The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

RBid · August 24, 2013, 07:06 PM

I was a Store Manager with them for six and a half years. I left in Feb, 2012. Most of my Facebook friends and cell contacts are past or present Starbucks family, so you could say I'm still pretty in touch.

As a company, the position has been to stay neutral on many things, and to defer to local law. Internally, it was obvious that there were many things unsaid. For example, we never did a corporate-driven program to support our troops. Internally, it was made very clear that we were welcome to do so. This is noteworthy, because the company can be very particular about every little detail inside the stores. By allowing us to deviate from the script, it was an unstated blessing, and many stores acted on it.

I suspect (strongly) that the choice to defer on the carry issue is a convenient way to support it.

August 24, 2013, 07:06 PM	#8
RBid Senior Member Join Date: March 10, 2012 Posts: 1,059	Starbucks protest I was a Store Manager with them for six and a half years. I left in Feb, 2012. Most of my Facebook friends and cell contacts are past or present Starbucks family, so you could say I'm still pretty in touch. As a company, the position has been to stay neutral on many things, and to defer to local law. Internally, it was obvious that there were many things unsaid. For example, we never did a corporate-driven program to support our troops. Internally, it was made very clear that we were welcome to do so. This is noteworthy, because the company can be very particular about every little detail inside the stores. By allowing us to deviate from the script, it was an unstated blessing, and many stores acted on it. I suspect (strongly) that the choice to defer on the carry issue is a convenient way to support it.