbucks

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

I don't believe in expressing anything

This thread played out according to prophecy, and nothing new was learned or accomplished

[Skippy 82]

Why would we want to do any of that?

The thing I heard was that the race thing was like, poorly presented, and the workers weren't adequately trained to even get the point across, and that most people didn't really care. But isn't that so backwards from how we should be thinking? I thought coffee shops were supposed to be somewhat open atmospheres to conversation. I guess that's not totally true now though; I think the modern impression of a Starbucks is a lot of self-absorbed people keeping to themselves. We're always talking about starting a conversation for these tough topics though, and any attempts to do that are better than to just let issues die. So I appreciated the attempt, however contrived it might be.

 

Do you remember the recent story of the students who were expelled and their fraternity was disbanded because they were caught singing a racist song? That's kind of a similar situation here. Sure it may not have been the best approach available, but the overarching point here is that intolerance is not tolerated. A CEO telling his powerless workers that they're not welcome if they don't support equality is nowhere near as terrible of a thing as a CEO telling his powerless workers that they're not welcome if they're already marginalized by the masses. Bullying people who have the dominant opinion that makes other people's lives worse is called standing up for the weak. Not guilting, but direct condemnation. It's a sign that society is ready to say that there is a power shift, that we're starting to realize that this discrimination has gone on for long enough. And the damning rhetoric he used makes it seem like less of a slimy business tactic and more of an actual sign of principle. Target, for instance, has a training video that mentions that they support equal rights, but in terms of who they exchange money with, it's not so clear. To me it looks like they just realized that most people support equality, so it's better for business to say they're on board with it.

 

To me it looks like you're saying that we should all just be chill and not talk about issues and then somehow they'll just be solved. Never express your opinions because it makes you look like a tryhard

 

ETA:  I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't address or talk about issues, simply that there is a time and place where that conversation is going to be useful, and a time where it isn't.  Simply talking about the issue doesn't actually do anything about it, we can talk about world hunger and world peace and equal rights for all until we are all blue in the face, but until you put action to those words there is no change.  In short, all this is is more words, used to raise share price, that ultimately will bring no change.  Money would bring change: donations, education, volunteer hours, the essentials people need to effect change, a hashtag on a coffee cup isn't going to fix a damn thing

Edited 31 Mar 2015 by Skippy (see edit history)

[LLmao ?✊? 1276]

What's annoying to me is that JUST before the RaceTogether thing, I was denied a raise that I deserved. So people who work less hours and have worked for a shorter period than me are making $1.50 more than me. All employees were given a tiny, tiny raise (which grabs headlines), but also put a cap on what a recently promoted person would make (no headlines about this, though). But they also promoted me just after this new policy. So instead of getting $1.50 or more (like I would have had my promotion been literally a week earlier). Starbucks also stopped their bi-annual employee reviews, which in turn took away an employee's chance to get a raise. Their bi-annual reviews used to be a big positive in my opinion. It's cool to see your improvement and to feel like your work means something, even if it's a fast food job.

So I was screwed out of money, given a 20 cent raise instead, and am no longer able to do anything about it for one year. And then shortly after, the "RaceTogether" thing starts. It just felt like a slap in the face. They didn't give me what I deserved and then they piss away money doing frivolous stuff like RaceTogether and whatnot. Schultz gets to bask in media attention for everyone getting a tiny raise, then once the attention dies down, he pulls "Racetogether" out of nowhere. He has no accountability and counts on the media not researchig the full implications of his flavor-of-the-week initiates

Sorry if it's not succinct, I am on my phone and edited some stuff in my post.

Edited 31 Mar 2015 by L.L. Bean's Menswear (see edit history)