Starbucks bans employees from wearing engagement rings




Similar rules apply in some hospitals: nothing on your hands to collect gunk. A good rule. (The rule is not specifically against engagement rings, but any ring with stones. It probably should apply to fidget and gear rings, too.)


The company says engagement rings and anything with a stone aren’t allowed at work, even though tattoos and nose studs are now OK.

Problem solved.


The sanitation explanation seems reasonable on the surface, when I was in Fire/EMS I also stopped wearing a wedding ring at my wifes request.
Thinking about it a bit though and stories from my wife having been a former barista I have the suspicion that if the management could pull it off with stealth they might hope they could string along the low level coffee stalkers looking for respectable proximity to cute perky bespectacled Manic Pixie Dream Girls with a masters degree whom they could make eye contact with, tip, and maybe someday fall in love with.
Isn’t that what female baristas are for in movies?


It made me sad to read that until I read the actual story, which is basically about food safety and NOT engagement rings, and makes total sense to me. Then I realized that the headline is total clickbait, and that made me angry. Now I’m angry AND sad. Not a good way to start the day.


The test would be whether they’d allow a tattooed “engagement ring.” Don’t some health workers have those?


According to the article it’s not engagement rings specifically but any ring with a stone. I don’t know why there’s so much emphasis on engagement rings, since class rings, mood rings, poison rings would all apply. And “plain bands can still be worn”.

That makes more sense since Starbucks is pretty cool with marriage.


Click-bait of the enraging kind. This is not what I come to BB to read. Gross.


Yea, I was just trying to worst case it based on monetizing the actual problem of barista stalkers.


The emphasis is on engagement rings because that’s what will draw attention. It’s just a perfectly ordinary rule that is being presented as unreasonable due to focusing on only part of the issue. Look at the lists of wacky laws you find around on the internet–many of those are like this. (And some take it a bit farther, like the “you can’t have sex without a condom in Nevada” one that I’ve seen many times. The actual law pertains to brothels.)


Total clickbait, BoingBoing. >:( This is a pretty standard rule in food service. Everywhere I have worked, only plain bands were allowed. It has nothing to do with whether or not the ring signifies an engagement.


NEWS: Manufacturers ban all wedding rings from factory floors, tattoos okay!


Yes. The headline is isn’t just click bait, it a lie. Engagement rings have not been banned per se.


wedding rings okay


How about “Starbucks bans LGBT engagement rings, hipster glasses still OK.”?


If we are talking click-bait, wouldn’t gender be the best way?

#Starbucks CEO Harold Schultz decides women cannot wear engagement rings in his stores, and feels the rest of the country should follow example


You forgot “- you won’t believe what happened next.”


Starbucks tells engaged LGBT employees what they can do in the restrooms!

(Employees must wash hands before returning to work.)


Without even thinking about it much, I’ve started clicking on “discuss” before reading the BB news story. This one showed me why-it’s the click bait factor.

If there’s not one already, there should be a click bait translator plug in, where people can crowdsource better headlines.


There is! I read about it somewhere. I can’t put my finger on it, but I’m getting some sort of impression of irony. I’m sure I’ll think of it eventually…