Another Private Buisness bows to Media Pressure

[mykalberta]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Makes me glad I dont own a small business in this Country.

Its obvious to anyone who has tried to have breakfast at a fast food restraunt durring school hours if its anywhere close to the school. These kids buy the cheapest coffee they can get their hands on and then just sit there.

If its anything like what was at the Tims in Victoria when I was there last where they have obviously had little or no parenting because the language used was quite funny if it wasnt so pathetic.

Its unfortunate that the head office had to lay the lumber down on this franchisee likely trying to provide a welcoming atmosphere for non free-loading guests.

MYK

[worth]

Supposed to be a free country. If they want to buy a $1 cup of coffee and sit there, more power to them.

[the crispy badger]

what I find funny are the less fortunate people who sit in front of the "no loitering sign" at the local Tims.. irony at it's best.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by worth

Supposed to be a free country. If they want to buy a $1 cup of coffee and sit there, more power to them.

Sweet. Mind if I come over to your house and hang out on your porch? Or is that private property.

Going back to what I learned in college about restaurant law- an establshment has the right to refuse service; as long as they do not have a monopoly in that geographical area.

[Superflyer]

I think that since they were specifically targeting the students then they were in the wrong. If they put up a sign saying between 12 and 1 there is a minumum charge of $10 or something that they would not stay around.
But yea I hate it when I go to a place like that and want to sit down and eat but all the seats are taken by people that have a small coffee and are nursing it for the last hour or so.

[worth]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Sweet. Mind if I come over to your house and hang out on your porch? Or is that private property.

Going back to what I learned in college about restaurant law- an establshment has the right to refuse service; as long as they do not have a monopoly in that geographical area.

Unfortunatley, I don't have a porch...but if I did...

Yes they have the right to refuse service, but I don't see the problem if thier paying customers. If I go into a Tims and order a coffee and sit there for an hour reading the paper and someone told me to get lost, i'd be pissed.

However I understand It's probably in the best interest of the Tims to keep the kids out because that place is always packed, so as to keep the flow of customers going. If I owned a Tims i'd probably do this. I guess i'm not really complaining about kids being in Tims it because I don't go. I'm one of those people who drive by and see the 50 car lineup for the drive through and the 100 person lineup inside the store and just laugh that people will wait half an hour in line for a dinky cup of $5 coffee every day.

[urban1]

How about old people who buy a small coffee and get free refills for about half the day? (maybe not at Tims but i see this at McDonalds all the time)

[Bobblehead]

Where's the "bowing to media pressure"?

I see a story reporting on what happened, but were there stories about this previously? Where's the media pressure?

[RougeUnderoos]

Interesting thread title, but what exactly did "media pressure" have to do with this? Has anyone even heard of this story? Was it on the local news?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by worth

Yes they have the right to refuse service, but I don't see the problem if thier paying customers. If I go into a Tims and order a coffee and sit there for an hour reading the paper and someone told me to get lost, i'd be pissed.

I'm sure the issue wasn't one kid coming in and reading the paper, or doing homework, or something like that. I remember being in high school, and 20 or so of us would go into McDonalds. Some would buy food, some wouldn't, but would discuss buying a 59¢ burger. We'd pretty much take over the entire seating area; 20 of us wouldn't just squeeze into five of the 4-person booths. Some would come and go, some would yell across to their buddy 3 tables over, and some guys would play fight.

So I can see some customers wanting to buy a meal changing their mind and not coming in. Those youngsters can be intimidating to us old farts.

It maybe could have been handled better; like what SuperFlyer suggested. Maybe not that harsh- something like "mgmt reserves the right to enforce a $3 per person and /or 20 minute limit on use of tables." But then again it's likely easier to refuse service than to ask a guy who just spent $2 to leave.

[TurnedTheCorner]

A local business against shiftless layabout kids? That is a first, and definitely newsworthy.

The kids should be working at Tim's and be earning a living. Not going to school. Do the jobs I don't want to do, kids.

[worth]

Yeah, you're right, we used to do that too with 20 people going into a store. The convenience store across the street from my school had a sign on it that allowed only 3 kids in at a time. Can't really do that at a Tims, but I understand why they did it, but generally to me a paying customer is a paying customer. Probably wouldn't be as big of a deal if there wern't so many people in those places.

[BlackEleven]

Agreed that the store should have handled it better. You can't discrimate against a certain group outright (ie 'no students allowed') without causing an uproar. And justifiably so, imo.

They should have instead addressed the problem specifically as others have suggested. If they would have created a sign saying something along the lines of 'management reserves the right to enforce a $3 minimum per customer policy", then this would have been a non-issue and never made news in the first place.