Starbucks Gossip: Judge says Starbucks has to pay $86 million (plus interest) in tips pooling case

« Starbucks won't pay you if it uses one of your brilliant ideas | Main | The tipping lawsuit, free refills, Clover machines -- there's a lot to discuss in this weekend's OPEN THREAD »

March 20, 2008

Judge says Starbucks has to pay $86 million (plus interest) in tips pooling case

A California judge ruled on Thursday that Starbucks has to pay $86 million plus interest in restitution to an estimated 120,000 baristas because it illegally allowed shift supervisors to share in tip pools. The award will soar to nearly $106 million when interest is calculated. (San Diego Union-Tribune | Seattle Times | Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

> "Starbucks got caught with its hand in the tip jar"

> "If I were a shareholder, I'd tell Starbucks to make this problem go away"

March 20, 2008 | Permalink

Comments

Shifts in California...get ready to organize! Don't let yourselves get shafted by not getting a raise. And don't settle for a "token" raise either. Make sure that the raise you get is roughly equal to your tips. In fact I'd start compiling by district or store or whatever the average amount of tips per week and document it so you can take it to corporate with some evidence to say "this is the size raise we deserve in this district/store" instead of just settling for a blanket "50 cent" raise or whatever they'll offer.

Posted by: DT | Mar 20, 2008 6:33:43 PM

I believe the judge's ruling is fair and just.
If a store uses proper deployment, the shift supervisor is the "floater." They are not to assign a register and not to be on bar. The shift supervisor's primary responsibility is being the cash controller. That means they monitor the funds in the store. They direct the baristas to the tasks that they must perform. The shift supervisors go and fix bottlenecks that might be occuring. The shift supervisors if using proper deployment do not perform the same tasks as baristas do.

BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL

Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Mar 20, 2008 6:41:14 PM

BSR, the scenario you are referring to is during peak. In many stores, 2 people open the store and may not have someone come in until an hour after the store opens.

Theres more to the job than making drinks and taking money. Floaters often stock pastries, make prep, do dishes, get breakfast sandwiches, etc, etc.

Posted by: Vicki Verona | Mar 20, 2008 6:44:17 PM

One of my concerns is in regards to have multiple shift supervisors on the floor. If I just happen to schedule my busy Saturday morning with 2 shift supervisors, does that mean only one of them is eligible for tips since one will just be "performing manager tasks" while the other is working the bar?

I think this lawsuit is ridiculous. I know many shift supervisors are going to be upset in a very important sector of Starbucks North America

Posted by: Vicki Verona | Mar 20, 2008 6:47:01 PM

I don't think Starbucks should be blamed for this. If the law really doesn't let shifts get tips, the law is wrong. We're not managers and we're just getting tips that WE EARN. Why should some lame barista who just started get the money that my customers are leaving because htey know me from the past two years and they like my drinks? If that's really what the law says, the damn law should be changed.

I am so pissed right now at the baristas and there greedy lawsyers who brought this stupid lawsuit. Anybody who actually works in a store knows shifts deserve tips. We do the same damn things as baristas.

I'm so sick of lawyers looking for technicalities and not what's right. How many shifts are going to be screwed by this?

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 6:57:12 PM

Wow. Expect this to be the "water cooler" or in my store, "french press" talk of the day, tomorrow.

Expect your DMs and partner resources people to be communicating with you very soon. Another article I read states that effective immediately, shifts can not share in the tip pool.

Posted by: Vicki Verona | Mar 20, 2008 6:58:10 PM

Once again, judicial wisdom (not) from the land of fruits and nuts!

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 6:58:47 PM

DT. . .

Organize? Take your ideas elsewhere. Organizing against Starbucks is the dumbest answer to this issue. You'd be organizing against the organization that is being sued for giving YOU tips. Why don't you "organize" against those who began the lawsuit? Get over yourself and stop trying to screw up the company that has been great to me for many years.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 7:00:32 PM

Does this mean that if the baristas who share in these proceeds haven't been declaring their tips to the IRS; they will be admitting to years of income tax evasion?

Posted by: snagger | Mar 20, 2008 7:04:31 PM

Another question for you "DT". . . do you report your tips in excess of 50 cents an hour like you're supposed to?

Another thing to consider. . . if you "organize" the shifts, stores would be split in at least THREE different sides . . baristas, shifts, then store managers/ASM. Think about it, and think about what you are saying.

Instead of posting about "organizing" maybe you should write letters to the dumbass who began the suit in the first place.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 7:08:25 PM

Most shifts at stores around me are developing skills to become an ASM. They rotate through doing different tasks and then once they know how to do them, they are considered for promotion.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 7:10:39 PM

I just searched for the notice that went out from the attorneys. It here: http://www.gdblegal.com/pdf/starbucknotice.pdf (sorry, but I don't know how to link). There something I don't understand. It quotes the law as "No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the
employee or employees to whom it was aid, given, or left for." How does that stop shifts from sharing tips? Did the judge say that tips are only being left for baristas? That's crazy.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 7:18:10 PM

The court found a tip rate of $1.71 per hour, California baristas accepting these proceeds may owe a bunch to the State and IRS.

Posted by: snagger | Mar 20, 2008 7:18:25 PM

This is some serious BS. If you're working the floor you should share in tips. There are times my SM is working a register during peak and pulling in those tips by being legendary... I'd say for every hour you work on the floor you should split tips no matter who you are.
Shifts work register and DT sometimes, BSR, but I wish I lived in the ideal world you do where that doesn't happen! And when we are on the floor making drinks or engaging in conversations I think we deserve a piece of the pie as much as any barista.

We are partners, the name itself represents equality in the most basic sense. These rules should be re-evaluated.

Posted by: atownsbuxrules | Mar 20, 2008 7:19:07 PM

I reported all my tips when I was a barista, but I'm pretty sure I was one of the few who did.

This lawsuit sucks, by the way. Shifts deserve their fair share of the tips IMHO.

Posted by: lux | Mar 20, 2008 7:23:10 PM

How encouraging to work hard to be promoted in a company that you love and become a shift supervisor- just to have some loser underlings bring legal action against you for wanting to be tipped for working 10 times harder and 3 hours more a day. Pathetic!

Posted by: Gooooogirl | Mar 20, 2008 7:25:48 PM

Anon - the company was good to me for 8 years too. 4 of them as a SS, and 2 as an ASM/SM. So I know very well WTF I'm talking about. And I'm simply advising all the SS's in California to accept some "50 cents an hour" raise if they're going to lose out on say $1 an hour in tips.

They ought to get a pay raise that is commensurate with the tips they are losing, that's what I'm saying.

And if you're going to attack me, have the guts to give yourself some type of name.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 7:29:17 PM

whoops - that last post was by me, DT.

And it should have said "not to accept some 50 cent an hour raise when they're losing more than that in tips"

Posted by: DT | Mar 20, 2008 7:31:01 PM

the law was (and is) ambiguous...
this judge interpreted it to mean one thing...and you could find another judge that would rule differently.
i disagree with the ruling. should "shifts" get paid more. of course but while i agree with the "ends" (better wages)i don't agree with the "means" (ie. this lawsuit).
one observation: you know going into your position how much you will make and can make in the future (raises etc...) so this lawsuit does nothing more than cost starbucks a pile of cash to be payed to people who were more than willing to cash their checks every other week knowing what their "wage" was. if you don't like your job or think you are underpaid than quit. or get promoted. or find another job that will pay you what you think you deserve. the sense of entitlement that people feel regarding this topic is mind-blowing...

Posted by: Jmistake | Mar 20, 2008 7:31:18 PM

. . . and Starbucks has been PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sheik | Mar 20, 2008 7:32:31 PM

The main thing I am reading here is how stupid the law is. What I don't think anyone is considering is that if it is the law in CA that supervisors cannot share in tips, then the lawyers at Starbucks should have adjusted their guidelines for stores in CA for this law, and adjusted their market pay accordingly.

Just like if it is illegal to not pay store managers in CA for overtime. All states do not require overtime compensation for managers, however CA does, and Starbucks adjusted their rules accordingly.

Posted by: 10065Barista | Mar 20, 2008 7:33:55 PM

wow BSR - what's happened to you? You didn't use to seem so...angry. In fact I would have pegged you to be upset about this, not happy.

I think you've fallen victim to your own "celebrity" on this board and turned into a caricature of yourself.

Posted by: DT | Mar 20, 2008 7:35:02 PM

is anyone else seriously offended by the sense of entitlement people have on here? you are lucky you even get "tips" and you are also very fortunate that starbucks has been making it possible for you to NOT claim those tips on your tax forms.

i'm waiting for the appeal...

Posted by: Jmistake | Mar 20, 2008 7:36:27 PM

This is BS. If shifts don't get tips, nobody should. Like one of the anons said, it's not fair that shifts do the work and baristas get all the money. I'd rather they get rid of tip jars completely. Then everyone would get treated the same.

Posted by: Pissed off shift | Mar 20, 2008 7:39:17 PM

of course shifts are part of management. they tell you when to take a break, take a lunch, assign a till, close a till, where to deploy, do a spin , take out trash, make samples, drink and/or food, make sure to sign safety log, check temps. in fridges, make schedule changes, like switching with diferent partners. they go to management meetings, during the 3 hour store learning meeting, they were part of a leader in groups.etc.etc.etc. this is not a question as to whether they deserve tips, of course they do alot of work,that's why they got a raise, a promotion, this is the state law, starbucks pay them more and let's move on, get over it.

Posted by: smokey | Mar 20, 2008 7:49:50 PM

This is a big time loss for SBUX and a gain for some wealthy SF attorneys as well as the taxman.Baristas will see very few dollars.

Posted by: snagger | Mar 20, 2008 7:53:08 PM

I suggest this to all of the baristas who recognize that this ruling is crap:
"organize" yourselves and donate your gain to a worthy charity.

Posted by: weinusdemylo | Mar 20, 2008 8:00:08 PM

Starbucks is at fault here, not this "dumb" CA law. Starbucks should have adjusted their own policies in order to better compensate the shifts without breaking the law.

However, I do sympathize with CA shifts who are going to lose vital income.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 8:02:59 PM

we are all a team when we are behind the counter...everyone works together towards the ultimate goal of providing the Starbucks experience to every customer...

Boston Starbucks Rebel....i know that you are extremely passionate about what you do, but how can you say that shift supervisors shouldn't be entitled to a share of a store's tips?

As a shift supervisor who goes back to being a barista during the school year, i could not imagine being denied my share of the tips for a week.

Posted by: baristaNE | Mar 20, 2008 8:05:22 PM

Sb should get rid of the tip jar. You're not bartenders who get paid a $1.50 an hour without benefits. The only reason it exists is because "your partners" in corporate can get by with paying you less.

Make the smart move, organize & unionize. Get your wages up and you won't have to worry about who gets what in tips. It will also improve "the customer experience" by not guilting them into tipping for something that should not have a gratuity associated with it.

Posted by: two a day joe | Mar 20, 2008 8:32:34 PM

Good lord... will there be any letting up on this company? And where are all of the posters that say "Hey... It's just business..." ? Point being that these sorts of things happen to companies that treat their business and employees as "just business, not personal"...

Shame on the BUX for not reacting sooner with policy knowing that the law is written as it is... What a pain, but necessary to send the message for Starbucks to "transform" the employee experience across the board.

Posted by: Pat Nerr | Mar 20, 2008 8:37:13 PM

What should Starbucks have done? I read that law and don't see how it says that shifts can't get tips they help earn. Doesn't it say that tips are the "sole property" of the people they were given to? If Starbucks stopped shifts from getting tips before the court ruled, I think shifts would have sued claiming those tips are their property, not the baristas.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 8:48:27 PM

To the anonymous poster thinking all baristas are newbies, WRONG! Some people, like myself, choose not to be a shift supervisor (I've been w/ sbux for 6 years). Don't start commenting like you're the sh*t because you're a shift and think you're better than a barista.

My feeling on this decision of the lawsuit is neutral. I know many shifts work hard and do the same tasks as baristas, but there also lots of time spent performing "off the floor" work (i.e. banking, till drops, orders, etc). So shifts essentially perform the same duties as an ASM might but receive tips. Shifts should still be compensated, but it should be by sbux because everyone already knows sbux offers very uncompetetive wages.

Posted by: newcastle | Mar 20, 2008 8:59:15 PM

Greedy...greedy...greedy. Why do people always get so greedy? We get so much from our company. Unions suck...If greedy people are not careful stuff gets taken away. Can you imagine a Starbucks world w/o the tip jars, the benefits for 20 hours plus, the stock options, no markouts. So unhappy at work, just freakin quit and go somewhere else.

Posted by: sbuxsteve | Mar 20, 2008 9:09:59 PM

California law says that the empoyer must pay the shifts, rather than letting the custimers and baristas pay.

Since Starbucks chooses to do business there, they need to comply.

Liking a law and obeying a law are two different things. No one says they have to like it.

Posted by: Bill | Mar 20, 2008 9:15:54 PM

SBUXSTEVE,

It's little over-the-top to say that "unions suck." They may not have a place at Starbucks but that does not mean that they "suck." That's an insult to the many happy union members in this country.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 9:21:37 PM

Here's something odd...I'm a shift NOW but was a barista when this action was filed so I'm a member of the class action! That means if this ruling stands ( which I personally do not believe it will on appeal...) I will simultaneously loose my tips but get a pay-out from this $ 106 million...
I'm pissed MORE that neither Starbucks NOR the firm leading the suit have kept me in the loop on this. How do I get MY say in any of this???
If I'm not going to get tips, I want in on my SMs bonus and I want a raise!
PS: I do not believe that shifts are 'agents'.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 9:24:16 PM

NO MORE UNION TALK PLEASE!!!
NO-ONE will EVER change their minds from what they believe about Unions. It's like religion, or possibly genetic (LOL!), It's just not possible for the opposite sides to have a rational discussion!

Posted by: Vancouver Ex-barista | Mar 20, 2008 9:28:23 PM

The point about having more than one shift on the floor working as baristas because they are not the shift that day or that time is a great one... they are working as a barista... doing everything everyone else does. And when I'm floating, I do hop on bar occasionally when we're understaffed - which often happens - and I need to relieve somebody for a break. There are a lot of people in our store who cannot do bar for various reasons and I need to hop on. Also, when I'm floating, I don't just stand there - I expedite the line, get food, coffee, brew coffee... basically do everything baristas do PLUS count in and out of the safe, make change, and drop tills.

And guess what? I just got home from work and I worked a barista shift tonight, closing bar. I deserve tips, and thank goodness that I don't live in CA. Shifts can be called 'management' by the state - fine - but they aren't paid to be management.

I make 50 cents more than several of our baristas - hardly enough to say 'oh well shifts get paid more so they shouldn't get tips too.' It's not like we're making 35+ thousand dollars a year as ASMs and SMs are (in my area anyway.)

If shifts can't have tips, then baristas shouldn't have them either and the tip jar should be gotten rid of all together. Shifts do more work than baristas, are basically paid the same, yet don't get tips? Something really wrong with that.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:05:19 PM

I feel that this ruling on the case is far from just. I think that as a Supervisor, were part of the management "TEAM" but we are by no means a manager. As a co-worker, friend, and ASM put, ss are just baristas with keys. We have more responsibility, yes, but do not do more then hold baristas responsible for Time and Attendance, make sure that the store is in excellent operating conditions, leading by example and showing legendary CS to everyone. I think this was started by a pissed off guy, who wasn't happy that his SSs were able to work 4 hrs while he had to work 8 and they got part of the tip distribution. Chou, I believe his name, may think that he did a great service to all the baristas out their, but he probably hurt this company more then he imagines. Unless Sbux goes and attempts to appeal, everyone is going to be stuck with the result of this case.

/end rant

Posted by: SSinRoseville | Mar 20, 2008 10:08:09 PM

^ What store in Roseville do you work in? I know people up there.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:10:53 PM

@Anon at 9:24:16 PM,

It sounds like the lawyers that sued Starbucks had a conflict of interest. Maybe you could sue them for malpractice. I'm only in law school, so I can't take your case.

Posted by: 3L Barista | Mar 20, 2008 10:13:16 PM

P.S. I'm not saying DAMN IT I DESERVE TIPS before people jump all over me for being an "entitled barista..." I'm just saying, if baristas are receiving them, I should as well. I like my tips but if they were gotten rid of that would be ok with me as well.

I'm so glad I don't live in CA.

PP.S. I'm the poster from above.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:15:14 PM

If a shift supervisor has no managerial duties or authority then why are they called shift supervisor's?

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:27:20 PM

They have authority but are only in charge while running their shift, and do not have access to management files and areas on the computer that higher management has... the authority they have deals with deployment, breaks, and cash.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:29:26 PM

In addition, they are hourly, not salary, as management is in sbux land.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 10:30:34 PM

I agree with previous posters...if Shift Supervisors don't get tips get rid of the tip jars! SS don't get paid a ton more than baristas but the work 3 times as hard!

Posted by: IVL | Mar 20, 2008 11:01:17 PM

I am a SS at a very small sbux. 90% of the time we only have three people working our store. One on the front and two at the dt. I do the same things as the baristas. I make drinks, brew coffee, run registers, give breaks, handle money and so forth. I make $8.10 an hour. I barely get 30 hours a week. So- if this is so much money that I can't have tips... no one deserves them. It's just stupid. I can't believe some unhappy barista did this! We aren't the enemy. I worked my way up the ladder...I didn't expect to make less by doing so!

Posted by: nmailand | Mar 20, 2008 11:28:29 PM

Wouldn't it be great if barista's in every state started class action suits all across the land - which led to the collapse of the misery that is Starbucks!

Posted by: SBUX Hater | Mar 20, 2008 11:28:38 PM

With this ruling look forward to incredibly cheap stock prices. I'd think of buying the Bux for under 10 bucks a share.

Of course so would every other investment company. Starbucks being hostilely taken over would be a sight to behold.

Posted by: | Mar 20, 2008 11:44:04 PM

Hate to say it, but SS are management and perform supervisory duties. Another poster listed a good amount of these duties that get done daily by SSs. The question is not whether or not SS deserve tips; It's whether the job description as provided by Starbucks identifies them as management. For those who are partners, read the differences in the job descriptions....I think it's pretty clear that SS are part of the management team.

Starbucks needs to increase the wages for hourly partners anyways in CA. When I started for the company, one of the things we used as a caveat to potential hires is that we payed above minimum wage, typically .50 over. So, I was making 6.50 when minimum was 6.00. When other restaurants are paying .25-.50 above minimum, we lose some competitive advantage. While tips made up for that difference, its not pay that the company provides for.

The only solution to this would be to give SS an additional 1.00 to 1.50 per hr across the board, and keep tips only to baristas. That would be the right thing to do, but I just don't have faith that they will do that. I think what they may end up doing is getting rid of tips all together, and giving everyone just a .50 cent raise for your troubles;the .50 cents that they report for you on your checks.

I don't think anyone came to work to starbucks because they would make a killing in tips. Instead, it was a nice perk to have, like a free lb. of coffee. If tips jars are removed from stores in CA, and partners complain about how much they depended on that extra $20-$30 to help make ends meet weekly, then corportate really needs to take a look at how it compensates partners in this state, and align it with our Mission Statement.

Sorry about rambling =), but I just wanted to throw in my .02 for what its worth....

Posted by: zoom | Mar 20, 2008 11:53:37 PM

I think it'd be really fucked up to take tips away from baristas, as well. Don't blame this on the barista or the state, blame Sbux for not working around the law. I depends on my $30 a week to get me through the week, especially with gas approacing $4/gallon fast. $30 is enough for me to cover my basic needs, while allowing my bank account funds to accumulate.

And for the shifts that say they work 3x as hard, get over yourselves. The day I see my shifts at my store do a trash run, do mats, bar a rush, clean bathrooms, mop the lobby, or any other work that the baristas usually do is the day I'll have a problem with this lawsuit.

Posted by: Barista | Mar 20, 2008 11:59:37 PM

Barista - And for the shifts that say they work 3x as hard, get over yourselves. The day I see my shifts at my store do a trash run, do mats, bar a rush, clean bathrooms, mop the lobby, or any other work that the baristas usually do is the day I'll have a problem with this lawsuit.

Are you kidding?? Your SS don't do that stuff? What do they do...sit in the back with their thumbs up their asses? Sounds you have either some really piss-poor SS's that you need to report to your SM, or a really shitty store and you need to transfer.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 12:06:07 AM

What a joke lawsuit.

Times like this it makes me hate working in Cali. People will sue over anything and feel so entitled to the everyone else's hard work.

Shift's don't deserve tips? I've worked days where everyone on for the first 4 hours are shifts, people gave me and the other shift tips -- then I get a call from a barista whose telling me she'll be late and wants to leave early.

Oh, so I handle the cash and do the deposit. Big whoop, thats 15 mins of my day, the other 8 hours are spent doing the same job a barista does only better.

Sure, theres lazy shifts who don't deserve tips -- they deserve to be fired. Theres just as many lazy barista's/Managers/ASMs/DM's out there too.

They should be fired, plain and simple.

Should shifts not get tips? Hardly. Starbucks needs to rename the position, make sure the managers do their jobs of doing the schedule right (mine says when lunchs are) and punish workers who meal break by not following the schedule.

I have many times -- and I am sure I am not alone -- been GIVEN money personally by a customer while at the bar. Do i pocket it? I share it with the others, because we all work together to do our jobs.

Just because your sbux sucks and is full of lazy people doesn't mean every store is the same.

Posted by: Zipy | Mar 21, 2008 12:16:21 AM

Everyone at my store works hard, especially the shifts. I think this is very unfair. Although shifts do give direction during their day at work, I would hardly call them management. Even as an ASM I'm really just a barista who has keys to the safe and tells people when to take a break. A Starbucks manager is far different then a manager at another retail place. We work on the floor 95% of the time, just like everyone else. It really stinks for me, because I give great service, my customers tip, but I get Zero of that because I am a "manager".

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 12:18:26 AM

At Starbucks, anyone in the store above the barista is considered part of the management team ie shift lead, assistant manager and store manager.
According to California labor law neither the employer nor their agent may receive tips. Agent is defined as such "every person other than the employer having the
authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or
control the acts of employees".
Obviously, this particular judge ruled that since shift leads delegate many of the tasks to be done during the shift, they are management. She seems to have not considered any of the other criteria.

The question is not whether shifts deserve tips, but whether doing this part of their job, without the power to back any request up, actually makes them a real manager.
Most shifts will know that they can ASK a barista to perform a task, but they cannot "control the acts of an employee".

I believe on appeal another judge will recognize that without the power to terminate an employee for insubordination, a shift has no "control" at all.
Shifts do all the same work as baristas plus have additional serious responsibilities such as cash and safe handling.

I'm curious IF this were to implemented how having 2 shifts on the floor would work for tips...
What about all the shifts that were baristas since 2000, when this suit was back-dated to????
Calling shifts part of the management team does not make them managers, and citing the fact that the job description calls for them to deploy partners doesn't either.

Posted by: No Name | Mar 21, 2008 12:19:32 AM

"The day I see my shifts at my store do a trash run, do mats, bar a rush, clean bathrooms, mop the lobby, or any other work that the baristas usually do is the day I'll have a problem with this lawsuit."

Barista:
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you but your Shifts ARE lazy!!!
I'm a shift and on my last shift ( like every one before ) I did ALL the things you listed PLUS a 2nd trash run AND I cleaned the oven. On top of that I closed a bar, swept & mopped the lobby and the back-line, made prep, cleaned 3 urns ( properly!), made sure 5 partners got all their breaks in a timely fashion, counted and balanced 6 tills and the safe, AND made sure the next shift was set up with as many extra little things I could do to make their open nicer.
If your shifts don't work like that, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Have a conversation with your SM, show them this post, and stand up for yourself!
Good Luck to you.

Posted by: No name | Mar 21, 2008 12:30:12 AM

"I feel vindicated," Chou said in a written statement released by attorneys. "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."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/03/20/us.starbucks.ap/index.html

Before you guys call this Chou guy a "pissy barista" think of it this way: he wants Starbucks to pay the SS a fair wage, and in return the tips belong to the Baristas. Everybody wins!

It's about time Starbucks took some responsibility to their hard-working middle management staff. It's not right to ask the customers to directly fund the wages of the underpaid employees that the corporation has been neglecting.

Posted by: former Seattle 'bucky 118**** | Mar 21, 2008 12:33:11 AM

I read on some forums that the Choad Warrior who watched us on LJ and blogs for da BUX is gone.

So if that's the case I guess that our opinions about this lawsuit won't reach Howie unless we log on to the official site.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 12:54:14 AM

Lux,
I hope just at your store, you don't recieve tips. Just by calling baristas underlings warrants this action. You and I both know that 95% of shift leads just order others around. Yes, they do work till and make drinks, but they don't really do the manual labour. if you're so concerned with money, go work at a restaurant.

Posted by: Shite | Mar 21, 2008 12:56:05 AM

Shite:

See post by No name | Mar 21, 2008 12:30:12 AM

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:01:05 AM

You know, that's really sad. The shifts at my store do that and so much more. I definitely think they should be getting tips. They do so much on the floor and this lawsuit will only encourage shifts to sit in the back and do nothing on the floor. I hope this ruling is overturned.

Posted by: sherrie | Mar 21, 2008 1:31:59 AM

Seems like this company can't get a break these days. This ruling is going to cause such dissension in the ranks. I believe anyone who is not salaried should get tips. All of you work hard. Another sad day for the bux. As someone pointed out we're partners, and as such we should a team. I really feel bad for all the shifts in Cali.Vicki, let me know what happens today at your store.

Posted by: Darleen | Mar 21, 2008 1:54:26 AM

Who's gonna do tips for the week now? SS?

That's just asking for trouble - more SS will steal tips now than ever before.

Solution: Starbucks complies with the rulings and follow Chou's advice of raising wages for SS so they don't need to dip into tips. Reserve tips for the lowest wage workers - the baristas.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 2:40:42 AM

Doing the tips has never been limited to Shifts-a barista is allowed to do them. And screw you. If you think your shifts are stealing your tips, call business conduct or your DM or anyone. Why wouldn't you actually do something productive about it? Oh yeah, because there's no proof, because it never happened, right!
PS why not fight for a raise for baristas too, intead of remaining at the whim, tho usually gracious, of our customers?

Posted by: Bite Me! | Mar 21, 2008 2:48:39 AM

whether you agree with the decision or not, i was decided in a court of law and starbucks lost. i'd say that is pretty straightforward. as for the poster who claimed the baristas will never see the money i believe you are incorrect. sure, the lawfirm will take their rather sizeable cut but most likely at least 60% will go to the class action group. starbucks should certainly have been planning for the possibility of this outcome and be ready to make whatever adjustments in policy are necessary both in california and nationally.

Posted by: jabanga | Mar 21, 2008 3:10:24 AM

Best thing would be to remove the tip holder. It's been an issue since the first time I entered a SBUX. I've seen people accused, fired, quit, etc., because of this little plastic box. In franchised stores I've seen the same box with a lock on it and the tips are given to a charity. I understand the value of the tips to the baristas, but it needs to go away. Perhaps after this ruling, SBUX will raise the pay of employees to make up for the tip box. I also think it encourages theft, because someone that receives a free drink will most definitely put something in the tip holder!!!!! Sorry, it's the truth. Not meant to accuse or upset, it's just a fact.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 4:12:28 AM

Question:

Suppose you were a barista during that time from 97-2001? Would you be intitled to an monies? It was hugd deal that out SS got tips, which we did not believe was fair at the time ( plus the fact that he counted and divided the tips as well). Any thoughts? Would would we contact our would they contact us ( i still know my partner number ! i am an early one starting in the 248***.

Thanks and i love this board!

Posted by: Jersey Americano | Mar 21, 2008 4:26:07 AM

Jabanga,
You are correct that whether we agree or not it was decided in a court of law. However the fat lady hasn't sung yet. It could be in appeals for a long time and an appellate judge could totally reverse that decision. I'm sure in the 8 yrs since this case began Starbucks has been preparing for the worst. Still a sad day when a partner sues the company.

Posted by: Darleen | Mar 21, 2008 4:28:36 AM

Darleen... I couldn't agree more. A sad day indeed and probably a good time to just pony up and start re-building credibility with the partners.

Posted by: Pat Nerr | Mar 21, 2008 5:41:30 AM

While there is much ranting, the *law* on this is rather clear and SBux was wildly cavalier to ignore it. "Managers", be they shift supervisors, foremen or the like, are not entitled to pooled tips. There is a presumption in the law that a company rewards those they put in management positions with higher pay and/or benefit packages. This issue is not with the law, but with SBux...if they are titling certain employees as managers and *not* compensating them appropriately. It is not as if this is a new law, nor is it simply CA...I worked in restaurants *many* years ago and in several states and it was always the case the the supervisor/manager did not get tips. The only surprise here is that SBux has succeeded in ignoring the law for so long...

Posted by: Caffeine Attorney | Mar 21, 2008 6:13:30 AM

The bulk of the blame really does lie w/ sbux. A business of this size, operating in Cal. should be expected , at the very least, to understand labor code. This is not the first time they've been punished in that state for labor matters. It happened a few years back with salaried partners working 40+ hours a week. That should have taken care of a situation like this.
That said, I do get sick of living in the United States (states is plural, not singular) of America, with California seeming to have a disproportionate amount of influence over everyone else.
Don't automatically assume that tips are just a way for sbux to keep from paying it's people. It's seems there are people on here, that no matter the situation, will come to the conclusion that this entity is evil and sitting in a boardroom twisting their mustaches, plotting the ruin of the little people. That simply is not the case. Corporate partners are human beings, just like you. They have a job to do. The next time one of you "haters" is 5 minutes late for your shift, tell us. We'll assume you're an evil corporate entity that hates serving customers, helping staff the floor etc.. You see where I'm going with this. People have to make decisions in order to run a business. If you don't agree with them, fine. But stop running and hiding w/ John Edwards behind "corporate america is evil" Corporate america gave you a job. OKAY.
TIPS are gratuity. A way for customers to show their appreciation. You all are lucky sbux has allowed them for this long. They don't have to. ANd with the entitlement I see in the stores, concerning tips, I'd rather get rid of them all together have all hourly partners pissed for a minute, maybe some leave and then we move on. It's sad...whenever tips are down for the week I here partners floating what it could have been that caused it. I've yet to hear a partner question the level of service they gave as a group.

Posted by: oliversash | Mar 21, 2008 6:17:45 AM

Ok, I am a Shift Supervisor and have been for a long time. This Company has and still is great to its partners. These yahoos that think Shift Supervisors do not do the same and in many cases more work than the partner who works a 4 hour shift, have lost thier ever loving mind!!!!!!!!!! Yes during peak times we do float, But as a floater we are responsible for the damn thing running smoothly. Meaning we make coffee ,get pastries, make drinks,slide lobby,get change, and make sure we get well needed breaks. I would like to see this Crazy Judge and lawyer come during a peak time and run it. I WANT MY DAMN TIPS!!!!!

Posted by: lisa olivieri | Mar 21, 2008 6:25:40 AM

Former Seattle Bucky 118, , ,

"Everybody wins!"

Words cannot express how insane that comment is. Why doesn't Starbucks just pay everyone 50 bucks an hour. . then "everybody wins!" right?

Starbucks is a team of coffee shops, NOT an endless supply of money. Have you ever heard of a thing called "stock price?" I'm wondering what your idea of a business is because it seems as though you think a business is an endless supply of money that you deserve. Sounds like you are pretty familiar with the term "entitlement."

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 6:37:33 AM

I worked in Cali as a barista and shift, I now work in Seattle, and I feel this has got to be one of the most ridiculous lawsuits. Although shifts do run the floor at times, SM and ASMs should be running the store the majority of the time and are now required to do so during peaks. If the guy who filed the suit put this much effort in his performance with the company, maybe he wouldn't have been fired.

Posted by: Tall Guy | Mar 21, 2008 7:26:34 AM

I worked as a Shift Supervisor for two years, and I can tell you that we (all shift supervisors) did the exact same thing as Baristas. We worked the bar, we workd the register, we mopped the floors. We did it ALL, and for only $1 more than what baristas were getting.

To the 2nd comment at the top of the list, yes - in a perfect world, the Shift Supervisor is a floater. But that rarely works out. Short-staffed, busy times, etc. almost always place Shift Supervisors at the same level of work as a barista.

The ruling is ludicrous, and I foresee it being thrown out in appeals court. And if it's not, and baristas want all the tips, then be careful of the impact it will have: If baristas get all the tips, then Shift Supervisors will need to get a pretty high wage increase to compensate for it. Higher wages means less money for Starbucks, so what they'll do is hire less baristas. Baristas take the cut either way you look at it, so I would advise them all to take caution in this ordeal.

Posted by: Ellen | Mar 21, 2008 7:35:15 AM

Unionize. http://www.ufcw.org/

Posted by: Unionize | Mar 21, 2008 7:38:07 AM

At Starbucks there are standards for everything including labor and deployment. The deployment standard are for shifts not to have a till and not to be on bar. They are "floaters." The shift supervisors are also usually the CASH CONTROLLER meaning they have access to funds in the safe.
I have worked in stores where the SM and DM in their infinite wisdom have verbally reprimanded shift supervisors for being on bar or having a till because they are not running their shifts correctly and the floor is deployed according to standard.
That being said the primary difference between being a shift supervisor and barista is they are in charge of the safe, verifying the funds in the safe are correct. Shift supervisors also get to spend about 30-90 minutes each day on their butts doing the deposit which they leave to go to the bank with.
In my opinion, the job description for shift supervisors and barista are very different.

BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL
PRIMUS INTER PARES
STARBUCKS REBEL ALLIANCE
AIM SN: BOSTONSTARREBEL

Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Mar 21, 2008 7:54:39 AM

Come on all you SBUX libs, I just heard a famous speech earlier this week point out that corporations are evil and he'll save you with hope.This is what's happened in CA,Gov't to your rescue.The lawyers get their's first, since trial lawyers do contribute,then taxes.Add a union if you want to split your wages with another fat cat. With luck baristas get unemployment and a gov't job when they bankrupt SBUX.

Posted by: snagger | Mar 21, 2008 8:07:09 AM

At a time when the company is re-organizing and improving - getting back to the coffee, this is a kick in the teeth! Absolutely ridiculous and I am so sick of greedy people looking for a way to make a quick buck on a company that cares for its partners. I usually don't write anything but this calls for an immediate reaction. Unjust, Unfair and I believe once again Stabucks is being targeted.

Posted by: starbuckmngr | Mar 21, 2008 8:10:05 AM

I think a lot of good things have been said about this issue, but I thought I'd pipe in with my own unique perspective.

I am a SS, but I was not always. I was hired as an external RMT. I worked as an ASM for over two years, completed my ASM certification, was acting SM for over a month, and was on the verge of getting my own store. Then, a business opportunity came my way, and I had to decide between being an SM or starting my own small business. As a result, I took a step down to SS.

Speaking from the management perspective, SS are a valuable part of the management team. Who do you think runs the store 90% of the time??? Not ASMs or the SM....it's the shifts! They have an incredible amount of responsibility, and in my neck of the woods (Portland), they do it very well. 9 times out of 10, the shifts are the hardest workers I've ever seen.

However, we are called shift SUPERVISORS....not shift MANAGERS....for several important reasons. We are distinguised from upper management in that we are hourly partners. We are not required to work a 40 hour work week like ASMs and SMs. We can trade shifts, we can go home early...as an ASM, I was always required to work an 8 hour day. Upper management get extra perks...higher salary, extra sick and vacation time, extra free insurance, management bonuses, and yet often do similar work that shifts are doing.

I wholeheartedly agree that SBUX should pay SS appropriately for the work they are doing. I think a SS bonus is long overdue. I can tell you my wage as a SS is nowhere near my old salary as an ASM, plus I'm no longer guaranteed 40 hours a week. BUT UNTIL THEY DO.....SS absolutely deserve the tips they are helping to earn.

Posted by: ladygeek | Mar 21, 2008 8:10:14 AM

This is really a Calif thing. I know in the state I am in shift supervisors share in the tips. They deserve it and are entitled to them. As a Calif native, this is typical of Calif leglislation. I believe in most our company owned stores in other states Shifts normally recieve tips as part of their compensation - as they should.

Posted by: starbuckmngr | Mar 21, 2008 8:18:06 AM

If this ruling stands and spreads to other areas, there will be many unintended consequences.

I am a SS, fortunately far from CA. If this spread to my area, I would actively discourage my customers from tipping. Most of our other shifts would probably do this as well.

Posted by: baristagrl | Mar 21, 2008 8:19:17 AM

This case will be in appeals for years. If by some off chance it's not overturned, get ready for tip jars to be taken away all together. Lets see how many baristas in California agree with this lawsuit then.

BSR-
You live in a dream world. You constantly contradict yourself in posts. You make statements that are pure bs. You posts passwords in the hopes that some jackass just like you will cause trouble at their store. You seriously need to grow up.

Posted by: Stacy | Mar 21, 2008 8:41:08 AM

so where so i find out if i get money back??

Posted by: keri | Mar 21, 2008 8:50:35 AM

So does this mean the baristas can start wasiting their own time counting down tips? If we are still expected to handle all the tip counting etc...whew, talk about insult to injury.

Posted by: EmmGee | Mar 21, 2008 9:16:48 AM

From the CNN article:

> "I feel vindicated," Chou said in a
> written statement released by
> attorneys. "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."

I have an even better idea. I think Starbucks should pay *everyone* slightly higher raises, and GET RID OF THE INSULTING TIP JARS.

I recently traveled to Japan for the first time. Know what was the most pleasant thing about the trip? NO TIPPING! People are paid a decent wage and there's no grovelling and guilt tripping for a dollar every time you DO YOUR JOB!

Golden opportunity for Starbucks to follow this example. Ban the tip jars in all stores, licensed or owned; and compensate with a raise; and advertise to the customers that there's no tipping. I'll double my visits to Starbucks since I wouldn't go to Tully's / Seattle's Best anymore.

Posted by: Jiggy | Mar 21, 2008 9:22:03 AM

oh christ. if all you people are going to fight over the lose change in the jar then i won't be leaving any ever again. the implosion of this once great company is incredibly fascinating and... pretty damn sad.

Posted by: jlowe | Mar 21, 2008 9:23:13 AM

BSR - 30 to 90 minutes on their butts?

As a SS I used to do the deposit and be back from the back in < 20 minutes on a busy morning, oftentimes sacrificing my breaks or putting them off till later in order to get it done.

hardly "sitting on my butt"

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 9:24:18 AM

I am a SS at a very small sbux...I make $8.10 an hour

Deplorable! Truly. I can't enen see the incentive to becoming a shift supervisor. Is it mainly just necessary as a stepping stone, becuase you don't seemed to be valued in terms of compensation for your valuable and essential role in coordinating/accomplishing the tasks of the day.

Here's a problem(?) I've noticed with Starbucks. As much as they keep pushing the customer service aspect, they are constantly making their workers alternate between store-food-beverage-upkeep and service. If a store has little down time and 2 or 3 partners, how can you blame the employess for loss of customer focus?
geez. Realistic check!

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 9:26:51 AM

Weather the suit sucks or not, the bottle line is, Starbucks was against the law. Weather or not you like the law or not, it’s a law, and they can not do that. Plain and simple. Your anger shouldn't be directed at judges and lawyers, whose job it is to make sure the laws are followed, you should be pissed at the law makers, they are the ones that wrote the law.
Stop crying.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 9:27:32 AM

Isn't this the right time to get rid of the tip jars altogether? I'm a barista ans of course I like the perk of getting tips but I really hate all these discussions about who is "entitled" to get them and who isn't. I say: Get rid of the tip jars altogether. If a customer wants to give something, tell him to buy his favourite barista a nice pastry from a bakery (one of my customers does that all the time) or bring a box of chocolate to share around christmas. This way the really nice customers and Baritas and SS and ASM's and SM's can connect on a personal basis and noone needs to argue about tip jars anymore.
I'm willing to give up my 70 cents of tip an hour (my store doesn't get more anyway) for the peace of everyones mind...

Posted by: Me | Mar 21, 2008 9:29:38 AM

This is strange on so many levels. I had to read the story about three times, and I still do not really understand how this case was won. I am not sure about anyone else that works at SBUX, but the shifts should be *sharing* in part of the work and therefore the tips. Some Baristas make it sound like shifts stand in one spot and give everyone else orders. I personally, as a shift for over 5 years, would hope that is not true and just exaggerated. We all follow the duty roster and work. If some shifts aren't doing their fair share of work, then some of the animosity towards them is understood. In some combination I usually help with some of these tasks: I grind COW, lift the mats, mop the floors, clean the bathrooms, deckbrush the floors when it snows and there is salt everywhere. One of our jobs to keep the Baristas on task. If I find a Barista that doesn't know what they should be doing then I will have them start in on the Duty Roster. Smaller stores can't afford an ASM (assistant store manager) so it falls on Shifts' shoulders to get paid far less than salaried partners and still be expected to keep up the store. To compare with all the hourly partners out there, I would estimate that ASM's make at the low end $18+hr and Managers somewhere around $22+hr at the low end. This coupled with a better benefits, i.e. tons more vacation time, yet the hourly shifts get the “rare opportunity to be the managers" in the store (Yes, my DM tried to phrase it like this!). For running the store while the manger is not there, the Shifts get paid on average $1.50 or a little more to do a lot more work. Shifts are paid more because they handle more, they usually have more in-store knowledge, have been employed longer, deal customers who are having issues, float (during peak hours), keep up the cash management, are a *leader* to the partners on shift (not a dictator), fixing or calling for repairs on broken equipment, transfer in supplies the store is low on. Because I work in a non-ASM store, I am most mornings, afternoons and evenings most definitely coverage. I work the bar, I am interacting with customers, re-stocking on both sides of the counter. Even when I am floating in the morning, I am still busy with tons of tasks. I think this issue has more to do with a loophole in CA law. If shifts were salary, then I would expect shifts to not receive tips.

Posted by: Hourly Shift | Mar 21, 2008 9:31:07 AM

California is always the lawsuit starts. Once a lawsuit is won in California everyone else wants to try.

So this "off floor duties" that managers/shifts preform daily, banking, ordering, till counting, etc... We also take out trash, scrub floors, clean drains, clean frigs, clean/detail bathrooms, clean and stock RTD, etc.......So if a barista is proforming one of these tasks,,, you shouldn't get tipped out. And I know what you are going to say "if we don't have a clean store customer won't come in or tip". Well If I don't do a order and have grande cups, what do you think is going to happen. Everything we do is for the "customer".

And as for your shift telling you what register to assign and what to clean...... Maybe if you learned to read the DCR for your position(R1/1,R2/1,R1/2,R2/2,B1,B2,CBS1,CBS2,FP,F) and look and the Duty Roster for you assigned jobs maybe the shift wouldn't have to tell you. Your SM and ASM assign you those jobs and the shift is there to make sure you are following the managers direction.

Posted by: tall is small | Mar 21, 2008 9:41:27 AM

"Ok, I am a Shift Supervisor and have been for a long time. we make coffee ,get pastries, make drinks,slide lobby,get change, and make sure we get well needed breaks. I would like to see this Crazy Judge and lawyer come during a peak time and run it. I WANT MY DAMN TIPS!!!!!"

I agree you deserve good pay. But your post reminds me, (and sorry if I'm wrong), that instead of tips being a little nicety from grateful customers, many employees are accustomed to that as part of their PAY. Would employees stay if they got that 'pay' demotion?

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 9:46:25 AM

Hourly Shift - ASM's make at the low end $18+hr and Managers somewhere around $22+hr at the low end.

You're dreaming. I know it'll vary market by market, but as a SS I was making $14 an hour before tips and I actually took a pay CUT to be an ASM. And I didn't start at the low end of the ASM salary-scale.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 9:48:55 AM

"Isn't this the right time to get rid of the tip jars altogether?"

I wonder if the CUSTOMERS have any opinions about the tip jar? Neutral? Hate it? Love it?

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 9:50:33 AM

for all the starbucks lovers who dont work there: this company sucks. worst company to work for. does not take care of their workers. and as for your "lose change" if your going to bitch about how were fighting over it, dont leave a tip.
the workers work so hard to put out your drink so you dont freak out and have a bad day and your telling us not to fight over lose change? tips help out A LOT. stop being lazy and go make your own coffee.

Posted by: keri | Mar 21, 2008 9:50:43 AM

not to bring this back to unions, but in my first post by "organize" I didn't necessarily mean unionize, and I think it's being taken that way by journalists and others.

What I meant is that the SS's in California need to coordinate to make sure that if their tips are taken away and they're offered a raise that they are offered a fair-rase, either state-wise or district-wide or store-by-store based on what their tips used to be.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 9:52:27 AM

The law is clear.

Posted by: TPK | Mar 21, 2008 9:59:46 AM

The cash simplification does slow down the process of doing the deposit. Also, I have seen some shift supervisors take up to 2 hours to just count the money for some reason and then another 30 minutes to go to the bank. Really stupid.

Posted by: BOSTON STARBUCKS REBEL | Mar 21, 2008 10:04:26 AM

I've seen barista do a trash run in 5 to 10 minutes and some take 15 to 30. Really stupid. Goes both ways!!

Posted by: trash talker | Mar 21, 2008 10:10:05 AM

aaah. Well I can't speak to that. I left before "cash simplification." but that still seems just...incompetent.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 10:10:17 AM

Well I stand corrected, that sucks. It is odd because as a shift myself, I am currently capped at $11 and change (before tips). I guess that means that the ASM's and SM's here probably make less than yours if I am correct in assuming that the caps scale with the market.

@Boston Rebel and Trash Talker:
I think your points are much in the same. It is hard to know if any partner is truly challenged by their task or just lazy. I think after a while of the same behavior you assume the latter.

Posted by: Hourly Shift | Mar 21, 2008 10:35:35 AM

How is this law clear? All I've seen is that one judge ruled this way. For all we know, the judge was smoking crack in a back room and some other court is going to say he was wrong. Reading the law, I just don't see how the ruling is right. Where does the law say that "agents" (that's the term) can't get tips? It says they can't take tips from "employees." So if the "employees" are the baristas, the judge had to rule that shifts are taking the tips from baristas. What evidence could have possibly shown that? Maybe if the shifts are sitting around all day, that would be the case, but I've never seen a store where that happens. The shifts just taking the tips they earn, not taking anything from the baristas.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 10:41:57 AM

I am a SS at a very small sbux...I make $8.10 an hour

I think that particular SS's pay is a regional thing. SS's in my area make $9.10 for the first six months holding the position, and then get a raise to $9.98, pending a good review.

Posted by: Kittymoose | Mar 21, 2008 11:07:54 AM

okay, it looks like shifts are part of management team. so starbucks corps. get ready to compensate these hard working partners, part of your management team. alot of partners move up to shifts to further their career with the company, asst. manager, etc, how many will still want to make this move now? Starbucks pay your baristas and shifts more money- we are the people who are in front of customers day in day out, at register, at the bar. We're the ones selling the products that you put out there. We're the ones that have to be so legendary at all times. Quit making bad decisions about warming breakfast sandwiches, that stunk up the store. Stop selling k-mart merchandise, stop promoting books, movies. etc. I have been with this company for a long long time, I think I know what I'm talking about. It's about coffee, learning about it, selling the whole concept about the third place. let's get back to basics. pay the people well who make this company successful. enough!

Posted by: smokey | Mar 21, 2008 11:27:09 AM

Posted by: smokey | Mar 21, 2008 11:27:31 AM

This is stupid. Especially since there was another suit in California saying that Managers and ASM's don't do enough managerial work to be considered exempt. It sounds like they are saying that someone in a lower position than those two does enough managerial work to not qualify for tips. I guess shift supervisors really do run the store! (it's probably true most of the time anyway) ha ha.

Posted by: ParagonVanilla | Mar 21, 2008 11:56:34 AM

So, I make an extra dollar an hour then baristas and work about 20 hours a week. This means I work about 80 hours a month. Normally, my tips are at least 20 dollars a week. This means my tips are usually about 80 dollars a month. basically, if I am going to be missing out on the tips that I deserve, i would rather demote and work as a barista and make roughly the same amount of money. Lets face it, as a shift supervisor, I have to do my job and most of the time finish the job of the baristas. Also, my store is always short staffed and most of the time I am on r1 and making drinks for cafe and the drive thru. If I do have an r1 partner, I am then taking drive thru orders and making the connections with customers that most of the time result in tips. If they are going to take away the tips that I deserve, they need to make sure that we are no longer expected to perform the duties of baristas but if I am performing a task, i should get paid for it.

Posted by: SBJ | Mar 21, 2008 12:05:44 PM

The best part is this self-righteous, self-absorbed, self-entitled *former* barista has probably set a precedent to ruin it for everyone else in the company.

I bet this barista was the classic Type B barista - didn't do any work unless directed, couldn't make a drink to save his life despite loads of training, and was probably just resentful of the whole Starbucks environment, so this is his childish, unfortunate way of getting back at the company.

The fact is I'm quite sure only ten percent of baristas can say they do work without their shift supervisor directing them to do it, and a good two-thirds of baristas would do shit-all if there wasn't someone on their ass every 10 minutes to do some work.

The other thing is, as has been raised already, most of the time those tips are from regulars who want to tip the *shift supervisor*, not the asshat barista grudgingly "working" the bar with a frown and bad posture.

We only start $1.25/hr higher than a barista where I am, and I can vouch that we do 10 times the work of a barista, including the stuff they do, and we usually do it better. That's why we were promoted.

Jou Chau can burn in hell.

Posted by: Tim | Mar 21, 2008 12:25:37 PM

As for the guy who wants to unionise, go shove your leaflet up your arse. Nobody wants to unionise. There is never an excuse or a reason to unionise, and unions will be the death of society.

Posted by: Tim | Mar 21, 2008 12:36:15 PM

We're a small store. As a shift, I take R1 and the bar for (minimum) the first 2 hours, then when my third person gets in,I'm on R1 and CBS, plus all float duties.

When I get a fourth person in, I do the deposit, trash, put the order away, make backups.. anything else that needs doing.

30-40% of the time, my 3rd or 4th person is my SM.

Several of my baristas are Learning Coaches. With new hires, they are assigned to mentor and train.

So I guess according to California law, they are "directing the work of others", and are therefore not eligible to receive tips?

Posted by: sbuxnewbie | Mar 21, 2008 12:46:22 PM

I think if California pulls the tip jar then the rest of the company will follow suit. Its too bad for our customers because the service is going to turn into a fast food joint. Partners aren't going to make that extra effort for our customers.
Today a barista called out and we had to call in a SS which gave us 2 SS and the ASM, NO BARISTAS. This happens alot!!! If we do keep the tip jars than I can't see why a tip jar would even be out if we only have management on the floor.
Maybe clocking in and out shift to barista, like training to barista.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 12:48:56 PM

I am so sick of the media painting Starbucks as the culprit to all of the world's disasters. This whole story is just something they can spin however they like to make it sound bad. They enjoy making it sound like Starbucks took money from the poor lowly baristas and blah blah blah. I am a shift supervisor and I was shocked to hear of this. I work hard each and everyday and like someone said earlier, what would get done without us?? we are the ones asking a fellow partner to make more frap, to stock cups, to check the cafe etc etc. I honestly think simple things like that would NEVER get done, if it was not for shifts. And all the while we are helping customers and trying to provide a legendary experience. I only make a dollar more than most baristas, but at times I feel I work over twice as hard. I know this is the "law" in California, but it is wrong.

Posted by: a shift | Mar 21, 2008 12:49:38 PM

No need to unionize now, starbuckians. Get ready for a leveraged buyout soon, so ell your options and get out before its too late.

Posted by: Pat Ner | Mar 21, 2008 12:49:56 PM

I may get a lot of flack for saying this...

But if we have to raise SS pay rates because they DON'T get tips, then I think its only fair for us to lower barista pay rates because they DO get tips.

And believe me, I'm not about this whole "we do more work than you BS." We're all partners here. But in the context of the argument, I think it makes sense. I'd love to hear everyones thoughts on it.

Posted by: Vicki Verona | Mar 21, 2008 12:54:01 PM

Also, just want to point out....if Starbucks is forced to raise its pay rates for shift supervisors by $1.50-$2.00/hr in a state that has the highest numbers of Starbucks per capita in the world, then don't expect them to just suck it up and eat up the cost. They will either do a California only price increase or a small national price increase.

This is so screwed up. I'm so upset by this. This is not what the company needed in its transformational journey. Think of what could have been added to the stores with $106 million.

Posted by: Vicki Verona | Mar 21, 2008 12:56:26 PM

Supervisors should be making at least $4-5 more an hour in the end however that works out.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:04:56 PM

($4-5/hr. more than baristas) ;)

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:07:11 PM

Vicki, I couldn't agree more. We should be cutting pay accordingly to make up for the fact that baristas will now be getting a greater share (i.e. 100%) of the tips, especially if shifts aren't in line to get a raise from this.

I also agree the timing of this suit sucks - we don't need this right now. Thanks Jou. Hopefully you sleep well at night knowing you've single-handedly cut supplementary wage for Starbucks' 18,000(?) shift supervisors.

Posted by: Tim | Mar 21, 2008 1:08:58 PM

Vicki V - you're right. Wages should be adjusted accordingly across the board if this goes down. Otherwise you'll have baristas (with tips) making as much as shift supervisors (without tips) and yet the shifts having extra responsibilities, which makes no sense.

Something's got to give here, assuming the inevitable appeals fail.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 1:16:51 PM

I believe as a shift supervisor I am entitled to a portion of the tips just as well as any "barista" partner. At the store I am at, I can guarantee that a big portion of the tips we get are because of a customers familiarity with me. I know more people by name than any other partner in our store and the customersa know mo by name as well. The newer partners definitely dont get the tips for ths store...its those customers who give legendary service and whom the customers are familiar with that are briniging in the tips. I can guarantee that at the store I am at, if supervisors are excluded from tips...the barista's tip rate will definitely go down drastically. The supervisors at our store are familiar with many of the customers. And I will say this: If I am excluded from getting tips...I will undoubtedly not be as legendary as i have been. And if tips are excluded...and I happen to be ringing someone up even once and he or she puts a tip in the jar...you better be dang sure I should be entitled to a portion of the tips. I am not in the back on the computer all the time. I am primarily on the floor assisting customers. With exception to doing the deposit and taking it to the bank.

I will add that I work at a "seasonal store". I dont know if the other partners know this, but we are entitled to a higher pay rate at a certain time of the year. If I am not compensated for that this season and am excluded from receiving tips I will guarantee that I will quit.

Posted by: Supervisor...not a SuperMANAGER...I deserve tips! | Mar 21, 2008 1:17:55 PM

I agree Pat Ner..

Don't get me wrong, I respect all the hard work the baristas do at our store and we all get along great, but if people really want this to be politically correct it would have to work both ways.

I guess this whole mess just makes me upset. Starbucks is a good company and really does give alot to it's employees, but I feel it is being overshadowed by all of this nonsense started by this one person.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 1:22:27 PM

Hey Keri,

As much as this does blow, you should take your negativity and go find another job. Starbucks doesn't suck, it just has a bad flu. We can only recover if partners drop the "Starbucks sucks" mentality... or we fire them.

Posted by: Tim | Mar 21, 2008 1:49:48 PM

I also think Keri needs a coaching conversation about STAR SKILLS. I can't tell if she is a burnt bean or a bitter customer...?

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 2:04:17 PM

To those of you who want to get rid of the tip jar. My store makes $3.50-$4/hr in tips. Increasing compensation by 3.00 would be ludcrously expensive and put starbucks out of business.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 2:08:09 PM

Anon@2:08:09:

If the tips can't be shared fairly between the people who earn them, then why should anyone get tips. It sounds like the baristas in your store are getting by pretty well. It's too bad that the baristas in the class action didn't tell the court that they didn't want to screw their co-workers who also deserve tips. If nobody brought this lawsuit, there wouldn't be a problem, but the baristas got greedy and wanted all the tips. Starbucks doesn't have to let anyone get tips and shouldn't sanction a system that's unfair to the other workers.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 2:13:47 PM

Im in California and in my area the only time shifts do the deposit is when the manager and assistant are not in the store. I'm not sure but this rule came down the pike at the same time that we experienced a rash of robberies on the way to the bank-could be related...
Here's why I think shifts should legally be entitled to tips ( aside from the fact that we do all the things baristas do plus more AND because whoever said it above-90% of baristas would not get much done if some shifts wasn't on them every 10 minutes-sorry, this is my experience also):
If the suit was decided because the judge found that shifts can "direct the work of others" and are therefor managers, I say this...
The only person who can authoritatively direct/order you to do something is the person/s who can terminate you if you don't comply. Otherwise it's just a request.
So, as far as I'm concerned that means shifts AND assistants should share in tips.
If the person "directing" you cannot compel you in some way to comply, they're just asking.
Before I take alot of flack for my opinion let me say, I'm a shift, in California and am not about to become an assistant!

Posted by: nattering nabob | Mar 21, 2008 2:33:36 PM

Funny... I got promoted to shift lead three days ago and now I would make more if I'd have stayed at barista...

Posted by: A Barista | Mar 21, 2008 2:43:21 PM

more "Pat Ner" wannabees... anybody else might get miffed... I think it's funny that people use the name as a way to add credibility ot incredibility to their posts.

Posted by: Pat Nerr | Mar 21, 2008 2:53:22 PM

I am shocked to learn that the baristas are shook down and forced to share with their boss the tips I leave for them. This is absolutely outrageous and immoral. It is also, as the court has now ruled, illegal. I find it beyond belief that the company plans "to vigorously appeal this ruling." If you want to put out separate tip jars and let the customer decide who to tip and by what about, that would be fine. But I, as a customer, have the right to tip an employee as I wish without his or her boss shaking her down for part of the tip. Henceforth, I plan to place the tip directly in the employee's hand and if Starbucks continue to shake down the employees, then I intend to consider legal action against you.

I'm not suggesting the shift supervisors are not the victims of this policy as well. Their compensation should be increased to compensate for the forgone tip income. Starbucks is stealing money from the baristas to make up what they are underpaying the shift supervisors.

Posted by: Kurt Vorndran | Mar 21, 2008 3:01:25 PM

Vicki Verona:
>>But if we have to raise SS pay rates because they DON'T get tips, then I think its only fair for us to lower barista pay rates because they DO get tips.<<

If the result of this is that SS's get increase while baristas remain at the same level, wouldn't that just be too ironic? and spark another lawsuit?

If you don't want the barista to get an increase, it seems that the fairest solution would leave BOTH barista AND SS with the same income in the end, certainly not one over the other.

Posted by: StLouieDrip | Mar 21, 2008 3:03:09 PM

I love all these titles they come out with "Starbucks stealing tips!" "big company taking from little guys"

Filthy liars. Some punk and some lawyers are trying to steal my tips and I hardly see Starbucks doing it.

This whole "boss" thing is a load of crap. I am no one's boss, we have one boss, he's our store manager -- he doesn't get tips. I do just as much and more then a lot of the barista's I work with and we all deserve equal shares. To act like I do nothing is a joke, because often many of you people have gone into a store and the only people working are shifts.

Are you saying none of those people you just tipped deserve what you just tipped?

This law is a joke.

Posted by: Zipy | Mar 21, 2008 3:05:36 PM

Kurt,
From your post I wonder if you've read the whole topic??? Or maybe you dont believe the shifts AND baristas who say shifts deserve tips because we do all the work plus more with none of the authority! PLEASE get informed before you go off into the world claiming that shifts getting tips is so outrageous and immoral!!!
The law is NOT simple, the ruling was only 4 paragraphs long and the appeal will likely take as long as the suit did (4 years) to be settled. This is not over and the law is NOT black and white!

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:05:49 PM

Kurt Vonoram - what are you talking about? nobody is shaking down anybody and forcing anybody to share tips with anybody.

store managers and assistant managers don't get tips.

previously "shift supervisors" and "baristas" got tips.

This lawsuit alleged that "shift supervisors" despite being hourly-compensated employees (like baristas and unlike store managers assistant managers) should not share in the tips.

there's no "shakedown" by the corporation involved.

Please educate yourself before posting asinine comments.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 3:07:49 PM

The problem a lot of people don't get is if you do the math, and this is pure math but people still use that BS, a shift making more money will start inching closer to ASM. As is now, with good tips, a shift makes like 3-5k less then an ASM. (with no bonus) and ASMs have to deal with a LLOOTTT more crap.

So you'll have to up everyones pay, which just wont happen, which means you either have to get rid of tips, get rid of "shifts" or my favorite -- get rid of barista's and make everyone a shift so legally no one in california can get tips.

That one would make me laugh.

Posted by: Zipy | Mar 21, 2008 3:10:21 PM

stlouiedrip - what VickiVerona was saying was that Shift Supervisor's do have more responsibility than baristas, and thus should be compensated accordingly (otherwise you'd have no shift supervisors and you'd have to have more assistant managers and pay them more fixed costs - which isn't happening).

However if you take tips away from shift supervisors than the only alternative is to give them a pay raise to compensate. And in many cases that pay raise might be too much for starbucks to stomach (because baristas will now be making more $$/hr in tips) so the likely outcome is a combination of a pay raise for shift supervisors and a slight decrease in pay for baristas.

Posted by: DT | Mar 21, 2008 3:11:01 PM

as an aside, anyone else (who lives in Ca.) feel like visiting these wonderful partners in LA and the like talking about how excited they are to get money?

Yeah, I've love to have them make my drink, and remake it, a few dozen times.

Posted by: Zipy | Mar 21, 2008 3:12:19 PM

Zipy, stop being an ass.
This ruling will never stand.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:12:40 PM

So, I don't know how it works in the U.S, but in Canada, as a shift supervisor, I'm in charge of working on the floor, the same as the baristas. I have a cash drawer and serve customers, I make drinks on the bar and am in charge of running the labour duing the shift, but I still pull my weight as much as anyone.
A raise would be a nice thing for shifts, but I don't see such a thing happening in the near future, and honestly, here, tips can be a hundred dollars a person, per month; divided evenly among the staff who works the floor.
That being said, the ruling is what it is, I just hope the money the baristas are getting is deserved.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:22:31 PM

Check your Success Profiles... Shifts have the same base job description as Baristas... then pile on top the extra "Shift" work they do. Part of that is alleviating bottlenecks, and ensuring that ALL baristas are providing an uplifting experience, therefore improving the overall customer experience! No, I'm not a Shift Supervisor and I believe this whole thing is crap and that Shift Supervisors are getting shafted by taking away their tips.

Shifts make prep too right? :P Shifts are in the same trenches with the baristas and should be rewarded with the same tips that customers are undoubtedly adding to the tip jar, partially due to the DIRECT and INDIRECT actions of the shift supervisor!

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:23:21 PM

To: All Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) employees, who worked, or will work as Baristas in California at any time from October 8, 2000 through the date of trial in this action.
This Notice May Affect Your Rights. Please Read It Carefully.
This notice pertains to a class action lawsuit currently pending against Starbucks Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, entitled Chou v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. GIC 836925). You may be a member of the Class for whom money and other relief is being sought. You need not take any action if you wish to be included in this class action. However, if you do not wish to be included, you must take further action (as described below) or your rights will be affected.
I. DESCRIPTION OF LAWSUIT
On October 8, 2004, former Starbucks Barista, Jou Chou (“Plaintiff”) filed this case against Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”), in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Plaintiff claims that Starbucks violated the California Labor Code § 351, and the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) by permitting Shift Supervisors to receive a portion of the tips left by the customers in store tip receptacles. If plaintiff wins this class action lawsuit, Shift Supervisors may no longer receive a portion of the tips left in store tip pool receptacles and Starbucks may be ordered to modify its tip policy to be in compliance with California law.
California Labor Code Section 351 states:
No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.
Starbucks denies each of Plaintiff’s claims. Starbucks maintains that it does comply with relevant California law. Starbucks further denies that Plaintiff and/or the Class are entitled to any relief and will defend against any liability.
II. CLASS CERTIFICATION
On April 19, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification and appointed Plaintiff as Class Representative for the certified Class. The certified Class includes all current and former Starbucks Baristas employed by Starbucks in California, at any time from October 8, 2000 through the date of trial. If you fall within this definition, you are a member of the Class even though you may also have worked as a Shift Supervisor. The decision to certify the Class should not be viewed as a prediction of whether the Class will, or will not, ultimately prevail on the merits of the action. Starbucks intends to bring a motion to decertify the Class.
1

III. RIGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN OR OPT OUT OF THE CLASS
If you are a member of the Class as described above and you would like to be included in this case, you do not need to take any further action at this time. You will automatically be included as a Class member in the case. Only Class members will have a right to recover any money under any judgment or settlement in this lawsuit, and only Class members will be bound by any judgment in the case, whether in favor of the Class or Starbucks. Class members should retain any documents they possess that reflect the tip income they have received at Starbucks, including, but not limited to, W-2 forms, tax returns, and personal notes or records.
If you do not want to be included as a Class member in this case, you may exclude yourself from the Class (“opt out”) by mailing a letter to Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, P.O. Box 244, 1714 Franklin Street #100, Oakland, CA 94612-3409, RE: Chou v. Starbucks, by sending a fax to (510) 835-1417, or by sending an email to ChouClassActionOptOut@gdblegal.com. Your letter or fax must be signed and dated, must have your name and residence mailing address clearly printed, must state that you wish to be excluded from the Class in this case, and must be postmarked no later than April 13, 2007. Your email must include your name and residence mailing address and must state that you wish to be excluded from the Class in this case and must be transmitted no later than April 13, 2007. If you opt out of the Class, you will not be entitled to recover any money under any judgment or settlement in this lawsuit, and you will not be bound by the outcome of the case. Any member of the Class who does not timely exercise the right to opt out will be included in this case and will be bound by any judgment in this lawsuit.
IV. NO RETALIATION
No one may retaliate against you in any manner because of your decision to remain in the Class or to opt out, or because of your decision to participate or not to participate in this lawsuit.
V. CLASS COUNSEL The following attorneys have been appointed as Class Counsel by the Court:
Steven G. Zieff David Borgen
David A. Lowe Laura L. Ho
Patrice L. Goldman Jessica Beckett-Mc Walter
Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, L.L.P. Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
351 California Street, Suite 700 Dardarian
San Francisco, CA 94104 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Terry J. Chapko A. Eric Aguilera
Law Office of Terry J. Chapko Bohm, Matsen, Kegel & Aguilera, LLP
1111 Orange Avenue, Ste. A 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 700
Coronado, CA 92118 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
If you have questions or information regarding this lawsuit or this Notice, you may contact Class Counsel at 1-800-245-6958. You will not have to individually pay the Class attorneys. You have the right to retain your own independent attorney, at your own expense, and to have him, her, or them enter an appearance in this lawsuit.
2
VI. VIEWING COURT FILE RECORDS
You may view the Court files in this case by going to the San Diego Superior Court Hall of Justice, Civil Business Office, Room 225, 2nd Floor, 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101. DO NOT telephone, email, or contact in any manner the Court or any Court personnel with questions concerning this case.
Dated: February 13, 2007 HON. PATRICIA Y. COWETT
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
3

Posted by: JDEsq | Mar 21, 2008 3:25:48 PM

This law suit is re-donk-ulous. I'm a California partner, and I WANT my shift leads to be part of our tips. They work just as hard, if not harder, then we do.
And I'm saying this in a low tippage store. We average about 80 cents an hour in tips.
Stupid ruling.

Posted by: Scribelrus | Mar 21, 2008 3:33:24 PM

I totally agree with you Vicki, if they lower shifts pay by taking away tips they should lower baristas pay by keeping tips for them only. This is going to blow wide open before it's over. Pat, you're right, we need to start rebuilding.

Posted by: Darleen | Mar 21, 2008 3:38:52 PM

I don't tip at Starbucks. I resent the tip jar. You're right that Starbucks should pay their workers more if they need to rely on the tips.

Posted by: Customer | Mar 21, 2008 3:39:43 PM

jdesq,
the notice you posted was mailed to us some time ago. I called the number to ask some questions and was treated hostilely-I think because the lawyer perceived me to be against the suit. I WAS but was asking questions because I didnt know if I should opt out or not...Anyway, there was a postcard mailed out dated Feb.5, 2008 that listed a number: 1-800-245-6958 and an email address:

ChouClassAction@gdblegal.com

I emailed and got a somewhat prompt answer. The emailer also asked for my address and phone # for further updates.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:40:03 PM

1- Unions are part of whats wrong with America today. Their time is past and usefulness is done.

2- California Laws are the problem. Think about that first. Just remember that big goverment is not really your friend. Remember that when you vote.

3- Yes the lawsuit was stupid, but it was a valid suit. Unless you change the law, these things can and will happen.

Posted by: Truther | Mar 21, 2008 3:44:36 PM

I work at a store where there are currently only two supervisors and a store manager. No assistant manager. As one of the two supervisors, I bust my arse both on and off the floor. Understandably so managers dont and shouldnt get any portion of the tips. They are salaried personnel. Supervisors on the other hand are paid hourly. Supervisors are also on the floor aiding customers quite a bit of the time. At our store, quite often there are only two partners on the floor. And guess what...I am one of them. If I am doing just as much work as the barista I am working with...and in more instances than not am familiar with the customers who are leaving tips then why should I not be permitted to have a stake in the tip pool. I will say that if it came down to tip jars being removed...and customers decided to hand a tip personally to a partner on the floor. I guarantee you some baristas would wind up with nothing and the supervisors would wind up with a little extra on the side.

Posted by: Northeast Supervisor | Mar 21, 2008 3:47:20 PM

Does anyone know if we can contact the lawyers from Starbucks? Are they house counsel? Would they have starbucks.com addresses??? Why can't partners from California communicate with them?????

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 3:55:50 PM

darleen i am a little curious as to your point of view when you say its a sad day when a partner sues starbucks. is it sad to you because you believe no partner should engage in such an act? is it sad because you feel starbucks is victimized by lawsuits? i'm just not sure exactly how or why you think it is automatically sad. what if a partner was the victim of sexual harrassment and the appropriate parties did not act properly to protect them? it would be sad that they were victims of inappropriate behavior but would it still be sad that they were suing starbucks? or would it in fact be the right and proper course of action? now taking this case as a specific example: if the judge ruled that starbucks was engaging in illegal labor practices and held them accountable to the tune of $100+ million dollars wouldn't that in fact be, as chou was quoted as saying, vindication that the lawsuit was in fact a right and proper course of action? if it was in fact a frivolous or improper course of action would it ever have gotten this far? maybe you and many on here don't agree with this decision, i for one don't really have enough knowledge to have a valid opinion one way or the other, but the fact that the plaintiffs won tends to reinforce in my mind that the plaintiffs made a fairly wise decision to pursue this. they didn't do it to win any popularity contests. they did it because they believed that starbucks was not following the law and the judge agreed with them.

Posted by: jabanga | Mar 21, 2008 4:02:08 PM

I think it's sad that partners don't feel they have a voice other than a legal one. I think it's sad that you were at one time a part of a team, you shared a vision, a hope, something, and now it's gone. I truly believe there are times when it may be necessary however it is almost like when one family member sues the other, it's just sad.

Posted by: Darleen | Mar 21, 2008 4:37:21 PM

HR today spoke at our meeting and said shifts will continue to receive tips, that the company is appealing this decision, and nothing will change for now.

Posted by: dManagerLA | Mar 21, 2008 4:45:59 PM

Well, today an email was released by our Western Div president announcing that nearly $15 million dollars will be spent "refreshing" stores in the So Cal area, a day after the the judges decision. Talk about poor timing....

I know most of that many will become capitalized expense that the Company can write off, but I can think of better things to spend that money, like partner development or increase of pay for partners.

This is also not the only lawsuit pending against Starbucks. There is another 3 in litigation which was mentioned in the annual report, all dealing with pay.

Posted by: zoom | Mar 21, 2008 4:51:04 PM

Is it any wonder that this occured in CA? The politics of this state, and don't think for a minute that this is a legal matter....it's politics, are insane.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 5:01:25 PM

Kurt Vorndran:

Next time you walk into a Starbucks, ask yourself the following questions:

Who is the manager?
Who is the assistant manager?
Who is the shift supervisor?
Who is the barista?

You might be able to tell a manager or assistant manager because they are in coming in and out of the back, but there will be no way to tell the shifts from the baristas. Shifts are not managers. We don't have any say in hiring or firing. We don't decide who gets promoted or who gets disciplined. What we can do is, between taking your order or making your coffee, ask a barista to take out the trash, do a sweep, or work the register instead of the bar, and hope the barista does what we ask. If the barista refuses, we can't do anything but tell the manager.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 5:01:46 PM

DMANAGERLA,

Thank you!!!!!! for the update! I'm off so didnt know what the word was from HG. ;)

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 5:02:15 PM

Kurt, I bet if you go into your favorite store tomarrow and ask your favorite barista to point out the shiftleaders on duty, that barista will say "your talking to him/her".
My baristas and shiftleaders work 20-25 hours. My ASM and myself work 30 on floor and 10 off. My customers thinks everyone is a barista because they see everyone working very hard. I work hard for my barista and SS, and I must say I bring in so good tips for them.

So Kurt I bet you are tipping the barista you wanted to tip because our shifts are not only the best shifts but are the greatest baristas. They work very hard and deserve very last dime...

Posted by: tall is small | Mar 21, 2008 5:13:43 PM

Please just get rid of the tip jars!

Posted by: Lilith | Mar 21, 2008 5:14:30 PM

Shifts:
If you are cut out of tips, how likely will you be to write up someone who comps a regular tipper;

And will you discourage a tip from someone who feels guilty using a recovery coupon;

And will you go the extra mile when you know someone else will benefit?

Review and discuss.

Posted by: imabarista | Mar 21, 2008 5:15:23 PM

I got tired of tipping in advance for service that may or may not deserve a tip. However, after too many times to mention @ my local Starbucks not getting it right, I broke down and bought a great espresso machine. No more waiting, no more tipping and it's made correctly (add a shot, x/hot, 2 s/l)!

When it's all said and done, man o'man, I hate to hear shift supervisors getting the tips that belong to the baristas! When did it become OK that the customer pays the wages? Starbucks should step up and pay their supers what the job deserves, not expect clients to make up the difference.

Posted by: socalclint | Mar 21, 2008 5:17:43 PM

HEY DT....SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!

I am a shift and I am constantly changing the DT garbage, emptying the grounds bucket and cleaning out the garbage can we use to take trash to the dumpster. I do these of my own desire to get things done and make the store better, than always making others do it while I sit in the back with my thumb up my butt!

If your shifts don't do their jobs, talk to you ASM, SM, DM or RM and quit your whining.

Posted by: WAShift | Mar 21, 2008 5:28:10 PM

I meant to put my last post to Barista, not DT. My apologies!

Posted by: WAShift | Mar 21, 2008 5:29:26 PM

imabarista,

Are you SERIOUS? Your questions are absurd and I know you know the answers to all of them so stop it!

I'm a Barista AND a Shift.

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 5:34:45 PM

5'34'45

Say what?

Posted by: imabarista | Mar 21, 2008 6:11:02 PM

This is a sad day for Starbucks. Quite simply there is no real solution for this issue except for everyone to quit their complaining. It doesn't matter which point of view you look at it, because every one has a legitimate case. At the same time fulfilling the needs of one view compromises the needs of another.
Quite frankly it doesn't matter where you work, you can always find something to be unhappy about. During the training session our store had an extra two hours worth of complaining from the baristas about their work situation. Fact of the matter is this...
when you work for starbucks you are working for a retail company.
I posed this one question to all my baristas.
"Do you honestly think that you'd be in a better situation if you worked for another company? If so, why don't you just quit Starbucks and work apply at another retail job?"
none of my partners could muster up a response. Deep down they all realized that they were just being selfish and greedy. Especially for everything I've done for them, and all the work i've put into making their work jobs more pleasant.
I still haven't heard any legitimate response for the case if a shift is working but not running the shift. In essence if the Store manager or Assistant manager is in the store they should always be in control of the money. Many stores even have 2 assistant managers, thus even less times are the shift supervisors running the shift.
I have single handedly brought so much more tips to the baristas and shifts when I'm on the floor. Establishing connections with customers, etc. All my partners know that, and they respect that. They also see that I don't get a dime.
I've been with the company from a barista for a year, to a shift for a year, and now assistant manager for 6 months, and the fact of the matter is that in each situation I'd have plenty of reasons to be unhappy with my job. Plenty of reasons to ask for more.
but it's plain and simple. If you have a mindset of greed and wanting more, quite frankly you'll never be happy with your life, whether it be your career, or personal life. You'll always be seeking more compensation in any way possible, but forgetting that a job is a priviledge, and not a right. There are plenty of people out there who would love to work for a company like Starbucks. If you're unhappy with the rules with Starbucks, quite simply quit. Find another job. I'll be damn if you find another job that treats the lowest level retail hourly worker as well as Starbucks does.

btw...I cannot tell you how many partners I've seen in every level of Starbucks spend so much time complaining about their job, and then quitting, and a year later coming back to the company.

Posted by: davestarbucks | Mar 21, 2008 6:36:28 PM

@ Lilith,
Don't you think tip jars make a huge difference in quality of service? If one store consistently earns over $2/ hour in tips, and another store earns $1/hour tips (or less), might it be saying something about how the baristas are doing their jobs? I think it's food for thought. I recognize that it may be a spurious relationship there, but definitely one worth thinking about.
I read the Seattle Times article but I think without really understanding the California law on point, it's hard to saying anything definitive. I couldn't even tell from the Seattle Times article what *level* of a decision this was - will Starbucks be able to appeal?

Posted by: Melody | Mar 21, 2008 6:52:16 PM

"I believe the judge's ruling is fair and just.
If a store uses proper deployment, the shift supervisor is the "floater." They are not to assign a register and not to be on bar. The shift supervisor's primary responsibility is being the cash controller. That means they monitor the funds in the store. They direct the baristas to the tasks that they must perform. The shift supervisors go and fix bottlenecks that might be occuring. The shift supervisors if using proper deployment do not perform the same tasks as baristas do.

Thats so stupid, so next time Im working as a shift and theres a rush ill just be like oh sorry guys I dont get tips why would i do the same tasks as you. Starbucks should tell california baristas to go f*ck themselves; idiots

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 6:54:46 PM

imabarista,
RE: 'If you are cut out of tips, how likely will you be to write up someone who comps a regular tipper;

And will you discourage a tip from someone who feels guilty using a recovery coupon;

And will you go the extra mile when you know someone else will benefit?'

= absurd. Capish?

Posted by: | Mar 21, 2008 6:58:09 PM

hey why don't we just start calling the SS "more experienced barista" or "highly qualified barista" and suggest to regular baristas to follow their lead during a shift. It shouldn't be a problem to give a better qualified member of the team somewhat more challenging duties than the newb

Starbucks Gossip

The #1 Starbucks website (not run by Starbucks Corp.)

March 20, 2008

Judge says Starbucks has to pay $86 million (plus interest) in tips pooling case

Comments