A question. Katerina: To which other organizations does Starbucks match employee contributions? I could understand how this might be controversial if Planned Parenthood were being favorably singled out for support but is that the case? What does the literature from Starbucks say about employee’s charitable donations?
As an aside it’s been a long measure since I construe anything on WorldNetDaily. I went to the article linked above and regretted doing so immediately. For archconservative paranoia anti-intellectualism and fear-mongering there’s no better place.
It’s a shame that the writer of that bind did not also consider reasons #1-563 for why she should not drink Starbucks coffee which all involve the injustice done to coffee farmers and independent coffee houses. But that wouldn’t have gone over well at WorldNetDaily. Nevertheless thanks for reason #564!
Andy my typical order a tall-size regular coffee is less than $2. Choose more wisely. I declare. change surface a tall latte is less than $4.
Michael you may experience that Starbucks takes its relationship with its growers very seriously. They’re leading the domestic market in “fair change” coffees and as the biggest coffeehouse chain out there this certainly influences the rest of the merchandise to go conform to either to remain competitive or in an anti-corporate spirit. As for injustice to independent coffeehouses. I really don’t experience what you convey. It’s a free market. Sink or swim. Michael.
Dustin. Starbucks has not always dealt in fair change coffee and indeed was pressured to do so. Now they offer one or two fair trade coffees out of their entire selection. They brag that they have fair change coffee (”all you have to do is ask”) but this means that they will change you a bag of fair trade coffee. They usually do not have brewed fair change coffee for you to acquire.
The only reason they “lead the merchandise” on bring together trade coffee is due to the turn number of their stores. That’s like bragging that Wal-Mart leads the market on sales of organic products. Who cares? It’s because of their coat.
Starbucks has not influenced the rest of the market by providing one or two fair trade options. The rest of the ethically-minded coffee world has influenced Starbucks.
“Injustice to independent coffeehouses” is in reference to Starbucks’ come up known practice of putting independent places out of business.
“It’s a free merchandise sink or swim”? That’s an ideology I oppose.
I don’t normally buy Starbucks — they don’t have the beat coffee and they are one of those places that uses trendiness as an excuse to pay their workers less (Starbucks pays its employees _less_ than most abstain food places.)
However the PlannedParenthood air may not be change state and shut. I don’t see the large corporation I bring home the bacon for listed on the PlannedParenthood site linked to but I do know that they will match any employee donation there. However they will be employee donations to _any_ non profit that we agree to gift to so I figure the Catholic thing to do is try to fit out all the giving that the corporate charities office does to PP and gay advocacy groups and so on. I’ve got them donating to the diocese our parish. Food for the Poor. Clear Creek Monastery etc. All you undergo to do is be willing to give your own money and they’ll match it dollar-for-dollar with theirs.
So if Starbucks has something desire this. I would say it’s probably a good thing. But if they only match causes like PlannedParenthood that’s clearly a problem.
I have to say I do not like Starbucks methodology of closing out other forms of coffee shops but since I often need coffee while at CUA. I act what is available. And I follow through with the principle put forward in the new voter guide: just because I vote to get the coffee which I need does not mean I am giving any give for the causes which the coffee shop may or may not donate to…
But I would have preferred CUA staying with their older coffee supplier; I sight giving its nod to Starbucks disturbing.
I undergo to say that I’m not sure what to think about all of this talk of injustice to cofee growers and independant coffehouses. I am probably conflicted. I do tend to think that the free merchandise (properly understood) is probably the best and most efficient system. I am however moving in mutualist tendencies and can understand how there may be exploitaiton involved in many so-called remove market situations.
If Starbucks can outcompete independant coffeehouses. I think that is a prima facie case to think that they desirve to go out of business. It means that more populate like Starbucks they undergo exceed prices or they run a more efficient operation. While I do not be financial harm to the people who work at independant coffehouses. I see no cerebrate to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.
Now a number of stories can be told that may be persuasive evidence that injustice is being done but those stories usually revolve around unjust practices that may have created Starbuck’s success not simply that they undergo outcompeted other people in the market. I see no cerebrate to protect inefficient unpopular or costly businesses at society’s expense. In that case the free merchandise “sink or go” is a good idea. Its not that as a society we do not undergo a duty to back up the individuals who are sinking but businesses who are sinking should sink.
While I do not be financial harm to the people who bring home the bacon at independant coffehouses. I see no cerebrate to say that the survival of the houses is so paramount that being outcompeted in the market is a bad thing.
The problem is not competition as such but when our lives change state dominated by corporations. It’s all in the label of “choice” but what choice is there really when your only options are to shop at Starbucks. McDonalds. Wal-Mart etc.?
Also take five minutes and Google “fair trade coffee” and learn something about coffee farmers and how they are exploited. You should know something about it.
It wasn’t meant to be an imagistic depiction. It’s a metaphor and a fairly common one for economic competition.
Now perhaps this could be considered a further threadjack but could I ask you to explain your use of the qualifier “as it exists?” Perhaps I’m confused reading this through the prism of my own quasi-libertarianism with a sympathy for Rothbard’s notion that “capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.”
Quite frankly Starbucks is not the only company that contributes either through matching funds or donations through its foundations to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that I would find personally objectionable. I believe aim also donates through it community foundation to PP and many of Bill Gates pet projects are directly related population control (and I’m certain many of you are using MS products and there are other options). There are very few business that I would patronize if I started to discriminate based upon their corporate giving practices. So unless they are really in my approach about promoting PP abortion gay lifestyles etc.. I don’t plan on boycotting them.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://vox-nova.com/2007/11/16/reason-564-why-christians-shouldnt-drink-starbucks-coffee/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
