Earlier in the thread, you said:
The incident isn’t just about the manager who called 911, it’s about that manager in a particular circumstance. If the person who was supposed to meet the two men who were kicked out was on time (or if the two men weren’t early) then the manager never would have done what they did. With a few managers per store, depending on their hours, and with 8000 stores, they may have 20k-30k employees who might have made that call. If the most racist 5% of those employees averaged one such incident every 20 years then this would be happening multiple times every month. So it’s totally plausible to think that even if that manager learned nothing from this event, they may well never cause another similar incident in their entire career - that it just wouldn’t come up in the same way.
So if we look at the question from a pure cynical business perspective, the goal of Starbucks isn’t to ensure their customers are treated respectfully, it’s to shift their most racist employees from being 1/20 employee-year PR disaster risks to being 1/100 employee year PR disaster risks (numbers are BS) without being able to identify who those most-racist managers even are. Firing one employee has an almost unmeasurably small impact towards that goal.
So I guess my point is that when you say you’d fire the employee responsible, I might in response say:
I translate that as “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we should do this.”
That statement is a tool to ascribe negative qualities to people who say things that you disagree with. It contains no analysis of what is a good idea and what is not.
