Fallout from Steam Pipe Explosion Hits Starbucks

Starbuck's is doing the right thing. They are a business, whose goal is to make money by providing a product to the public. They are not a social service agency, nor are they the Red Cross whose mission is to provide relief to individuals in the event of a disaster. Likewise, the Red Cross is not in the business of selling coffee, although I do appreciate the free coffee and drinks when I donate blood.

As mentioned previously, why would they want to risk a potential lawsuit from someone seeking shelter in one of their stores? For instance, if Starbuck's provided free coffee to the public during a disaster, and an individual accidentally spills coffee on their exposed skin, well - we know what the result of this situation is. Who took over Johnny Cochrane's job now that he's no longer with us?

Fuck you # 25!

I used to be a general manager for Starbucks and there is no policy to "lockdown in a crisis" That would have been the decision of a manager or supervisor...albeit a stupid one...I guess. Starbucks sucks anyways...I wouldn't have locked the door unless I had to flee myself. If my store were in lower manhattan during 9/11...I would have given the store away...Again Starbucks sucks. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Well, I have nothing much to say on this story . Poster #[9] pretty much summed it up for me ! Posted by; "Still Not Amused"

23, no good deed goes unpunished, huh? but thanks for parroting the party line yet again. the point is to acknowledge there are 2 sides to corporatization that you can't complain away from your armchair. did you bring food or water to anyone? thirsty people in new orleans certainly didn't feel like it was a 'tip' more than a lifesaver. if it weren't for home depot or lowes, how efficiently would the rebuilding process be running now? i personally never shop there because they destroyed my home town and it's my choice, but as a company, they are making progress through consulting with people like william mcdunnough and various enviro and social organizations you'd never associate with them. corporations respond to public pressure better than government these days. it's up to the public to apply that pressure.

Fuck Starbucks man. Assholes.

someone answer this question for me. you're in starbucks and they don't let you leave because it's their policy under the above mentioned circumstances. what do you do? i'd be like, move out of my way. i'd do anything i'd have to do to leave. how can a manager force someone to stay? did the people inside actually listen and stay?

It is great that Walmart brought water to New Orleans, but I would compare that move to leaving a tip for a waitress, but running out on the bill. Or the government offering tax rebates to people while cutting necessary social programs.

Walmart is not a great example to use in corporate culture helping poor people. They drive down wages, practice unfair overtime policies and hourly abuses, use taxpayer money from subsidies to grow even bigger, skirt the bill on paying for employees medical-advising them to seek government programs.

This well-oiled machine can get away with a lot if you just spend a little money on water and get the public to turn a blind eye away from your public abuses. Nice.

And in 2005 there was 26,699,678 SQUARE FEET of empty WAL-MARTS - maybe they could have offered some spaces for Flood victims to live in if they were so concerned.

There's a police station one block further at 1 Times Sq. I wouldn't depend on Starbucks when the authorities are that close by, but any port in a storm I guess.

ditto #18. 42nd & 6th is nowhere near Lexington & 41st.

However, there is a Starbuck on Park Ave. S. at 41 St. Did this Starbucks turn people away also? What was the big rush to get to 42nd & 6th? Is Starbucks supposed to be some kind of safe haven?

#19 is correct. This particular Starbucks outlet was so far from the blast area that they could not possibly have done anything for/against the victims or rescue workers.

But all the more surprising that, 6 blocks away, where nothing of alarm was even remotely visible, they decided they needed to lock down. Obviously the manager was a drooling idiot.

42nd and 6th (just down from my office) was nowhere near any of the debris from the steampipe incident. So I really don't see how any of this is relevant to whether Starbucks employees would provide shelter if it were actually needed. This woman would literally have been just as safe sunbathing on the grass in Bryant Park across the street. Now locking people in...that's a different story, and not one I'm sure a lawyer for Starbucks would like.

I think in times of serious crisis, humanity and empathy should always come before corporate policies. However, our country runs on corporate policy, so....

that evil, inhumane, corporate demon, wal-mart was also one of the only organizations who actually delivered fresh water to people stranded in new orleans after katrina. sometimes a well-oiled infrastructure comes in handy for us humans. bash on, idealogues.

i really hate starbucks. they opened one up in greenpoint and i see all of these morons going into starbucks for coffee and crap instead of the local businesses in the 'hood. people are so damn compliant and stupid. this particular starbucks is in a building that used to be a movie theater many years ago so there is still a marquee in front of the structure. anyway, this marquee is now lit up 24 HOURS A DAY with starbucks signs all around it and bright lightbulbs lining the sides of the sign. it is so in your face and so tacky and tasteless yet the dumbass residents of greenpoint still give 'em business.

I'm sure their crafty lawyers have figured it out, but wouldn't they also be vulnerable to lawsuits if they locked people out or in during a disaster? I don't think there's any duty to play the good samaritan, but I wonder if there are exceptions.

Regardless, it is inhumane and a sad commentary on corporate culture and the obsessive compulsion to limit risk imposed by a ridiculous legal regime and those... crafty lawyers.

Maybe a steam-pipe will blow out in corporate headquarters and all those pinheads will be locked inside and be turned into a frothy latte.

FWIW, 7-11 and Wal-Mart have similar policies.

Anyone who wouldnt let me out of a store in a disaster- Better hope its a summertime Iced Frapichino in my hands that will be in there face, Not the wintertime piping hot Mocha Late. Dont let anyone steal our beans!

I agree with #2. They are responsible for the people in their stores and would no doubt be sued if someone got hurt on their property.

Don't blame them, blame mercenary lawyers and their bloodsucking clients who will go after anyone with deep pockets on any excuse whether it is legitimate or not.

*Starbucks...have responded by locking down and securing our store locations to ensure people do not enter or exit the building.*

So when there's a disaster you're not allowed to leave a building especially a Starbucks? this policy is probably the stupidest example of bullshit i have ever read, today.

If i ever was in a Starbucks and there was an emergeny where i I had to leave, I would badly injure anyone who would not let me out of the building or store. Reemeber the announcemnts in the WTC when the first plane hit, "no need for alarm... please remain in the building..." HA!

I don't think this is really about Starbucks, but more about big corporations, which Starbucks fits into. Most corporations, especially those with negative press or controversy will have plans in place to protect their assets. A small business on the other hand doesn't get the "what to do in an emergency" memo. So the people that work there don't automatically move into the "go by the book" mode. They simply act like most human beings would; with compassion and understanding. The corporate employee would act the same way if they were instructed to do so in their employee manual, but big corporations don't think like that. Assets always overrule human decency. Just read the book, Fast Food Nation to find out.

Some of you guys are pitiful. Don't like Starbucks for whatever lame reason? Don't go. But to use this incident as another platform to spew your anti-business rhetoric is sanctimonious. Let's call a spade a spade for once, shall me? Or are you content on lambasting a company while you wear clothing made by a tapeworm-infested kid in India? The hypocrisy just oozes from my keyboard!

Second living rooms are only for pleasant, good times and not to be used during an emergency. Use your second basement or second bedroom closet for those.

"So they're just going to stare through their little glass doors as the living dead devour my flesh? What if I promise to buy a Paul McCartney CD?"

I don't see much difference in the outcome here.

People who go to Starbucks will keep going no matter what. They could kill babies, and it wouldn't bother most people.

So they're just going to stare through their little glass doors as the living dead devour my flesh? What if I promise to buy a Paul McCartney CD?

What if I promise to buy three Paul McCartney CDs?

although i wouldn't spend a dime in there anyway, since i don't drink coffee - anyone who does and has patronized them should never, ever enter another one again. they did deny people WATER on 9/11. run them out of town hipsters, make yourself useful. sorry i know that's impossible, just wanted a chuckle...

I'd respond with a brick through the window...

it's a good policy - covers their asses from any potential lawsuits

"WABC spoke to some other franchised businesses in the area and were told that each store sets its own policy."

Only problem is Starbucks aren't franchised, excluding the ones in B&N and such, they are corporate owned.