does anyone notice

**disneysteve** · 12-03-2019, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Smallsteps View Post

It is interesting to me why there is not a threshold or review before items are listed on Amazon.

How do you suggest they do that exactly? There are about 600 million items for sale on Amazon in the US alone and 3 billion worldwide. Millions of new listings get added daily. I'm sure there are some filters in place to check for certain words or phrases but with that kind of volume, stuff is going to get through. The only way Amazon knows is if users report the rogue items, just as users report bad posts on Facebook or Twitter or anywhere else. I find it difficult to blame Amazon for something like this.

As for the Starbucks issue, that's a bit different because you're talking about actions of company employees, not outsiders. Starbucks does employ about 300,000 people so occasionally you're going to have someone do something they shouldn't. That happens in companies of all sizes. But it does seem to be more of a trend at Starbucks, or maybe we just hear about it more since it's such a high profile company. I don't know what the answer is for that. Clearly better screening and training of employees needs to be a part of it.

**bjl584** · 12-04-2019, 03:12 AM

Someone noticed, or the article that you linked wouldn't have been written, and Amazon wouldn't have taken the action that they did.
As Steve said, it's a massive corporation with tons of moving parts.
There is no one or no entity to screen and catch every single thing that happens on the front end.
Things fall through the cracks.

As for Starbucks, they are stuck hiring human beings to do low end work at low end pay.
The interviewing and vetting process is not going to be all that stringent.
Do you have a heartbeat? "yes"
Are you a convicted felon? "no"
Will you show up when scheduled? "yes"

Welcome aboard!!!

**Smallsteps** · 12-04-2019, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by bjl584 View Post

Someone noticed, or the article that you linked wouldn't have been written, and Amazon wouldn't have taken the action that they did.
As Steve said, it's a massive corporation with tons of moving parts.
There is no one or no entity to screen and catch every single thing that happens on the front end.
Things fall through the cracks.

As for Starbucks, they are stuck hiring human beings to do low end work at low end pay.
The interviewing and vetting process is not going to be all that stringent.
Do you have a heartbeat? "yes"
Are you a convicted felon? "no"
Will you show up when scheduled? "yes"

Welcome aboard!!!

The only Action amazon took was to release a set statement of "oh this does not meet our standards....". and goes on listing possible offending categories.

If impossible to monitor or enforce ....... WHY have this set statement EXCEPT to roll out for CYA When someone notices.

Playing CYA with some set corporate line and relying ( I guess) on the honor system that sellers will self monitor seems like a very wide crack for things to slip through.
In many companies of all sizes there are cracks or system failures then there are Items we hope no one notices, BUT if caught we can claim "we were too big to notice, or we will have a internal investigation to see HOW this happened" wink wink.

Just reached the news again with another large company ( Sprint) that has played the same " it is a flaw in our system" excuse for false #'s ( over 8000) of ghost customers in a program collecting money for a low income phone program from the taxpayers. This flaw has had been pointed out before (By a state government) but NOT fixed just tweaked a bit to look like they addressed it ( wink wink) since 2014. Now the enforcement agency simply has no idea IF they collected fines before or not. REALLY ?

The Starbucks item is not just because low end pay but rather refusal to actually deal with items.

Picture this a customer comes in and orders something.......... a Snarky person (who will show up with a heart beat) writes something on a cup.......Often there is another employee making the drinks they READ the cup ....and yet have ZERO sense or give a hoot to say, perhaps to first employee or the manager on duty, ........." hey this could end up badly, what were you thinking?".
Nope they quietly make drink and pass it along. When confronted the manager makes an inane idea of just making different labels ......... then the public is told "1 rouge employee does not represent our values or standards". all is well come on in.

No the whole crew involved dropped the ball...... perhaps if all those involved were FIRED, they would corral the idiot before putting THEIR jobs on the line too.

Most people willing to accept the job, NEED the job.

The irony is that if a person would write something on cup knowing clearly it is obvious .... what else would they do?
Messing with food items/ drinks ( spit or many other possibilities) would be much harder to find or prove. Sure tampering with food items violates many codes or laws but probably seldom caught. DOES the average Joe think an employee who CANNOT follow corporate standards can follow health code?

In One instance, the employee seemed upset a person wanted MILK not other alternatives like soy / almond etc.
They wrote " for the only guy who STILL likes COWS milk" on the cup ...... perhaps he has a soy or nut allergy the employee HAS zero idea.
I guess a snarky comment might be preferable to employee deciding for the CUSTOMER to make with alternative and risk the persons life ( allergic reactions can be fatal) to fulfill their idea of what ever agenda they have against milk.

Writing snotty comments or names on cups is a clear admission of a problem and is OFTEN caught. Brushing away with "it does not represent our values" really means we think our customers and general public are sheeple.

**disneysteve** · 12-04-2019, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Smallsteps View Post

The only Action amazon took was to release a set statement of "oh this does not meet our standards....". and goes on listing possible offending categories.

If impossible to monitor or enforce ....... WHY have this set statement EXCEPT to roll out for CYA When someone notices.

They have to have a policy so that when something does get flagged, they can justify deleting it. "Here's what's acceptable. If you post something that violates this, it may be removed." I don't see the problem with that.

What do you think companies like Amazon and Ebay and YouTube and the like should be doing? YouTube has 500 hours of video content being uploaded to their service every minute of every day! There is no possible way for them to monitor all of that. Of course some malicious content is going to get in. The only thing they can do is to have a system in place for users to report it. Then they can have a team that reviews the reported content and removes it if it violates their policies and standards.

**Smallsteps** · 12-04-2019, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

They have to have a policy so that when something does get flagged, they can justify deleting it. "Here's what's acceptable. If you post something that violates this, it may be removed." I don't see the problem with that.

What do you think companies like Amazon and Ebay and YouTube and the like should be doing? YouTube has 500 hours of video content being uploaded to their service every minute of every day! There is no possible way for them to monitor all of that. Of course some malicious content is going to get in. The only thing they can do is to have a system in place for users to report it. Then they can have a team that reviews the reported content and removes it if it violates their policies and standards.

youtube and ebay seem like a bit of apple and oranges to Amazon......... but a company that prides itself on constant faster/ and innovation cannot have a monitoring feature because of large volume..................BUT can process and through logistics deliver that volume faster and faster cannot handle the monitoring of new up loads seems a bit implausible. they have an algorithm for every possible issue they WANT to fix again if an offensive item is listed selling some before " being alerted " to take down is part of the plan.
It is too easy to convince others that it is out of their hands too big to solve and their customers just nod and say "OK." or better yet just do not notice.

Let the end user report it method...... is like asking criminals to stop before they yell stop again.
It is just funny in the case of Youtube they manage to ban items from different perspectives fast enough but some items are left up until there is a buzz before taken down " due to company standards".

**bjl584** · 12-05-2019, 02:54 AM

I really don't see a situation that is possible where 100% of what is deemed offensive could be captured by some theoretical safety net.

You are dealing with millions of SKU's, with thousands more being added and/or deleted daily.

Then there is the issue of what is offensive to one person might not be to another.

It is too much volume to have a person to watch it.
So, you create an algorithm.
But, how do you program it?
What are the rules?
How do you determine what is right and wrong? What is offensive or not?
As with the article, a lot of this stuff is going to be captured on the back end.

As for Starbucks or any large company, how do you deal with thousands of locations and tens if not hundreds of thousands of employees on an international stage?
What is offensive or culturally acceptable to one group might not be to another.
Maybe the person being offended misinterpreted.
Maybe they are just plain too sensitive.
You can have all the training and coaching that you can stomach, but with that many people you are going to have a few bad eggs that slip through the cracks.
It's just the reality.

What do you propose as a fix?

**Smallsteps** · 12-05-2019, 03:57 AM

This is what happens so many in discussions lament low paying jobs and big bad corporations. Low pay employees are given a pass and evidently have NO common sense and corporations have so much else going on they cannot address a potential problem because as you have stated they cannot make standards to match their well thought out corporate statement about their "standards" they roll out after the OOPS we went viral.
.
Corporations and even people ( employees) on a basic level can perhaps notice " hey this item may not be our best move" .

The question that comes to mind in the Starbucks situation and this discussion made me think besides what is pay per hour maybe employees should have two #
#1 minimum wage per hour.... and
#2 what level of pay will get people (who are in essence just selling their time) follow company rules or even perhaps actually give a S*it.

Signs on doors of each business or clearly on a Website stating....................... "we pay #1 not #2 so don't expect much".

Perhaps that attitude is fostered by those whom excuse bad behavior based simply by wage... Ethics and Civility only are obtained at what salary level?

There are so many people out there doing the best they can REGARDLESS of $$ per hour.
It is an insult to keep blaming these instances on low paid employees like they are somehow beneath basic concepts

Too big to deal with corporation systems. do not kid yourself if they thought it would help they would design an effort to stop these continual OOPS.

I guess we may see what happens with Starbucks latest.
The last incident has the manager/ barista fired is suing saying it was in fact, another employee who wrote PIG on 5 labels for cups bought by a uniformed police officer in Oklahoma.
In this day of antifa i guess one could argue IF that was offensive or NOT.
i already stated peer pressure among employees as the whole crew that handled any of those cups are complacent. and can be replaced.
Regional managers can step in and will transfer from other locations until they get new people up and running.

Coaching is laughable in this setting. Stop or i will say Stop again................ not exactly Dale Carnegie.

As the mere mention of Companies doing a better job being Proactive instead of JUST reactive bring out a ton of roadblocks and impossible to fix analysis,

Obviously there are people whom perhaps should NOT leave their own bubble because everything offends and you cannot appease them but it is Clear to me that IF people even read these articles or instances they do NOT notice or care.

**disneysteve** · 12-05-2019, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Smallsteps View Post

the whole crew that handled any of those cups are complacent. and can be replaced.

I don't think that's nearly as easy as you seem to.

I know a number of people who are business owners/employers and they often struggle to fill vacant positions. As a result, they do sometimes hang on to workers who aren't ideal because they just can't afford to let them go and have even more open spots. Even at my job, we almost always have open spots. I think we're short two techs right now just at my location alone, and we have 8 locations. Several of the others also have openings. If we let someone go because they aren't doing a stellar job, we may find ourselves unable to cover every shift adequately. Finding good workers is HARD. Sometimes spots are open for months. And once someone is hired, it takes several weeks for them to go through all of the HR stuff, orientation, and computer training, and then a couple of months of on the job training before they can work on their own.

I totally agree with your position, though, that there needs to be greater responsibility. I just don't think it's in any way an easy thing to fix. I also don't think it's about low pay because the very same thing happens at all levels of employment. Just yesterday, I heard 2 different news stories about people who were caught stealing from the job. One was a city politician. The other worked in a restaurant. So one low paid, the other likely very well paid.

**disneysteve** · 12-05-2019, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Smallsteps View Post

Too big to deal with corporation systems. do not kid yourself if they thought it would help they would design an effort to stop these continual OOPS.

Starbucks has about 300,000 employees and about 28,000 locations. Do you really think there is something they could do to prevent 1 or 2 or 5 employees from occasionally doing something wrong? I'm in no way excusing the employees' behavior. I just don't know what type of pre-employment screening or training could possibly prevent this sort of thing. Workers are human. They have biases and prejudices and political opinions. Now and then, somebody is going to cross a line and do something or say somthing they shouldn't have done or said. It's not right. It's not okay. They should be punished when it happens. But it's going to happen. People aren't perfect.

**Smallsteps** · 12-06-2019, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by disneysteve View Post

Starbucks has about 300,000 employees and about 28,000 locations. Do you really think there is something they could do to prevent 1 or 2 or 5 employees from occasionally doing something wrong? I'm in no way excusing the employees' behavior. I just don't know what type of pre-employment screening or training could possibly prevent this sort of thing. Workers are human. They have biases and prejudices and political opinions. Now and then, somebody is going to cross a line and do something or say somthing they shouldn't have done or said. It's not right. It's not okay. They should be punished when it happens. But it's going to happen. People aren't perfect.

I guess i am not Clear in expressing there is a difference between a mistake or one time event ..... and a habitual problem that we seem to see as NORMAL because .............(insert excuse here) attitudes. i guess the amount of BS a person can consume varies greatly.

Again no one HR person can be in all locations or screen everyone. NO one expects that, perhaps it is deeper.

I worked at a place where we actually had LONG term employees feel slighted at some point Start to steal or do a bad job at any point. The interview did not ask " hey at some point will you decide it could be so easy why not?"
What often catches those or the many (it is not 1-5 in Starbucks cases) is co-workers.................. who have had enough, tired of doing the work and watching other not. When they have the idea that i can just sit on sidelines cause it was the other guy you have NO team ... no standard.

OR Maybe employee #2 gets caught doing what they observed a long term employee do and they let the cat out well employee #1 has done it for years etc.

Left alone it only breeds the attitude that others can get away with it as well.
Showing even occasionally that there could be consequences helps.
Had a manger carry an mostly empty manila envelope tell people she runs computer history on everyone I witnessed people straighten up and quit surfing that they did.

Another place they pointed out they had badge in times of when a person came through door ..........and it is amazing how many came in DOOR at 8:20.... but input a time sheet saying 8 sharp. people scrambled for excuses and "did not know they tracked the door" never once seeing their fumbling was a clear admission of guilt. (The door was not tracked) just knowing who would or could be a problem was what this New manager was measuring.

No one can watch or babysit but in this atmosphere of computers it is much easier.

I know the labor pool is shallow and depend on many items it is hard to find good people.
That is an excuse people rely on because i can tell you the difference in employees is not in a HR handbook or some employee appreciation pizza.

The DIFFERENCE is in one on one mentoring and molding a person to see the bigger picture.
The most subtle items send a message to people on what is tolerable and what degree even small items make.
In many jobs there can be a person who inspires others to do their best, make a difference and be a good employee....... and others whom breed contempt.
It is FAR past the interview............... yet so many THINK if we ask this certain psychological question or whatever we can weed out. many places ASK for references but never call or contact.

Example worked in retail this DOES not always attract the best and brightest.
Often when they hired a very GOOD candidate for management .... that person left before moving into leadership that the company wanted.
I pointed out in the store we had many managers whom had side jobs one with a company that worked in store so super visible .
This to me and their chosen one said this place does not pay enough to consider a career or long term commitment because those high on food chain all have side gigs (This was before side gigs were the norm).
I pointed out that the subtle message was stronger then their promise of a promising future.

**bjl584** · 12-06-2019, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Smallsteps View Post

I guess i am not Clear in expressing there is a difference between a mistake or one time event ..... and a habitual problem that we seem to see as NORMAL because .............(insert excuse here) attitudes. i guess the amount of BS a person can consume varies greatly.

Again no one HR person can be in all locations or screen everyone. NO one expects that, perhaps it is deeper.

I worked at a place where we actually had LONG term employees feel slighted at some point Start to steal or do a bad job at any point. The interview did not ask " hey at some point will you decide it could be so easy why not?"
What often catches those or the many (it is not 1-5 in Starbucks cases) is co-workers.................. who have had enough, tired of doing the work and watching other not. When they have the idea that i can just sit on sidelines cause it was the other guy you have NO team ... no standard.

OR Maybe employee #2 gets caught doing what they observed a long term employee do and they let the cat out well employee #1 has done it for years etc.

Left alone it only breeds the attitude that others can get away with it as well.
Showing even occasionally that there could be consequences helps.
Had a manger carry an mostly empty manila envelope tell people she runs computer history on everyone I witnessed people straighten up and quit surfing that they did.

Another place they pointed out they had badge in times of when a person came through door ..........and it is amazing how many came in DOOR at 8:20.... but input a time sheet saying 8 sharp. people scrambled for excuses and "did not know they tracked the door" never once seeing their fumbling was a clear admission of guilt. (The door was not tracked) just knowing who would or could be a problem was what this New manager was measuring.

No one can watch or babysit but in this atmosphere of computers it is much easier.

I know the labor pool is shallow and depend on many items it is hard to find good people.
That is an excuse people rely on because i can tell you the difference in employees is not in a HR handbook or some employee appreciation pizza.

The DIFFERENCE is in one on one mentoring and molding a person to see the bigger picture.
The most subtle items send a message to people on what is tolerable and what degree even small items make.
In many jobs there can be a person who inspires others to do their best, make a difference and be a good employee....... and others whom breed contempt.
It is FAR past the interview............... yet so many THINK if we ask this certain psychological question or whatever we can weed out. many places ASK for references but never call or contact.

Example worked in retail this DOES not always attract the best and brightest.
Often when they hired a very GOOD candidate for management .... that person left before moving into leadership that the company wanted.
I pointed out in the store we had many managers whom had side jobs one with a company that worked in store so super visible .
This to me and their chosen one said this place does not pay enough to consider a career or long term commitment because those high on food chain all have side gigs (This was before side gigs were the norm).
I pointed out that the subtle message was stronger then their promise of a promising future.

You're bringing up several broader issues. Bad people, bad group think, bad corporate culture, bad overall society. I guess all or parts of all of that could be lumped in there. I think anyone who has spent time working for a company has seen some or all of what you are describing. It is frustrating to watch good people left behind while seemingly undeserving people get away with murder, or worse, are promoted. I've seen good people turn bad due to other employee's influencing them. I've seen then go bad due to a bad corporate culture or poor management. I've seen them leave for greener pastures for the same reasons. It is a shame. But, I don't have an answer on how to fix it. It happens for lots of reasons and due to a lot of factors. I guess personally, I take comfort in a few things. One, I am not obligated to work anywhere that I don't want to. I can leave and find a better deal if the one that I am in no longer works for me. Two, I am busy saving so that one day I can walk away from the rat race.

does anyone notice