• Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    9 months ago

    Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

    Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can’t believe so many people here are arguing in Starbucks favour here.

      I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs. Milk alternatives are undoubtedly more expensive for Starbucks, based not only on the quantity of purchasing, but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.

      Sad state of affairs that people go out to defend them for such a simple easy thing to change.

      It’s simple and easy because you’re not the business owner who has to comply. Please understand that if Starbucks needs to comply under the ADA, then so does every other coffee shop, restaurant , and drink stand. This either ends in a loss for the Plaintiffs or an increase in all drinks to the most expensive milk alternative price.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think it is the principle that a business should be able to charge to recoup their costs.

        As if they’re so close to the line that adding an extra $0.02 to the cost of making that cup of coffee means they aren’t recouping the cost anymore?

        but the additional refrigerated space required, and the additional man-hours necessary to stock and use alternatives.

        As opposed to the refrigerated space and man hours they need to stock cow milk. I don’t see any extra cost here. The material itself, sure, but the space and manpower? No. Again, the actual increased cost is negligible. Spreading the cost over all sales would mean every cup of coffee costs another $0.01.

        • jimerson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Dude… just stop. You don’t understand the thin margins a small coffee shop operates under, and that is who this would destroy.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m thinking more about the implications of this legal argument. Does it mean vegetarians should be guaranteed prices equivalent to meat dishes? Is it religious discrimination if a restaurant doesn’t offer fish during Lent?

      I’d rather just have Starbucks lower their prices. The actual legal case opens a can of worms we really don’t want to deal with.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I agree with you, but the alternative (in their mind) would probably be to raise the price of everything to compensate.

      Not like Starbucks customers care how much they’re paying though! Lol

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah it’s amazing. Starbucks could just accept a 500% profit on every coffee sold instead of 600%. Their markup is insane, even including retail overhead.

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          But then their C-Suite would be marginally less rich…and their line would go up at a smaller angle…

    • cdegallo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Probably because an option like soy milk costs over twice as much per volume when compared to cow milk at the consumer level, so therefore any rational person would expect a drink made with the more-expensive non-dairy ingredient to cost more.

      To me it’s not defending Starbucks as much as it is defending common sense.

      What if they removed all reference of the word “dairy” from their products and made the consumer choose the beverage ingredients item by item, and each ingredient has a different price relative to the cost?

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      All the assholes have convinced the rest of us that everybody is as heartless as they are. Whereas, it’s genuinely possible to be considerate and still remain in business. If anybody argues otherwise, they’re simply a bad business-person and needs to go out of business ASAP.