Starbucks, piercings and Band-Aids

May 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Some local Starbucks workers are looking like they tangle with cats.

Theyâ??ve taken to putting bandages over piercings to meet the letter of Starbucksâ?? dress code, which minimizes the number of earrings and other piercings visible to customers.

Band-Aids beat the hassle of taking them out, the workers say.

And perhaps assert a dash of flinty individualism.

Is Starbucksâ?? dress code appropriate?
  • So you can only be a little edgy/artsy in your dress and self expression at Starbucks?
    What happened to that Seattle slacker grunge look? Not corporate looking enough?
    I might be pretty conservative but think Gothic looks good with black coffee.
  • I think that Starbucks' dress code is appropriate. Those who choose to work in the foodservice arena should be conscious of how their appearance can at times make those they are serving uncomfortable. Perhaps I am more conservative than many others in my age group (I am 35), but I believe that in general, people have gone a bit overboard with regard to piercings and tatoos. Yes, everyone has a choice as to what they do to their own bodies, but in my opinion, too much of something can damage its original appeal -- and less is always more.
    • It is actually a health code issue not only a company policy.
    • How are piercings a health code issue? I'm more concerned if a worker is clean, washing hands, etc than whether or not their nose is pierced! It's Starbuck's choice to set their dress code, but I agree with the poster who said whatever happened to the edgy/artsy image they had in the past?
    • The facilities where piercings and tattoos are performed are generally regulated by state and/or local departments of health. The fact that a food service worker has tattoos or multiple piercings is not a health code issue, unless there is infection or some other factor that brings health code violations into question. Piercings in and of themselves are not a health code issue.

      I think it's mostly an issue of some customers not being crazy about being served food or drink by someone with multiple holes in his/her body. I don't blame them. I am one of those individuals.
    • How does a band-aid make the fact that there is a hole behind it less offensive?
      I personally don't care if the person serving my coffee has 1 or 100 holes in his/her body. As long as they are clean and friendly it's their choice. As a business woman if the number of piercings is a problem there is one of two ways to handle it. You ask them to take the pericings out (inforce a dress code) or not hire them. A dress code is a professional way of regulating your image. If an employee has a problem with the dress code then they should not have accepted the position.
      Placing a band-aid on it just leaves room for something to fall off and into food or drinks. Seeing multipule bandaids on a person is far more offensive than small metal objects.
    • As someone who has a daughter working for a popular retailer that hires and sells to many young people (often pierced, and often multiple times), you should know that there is a good number of people who will do piercings for friends (or just someone they met). These peope are not licensed in any way. That is where there might be a health issue - do you know if they person you are hiring or looking at got their pierced nose or eyebrow or navel or chin or (yes, some still get these) ear pierced at a licensed place or from a friend who might reuse needles or otherwise run the risk of spreading HIV, Hepatitis C, Staph (and what variety? resistant, MERSA, or??), etc. Although you might not worry about a piercing in an ear, eyebrow, etc., what about a nose, if someone has a cold, that is one more orifice for the spray to leave from and that surely isn't clean, but you wouldn't see it would you?
    • Mary,

      What? This may be surprising to you, but having HIV or Hepatitis C do not disqualify individuals from working in food service. An employer who refused to hire such an afflicted individual for a food service position would face even bigger problems from the resulting ADA lawsuit.
    • If you’re interested in details of Starbucks’ dress code, the company allows as many as two small or “moderately sized” earrings per ear, but no “visible” tattoos or facial piercings. There you have it.
    • All the more reason for me to support local, non-chain coffee shops with my hard-earned money.
    • starbucks blah
      I currently work at starbucks I have my lip and nose pierced. I also have about 20 piercings. I keep tem covered everyday witha turtle neck and I put bioplast in for my facial piercings. As for the bioplast I know im not suppose to have them but I buy the shorter ones, just to make sure you can't see it.I never asked was the bioplast okay to wear because if she can;t see it whats the point? so anyways rules are rules and if you can;t follow them then get te job that better suits you eith tatoos and piercings without the cover up just like i plan on doing in te future.
    • Really?
      I think your still being judgemental and close minded. Your offensive and territorial with no real sense of individualism. However, Starbucks gets to run Starbuck's like it wants to!

    Post a comment to this blog

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

    2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

    3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

    4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

    5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.