• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    248 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      88 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
        link
        fedilink
        108 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.