Before everyone gets down on non-dairy milk drinkers, remember that the government subsidizes the hell out of dairy milk production to make it cheaper in the first place.
They subsidize soy, oats, and almonds too.
Is that accurate?
I used to buy a lot of soy milk since I’m lactose intolerant and it was cheaper than milk a decade ago. But now it’s nearly the same price or double for the same brand. And now I’m wondering if it’s a Soy conspiracy.
It’s a capitalist conspiracy.
More to the relevant point, those alt milks are still cheaper to produce and Starbucks has the scale to do so. You know what it takes to make oatmilk? Oats, sugar, water, small amount of oil. Almond milk? Replace oat with almond, except you can use more of the material.
In oatmilk the sugar and oil are optional ingredients for taste and texture. Almost all oatmilk brands contain salt for taste.
I’ve only found one brand that uses three ingredients, oat water salt. They charge a premium for it, but it’s the best tasting one I’ve found.
Right? I would love to see a future where the right wing gets their way and makes calling almond milk “milk” illegal, but is also forced to stop subsidizing cow excretions. Do I buy the Authentic Cow Milk for $10 a gallon, or the Almond-Based Dairy Alternative for $6…?
The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.
Is it though? I mean don’t get me wrong, it sucks that people who are lactose intolerant have to pay more, but is it really a disability?
If it does, then the cost difference to the business should probably be subsidized / written off in taxes.
Lactose intolerance is the default for adults too. Them calling it a disability is wild.
I am allergic to milk. If I ingest it I will die full stop. Food allergies should be considered as a disability in this case because if I wanted coffee with soy milk I shouldn’t be made to pay extra for something out of my control. That being said since my allergies are severe enough I don’t eat anything I don’t make myself so this wouldn’t impact me anyway but I agree with the principle of the case.
What if the dairy substitute was 10x the cost of real milk, I know it isn’t, but what if it were. Or even 100x, just for argument. Are you entitled to get that for the same price?
The reasonable accommodation is offering non-dairy options at all even if it’s slightly more.
Or they can remove the dairy product at no additional fee (which they do). If someone wants to add an additional, more expensive ingredient, then they can pay for it.
The ingredient is only more expensive because cow’s milk is subsidized.
Well, maybe they are suing the wrong entity then. Dunkin and Starbucks don’t set the price of almond milk.
Sure, they don’t. But they are also massively overcharging consumers for something that barely costs them anything extra.
I’m looking at the online site for my local big chain grocery store. This is what I’m seeing, all for half gallon sizes:
- Store brand regular milk is $2.69 for 2% and $2.79 for whole
- Simple truth almond milk is $2.99
- Store brand lactose free milk is $3.99 for all varieties (on sale from $4.49)
- Simple truth soy milk is $3.49 for all varieties
- Califia farms oat milk is $4.29 for all varieties (on sale from $5.99)
These are all the less expensive alternatives. So almond milk is slightly higher than regular, but the others are a pretty significant percent increase.
While you’re right, we’re talking about a pretty small amount of price difference for Starbucks.
A quick Google search says that a grande latte from Starbucks (16Oz) is about 14.6 Oz of milk.
Using the retail numbers (remember Starbucks has negotiated contracts with wholesale suppliers for their milk, they likely pay much less than retail cost) that is about 4.2¢/fl oz for regular milk and about 4.7¢/fl oz for almond milk. In terms of milk cost, a Starbucks grande latte is about 61¢ of regular milk and 68¢ of almond milk.
They then charge you 70¢ EXTRA for the almond milk, when they are only spending around 7¢ more to use it in your drink. They’re clearly just taking advantage of many people’s inability to process lactose. Though, I’m a bit biased since I’m one of them. I’m heavily lactose intolerant, so take that as you will.
While looking up the numbers I also learned that it’s estimated that around 68% of the world’s population is lactose intolerant, and it mostly affects non-white ethnic groups.
I hate to say anything in defense of Starbucks (as a small Coffee House owner), but non-dairy costs more in general. It’s not like they are upcharging because they want to stick it to the lactose intolerant.
The idea that it costs more to put oats in a blender with an enzyme is more expensive to produce than breeding and feeding cows is pretty laughable. Non-dairy is only more expensive because of gigantic subsidies that simply don’t need to exist in the modern era.
Edit: the number of you simping for a gigantic corporation is surprising. Oat water is cheap to make. Milk is not. You buy milk at the grocery store nearly at cost. You buy oat milk in branded containers in the yuppy-vegan-white-women priced section at gouging prices. Starbucks does not have costs like the grocery store lists their prices.
None of this is relevant the only point is if it costs the coffee house more. In other news vans that have wheelchair lifts installed are more expensive than those without.
I completely disagree because of the huge volumes that starbucks uses. They can just buy chobani and get the oat water at cost.
You have now justified imposing upon coffee shops based on a completely fictional world you have invented where maintaining non-dairy options doesn’t actually cost more even though it on average does.
Look at the processes to create dairy and non-dairy ingredients.
Dairy can be done on the small scale, but it is typically done on an industrial scale where animals are reared and exploited in an extremely labor, water, energy, and space inefficient process. The outputs are raw milk which must be processed into different milk products and pasteurized then refrigerated and transported.
Compare that to oat milk.
Arable land is sewn and watered. It is tended and then reaped. Oats are processed in a crusher and kiln. They are then crushed again, boiled with enzymes, pasteurized, cooled and transported.Which one really costs more? Everyone is focusing on price at the store but they aren’t asking which product actually costs more. Dairy costs vastly more than oat milk and it is plain to see. The reason oat milk is priced higher is due to low volumes and grocers knowing they can rip off vegan white women which is their overwhelming demographic. The reason dairy milk is priced lower is due to enormous government subsidies and nearly a century of mechanization and optimization.
Why does this matter for starbucks? Because they can easily vertically integrate to remove the price barrier and instead focus on cost. Oat milk costs are extremely cheap when at larger scales like those of a corporation the size of starbucks. Stop focusing on how expensive it is at the grocery store level - it is not an apples to apples comparison to what huge corporations deal with.
I don’t disagree that it could be cheaper if its price were determined by price of inputs. I disagree that it matters. No judge in this case is able to fix for some definition of fix the market they are simply deciding in the actual world where we live if its reasonable to force coffee shops to spend more and charge the same for milk alternatives. I assert it isn’t. Coffee out and about is a luxury good and if it costs to much you ought to simply make it at home
Oh I don’t give a damn about the whole starbucks v ADA bit. I’m just chuffed by the price of oatmilk being out of sync with reality
Concrete is literally rocks, it should be free right?
If you pause to make your product safe just because it costs you more to ensure your customers don’t die, bear in mind that I would have formed a less than ideal opinion of you in my mind before I even met you.
Selling dairy containing drinks doesn’t put your customers at risk. If they didn’t offer non-dairy creamers and I was horrifically allergic to dairy I wouldn’t say oh well I guess I have to shit myself to death today.
It’s cheaper for Starbucks to buy Cow milk than oat milk because the dairy industry is very heavily subsidized. Starbucks doesn’t make the milk.
Could Starbucks eat the pennies of cost difference to make sure everything’s fair with no loss in revenue by moving prices around? Yes.
Were the cost increases they put on non-dairy milk just enough to cover those costs? No.
Did they add those costs to hurt people who can’t have dairy? No.
But, does their profiting by charging more cost people who can’t drink dairy more than people who can? Yes.
Regardless of their intent here we have a situation wheresome people must pay more for the same drink.
Let’s not forget starbucks isn’t in any way the good guy here. They’re spending millions on Union busting so they don’t have to pay their workers so they can afford to eat 25c or whatever. If they shouldn’ have to, then should the individual? If you think the individual should, why?
Prices for items at scale can be difficult to understand.
So you are agreeing with the person you are replying to that non diary is more expensive?
Yes: At the grocery store.
No: At multinational commercial quantities.
If you say so
Not really Starbucks’ jurisdiction tho
Eh… at their economies of scale I think the oat water would be far, far cheaper. They’ve vertically integrated quite a few ingredients - what’s oat or almond milk to add to the list?
I suspect that the real “extra cost” comes from having the slight amount of extra space it takes to stock the non-milk, ship it, handle it and the extra time it takes the employee at the counter to make a different drink.
Not saying they can’t just “eat the costs”, but companies never do that. Everything is accounted for and has the 10%+taxes profit margin slapped on top.
If the usage of non-milk would increase, I bet prices would come down in coffee shops as well.
Re your edit, no one is simping for Starbucks, just common sense. You don’t have to have milk with your coffee. For fuck sake, you don’t even have to have a coffee.
Want something unusual in your coffee? Pay for it.
Not happy, about how much they are charging for it. Make your fucking coffee at home before leaving the house and put whatever you want in there.
We are not talking insulin prices here, let’s get real.
Unusual? You should check your biases. Plant milks have been around for a long time (at least the 1400s), are anything but unusual, particularly when the majority of the world has intolerance to baby cow growth formula.
Sure, and that why when you walk into a shop and ask for milk, everyone asks you “what kind of milk would you like”?
baby cow growth formula.
LOL, way to be taken seriously
Well, it is serious. Cow’s milk is a formula that’s adapted for the purpose of taking a small calf, and transforming them into a huge cow as rapidly as possible. Is it any surprize that we have obesity, diabetes, and heart disease epidemics?
You think milk is the cause why you have obesity, diabetes and hearth disease?
Look vegetarians and vegans have a couple of good points that can be used to get more people interested. Keep going calling milk whatever you called it, referring to ‘murdered animals’ and making up shit to explain obesity and no wonder you can’t even convince your mum to take you seriously.
I love this, “If vegans weren’t [x], we would…” … what? Take us seriously, what do you mean by that? Are you implying that if only I would say the approved things, you would actually go vegan?! Is vegan discourse a Shin Megami Tensei dialogue tree game, where making the arbitrarily chosen, pre-approved word choices is the key to success?
And I suppose all those people who were saying, “all lives matter”, were right when they said they ‘no longer’ support movements like BLM because a few riots happened?
Be real, you just want vegans to shut up and keep our heads down, so you don’t have to have your animal abuse challenged.
Anyway it’s not about what I think. The facts are that many things contribute to the rise of obesity and other western lifestyle diseases, including a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet (involving many factors), and possibly even things related to pollution. There is more than enough data to show, however, that the primary factor is animal consumption - including dairy. The Adventist health studies show this clearly, as well as many others.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/
https://www.pcrm.org/good-nutrition/nutrition-information/health-concerns-about-dairy
Does it cost fifty cents more per cup? Doubtful.
Are we talking a non-dairy whipped topping here?
Dairy is subsidized by the government. They absolutely do want to stick it to anyone who doesn’t support the system.
Maybe not to the lactose intolerant, but the vegan people is generally more willing to spend more to avoid real milk and starbucks is certainly happy to squeeze every penny they can out of them.
On the other hand, if young Timmy goes into anaphylactic shock everybody would change their tunes faster than you can say “Anaphylaxis”
I’m severely lactose intolerant, so you know what I do? I DON’T FUCKING DRINK LATTES. A restaurant is under no obligation to give me a non-dairy substitute at no cost. If you want what a restaurant sells, buy it. If you don’t like what they sell or think it’s too expensive, fucking don’t and get on with your life.
According to the Americans with disabilities act, they apparently are under obligation to do it.
They’re under obligation to make a reasonable accommodation. They accomplish this in 2 ways. You can either order it without milk, or you can pay extra for a milk substitute.
Restaurants aren’t required to provide gluten-free pasta, fake seafood, or artificial peanut products just because some people can’t eat everything on the menu.
The ADA has very specific language about not charging extra for reasonable accommodations, and dietary restrictions are mentioned.
Restaurants are not required to stock ingredients for all allergies, and they are not required to order in special ingredients on request. But starbucks does stock non-dairy milks. Using the non-dairy milk that they already stock is a reasonable accommodation.
The case is based on a good faith reading of title III of the ADA. It’s not unreasonable to argue that charging extra is illegal in this case.
If I can’t eat beef (that’s a real allergy) is a restaurant obligated to substitute lobster if they happen to serve it? The fact is, oat milk isn’t milk. Milk treated with lactase is milk.
Do you have a source? My understanding was that they were under obligation to not charge for the accommodations, hence the lawsuit.
Their accommodation is having product without milk at all. Requiring them to provide an alternative ingredient isn’t a reasonable accommodation when they have plenty of existing products without dairy. The customer can order one of those items.
Having a milk substitute that costs more for the establishment is going beyond what is required under the ADA, so up-charging for it is fine.
Do you have a source for that? From what I’ve found, food allergies are generally not considered a disability and therefore no accomodation is obligatory.
The ADA is a complex law, like all laws. Food allergies are mentioned by the ADA.
Although food allergies don’t require proactive accommodation, disabled people are entitled to equal access despite their disability.
If a restaurant offers no substitutions that’s fine. But if a restaurant offers substitutions but refuses it for those with allergies, that’s not fine.
If a restaurant doesn’t stock non-allergic ingredients it doesn’t have to. But if the restaurant will stock special ingredients upon request, they must do the same for disabled customers.
In this case, starbucks DOES stock and offer non-dairy milks. Using a different milk is probably a reasonable accommodation. The ADA has rules against charging extra for reasonable accomodations.
The conclusion that starbucks charging extra is a violation of the ADA is not an unreasonable one.
It is not a violation to charge extra for an accomodation if everyone has to pay the same for that accomodation. See the link I posted previously; it mentions this explicitly. Their case is charging more for plus sized clothing. The price for that size of item is the same regardless if the person is obese or normal, so it’s not discrimination. It only becomes discrimination when you charge a person more because they’re lactose intolerant and give lactose tolerant people soy milk for no cost.
God bless America, sometimes
I had to scroll down a lot to find a sensible comment. Apparently having milk in your coffee is a constitutional right…
Lol your wrong about restaurants having no obligation to provide a substitute.
deleted by creator
That’s such a sad point of view about what you think you deserve. You should treat yourself better.
Lol wut. Why is a restaurant obligated to give you special treatment or free things? If you are allergic to peanuts are they obligated to fry their fries in a separate oil just for you??
Allergens actually do have some regulations, but I’m not sure how they work.
In certain circumstances, companies are obligated to prepare food on separate surfaces or in separate oil to avoid cross contamination in case of allergies. That’s what we get for caring about our countrymen and wanting them to be able to eat at restaurants.
Spoken like a restaurant owner!
Apparently, according to you; being considerate to a section of society is trumped by maybe $1 of extra cost per item to accommodate them? What kind of a selfish ass cheapskate restaurant owner are you?
Damn, sucks to be you.
Stand up for yourself instead of putting a shitty corporation above yourself.
Wont someone think of poor multinational corporation starbucks?
I accuse them of over-roasting their coffee beans.
Going by some arguments in this thread, to ask a restaurant to be considerate for a section of the population is considered entitled but being a cheapskate and selfish money guzzler is a god given right and should be something to be proud of. Like, it doesn’t even cost the restaurant $1-$2 extra per serving. Of course, when it comes to money… fuck being considerate right?
I don’t know what the profit margins of Starbucks are, but in many cases they’re much tighter than people realize. The sale price has to cover materials, wages, insurance, property costs, and lots of other things. $1 a serving would be a pretty huge percent increase.
You could make the same argument about anything. I want the higher end iPhone and they should give it to me for the same price as the lower end to be considerate. If they don’t they’re greedy. I want leather seats in my car for the same price as cloth. And there are loads of restaurants that charge extra for substitutions if the substitute costs more (e.g., “premium sides”).
I despise Starbucks, but I’m not sure this lawsuit makes any sense. Those non-cow milks costs them more. Of course, the law often doesn’t make sense, anyway.
As another commenter said, they could just overcharge for cow milk and make the prices all the same. Then nobody is happy, but it meets the legal requirement (as I understand it).
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Those non-cow milks costs them more.
so? it’s starbucks. they’ll be fine.
Great logic, but that means every coffee shop everywhere would have to cover the additional costs of being “compliant”.
Good margins is why they’re fine.
Im sorry but as someone who works in the field of disability this makes me irate. We have whole states who are not in compliance with the ADA when it comes to employment and even accessible enternces to state and federal buildings and yet the federal government is powerless to stop them, but we can use the ADA to sue coffee shops? Sure it’s a good thing I guess but the larger and more important provisions of that legislation continue to be overlooked and unimplemented despite lawsuits filed against states only seeking conscent decrees, but we can make a big scene of suing for non diary creamers.
You can sue anyone for any reason. It doesn’t mean it holds water and this one certainly doesnt. For the ada it has to be a significant effect on your daily life, food allergies aren’t going to be part of that and a business has the right to charge more for what costs them more which would be a reasonable accommodation anyway.
Yes and advocacy groups have sued the states that are not in compliance on larger points of the ADA, like labor conditions. Guess how much media attention those suits get?
None, those are logical so they don’t grab attention the same way as the ravings of a lunatic.
well because those threaten the status quo at large. If companies had to start hireing with provisions of the ADA then they would lose less profit so they hush those up. but this one, this povides the illusion that the ADA is for the most part being followed and its just a few minor odds and ends $1.50 here and their that are out of wack…
Went to the local courthouse the other day, it is cube-esk at the base and has 4 entrances one on each side. 3 they keep locked. The handycap accessible ramp is one of those that is locked. I couldn’t understand it, what is the point of installing the ramps if you are still going to block it off to funnel people through another door nearest the metal detectors.
Also it seems like every company has forgotten about accessible web design. Wouldn’t even surprise me if some government websites were inaccessible too.
What about the extra charge for gluten free buns? Or vegan chese? Or impossible burgers? If I can’t ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price? If I’m very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
I have Celiac Disease and let me tell you, I would love to see gluten free items cost the same as regular foods. The only thing you apparently can do is to include an itemized list of GF items you’ve bought over the year and include it in your tax return. However, the amount of bureaucracy is probably a great deterrent for people like me to not do this and just eat the extra cost.
If I can’t ride my bike up big hills can i get an e-bike for the same price?
If you have a disability you can get a mobility scooter
If I’m very tall can i get an airplane seat upgrade for free?
Neither the very tall (nor the obese for that matter) are part of a protected class, and their relative sizes are not considered disabilities. However those physical conditions can lead to disabilities (heart and joint issues for example) which then lead to reasonable accommodation.
Your straw men are cute, but this isn’t Kansas, we don’t need them here
Can you explain why the examples they gave are different than the case at hand? I think they have a point but I’m interested in hearing the opposing viewpoint (yours) before I form an opinion on the situation.
TBH, not much, except that in the case of dairy and gluten intolerance there’s a case to be made for reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The rest of his comments were increasingly silly
Also there’s many things wrong with American disability law, social safety nets, and the complete dysfunction of what passes for “healthcare”. Splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability is emblematic of these failings.
I was just 90 percent goofing and ‘what abouting.’ It’s only an issue because we have milk alternatives. Dairy bothers me but i don’t care for the alt milks so i mostly order tea. If i really want a coffee i get a small splash of milk and deal with the consequences. Also, there’s a whole thing with whether it’s milk sugar or milk fat or A1/A2 that bothers people - so sometimes skim milk or A2 milk is less upsetting and no more expensive.
Lol okay sorry if i came on too strong
Hmm with all due respect I’m leaning towards not liking this lawsuit. Similar to splitting hairs on what constitutes a disability, I think calling an allergy a disability cheapens the system.
I think what would be “most fair” in this scenario would be for healthcare to cover lactaid like it does with epipens, etc.
For the record, I am pro-ADA and pro-nationalised healthcare. I just feel like this lawsuit is frivilous
Appreciate the Kansas side burn
I’m sorry but lactose intolerance is not a disability.
- it is, it is similar to an alergy and 2) legaly it is considered a disability under the ADA if someone or a group of people would consider it as one… have you been to wisconsin
As someone who can’t eat gluten, I’d love this.
I get bread equivalents made with tapioca and rice yet somehow that shit is charged at a premium
at firehouse subs a gluten free roll costs +$1.50, they don’t even prepare it separately from normal bread and use all the same tools for it (except for not cutting it) so it’s not actually properly gluten-free, it’s almost certainly contaminated with gluten.
jersey mikes also charges +$1.50 (medium) to +$3.00 (large) to get gluten-free bread, but at least they have to go through a whole ritual to prepare it where they use COMPLETELY different tools and gloves and stuff, and it is generally actually non-contaminated unless, you specify that it’s not for allergies.
source: i worked at both firehouse subs and jersey mikes before, i fucking hated when people ordered gluten-free at jersey mikes but i always did it as required obviously. i didn’t actually ever charge extra to people who were getting gluten free because i didn’t know that was an option on the cash register at first lol, but even after i learned i just forgot / didn’t care enough to do it. some people were really grateful and thanked me after seeing me go through an entire process to make sure the gluten-free sub had no gluten on it
Dude, I hear you. Trust me, I HATE being the sensitive tummy guy, but I hate alternating fits of constipation and turd monsoons for 72 hours even more.
I always try to say mine is a sensitivity as opposed to an actual allergy and just to make a good faith effort. FWIW my friends who are full blown celiac just don’t eat out unless it’s a dedicated GF facility.
My feelings on gf being trendy are mixed: in some cases some karens downplay the seriousness but at the same time, having more awareness leads to more options… like Jersey Mike’s having gf bread. I had no idea before this
I don’t think that this will mean that all non-dairy creamers would have to be given for free.
It would only mean that one non-dairy creamer would be. Oat, almond, soy milk are probably the more expensive types of non-dairy creamers.
They already offer a dairy free option: black coffee. I’m not sure that would solve the problem.
Brewed coffee and espresso are not the same beverage and cannot be substituted for one another.
Most of Starbucks drinks are primarily milk with 2-3 espresso shots. By weight, they sell milk with coffee flavor.
I used to drink brewed coffee, now I effectively drink Americanos (at home I use a areopress). And anyone who stays at my place, that’s what they’re getting, and I’ve never had a complaint. In fact it’s usually compliments. So I’m not sure I agree.
However, I think I wasn’t clear about my point. I’m just saying they already provide a non dairy alternative so providing a single one for free either doesn’t meet the desires of this lawsuit, or the lawsuit will fail because it already exists.
I absolutely agree that Starbucks is mostly milk. So maybe you’re right and that will make the difference.
ITT: A lot of people wanting to argue the headline and not the articles or legislation.
The plaintiffs said they would order drinks that included milk and would substitute the milk for non-dairy alternatives, such as soy, oat, coconut, or almond milk, and were charged an extra $0.50 to $0.80 for the substitution.
The lawsuit notes that Starbucks typically uses 2% milk for their milk-based products and would substitute that milk for another type of milk, such as 1% or skim, for no additional cost. Starbucks will also offer caffeine-less or sugar-free options for no additional cost.
Customers who are lactose-intolerant or have milk allergies may pay up to $2 extra at Dunkin’ Donuts when substituting oat or almond milk for dairy in their beverages. (from the link in the article)
The lawsuit against Dunkin’ points out that the chain already modifies its regular beverage offerings to remove caffeine and sugar at no additional cost for those with diabetes, weight-control issues or hypertension. The coffee company also asks customers about their allergies, informing them that their products may contain allergens. “Once Dunkin’ asks about allergies, and someone with a disability requests a dairy-free product as an accommodation, they can’t impose a surcharge — as they don’t for caffeine-free drinks, etc.,” Kanter said.
Kanter, the founding director of Syracuse University’s disability law and policy program, believes the lawsuit makes a strong case for discrimination under the ADA. “If a person qualifies as a person with a disability, and they’re entitled to an accommodation or modification — which in this case looks pretty simple as nondairy milk — they cannot be charged extra,” said Kanter.
The legislation is simple, and being tested currently in the courts with how it effects business practices. It’s also telling how privileged most of you are on here, you imagine yourself as the “owner” who is shocked and dumbfounded by this turn of events. Anyone who has actually worked in the restaurant or service industry knows this is company bullshit.
The Alternative-Milk items are mere percentages of percentages. All Food Costs and future sale projections are calculated for proper ordering. They already have the items on hand…there would be no restructuring or change in conducting business under a judgement on this case. The use of other free alternatives (sugar-free,etc) for disabilities being used as advertising is a damning indication everyone skips over. Caffeine-free doesn’t cost more to have or stock? Any of the Splenda/etc is corporeal and drops out of the Ether for everyone?
Again, the numbers are so low for alternative-milk your brain would skip a beat if you look at their figures.
Starbucks pays to produce one cup of regular coffee. Amateur speculative estimates range from $0.20 to $0.75… Starbucks has recently been repurchasing its own shares and paying dividends to increase returns to investors…The costs of goods sold, depreciation and amortization expenses, and store operating expenses have declined over the last six years, with only general and administrative expenses rising. (link)
Starbucks isn’t saying shit, they know the reality of how bad it actually looks. There is no “Woe is me” in any of their financial reportings so they just have to bite the bullet.
Starbucks also expects to continue robust store development in China, with net unit growth of approximately 13% annually. Globally, Starbucks expects to approach 45,000 stores by the end of 2025… Starbucks now expects global revenue growth in the range of 10% to 12% annually from fiscal 2023… growth is expected to be in the range of 15% to 20% annually through fiscal 2025. Starbucks plans to resume its share buyback program reinstituting a healthy return of shareholder capital, yielding an annual EPS benefit of approximately 1%, net of incremental interest, beginning in fiscal year 2024. Between dividends and share buybacks, the company expects to return approximately $20 billion to its shareholders in the next three years. (link)
They’re playing ball in China, we’ve all seen enough examples of companies having to bend the knee or getting out. I don’t get why everyone is not happy about these events. Want a “free” market where large corporation monopolies exist? Sure, but you gotta at least allow some crumbs to fall for the peasants lest they get hangy again. Want freedom and inclusion for all groups of people to experience life? Starbucks is an American institution now by cultural standards, you can’t academically refute that looking at any media or even economical standpoints. It’s on every corner, reasonable accommodations should be made and enforced for the general public. This isn’t a Ma and Pa coffee shop, this is why lower court judges exist and can weigh in on individual cases where they can seriously consider the context of the business standards.
obligatory:
The ADA is designed to give disabled people equal treatment and access, even if that equal access comes at unequal cost.
Non-dairy milk costs more. But so does weelchair accessable seating, and most other accommodations. But those accommodations cannot cost extra by the ADA.
As with every law, the ADA is long and has many exceptions and qualifications. But, Starbucks’s milks doesn’t seem to be an exception from my cursory reading of title III. This case has a case.
So in essence, they aren’t be allowed to charge extra if the customer is intolerant? Isn’t there basic milk w/o lactose for that though? Or just serve it without milk?
Not trying to make a case here, just asking:
By that rationale, could Starbucks have a policy in place where if you request a more expensive non-dairy option, you get an upcharge unless you give proof of a medical condition?
Basically saying, “Look, we’re happy to accommodate specific dietary restrictions at no additional cost for those with medical needs. We’re also happy to provide these options to all other customers at an upcharge reflecting the increased cost of these ingredients to us.”
I did look specifically for that, but I couldn’t find any language in title III of the ADA about whether disabled people can or can’t be required to prove or claim to be disabled.
I read the some of the text of the ADA. That’s the extent of my research. If you’re interested look into the statutes and case law and report back.
Could someone with lactose intolerance not merely omit the milk?
That would be an actual reasonable accommodation in this case.
