What made you go WTF today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

"Dataplan" - what do you mean?

Only normal usage of term data that I can think of with phones is generally internet data but I don't know if that's what you mean since what's that got to do with texts? Anyway, yes I do but you can get the phone "sim-free" here unlocked to work on any pay as you go network.

---

Data and texting plans have been closely tied together for a very long time. You could email my phone, or IM it via AOL, MSN, Yahoo or ICQ, and they all come across as text messages for me. Phones that require extra data plans (paying for a service on top on the default service) usually come with extra features that are absorbed by the data plan, even if the end user sees it as SMS or MMS.

Aside from that, looking into this, not all US carriers act the same, the PAYG government funded phone that Brent has through Safelink does not deduct airtime credit until the message is opened. Tmobile, if I remember correctly used to be the same way (but I've had unlimited texting for years now), but AT&T being the most awesome company out there charges for read/unread, solicited/unsolicited messages.

Over here, most providers have a huge gap in the abilities of PAYG or prepaid phones compared to contract phones.

Wait, why does an underage kid have a government provided cell phone? :bulb:

The whole text thing pisses me off. It is ridiculous to get charged for an incoming text. I even remember getting charged for the ridiculous texts that the phone company itself would send in (advertisements etc). Luckily now it seems that nefarious practice has gone by the wayside.

I still don't have a text plan, mostly because hubby has the iPhone and since we are together most of the time people just text him. I have no real need for it at the moment.

Its for Brandy, but I cover her with my own plan. So Brent uses Brandy's government phone. He gets something like 65-70 minutes a month, but he only uses it when we go out somewhere, so he has a rollover balance of over a thousand minutes now. He does use it to text a bit between Brandy and I, think its .3 units of time for each message sent and read.

Wait, what? There are government phones for kids? WTF

Sounds like an abuse to be charging the taxpayer for a kids mobile :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Java junkies and people who like to eat at java spots take note: Apparently there is a right way and a wrong way to place your order at Starbucks Coffee.

A college English professor from Manhattan tells the New York Post that she was booted out of a Starbucks on the city's Upper West Side for incorrectly placing an order.

Lynne Rosenthal says three police officers forcibly ejected her from the coffee bar at 86th Street and Columbus Avenue after she got into a dispute with a counterperson.

Rosenthal says she ordered a multigrain bagel but became enraged when the counterperson responded, "Do you want butter or cheese?"

"I just wanted a multigrain bagel," Rosenthal told the Post. "I refused to say, 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King, you don't have to list the six things you don't want. Linguistically, it's stupid."

Rosenthal said this is not the first time she's bucked the Starbucks system. In the past, she's pointedly ignored the restaurant's coffee sizing system that includes "tall" or "venti" and instead placed orders for "small" or "large."

The bagel incident was the last straw for her.

"I yelled, 'I want my multigrain bagel!' " Rosenthal told the newspaper. "The barista said, 'You're not going to get anything unless you say butter or cheese!' "

A Starbucks employee who witnessed the bagel blow-up blamed Rosenthal.

"She would not answer," the employee told the Post. "It was a reasonable question."

---

The employee should be fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Data and texting plans have been closely tied together for a very long time. You could email my phone, or IM it via AOL, MSN, Yahoo or ICQ, and they all come across as text messages for me. Phones that require extra data plans (paying for a service on top on the default service) usually come with extra features that are absorbed by the data plan, even if the end user sees it as SMS or MMS.

Aside from that, looking into this, not all US carriers act the same, the PAYG government funded phone that Brent has through Safelink does not deduct airtime credit until the message is opened. Tmobile, if I remember correctly used to be the same way (but I've had unlimited texting for years now), but AT&T being the most awesome company out there charges for read/unread, solicited/unsolicited messages.

Over here, most providers have a huge gap in the abilities of PAYG or prepaid phones compared to contract phones.

---

Receiving SMS messages is completely free of charge here, even if you are abroad. Receiving calls is free too, but not abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

The employee should be fired.

---

Really? I was thinking the customer was being a drama jerk. What's the big deal about ordering a bagel PLAIN--hold the toppings, or saying no thanks to butter or cheese, when asked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Sounds like an abuse to be charging the taxpayer for a kids mobile :rolleyes:

---

:haha: I could just as easily give Brent one of my phones and let Brandy drain the government minutes dry. She qualifies either way, no restrictions on which member of the hosuehold uses the phone, only that its 1 phone per address.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

:haha: I could just as easily give Brent one of my phones and let Brandy drain the government minutes dry. She qualifies either way, no restrictions on which member of the hosuehold uses the phone, only that its 1 phone per address.

---

Uhm, not really. If there's a subsidy for single-head of household parents to have cell phones (which is news to me) then it's based on her being SINGLE. You're milking the system, abusing a loophole. Way to go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Really? I was thinking the customer was being a drama jerk. What's the big deal about ordering a bagel PLAIN--hold the toppings, or saying no thanks to butter or cheese, when asked?

---

If the employee hadn't been rude about it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

If the employee hadn't been rude about it...

---

Maybe. Not sure the link showed rudeness, though. I rarely go to Starbucks but when I do, they never give me flak for asking for a large coffee.

They do need to ask about bagels if it's not specified when they order---all bakeries do that---whole, sliced, toasted, plain, with or without toppings. Dunkin' Donuts and Big Apple Bagels do the same, to give customer what they want.

Why the hell should the employee be fired because some dumbass wanted to be a bitch about bagel? :bulb: Linguistically stupid my ass. English professors, looks like some of them never being English lit students. Le SIGH.

The employee shouldn't have lost their temper with a customer, no matter what. If you can't handle them yourself, you get the manager.

Not only should the employee have been fired, it should have been immediately and as publicly as she was trying to humiliate the customer.

If you can't be obsequious, you shouldn't be in the service industry. Hell, I'd expect better than that from a McDonald's employee.

I must have missed the part where the barista lost their temper, before being provoked by a customer with an agenda. :noob:

Yeah, like, let's not got overboard quite yet :bored: I'm sure there's SOME reason why the idiot lady was dragged out by the po-po. I think maybe we should all just not be assholes towards people in the service industry, it'd save everyone a lot of trouble.

Yesterday I saw that our Subways had been replaced by some other food thing, so I went in, asked what was up, had a nice chat and ordered a couple of espressos and the guy loaded us down with a lot of very very tasty 70% chocolate with a smile and a wink free of charge :) was damned good espresso, too and I saw that he didn't spit in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I must have missed the part where the barista lost their temper, before being provoked by a customer with an agenda. :noob:

---

Quote:

---

The bagel incident was the last straw for her.

"I yelled, 'I want my multigrain bagel!' " Rosenthal told the newspaper. "The barista said, 'You're not going to get anything unless you say butter or cheese!' "

---

Inexcusably rude. It wouldn't matter if the customer called her a bitch, she doesn't get to respond in kind. She shouldn't have to serve the customer, but she could have simply said let me get my manager for you.

What part of it doesn't matter what a customer says to a service employee, they need to be polite is it that you have a problem with?

Okay,

1. critical appraisal of sources eg. is this source an evil psycho English professor??

2. I'm pretty sure Starbucks, their managers, and their employees know what they can/can't/should/shouldn't do in various situations. Just because they work in the service industry doesn't mean that they're not people with brains and some level of autonomy :bulb: frankly this is between the employee and her manager, and I suppose also between the crazy lady and whoever will touch her business.

Ps. the manager called the cops :o

I'm not saying the woman shouldn't have been kicked out for being being disruptive - I just think the employee should be fired for responding rudely, Minxy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

Inexcusably rude. It wouldn't matter if the customer called her a bitch, she doesn't get to respond in kind. She shouldn't have to serve the customer, but she could have simply said let me get my manager for you.

What part of it doesn't matter what a customer says to a service employee, they need to be polite is it that you have a problem with?

---

The article didn't really prove that, though. Did it? Between the lines was a repeat customer, who was pissed for a while, yet kept coming back. Then she blew her top at the barista and created a scene. Sounds purposely confrontational.

And all I'm saying is that it should be between Starbucks and the employee, which it probably is :noob: I most certainly don't think that a chain like Starbucks should bow to the idiots of the world or propagate this ridiculous notion that workers in all service industries are supposed to be obsequious slaves banned from thinking or acting. Screw that, and screw this zero tolerance bullshit. It's like Lewk demanding people be shot for stealing toothpaste. Unreasonable--and disporportionate--punishment. A never-bought bagel doesn't buy that sort of kow-towing, per definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

The article didn't really prove that, though. Did it? Between the lines was a repeat customer, who was pissed for a while, yet kept coming back. Then she blew her top at the barista and created a scene. Sounds purposely confrontational.

---

Don't forget that she called the barrista an asshole and then was told to leave by the police who were called there by the manager. Not to mention she was talking out of her ass about language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

- I just think the employee should be fired for responding rudely, Minxy.

---

You can take the brat out of America, but :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Uhm, not really. If there's a subsidy for single-head of household parents to have cell phones (which is news to me) then it's based on her being SINGLE. You're milking the system, abusing a loophole. Way to go?

---

Safelink provides cellphones to income-eligible customers, its not restricted to parents or whatnot :bulb:
Brandy and I are single, not married, not even engaged; Florida dropped common-law pairings a long while ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

don't think that a chain like Starbucks should bow to the idiots of the world or propagate this ridiculous notion that workers in all service industries are supposed to be obsequious slaves banned from thinking or acting. Screw that, and screw this zero tolerance bullshit.

---

This a 1000 times over. People have serious entitlement issues when being waited on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Safelink provides cellphones to income-eligible customers, its not restricted to parents or whatnot :bulb:
Brandy and I are single, not married, not even engaged; Florida dropped common-law pairings a long while ago.

---

I'm not familiar with Safelink, but is it some gummint subsidized thingie? It sounded like you were basically bragging about a "free phone" for the boy. Would you still qualify if you'd applied as a dual-income couple, married or not?

I recall you saying one motivation for NOT marrying was that Brandy would lose some subsidies or tax breaks if you did.....correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

You can take the brat out of America, but :|

---

I fail to see why it is acceptable to be rude to someone who is being rude to you.

Are we now up to two wrongs make a right?

If you work for a company, you are representing them when dealing with the public. Apparently Starbucks thinks being rude is acceptable in employees, but not in customers. Good to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

I fail to see why it is acceptable to be rude to someone who is being rude to you.

Are we now up to two wrongs make a right?

If you work for a company, you are representing them when dealing with the public. Apparently Starbucks thinks being rude is acceptable in employees, but not in customers. Good to know.

---

You're a piss-poor leftist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

If you work for a company, you are representing them when dealing with the public. Apparently Starbucks thinks being rude is acceptable in employees, but not in customers. Good to know.

---

Starbucks has a thing for encouraging customers, in various ways, to order according to their little protocol. Moreover, the psycho-lady was probably not being particularly clear even when she started screaming about her bagel. She was probably being clear when she called the barrista an asshole, which is clearly beyond saying something like "I won't serve you if you're going to be like that" by at least an order of magnitude.

Requiring someone to be fired in this situation is crazy :bulb: sure, it might happen, but I think it would be wrong. That barrista has probably served thousands of people with no problems, and it'd be ridiculous of Starbucks to ignore that fact. The fault is with the customer in this case and the customer's punishment was appropriate--public humiliation and a firm nudge to get out and stay out.

Let's put it this way: if you want to calculate a fair and meaningful punishment for rudeness on the part of the employee, base it on whatever you deem to be a fair and meaningful punishment for the behaviour of the psycho-lady, whose major contribution to Starbucks seems to be the occasional unnecessarily difficult dollar for a cuppa coffee. Weigh all the relevant factors and figure out what a suitable punishment would be. Hint: it's not summary dismissal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

The employee should be fired.

---

For doing her job? She asked a question (That she's supposed to) and the customer responded by yelling at the poor employee just trying to do her job. A customer that has previously been a jerk deliberately. How in your eye was that the employees fault?

If I go to to Subway, I think they really over-do the lettuce on their subs so always emphasise that I "only want a light amount of lettuce" and typically have to say "no, less than that" 2 or three times as they slowly remove lettuce from the sub looking at me like I'm from out-of-space. I don't yell at them for putting too much on, if that's what it normally comes as so be it. Its not how I want it and I'm being fussy, so I patiently explain what I want until I get it. This woman wanted to differ from normal but chose to react by yelling at someone just doing their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

:haha: I could just as easily give Brent one of my phones and let Brandy drain the government minutes dry. She qualifies either way, no restrictions on which member of the hosuehold uses the phone, only that its 1 phone per address.

---

Or you could just as easily pay for your own damn phones, right?

Besides, not much written about the barista. Could have been a new-hire, or a flustered teen fresh off orientation. You don't just fire on the first subjective offense of "rudeness". The adage The customer is always right can be taken to extremes, with no good purpose or outcome, other than expecting service workers to be shat on and suck it up no matter what's thrown their way.

Furthermore the only alleged rudeness is being alleged by the person taken out of the store by the Police and even then only after the barista was yelled at by the member of the public, by her own admittance. From what I've read in that sentence I think the response was quite cool and calm.

I was once in a shop within a shopping centre (mall) and witnessed someone getting into an argument with the shopkeeper. Was abusing this shopkeeper who kept his calm and eventually said "haven't you heard that the customer is always right?" The shopkeeper responded by saying "well you're wrong so you can't be a customer then, so get out of my shop before I call security" :haha::up:

I've worked in the service industry myself and I can assure you that if a member of the public starts yelling and abusing a team member then the idea that the individual has to be treated like they're "right" goes out the window. In the service industry you put up with a lot of arseholes and a lot of shit, to reply with a bit of wit at someone yelling at you . . . well done to the barista. Deserves nothing more than a pat on the back and an apology from the "customer" :up:

The idea that someone should have been fired publicly for having been yelled at ... :bulb: - that would be rightly illegal here :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I've worked in the service industry myself and I can assure you that if a member of the public starts yelling and abusing a team member then the idea that the individual has to be treated like they're "right" goes out the window. In the service industry you put up with a lot of arseholes and a lot of shit, to reply with a bit of wit at someone yelling at you . . . well done to the barista. Deserves nothing more than a pat on the back and an apology from the "customer" :up:

---

Agreed. You can often tell the "customer" who's never worked in retail or services industries, from the ones who have, by how they treat service workers. It takes a lot of experience to handle the customer who comes in with a chip on their shoulder, and a trainer-manager to help them learn that.

Quote:

---

The idea that someone should have been fired publicly for having been yelled at ... :bulb: - that would be rightly illegal here :bulb:

---

Probably illegal in the US, too. Not sure :(

I think this is really more of case of it being NYC and a popular place though. There are 8 million other possible customers for them to serve who aren't going to care whether or not this Starbucks kicked out somebody for acting petty and belligerent towards the staff, this Starbucks establishment isn't going to care if it loses one awful customer.

The Barista shouldn't be fired regardless of what lolli is saying though. The thought that a person can only react positively to someone treating them negatively is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Or you could just as easily pay for your own damn phones, right?

---

Improper use of the plural form.
This address gets one government funded safelink wireless phone. I have a family plan of 5 phones that, thanks to my worthless sister, I pay for myself; but I do get 12% off because I work for the government.
Following the application guidelines, Brandy shouldn't be burdened with having to manage a phone payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I think this is really more of case of it being NYC and a popular place though. There are 8 million other possible customers for them to serve who aren't going to care whether or not this Starbucks kicked out somebody for acting petty and belligerent towards the staff, this Starbucks establishment isn't going to care if it loses one awful customer.

The Barista shouldn't be fired regardless of what lolli is saying though. The thought that a person can only react positively to someone treating them negatively is ridiculous.

---

If you can't be polite no matter what, you probably shouldn't be working in the service industry.

I actually have worked as a waitress, and there is no way in hell "talking back" to a customer like that would have ever been tolerated.

I have to say one thing though: over the course of a single week in London, our family encountered more rude and disinterested service workers than I have ever seen in my many years in Sweden :bulb: I mean, sure, we met some lovely people as well, but the sheer number of clods... it was baffling, tbh. We were being as courteous as we possibly could be, and we just couldn't figure out why so many people were either totally disinterested or down-right short-tempered and properly rude, to the point of making racist remarks.

It really tarnished my impression of London, even though I understand that that's not entirely fair. I was very relieved to come back to Sweden where people are polite and nice to one another :o

pff if you're boinking the manager then you're not one of the crew :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

If you can't be polite no matter what, you probably shouldn't be working in the service industry.

I actually have worked as a waitress, and there is no way in hell "talking back" to a customer like that would have ever been tolerated.

---

Things are different in NYC where you have 8 million other potential customers who aren't going to care unless you're a serial asshole. In fact, Seinfeld had an episode exactly about people in Manhattan continuing to show up to buy soup from someone who was a serial asshole. Guess what? He has an actual shop. His infamous rules are even up on the website.