Starbucks Employee Wins Dyslexia Discrimination Case


Same Difference

A woman with dyslexia has won a disability discrimination case against her employer Starbucks after she was accused of falsifying documents.

A tribunal found Meseret Kumulchew had been discriminated against after making mistakes due to her difficulties with reading, writing and telling the time.

She was given lesser duties at her branch in London and told to retrain, which left her feeling suicidal.

Starbucks said it was in discussions about providing more workplace support.

The judgement against Starbucks was made in mid-December, and there will now be a separate hearing to determine any compensation.

As a supervisor at Starbucks in Clapham, south-west London, Ms Kumulchew was responsible for taking the temperature of fridges and water at specific times and entering the results in a duty roster.

She was accused of falsifying the documents after mistakenly entering wrong information.

‘Not a fraud’

She took Starbucks to an employment tribunal alleging disability…

View original post 356 more words

As George Osborne Google fury deepens, David Gauke promised tax deals to US giants | Daily Mail Online


Treasury minister David Gauke, the third most senior figure in George Osborne ’s department, told US firms that it was not up to politicians to decide what is a ‘fair amount’ of tax.

Source: As George Osborne Google fury deepens, David Gauke promised tax deals to US giants | Daily Mail Online

As someone as said, could it be ‘David Cameron’, ‘we are all in this together’ so therefore can we all have these special tax deals.

Starbucks apologises for telling woman she was ‘not disabled enough’ to use the toilet


Original post from Disabled Go News

‘………………

challis1

Miss Challis, a supervisor for a care agency, told the Standard: “We went into Starbucks to get a coffee but before that mum needed to use the toilet.

“My mum loves their mugs, so was adding one to the mini-collection, and we wanted to sit down and have a drink because mum needed a rest.

“Both toilets were locked so I asked the lady is she wouldn’t mind opening them for me.

“She looked my mum up and down and said ‘she isn’t disabled.’

“Mum replied with ‘not every disability is visible.’

“From that she reluctantly opened the door, looked my mum up and down again, and said ‘you look perfectly fine to me.’

“To my utter shock I went over to ask to speak to the manager. He said he wasn’t going to deal with it, he didn’t even apologise.”

The manager told Miss Challis that English was not the staff member’s first language, but she said the pair felt this was “no excuse” and left the store.

She said; “From there we went to sit down and have a drink elsewhere and mum was very, very upset and felt humiliated.

“I was so upset; when my mum is upset I’m upset and she’s a very strong woman so seeing her break is heartbreaking for me.”

Miss Challis said the incident has put her off visiting Starbucks in future, telling the Standard: “I used to go there quite a bit, and I’ll never ever use them again – Costa all the way.”

A spokeswoman for Starbucks UK said: “We have investigated this matter and would like to pass on our apologies to the customer affected. Our toilets are always available for our customers use.”

Liz Sayce, chief executive of Disability Rights UK, said the incident highlighted the need for companies to be more aware of unseen disabilities.

She said: “There has been a legal obligation since 1999 to offer equal access to services to people with any form of disability.

“I’m glad that Starbucks has apologised, but we really need companies to make it clear to all their staff that they have a legal duty to make services accessible to people with any kind of disability.

“So often the public thinks that because the the person isn’t using a wheelchair they’re not really disabled.

“Disabilities like arthritis, diabetes, heart conditions are just as real.

“It can be very upsetting if you are not welcomed and a service is not made accessible to you.”

Read the full article online: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/hold-waiting-for-additional-comments-starbucks-apologises-for-telling-woman-she-was-not-disabled-a2916486.html

Roisin Norris

Hi I’m Roisin Norris, Digital Marketing Executive at DisabledGo and I will be uploading blogs and news for you all to read.

More posts from author   …………..’

How Starbucks Gets Away With Charging a Fortune for Cheap Beans


Original post from Bloomberg

‘…………

1. Lock in low coffee costs. 2. Raise prices.

Millions of groggy people this morning grubbed up an additional 5¢ to 20¢ for their Starbucks fix. No biggie. Most probably swiped or scanned and didn’t even notice it.

But for Starbucks, those nickels and dimes add up–especially since it is paying less for the beans while ringing up higher-priced lattes.

The cost of coffee on commodity markets–the green, unroasted beans, or “berries,” that are stripped off the branch–has been swooning, thanks primarily to a lot of rain and high temperatures in Brazil.

graph2 -1x-1

So, cheaper beans for them, higher prices for you–a simple and strong mix, with financial markets swirled just so and a light dash of marketing.

The Arabica empire said it hadn’t tinkered with prices on many of its drinks for about two years. It has “to balance the need to run our business profitably while continuing to provide value to loyal customers and to attract new customers,” spokeswoman Lisa Passe said in a statement. Translation: Sometimes we realize you’ll pay more.

Seeing the big dip in coffee bean prices this spring, Starbucks went ahead and locked in all the beans it will need for the rest of the year and about two-thirds of the beans it will need next year. “We expected coffee prices to come down, just given what we saw in the market,” Chief Financial Officer Scott Maw said during a conference call in late April. “We waited, we were patient, and when they came into our target range, we filled up our needs for the year.”

Hedging goes the other way, too: The recent dip in coffee prices meant that Starbucks was forced to buy some of the beans it brewed this spring at above-market rates because it had locked the price in months earlier, when it was higher.

Still, if the market pans out as Starbucks expects, coffee prices will tick up next year and the company will still be paying this year’s low rates. Meanwhile, it will keep plinking that extra 5¢ to 20¢ per cup into the profit sack (and the bonus pool for that savvy hedging team).

In short, Starbucks is raising prices for one very simple reason: because it can.  ……….’

 

What in Common Book, Coffee and Internet companies and MP’s


Starbucks, Amazon and Google

It is true Starbucks, Amazon and Google have done nothing illegal, but is it a right thing to do.  Where are the consistencies, it appears if you have the money you are going to look for ways to minimise the amount of tax you pay.

Then lets look at MP’s, you would think they are whiter than white, except you only have to look at the way they claim expenses and to put it mildly, some of those ways are not even legal. It is good the Houses of Parliament is not made of glass, then they would have to be careful what they throw about and look to the road cleaners of Westminster for help.

It is easy to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer should close all the loopholes, but once they are closed, you have the Chartered Accountants, who specialise in finding other ways to avoid paying tax.

Not paying tax is not good for the country and will mean that others will have to pay more tax to compensate for the tax lost by avoidance.