Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Seattlest Pix 09Nov21
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
Because we haven't said enough about Starbucks this week, and because we haven't said enough about local coffee shops today, we figured we'd jump in on this story.
Starbucks has to give their California baristas $87million (plus 7 percent interest). According to LA Times, some baristas could get $10,000. Apparently, the rule has been that all tips are pooled at the end of the day, and then shift supervisors get to take some of that cash. The ruling shows that this directly violates a California law that bars supervisors from benefitting from tips. The thing about this, though, is that shift managers don't get to hire or fire people--they're basically there to make sure things don't go awry (among other immediacies). According to the LA Times, though, they serve customers and make coffee, too. So, maybe it's not ridiculous for them to get tipped, as well? What do you think?
We're on the fence about tip pooling, in general, mostly because someone having a bad day is bound to get tipped less. But, someone who is a great server despite their bad day deserves every penny of the higher tips they earn. But, it makes perfect sense that tips are there not only to show gratitude for good service, but also to fill in some holes for the lowest paid employees.
The plaintiffs said the court ruled shift supervisors are "agents" of the company under California law because they "supervise and direct" baristas' work, and therefore can't share in the same tip pool.We totally agree with the barista who started the whole upset: shift managers should just get higher paychecks. We like the idea posted by the first commenter on the Starbucks Gossip site. They have more responsibilities, there's no reason to shave cash off the tips baristas rely on....so, pay up Coffee Giant.Starbucks disagreed, saying shift supervisors have no managerial authority. Store managers, who do not share tips, set employees' work hours and make other personnel decisions.
The lawsuit was filed in October 2004 by a San Diego barista who no longer works for Starbucks. The suit gained class-action status in 2006.
"I feel vindicated," the former barista, Jou Chau, said in a statement.
"Tips really help those receiving the lowest wages. I think Starbucks should pay shift supervisors higher wages instead of taking money from the tip pool."
photo courtesy of Seattlest Flickr user awungfoo
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
To bring it into a lawsuit though? Why not just try to find a job not at Starbucks?
I used to work at a Baskin Robbins. Our boss didn't want us collecting tips. Sometimes we would. Sometimes we'd be blatent or sneaky, but most of the time we didn't take tips.
He payed us ridiculously well for ice cream scooping. Last time I checked, Starbucks gave a ton of benefits. Maybe I'm wrong though. But if the shift managers are making joe, they should get some extra cash too.
I've worked for Starbucks for two years and have no problem with shift supervisors sharing in tips. They are baristas plain and simple and just have the added responsibilities of making sure things run smoothly, managing cash and handling any emergencies. Starbucks does pay shift supervisors a bit more, it's considered a promotion to be made a shift supervisor but they in no way are managers in the traditional sense. They don't get paid salaries and can earn overtime. They don't hire or fire or set schedules. They work as hard as any of the other baristas to try to provide good service and should share in the tips. When you go to Starbucks, store managers, the occasional district manager, shift supervisors and baristas could all be behind the counter doing the same work. There's no way the average customer could tell the difference. Tips are shared because baristas work different shifts and some are busier than others. No one gripes at having to work a less busy shift because they know they aren't penalized financially for it. The tips are divided based on the number of hours that are worked that week. Starbucks does a pretty good job of helping people to feel part of a team so there isn't the sense that every little nickel and dime has to be rigidly parsed out according to some exaggerated, rigid rules. I think that California barista was out to lunch and the judge clearly didn't understand the role of the shift supervisors. As big corporations go, they should all be as partner friendly as Starbucks. Starbucks also doesn't cut corners on its products and has the goal of following through on its promises to customers and employees. Is the company perfect no but people genuinely keep looking for ways to do better. Does sheer size intrude? Yes, but I've been at smaller work places that do way worse.