578
Starbucks accused of violating Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra for non-dairy (www.kiro7.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
246 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

cf supra—

exhibit a:

"So while I was exaggerating for effect in my original post"

exhibit b:

"extreme worst case scenario"

exhibit c:

"almost a dollar"

waaaay ahead of the gotchas and objections my dude.

Additional space isn't an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for "reaching for a carton slightly further away"? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds

oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months) than cow milk (5 days) and when opened too (10 days vs 2)

The price doesn't have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not. To me it's obvious they are making more of a margin on oat over dairy, whether or not that is good/bad, reasonable/unreasonable, fair/unfair is an entirely different conversation

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Additional space isn't an overhead rolling operating cost, and per unit is probably infestisimal. Additional man hours is a weird objection, do starbucks even track for "reaching for a carton slightly further away"? I imagine the time savings for moving a carton 4" closer are measured in the thousandths of seconds

    Either they added a new refrigerator or made room in an existing refrigerator. To make room something needs to be removed, less room for regular milk means more trips to a walk-in to restock. More SKUs means more time on ordering and inventory. If they added a refrigerator then there's added electricity costs.

    oat milk has a longer shelf life (6 months)

    I meant once opened, which is more like a week. Which means they likely all need day dots put on them. More man hours (or minutes, or seconds)

    The price doesn't have to strike you as reasonable or not because we are discussing whether we think starbucks are making a profit on oat milk or not.

    They're a business, I assume they make a profit on everything. Oat milk lattes would seem to be a strange loss leader.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    again I already addressed those objections in my post before you commented. Shelf space is cheap, refrigeration already exists and is not an added cost, expanded refrigeration is a single point cost that is quickly paid back by sales, I dont think adding day dots is putting starbucks out of business.

    they already have separate supply chains for paper cups, crockery, beans, syrups and milks — I know this because I worked on a project that used their paper cup supply chain a few years ago. Plus they already have an oatmilk supplier so they're not even adding an additional sku.

    I assume they make a profit on everything

    yes, the point of this thread is "should companies by allowed to significantly profit more on allowances made for not being ablebodied" && "is charging more for dairy intolerance the same as charging more for using a wheelchair ramp or a braille menu"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Hand waiving something away isn't addressing it, but fair enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    it's not Hand waving - an extra fridge is just cost of doing business.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    it's not Hand waving - an extra fridge is just cost of doing business.

    Everything is a cost of doing business: payroll, electricity, inventory, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    yes, and what I was inferring is refrigeration is understood to be a necessary part of food service, so you can't really say "food companies shouldn't be regulated by preventing them charging extra for disabled patrons because they have to refrigerate the food!"

    I can't fathom why you're constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I can't fathom why you're constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

    Providing additional options, especially options that require refrigeration, have additional costs associated with them. My central thesis has always been that a business should be able to recoup its cost and make a profit, that is the purpose of a business. The "minutiae of drink service operation" is central to that discussion.

    It's clear that this conversation is going in circles and serves no purpose. I find it quite reasonable for a company to charge $0.70 when their costs increase by $0.25 cents, and you don't. The ADA requires only a reasonable accommodation, there are several reasonable accommodations available in the form of non-dairy beverages. It isn't even clear that lactose intolerance would be considered a disability under the ADA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    literally Para 4 in the article

    The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Ohhh...the Plaintiffs said it in their complaint! Well then it must be true! It would be impossible to list unsubstantiated claims in a complaint.

    The ADA statute does not make specific reference to lactose intolerance. A court would have to determine that lactose intolerance is a disability under the statute, and I don't think it's clear on its face that it is.

    The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities; has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent