• funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    again I already addressed those objections in my post before you commented. Shelf space is cheap, refrigeration already exists and is not an added cost, expanded refrigeration is a single point cost that is quickly paid back by sales, I dont think adding day dots is putting starbucks out of business.

    they already have separate supply chains for paper cups, crockery, beans, syrups and milks — I know this because I worked on a project that used their paper cup supply chain a few years ago. Plus they already have an oatmilk supplier so they’re not even adding an additional sku.

    I assume they make a profit on everything

    yes, the point of this thread is “should companies by allowed to significantly profit more on allowances made for not being ablebodied” && “is charging more for dairy intolerance the same as charging more for using a wheelchair ramp or a braille menu”

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          it’s not Hand waving - an extra fridge is just cost of doing business.

          Everything is a cost of doing business: payroll, electricity, inventory, etc.

          • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            yes, and what I was inferring is refrigeration is understood to be a necessary part of food service, so you can’t really say “food companies shouldn’t be regulated by preventing them charging extra for disabled patrons because they have to refrigerate the food!”

            I can’t fathom why you’re constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              I can’t fathom why you’re constantly trying to drag this thread into a discussion about the minutae of drink service operation instead of the topic at hand.

              Providing additional options, especially options that require refrigeration, have additional costs associated with them. My central thesis has always been that a business should be able to recoup its cost and make a profit, that is the purpose of a business. The “minutiae of drink service operation” is central to that discussion.

              It’s clear that this conversation is going in circles and serves no purpose. I find it quite reasonable for a company to charge $0.70 when their costs increase by $0.25 cents, and you don’t. The ADA requires only a reasonable accommodation, there are several reasonable accommodations available in the form of non-dairy beverages. It isn’t even clear that lactose intolerance would be considered a disability under the ADA.

              • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                literally Para 4 in the article

                The plaintiffs say in the lawsuit that lactose intolerance is a disability listed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the surcharges violate that act.