Well done , its time to close their dirty business!

Keep the US company out, because it will take local business from local people.
That just sounds like the usual anti-immigration spiel we here nowadays. local jobs for local people.

The shoppers can decide for themselves - they're not stupid. If the independents offer better coffee, quality, service and surroundings, then their businesses will continue to thrive.

There are actually some independent cafes that are truly awful. Screaming steam burning the milk at such scolding temperatures that a skin forms on top of the coffe. And they are still unapologetically asking for full prices.

That is my definition of unethical. I'd be more interested in shutting these kinds of places down because they are robbing the consumer of money to line their own pockets without bothering to invest in equipment or training their staff.

Whether or not to shut down Strabucks goes beyond cost v. quaslity and freedom of choice
Starbucks are one of the most unethical companies going, nealry as bad as Coca Cola and Nestle. They ban their workforce from unioinising and thwart attempts by third world coffee growers to get a fair price for their produce

The belwo is taken from Wikipedia, yes I know notthe best of sources, and I don't think I have covered it all but it goes beyond "freedom of choice" for consumers, anyone who defends Starbucks because their coffee is nicer than independants is an unmitigated arse.

Several activist groups maintain websites criticizing the company's fair-trade policies, labor relations, and environmental impact, and hold it as a prime example of U.S. cultural and economic imperialism. Several Starbucks locations were vandalized during the WTO meeting held in Seattle in late 1999. No organization claimed responsibility for the vandalism.

The Starbucks location in the former imperial palace in Beijing closed in July 2007. The coffee shop had been a source of ongoing controversy since its opening in 2000 with protesters objecting that the presence of the American chain in this location "was trampling on Chinese culture".[55][56][57][58]


[edit] Anti-competitive tactics
Some of the methods Starbucks has used to expand and maintain their dominant market position include buying out competitors' leases, intentionally operating at a loss, and clustering several locations in a small geographical area (i.e., saturating the market), have been labeled anti-competitive by critics.[59] For example, Starbucks fueled its initial expansion into the UK market with a buyout of Seattle Coffee Company, but then used its capital and influence to obtain prime locations, some of which operated at a financial loss. Critics claimed this was an unfair attempt to drive out small, independent competitors, who could not afford to pay inflated prices for premium real estate.[60]


[edit] Labor disputes
Starbucks workers throughout seven different stores have joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as the Starbucks Workers Union since 2004.[61]


Starbucks in the Financial District of Boston, MassachusettsAccording to a Starbucks Union press release, since then, the union membership has begun expanding to Chicago and Maryland in addition to New York City where the movement originated.[62] On March 7, 2006, the IWW and Starbucks agreed to a National Labor Relations Board settlement in which three Starbucks workers were granted almost US$2,000 in back wages and two fired employees were offered reinstatement.[63][64][65] According to the Starbucks Union, on November 24, 2006, IWW members picketed Starbucks locations in more than 50 cities around the world in countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, and the UK, as well as U.S. cities including New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and San Francisco,[66] to protest the firing of five Starbucks Workers Union organizers by Starbucks and to demand their reinstatement.

Some Starbucks baristas in Canada,[67] Australia and New Zealand,[68] and the United States[69] belong to a variety of unions. In 2005, Starbucks paid out US$165,000 to eight employees at its Kent, Washington, roasting plant to settle charges that they had been retaliated against for being pro-union. At the time, the plant workers were represented by the IUOE. Starbucks admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.[61]


A Starbucks located in Lima, PeruA Starbucks strike occurred in Auckland, New Zealand, on November 23, 2005.[68] Organized by Unite Union, workers sought secure hours, a minimum wage of NZ$12 an hour, and the abolition of youth rates. The company settled with the Union in 2006, resulting in pay increases, increased security of hours, and an improvement in youth rates.[70]

According to Starbucks Chairman Howard Schulz, "If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn't need a union."[71] According to The Seattle Times, "The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 286 had trouble with Starbucks at its Kent roasting plant, where the union no longer represents workers".[61]

In March 2008, Starbucks was ordered to pay baristas over US$100 million in back tips in a Californian class action lawsuit launched by baristas alleging that granting shift-supervisors a portion of tips violates state labor laws. The Company plans to appeal. Similarly, an 18 year-old barista in Chestnut Hill, MA has just filed another suit with regards to the tipping policy. Massachusetts law also states that managers may not get a cut of tips. [72][73] A similar lawsuit was also filed in Minnesota on March 27th, 2008. [74]


[edit] Coffee bean market
In 2000, the company introduced a line of fair trade products.[75]

Of the approximately 136,000 tonnes (300 million pounds) of coffee Starbucks purchased in 2006, about 6 percent was certified as fair trade.[76]

According to Starbucks, they purchased 2,180 tonnes (4.8 million pounds) of Certified Fair Trade coffee in fiscal year 2004 and 5,220 tonnes (11.5 million pounds) in 2005. They have become the largest buyer of Certified Fair Trade coffee in North America (10% of the global market). Transfair USA,[77] the only third-party certifier of Fair Trade Certified coffee in the United States, has noted the impact Starbucks has made in the area of Fair Trade and coffee farmer's lives by saying:

Since launching {its} FTC coffee line in 2000, Starbucks has undeniably made a significant contribution to family farmers through their rapidly growing FTC coffee volume. By offering FTC coffee in thousands of stores, Starbucks has also given the FTC label greater visibility, helping to raise consumer awareness in the process.[citation needed]

Groups such as Global Exchange are calling for Starbucks to further increase its sales of fair trade coffees. However, fair trade certification can cost US$2,500 to US$10,000, based on the size of the producer group and length of time the inspections take, and many growers are unwilling or unable to pay for certification.[78]

Beyond Fair Trade Certification, Starbucks argues that it pays above market prices for all of its coffee. According to the company, in 2004 it paid on average $1.42 per pound ($2.64kg) for high-quality coffee beans.[79] This is in comparison to commodity prices which were as low as $0.50–$0.60 in 2003–2004.[80]


[edit] Ethos water controversy

A Starbucks located in Trujillo city (Perú)Ethos, a brand of bottled water acquired by Starbucks in 2005, is sold at locations throughout North America. Ethos bottles feature prominent labeling stating "helping children get clean water", referring to the fact that $.05 from each $1.80 bottle sold ($.10 per unit in Canada) is used to fund clean water projects in under-developed areas. Although sales of Ethos water have raised over $4,000,000 for clean water efforts, the brand is not a charity. Critics have argued that the claim on the label misleads consumers into thinking that Ethos is primarily a charitable organization, when it is actually a for-profit Starbucks brand and the vast majority of the sale price (over 94%) does not support clean-water projects.[81] [82] The founders of Ethos have stated that the brand is intended to raise awareness of third-world clean water issues and provide socially responsible consumers with an opportunity to support the cause by choosing Ethos over other brands.[83] Starbucks has since redesigned the American version of the Ethos water bottles, stating the amount of money donated per bottle in the description.


[edit] Brighton store opens in breach of planning regulations
In May 2008, a branch of Starbucks was completed on St. James's Street, Brighton, England, despite being refused permission by the local planning authority, which claimed that there were too many coffee shops already on the street.[84][85] Demonstrations continue to be held, with protesters organizing themselves using the social networking website Facebook.[86] Starbucks has appealed the decision, with Brighton and Hove council is monitoring the situation.[87]

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6086330.stm

Even if you were a laissez-faire free market capitalist, you should be opposed to what Starbucks do.

They use their financial muscle to saturate an area and aggressively take business away from small companies until they are forced to go bust. Then they have a monopoly in that area and can do what they want.

Unregulated capitalism will always lead to monopolies and oligarchy. I thought that even capitalists agree that monopolies and cartels are bad?