Starbucks barista in NYC files $5 million tips-sharing lawsuit

They just keep on coming....  Jeana Barenboim filed this lawsuit over shift  supervisors sharing in the tips. One New York City Starbucks barista says: "Part of me feels that they [shift supervisors] should be able to receive part of the tips. But under the language of the law, I feel they shouldn't receive tips." That barista -- the one quoted; not the one suing -- says she's paid $10.03 an hour after three years on the job, while one shift supervisor she works with makes $10.25 an hour after three years with Starbucks. (Read the New York Times story | Associated Press story)

Comments

Get ready to say goodbye to tips altogether

[MusicGal]

*yawn* Come one, webmaster, can't you find something more interesting to post? These are getting rather repetetive...

[STARBUCKS GOSSIP WEBMASTER]

MusicGal -- I know you want this site to read like it was produced by the Starbucks PR department, but I guarantee that every lawsuit will be posted here. That's my job.

[Ben Atkin]

So, she's only suing because it's her moral duty to make sure the law is enforced?

Also, she gives evidence that the difference in pay between baristas and shifts is so small it is almost certainly going to be overturned by tips.

Would we be hearing these stories if shift supervisors were instead called senior baristas? I think not.

What store is Jeana from? Does anybody know?

[MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED]

Oh great another disgruntled BARISTA in litigation. These BARISTAS and former baristas all need to go to hell. These lawsuits are going to ruin it for the rest of us. The partners that bust their asses oh and I am a shift supervisor by the way are the ones losing out. Funny thing is that this morning two of my FELLOW BARISTAS state that they believe supervisors deserve a portion of the tips as well. In fact, they both stated that they have noticed I bring in more tips than any other partner because of MY customer service. So thank you very much to all you greedy money grubbing litigating BARISTAS. GO TO HELL!

[misscelestia]

This drives me crazy! .22 more an hour with so much more responsibility and some baristas honestly feel that shifts do not deserve tips?! Right.

Sadly, the Baristas will get what they want, no tips for Supervisors.

The cost of that, however will be a class action settlement of maybe a one-time payment of $100 for Baristas, and then the tip jars will be removed. Way to think this one through people.

[Joe B]

The issue here is that there are so many customers at polar opposites of the opinion spectrum. Some will, and I promise you this, *INSIST* we continue to accept tips, while others will be in shock that those little plastic cubes were even there in the first place.

[Bastardized Barista]

MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED,

How convenient to direct all your anger toward "money grubbing litigating BARISTAS." If Starbucks was not beaking established laws, none of this would be an issue. The fact of the matter, according TO LAW, is that you have no right to the tips. Unfair? Maybe. Unreasonable? Perhaps. Unfortunately, whether you think this is fair or not is completely irrelevant. Starbucks is violating state laws, was too arrogant to settle the original suit and now they're suffering, LEGALLY, the repercussions. If you truly believe "these lawsuits are going to ruin it for the rest of us," why not focus on changing state laws or, better yet, simply organize the SS's to encourage Howard to give you a bump in pay, rather than blowing all this money paying legal fees to litigate losing cases?

[sbuxlifer]

anytime anyone says they want to be a shift to get more money, i'm the first to say that it is not worth it. if i weren't full of stubborn pride i would have stepped down long ago. shifts have no power, no respect, and more stress. if i'm not on the floor helping customers it's because i'm taking out the trash or cleaning the restrooms. it's a priveleged position, let me tell you!

[CS]

I'm with SBUXLIFER, I was promoted during the holiday's and since then my value and love for my job has taken a steady dive. As a shift the pressure is amplified between cash handling, exceeding your customer's expectations every time, making sure your barista's are happy and making sure the next shift coming in isn't going to hate your guts if you didn't have time to make a trash run.

And for what, a few cents more on my paycheck? Thanks but no thanks!

This doesn't make sense. Shifts in NYC start at 10.50.

I would be outraged if my tips were taken away from me every Monday only to be divided between baristas who rarely connect with the customer enough to earn more than excess change. Most shift supervisors were baristas once too and were promoted FOR A REASON. Usually outstanding customer service plays a big part in that promotion.

If something should change that might rule out tipping to be shared between baristas and shifts in my store I'd promptly stop giving the five star customer service we're required to give and start behaving like some of my baristas on the floor. That means no eye contact and scoffing at you when you ask to have your latte steamed at 140.

We would quickly find out how fast the tipping would decline if every shift reacted the same way.

[CS]

I'm with SBUXLIFER, I was promoted during the holiday's and since then my value and love for my job has taken a steady dive. As a shift the pressure is amplified between cash handling, exceeding your customer's expectations every time, making sure your barista's are happy and making sure the next shift coming in isn't going to hate your guts if you didn't have time to make a trash run.

And for what, a few cents more on my paycheck? Thanks but no thanks!

[MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED]

Hey bastardized barista, the LAW may apply to the state you are in...from what I am aware of...it isnt int he state I am in. And by the way my anger is toward the barista bandwagon. If they do get rid of the tip jars it may be a blessing. The baristas working on the floor wont get a damn cent. As well, the Supervisors who are for the most part the ones who are getting the tips in our store will be handed tips by hand. I guarantee you that will happen. I have had customers within the past week offer to give me a tip in my hand and i didnt accept it. So ya know what Bastardized barista i hope tip jars are removed, ss's are paid more, baristas are paid less. And I will guarantee that if i am personally handed a gratuity I will gladly keep it. And the baristas will wind up with absolutely nothing. I hope you are one of them.

[WaShift]

This country is just too damn Sue Happy!!!

Also, if people want to know something new, I am pretty sure that all Starbucks employees will be getting new Partner Cards with the new old logo with their paychecks tomorrow.

[Bastardized Barista]

MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED

Let's assume that you're correct and Howard removes the tip jars. My guess is that he'll be dealing with a whole new set of problems, not the least of which would be hiring quality employees, but at least SS's (and Howie and his shills) won't be directing their anger toward those who, BY LAW, are entitled to the tips, rather than directing it toward those who choose to ignore the LAW.

I cannot believe Starbucks would stoop so low as to publicize the home address of the Barista who filed this lawsuit. What is the address of Howie’s $30 million NYC condo?

[Incensed Barista]

“BARISTAS. GO TO HELL!”

Moderator is there any way for you to control the language of Howard or whatever minion he has directed to post for him?? I mean, I know Howie is pissed that Baristas are exercising their legal rights, but damning them to Hell, my, my, my.

[MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED]

Hello incensed barista I love you. haha!By the way I am not one of howard's minions. I am just a ss who believes the lawsuits have to stop. Otherwise everyone will lose out. So in my eyes the former partners suing...may have the right to sue...but i have the right to tell them to go to hell.

[Incensed Barista]

Minion: “a servile or slavish follower of somebody generally regarded as important.”

As a SS devoted to savaging subordinate baristas rather than protesting Howard’s refusal to pay SSs the hourly wages they deserve, I’d say that you fit the definition of minion perfectly MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED.

[pulleazzzeee]

Here's a solution: just get rid of all baristas. Staff the stores with shifts and managers. Keep the tip jars and share amongst those that really give a damn.
Pfffttt...

[Bastardized Barista]

To a "T"

[baristagrl]

<>

wanna bet??

If the tip jars disappear, MY anger will be directed at the baristas who filed these silly lawsuits.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one...

[Bastardized Barista]

Here's a solution: just get rid of all baristas. Staff the stores with shifts and managers. Keep the tip jars and share amongst those that really give a damn.
Pfffttt...

Finally, someone with some intelligent ideas. I think you should forward this ingenious plan to Howard. In fact, you should suggest that he simply refer to everyone as "partners (pretty novel concept, don't you think?)" That should ensure no more inequality, no more law breaking, no more issues. No more lawsuits. Problem solved. It's nice to see some rational thinking making its way to this site. Thank you, pulleazzzeee.

[MYGIVEADAMNSBUSTED]

To puleeeeeeaze I so agree with you. Lets get rid of the baristas, especially the incensed and bastardized baristas. :-) And any tips given out thus would be given to a charity of the store's choosing.

[Lamlot]

wow, this is really stupid. i can see sbux just say no to tips

[Rapunzel]

I'm with all you other shift supervisors, I was promoted in September and I often wish I was still a barista. I make SLIGHTLY more money, but with a bigger paycheck, the gov't takes a bigger cut, and I end up with the same amount of money anyway. And I work my ASS off. It can be seriously stressful being the shift on duty sometimes and you have to keep smiling through it all.

I love our customers and that is what brought me to Starbucks. I used to bartend and it reminds me of those days, except without the drunken idiots. Now we just have disgruntled idiots who want their little sliver of the Starbucks pie and who don't care about ruining it for everyone else. The key word in most of these lawsuits is FORMER baristas are suing, and its not to help the current baristas in any way, shape, or form. Now the IRS knows exactly how much all those baristas and shift supervisors in CA have been making off of mostly under the table tips for years, (thanks to a FORMER barista), here comes the back taxes.

I seriously hope the state I work in does not have this law, although I doubt anyone in my store would care if we continued to divy up the tips the same way we always have. We are like a family and it is a great place to work, despite all the recent changes and upheaval. I still love it, and it took reading some of the comments on this website to realize it. I am not working for Starbucks, I am really working for all the wonderful people in the neighborhood where my Starbucks is. The gentleman who brought us homemade cookies this morning and who invites us to his season ticket seats at our local baseball stadium. The lady who stops by every morning with her dog on their walk. The sweet little 4th grader whose comes in before school for a kids hot chocolate. Our regular Americano guy who got a venti cup of milk for two mornings because they forgot to get milk at the store and needed milk for the kids cereal. Sharing in these customers lives makes life fuller for all of us and makes going to work through everything worth it.

Starbucks will survive if we want it to.

I am absolutey disgusted with anyone who has worked for starbucks or is currently working for starbucks who is supporting these lawsuits.

Come on people, lets get real ok? Shift Supervisors have been, and always will be, baristas. So to call them "managers" or "supervisors" really doesnt do them justice.

I am leaving my well paying job in corporate HR for a major bank to go back to Starbucks full time as a Shift Supervisor. I work just as hard (probably harder) than many of the "other baristas" in my store.

Look I am not saying that im the first person to work harder than anyone else or that i deserve tips more than anyone else. But suing the company isnt going to do a damn. Starbucks never broke any state or federal laws, and all retail store partners (minus ASM and SM's) are going to make tips. Period.

Gah!

Are we at this again?! And, I'm not talking about how another tips lawsuit is being pursued.

What I'm talking about are self-entitled shift supervisors who think that they are above the law and should be able to get tips regardless of what that law says.

A shift supervisor, in their current role and job duties, cannot receive tips by law. Even Starbucks cannot ignore this fact.

If a shift supervisor wants to remain in that role, they need to understand that if all things remain the same, they will not get tips. It's that simple.

Honestly, I don't blame these baristas. They were wronged and deserve their due compensation. They were wronged in the eyes of the law and deserve restitution to make them whole.

Hell, I have a good mind to go open a lawsuit against the company because I have been wronged. I had tips stolen from me by my managers when I was at Starbucks and deserve them back!

All baristas should be taking this tone and step right now.

It's sickening how shift supervisors are going after their own subordinates because they realize that they may not get tips because it's an illegal practice. So, instead, shift supervisors will let the company do away with tips because they cannot partake in them themselves. Good way to look after your fellow employees.

I mean, if the shift supervisors will not look out for the baristas and make sure Starbucks keeps tips for them, it's obvious the baristas need to stand up for themselves and start to sue, sue, sue!

Starbucks hires some pretty pathetic people.

[AmericanoMan]

I wonder how much Howard Schultz is paying his company laywers?

Whatever it is, it is WAY TOO MUCH and he, his employeses, stockholders, and customers getting WAY TOO LITTLE!

There is no excuse for Starbucks getting itself into this fix. Those high priced company lawyers should have thoroughly researched (and kept up-to-date) on ALL the labor and wage laws in ALL the states AND countries where there are Starbucks. The lawyers have failed to protect the company.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Schultz made a concious effort to "break" the law. From what I read and hear, he is a concerned fella. He needs to get real angry with the company lawyers and hold them accountable for this mess!

[Lee]

This is rediculous.

Once again, its not 100% fact that Starbucks violated the law. The judges are INTERPRETING the law and INTERPRETING the position of the Shift Supervisor.

Taken literally, the shift supervisor position DOES NOT fit the criteria for MANAGEMENT

If shifts don't get tips baristas should either. Prices should be raised (yes that will be a requirment in this equation) and hourly wages increased.

Anyone else find it ironic that Starbucks, which claims to be a PROGRESSIVE company, is getting sued in New York, Calfiornia, Massachusett, and Minnesota, four of the most PROGRESSIVE states in the country?

I guess it is much easier for Starbucks to pose as a progressive company by putting anti-religious quotes on cups than it is to obey the laws requiring the company not to steal tips that belong to baristas. In the end, Starbucks is a corporation like all other corporation’ and is devoted to profits.

[Lee]

in addition....

I find it amusing that the second Starbucks "might be" encroaching on a labor law every one gets all up in arms, when in all reality Starbucks adheres 99.99% to all labor laws to the point of insanity (keeping in mind that sometimes badDM's or SM's do make bad decisions, but not the company as a whole). I have worked other jobs where I never got my 10 min beaks, never got paid over time, never got my meal breaks, didn't get paid hardly anything, was forced to work when sick, forced to work more than 60 hours a week. NONE of those thigs have happened in my 2 years at Starbucks NONE OF THEM. If only other companies were scrutinized as much as Starbucks...

Lee,

I disagree. Law is tested by interpretations. Look at what the Supreme Court does on a regular basis.

When those laws are interpreted, their legality is tested and implementation based on those interpretations are then put in place.

When you decide to live in a jurisdiction, whether it be a city, county, state or country, you decide to live under the laws set forth. You concede to the fact that there will be people who decide how laws are read (judged) and accept that the laws will be put in place and you will be legally bound to it.

It's all part of living in a society. You give up some things to get some things.

Starbucks, in California, anyway, broke the law. Plain and simple.

We'll see what other states they broke the law in, too.

PS: Just because Starbucks says shift supervisors are not management does not mean that legally (whether technically or wholly) they are. Starbucks is to abide BY the law, not CREATE law itself.

Correction:

PS: Just because Starbucks says shift supervisors are not management does not mean that legally (whether technically or wholly) they are or are not. Starbucks is to abide BY the law, not CREATE law itself.

[Incensed Barista]

“I am leaving my well paying job in corporate HR for a major bank to go back to Starbucks full time as a Shift Supervisor. ... suing the company isnt going to do a damn. Starbucks never broke any state or federal laws, and all retail store partners (minus ASM and SM's) are going to make tips. Period.”

This is quite a post. You state you are leaving a job in corporate HR for a just over minimum wage position, and full-time, position as a SS at Starbucks? Full-time? Shift supervisor is a part-time position at Starbucks, is it not? And major banks must not be paying much these days.

As for Starbucks not breaking any state laws, despite your alleged “corporate HR” background, I think the California judge who has already ruled Starbucks violated California law is in a little better position to decide such matters. As posted on this site on March 20 ... Judge says Starbucks has to pay $86 million (plus interest) in tips pooling case.

[CoffeeCup]

Quote "This is rediculous. Once again, its not 100% fact that Starbucks violated the law. The judges are INTERPRETING the law and INTERPRETING the position of the Shift Supervisor."

It is 100% a fact Stbx violated the law! That is what judges are for. If it gets appealed and Stbx wins, THEN they will be vindicated. I do not think this is likely. Until then, it is a fact they violated the law. Period.

Quote "Taken literally, the shift supervisor position DOES NOT fit the criteria for MANAGEMENT"

THAT is YOUR interpetation. Again, I will take the judges opinion over yours anyday. She is a nuetral party.

You sound like you are one of the lawyers from Stbx who lost the case but won't admit it. Are you?

[sbuxnewbie]

New York State labor law is pretty clear about defining who is a manager, and who isn't.

For instance, in addition to "directs the work of others", there is the "Hires and fires" clause - but the two phrases are connected with the word "and", not "or".

Granted, that's just a part of it, but it is there.

When the FSLA statutes were passed, a lot of people suddenly found themselves exempt from the overtime provision - and THAT is where the true dividing line between manager and employee lies.

As to being "an agent of the company", when you accept payment from a customer in exchange for providing goods or services provided by your employer,what do you think that makes you?

So by the terminology used in the lawsuit, we are ALL "agents of the company".

And hey, we just had another one of those days - 4 people on the floor - 3 shifts, and the SM. None of the baristas were available to cover for another who got sick. ("oh, if I knew that was why you were calling, I would have answered y phone!")

[Incensed Barista]

Lee you say, “Starbucks adheres 99.99% to all labor laws.” I have to ask, did you even bother to read the accompanying article from the New York Times?

“a ruling two weeks ago in which a state judge in San Diego awarded $105 million to baristas throughout California, finding that the company had improperly allowed shift supervisors to share in the tip pool.”

“In New York, Starbucks has been hit by other problems. The Industrial Workers of the World is pushing to unionize many Starbucks shops in New York City. Last April, the National Labor Relations Board charged Starbucks with breaking the law 30 times in fighting the unionization effort.”

“Last month in a federal lawsuit in Houston, Starbucks reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount with 350 assistant managers who asserted that they were required to work off the clock. Starbucks faces similar lawsuits in Florida and California.”

Given these facts, I’d say Starbucks is violating a whole lot of labor laws all over the country.

[ILVSBUX]

I think if these keeps up tip jars will be a thing of the past. Enough of the lawsuits or no one will be getting tips!!! I always tip when I am a customer but will stop tipping if Shifts aren't included.

[Rapunzel]

Why is everyone so angry? And why are angry, righteous comments always anonymous? Do you not want to be debated with? Do you want to have the last word?

Honestly, is there no morality, generousity, or kindness left in the world?

Hanging my underwear outside to dry on your clothesline is against the law in the state I live in (a very old never overturned law). Yet I do just that because I don't own a dryer. It is one way that I do my small part for the environment. Wanna sue me for breaking that law? Just because its a law doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever.

And if you are not an employee, some of you, why are you so incensed by this? Honestly, I would like to know.

[starbuckshaterhater]

incested barista you are a sensationalist.

"a whole lot of labor laws all over the country" ... what does that even mean..that statement has no real value.

so we have the tips and the anti-union both of which are both being contested still.

then we have the off the clock law, which i will assure you, as a company Starbucks DOES NOT FORCE ANYONE to work off the clock. All I hear day in and day out is time worked = time paid time worked = time paid.

just because lawsuits are brought does not make them justified or right.

starbucks has made mistakes, everyone does. They apologized and make up for them when they are infact in the wrong.

[ohbee]

This is getting ridiculous.

Shifts get tips at my store, and I'm a barista. I DONT CARE. These people filing lawsuits didn't care at the time either I'm sure. Nobody knew it was even illegal until recently. Give me a break, its a couple bucks extra being divided. And all these greedy baristas that were "wronged?" I can almost guarantee that they were nowhere near as dedicated, or passionate about their jobs or this company as that shift that "stole" their tips. This is a joke. Maybe the almighty LAW says shifts aren't supposed to be included, but they are the reason half the tips are in the jar.

I dont feel like there is a problem with shifts getting tips, and even though they were never supposed to, and i lost some cash over the years, I'm not mad. When will I be FURIOUS, however? If that tip jar disappears.

[Incensed Barista]

“the tips and the anti-union both of which are both being contested still.”

Two different judges have already ruled that Starbucks violated the law regarding anti-union and the tips. Starbucks has Billions of dollars to contest these court decisions just like Exxon is still contesting whether any of its oil caused damage to the environment in Alaska. Just because Starbucks is a huge company that can contest rulings it does not choose to obey does not change the FACT the company has been judged to have violated these labor laws.

[I. Am. Legendary.]

First of all, Starbucks was INTERPRETED to have violated the law. Given another judge or another day, and it may have been interpreted completely different.

The fact is, shift supervisors deserve tips. They do not perform any managerial duties. They open the door in the morning, lock up at night, and handle cash (things that other restaurants allow their hourly employees to do when opening alone). Other than that, they're the barista in charge.

The OVERWHELMING majority of baristas are not happy with the lawsuit. They feel that supervisors should be tipped, and customers do too! Customers want to know that those who provide them with the most legendary of service are getting part of the tip.

Look, people... don't think that just because a policy is a law means it is necessary to follow. If we don't question our existing laws, how will we ever come about positive change?

Rapunzel gave the perfect example, with hanging clothes outside to conserve energy, even though it's illegal. Just... THINK, people!!! Don't accept everything just because "that's how it is."

I'm a SM and if they ever take away tips for SS and all of them for the baristas I will throw the tip jar in the trash and no one wil get them. The SS's are the hardest working, most responsible, baristas (yes we are ALL baristas) in the store...those are the baristas I promote to the shift position and they deserve those tips WAY MORE than half the baristas in my store who only get as many tips as they do because the SS are working so hard providing ledgendary servide and coaching others to do so as well.

I'm forming a union against the baristas who think the shifts shouldn't get tips.....

The fact is, shift supervisors deserve tips. They do not perform any managerial duties. They open the door in the morning, lock up at night, and handle cash (things that other restaurants allow their hourly employees to do when opening alone). Other than that, they're the barista in charge.

They may deserve it, but, legally, in California, they should not take them. Again, legally, they do perform managerial duties, according to the job profile Starbucks established.

You are not in the position to argue this. Starbucks violated the law, plain and simple.

I'm a SM and if they ever take away tips for SS and all of them for the baristas I will throw the tip jar in the trash and no one wil get them. The SS's are the hardest working, most responsible, baristas (yes we are ALL baristas) in the store...those are the baristas I promote to the shift position and they deserve those tips WAY MORE than half the baristas in my store who only get as many tips as they do because the SS are working so hard providing ledgendary servide and coaching others to do so as well.

Again, your opinion. The minute you do that, I want to see Starbucks fire you. You do not deserve your job. You are not to set company policy in your current position.

Again, regardless of your opinion about how hard a shift supervisor works, they cannot accept tips pooled together.

It's the law folks.

And for those of you saying interpretation set this precedent: you're right.

And, as a citizen who is required to live under the laws you agree to live under when you remain a citizen, you're required to follow them, whether or not you agree with them.

This is not hard people.

I'm not a citizen I'm an illegal immigrant and will do whatever I want for the better of my partners!!!

we had a shift who always made people work off the clock.

at closing time she would tell you to clock out or else clock you out yourself (she made it her business to know everyone's numbers), but force you to stay until she had used the bathroom and changed clothes and was good 'n' ready to leave. sometimes this was half an hour or more. sometimes it was 5 minutes.

whenever i complained the manager would adjust my punchout time the next day.

after a few years we got a new manager and this shift was demoted.

we also have had shifts who were very rigid about you being in apron and ready to work when you punched in, etc and some who didn't care and let you change your clothes and hang out before you punched out, ect.

so whether or not starbucks adheres to labor laws, there are thousands of individual cases where starbucks employees do not adhere to them.

Legendary, you claim, "The OVERWHELMING majority of baristas are not happy with the lawsuit.”

If that is true why did 99% of the baristas in California choose NOT TO GET OUT OF THE LAWSUIT when they had the chance? I think this claim is more company propoganda coming from Utah Avenue executive suites.

[Melody]

Americanoman, I seriously doubt that anyone at Starbucks - ANYONE - general counsel or Howard Schultz made any conscious effort to violate labor law.

First off, yes theoretically, Starbucks should know all the labor laws in all 50 states. In reality, you're talking about General Counsel in Wash (carrying a WA Bar Card) who can't possibly know all 50 states COMPLETE labor laws.

The truth is that Starbucks is a billion dollar corporation and will always look like a bulls-eye target to someone for a possible class-action. These suits are getting a lot of publicity, but I'd bet that most similarly sized corporations having experienced a similar phenomena. If it's not this kind of thing it could be suits over meal and rest periods, uniform requirements, or any host of labor laws.

Each case must be evaluated on its own merits in consideration of the applicable state law: Sadly, California law has been INTERPRETED that SS are managers. That's the ruling at the trial level essentially. Had this been a different judge, this may have come out totally differently, as has been already stated.

To anon Apr 3, 2008 4:05:37 PM:
>>>I guess it is much easier for Starbucks to pose as a progressive company by putting anti-religious quotes on cups than it is to obey the laws requiring the company not to steal tips that belong to baristas.<<<
What Starbucks puts on their cups is totally irrelevant to whether there is some technical violation of labor law.

I'm with Musicgal - Let's talk about something more upbeat and exciting! :-)

Also, btw, I think the long-term consequence of all these suits will be that tip jars go bye-bye. Makes me very sad!

[TORONTOWYLD]

I just want to say that counting, rolling, and allotting tips cash every week is generally a thankless task that if a store is anything worth their salt will take more than the alloted 1-2 hours of paid non-coverage time to accomplish.
In my experience in Canada this task generally falls to a *Shift Supervisor* that wants an extra couple paid hours per week. (In theory, we're supposed to rotate each week who counts the tips but I haven't really seen this put into practice very often.) Not everyone is good with numbers, and I wonder if any of the suing baristas have ever tried counting the weekly tips for their store. I was assigned as a barista to do tips for a while, and gave it up the first chance I got when a shift at my store was willing to take it over. It's just so much easier to change everything over afterwards if you have a safe key and can take cash control.

I'm kind of rambling but I think tips would be far more mismanaged if the distribution changed to baristas only.

[Sara Cheney]

I didn't realize the payscale was so bad at Starbucks. How can you even afford to work there?

The posters who are so angry with the baristas for enforcing the law do not seem to care at all that Starbucks refuses to pay Shift Supervisors a wage worthy of all the barista and supervisory duties the Shift Supervisors do. In fact, they take the exact position Howard took in his voice-mail to his underlings. What a coincidence.

“I'm forming a union against the baristas who think the shifts shouldn't get tips”

Good, then Starbucks can be cited for violating your right to unionize along with the other labor law violations it has been cited for in New York.

[itsnotamermaid]

hey just b/c we(CA partners) were included in the lawsuit--technically--doesn't mean we support the lawsuit. how many of us just ignored the little post card that originally announced the suit or tried to opt out but found it harder than supposed? also, i'm guessing every partner not listed as a SM/ASM was included, since i was a shift when i received the original info/during the time stated in the suit to begin with...which doesn't really make sense, if you get me.

[CoffeeCup]

Quote "The fact is, shift supervisors deserve tips. They do not perform any managerial duties. They open the door in the morning, lock up at night, and handle cash (things that other restaurants allow their hourly employees to do when opening alone). Other than that, they're the barista in charge."

And as the Barista in charge, they direct the staff. They have the authority to change or reassign positions and to send people home early. Thats why Stbx lost- Shift supervisors do supervise and direct. No one argues whether they do Barista duties. SM's and ASM's also do barista duties but they do not get tips. Why not? Because they are compenasted directly by Stbx in form of higher pay and bonus's. When it gets right down to it, Stbx allows SS's to get tips so they can keep their payroll lower.

Hers is the solution- Keep track of the tips and what every Barista's share per hour is. Stbx then gives each shift a bonus equal to that share. Problem solved. Baristas make more and SS's make more. And Stbx is now in compliance with the law.

Hopefully at some point, Starbucks will be able to defend itself in a court of law (shifts weren't even represented.)

[CoffeeCup]

Quote "Hopefully at some point, Starbucks will be able to defend itself in a court of law (shifts weren't even represented.)"

Ummmm..... They were. They lost.

[frazzelbean]

i think that the issue with the tips is not the point here. its the principal that if the law allows one thing and a company does another then were are the eyes of justice.... clouded eyes of justice.

If you don’t support California’s law that does not allow Supervisors to take tips that belong to Baristas, you can always donate whatever money you receive to a worthy cause, like the Howard Schultz condominium fund.

Quote "i think that the issue with the tips is not the point here. its the principal that if the law allows one thing and a company does another then were are the eyes of justice.... clouded eyes of justice."

The issue IS THE TIPS! The law is not ambiguous-it's clear. The eyes of justice are not clouded, they are crystal clear. If Stbx feels the law is wrong, they should lobby to have it changed. That IS how the justice system works. Instead, Stbx has tried to demonize the judge using phrases likes "no basis in law". I wish Stbx would take the high road.

“Hopefully at some point, Starbucks will be able to defend itself in a court of law (shifts weren't even represented.)”

So so true. Starbucks that poor, little defenseless multi-Billion dollar company was just not “able to defend itself” in the California case. I bet the Judge bound and gagged Starbucks' lawyers and probably even denied them entrance to the courtroom. I am also sure Starbucks was never once allowed to argue that shift SUPERVISORS should be permitted to take the baristas tips. The shame of the American justice system always coming down hardest on the little guys.

[Stacy]

"The eyes of justice are not clouded, they are crystal clear."

If you truly believe this then you are beyond blind to how our legal system actually works.

[pdxshifty]

I'm disturbed by the amount of comments saying things like shifts are taking tips that barista's "deserve". If I'm on the floor making drinks and grabbing pastries and ringing customers and cleaning everything in sight, how can you honestly say you deserve those tips any more than I?

This is a "spirit" of the law vs. The "letter" of the law scenario. The law is in place to protect front line workers from back of house management. Asm's ans sm's should get tips for on the floor time...but that is not allowed because they control schedules and have the (slim sometimes) option to bonus. But the line between frontline and back of house has been drawn at sbux between asm and ss. If a judge watched a typical 4 hours of any sbux in action, they would rule against the baristas.

Also. All these pissed off baristas...I do not understand how you can be this way and still work for the company. How can you stand on the floor with your coworkers when you clearly treat them with contempt and want to take food off their tables.

[frazzelbean]

i do believe that our laws and our court systems do work on the basis of having their eyes clouded most of the time.

how many people in this world have family member get robbed etc and the perp get injured during the robbery and guess what they win. this is definatley a clouded eye on justice.

I believe that anyone who works on a serving type atmosphere deserves tips. Our justice sytem is messed up most of the time.

look at california for example,, you go an pay 400.00 a plate for a meal and you expect that someone serves you with professional attire yet california rules that a nose rings and such are fine. oh please, justice turns is head when money is involved. lets deal with reality folks not dreams.

[Incensed Barista]

I don’t believe any barista is advocating taking food off the tables of shift supervisors. Baristas are just seeking tips that are legally theirs. I think most baristas believe shift supervisors work very hard and that Starbucks should pay shift supervisors an appropriate wage not steal from baristas to offset Starbucks inadequate wages for the supervisors.

California Labor Code:
"356. The Legislature expressly declares that the purpose of this
article is to prevent fraud upon the public in connection with the
practice of tipping..."

So how do we think this figures in to the California suit? Does it mean that as long as the public understands that Shifts do the same work and deserve the tips as much as the other Baristas that pooling is ok?? ( And Yes I believe Shifts are Baristas too. )
The Labor Code STATES the "spirit"/purpose of the law here. What does everyone think?

The quotes below are from a 2003 California Tip Pool Case called Jameson versus Five Feet Restaurant:

“Five Feet argues that although the floor managers are involved in hiring, discharging, and supervising employees, they also serve patrons and thereby earn a share of the tips. Five Feet contends, therefore, the floor managers do not fall within the definition of agent in section 350”

“Five Feet cites federal authorities interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in support of its argument that floor managers are not prohibited from tip pooling under California law.”

“The California Legislature, however, has expressly forbidden the tip pooling sought by Five Feet. Under section 351, tip pooling is only permitted among employees who are neither employers nor agents under section 350.”

“Section 350, subdivision (d) states the term " '[a]gent' " means "every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees."

So how do we think this fits into the California suit? The judge in California ruled that shift supervisors supervise and direct other employees. [And yes I believe shift supervisors SUPERVISE and DIRECT baristas].

Given that California law does not permit companies to include AGENTS in tip pools with other employees, and shift supervisor obviously fits within the definition of AGENT, should Starbucks be allowed to continue to violate California law and defraud the public into thinking it is complying with the law? Or should Starbucks have to follow the law just like everyone else? We already know Howard thinks he is above the law and that he and Starbucks should not have to follow the law, what does everyone think?

[Still open to interpretation]

Given that its debatable as to whether a Starbucks Shift Lead IS an Agent due to the fact that while they do seem to "control the acts of employees", in fact Shift leads have no authority or actual power when it comes to that. I'm sure any Shift Lead will tell you that they have requested that a barista do something and when the barista didnt do it, the Lead had no way of compelling that barista to follow through. So if Shift Leads have no power to compel anyone to actually do something, can we really argue that they "control" anything?

“Given that its debatable as to whether a Starbucks Shift Lead IS an Agent.”

What is a shift LEAD? I am not familiar with that position at Starbucks. I am familiar with the shift SUPERVISOR job at Starbucks though.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the Starbucks Partner Guide clearly states that a shift supervisor “DIRECTS the works of others.

Given that they direct and supervise, shift SUPERVISORS are clearly agents under California law.

[Rapunzel]

So, at my store during a period of about a month last year, we were very short staffed due to new college schedules coming out and such. Most of the time we had no baristas working. There were many days when the entire schedule was our shifts and the SM. So, the customers thank us and leave tips for the legendary service we provided. So, under CA law, the two or three baristas that worked that week maybe 6 hours a piece get all those tips? Doesn't make any sense. Maybe we shouldn't pool tips at all and just work like waiters and accept the tips handed directly to us for ourselves.

[Still Open...]

Given that everyone is entitled to an opinion...

Shift Lead is interchangeable for Shift Supervisor...Sorry if it was a bit too old school for you...I'm surprised you've never heard it.

Apr 4, 2008 2:10:14 PM:
You can keep re-iterating your opinion over and over again, but that doesn't further the discussion.
It seem that you are arguing that because Starbucks calls them Supervisors, then they must therefor be legally considered supervisors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Starbucks considers Shift leads to be "part of the management team" yet even Judge Cowett acknowledged that Leads were not managers.
So given that Leads have no REAL way of compelling a barista to do anything - like disciplining and/or firing - how (in California) do we argue that Shift Leads/Supervisors are "agents"?

sooo... if baristas aren't even working and the only people on the floor are shifts all day, someone who wasn't even there should get those tips for service that they (as well as any other 'barista') DIDN'T provide?

Oh ok. Makes total sense.

[Darleen]

How can you stand on the floor with your coworkers when you clearly treat them with contempt and want to take food off their tables.

So true! That reminds me of a line from the Break Up, when Vince Vaughn says "Band of Brothers, you should watch it sometime". I agree with you 100%, how can you work day after day when you hold such contempt for the company you work for?

[Rapunzel]

To Incensed Barista who says that shifts are STEALING from Baristas because Starbucks doesn't want to pay those shifts more.

Do you think your shifts help earn the tips that you all share in?

If yes, then how are they STEALING from you?

If no, then you probably have bad shifts.

It is only being considered STEALING in this case because CA law considers it so.

In real life, anyone with any sense of humanity would call it SHARING. Sharing in the generosity of our satisfied customers whom we have ALL helped give our legendary service to.

Soon, we will see customers handing money directly to the employees they like and who serve them well, whether they be baristas, shifts or the SM. Maybe this would make everyone work a little bit harder. Pooling tips does seem to create laziness in some people.

Interesting article in today’s Daily Journal, the legal newspaper for California attorneys.

“EVERYBODY IN THE POOL?” By D. Gregory Valenza

Here is something to ponder as you enjoy your next beverage from Starbucks: How many venti, half-caf-half-soy-no-foam-latte-whips does it take to generate $87 million in tips over a seven-year period? It might take more than one refill for you to do that math. But wait, there's more. Consider that the recent and widely reported $100 million-plus award to about 100,000 Starbucks "baristas" compensates them only for a portion of the total tips customers paid (plus interest). That is, just a fraction of what must have been hundreds of millions in total tips wrongfully distributed to shift supervisors.

The basis for the court's ruling was its determination that the shift supervisors are "agents." Section 351 expressly prohibits employers and their agents from receiving tips. Section 350 defines "agent" broadly to include "every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees." The court found that the shift supervisors have the power to supervise and direct baristas, regardless of whether they met the other criteria for "agents. Although the trial court found that shift supervisors qualify as "agents" under Sections 350 and 351, they are not managers. The definition of "agent" in Section 350 is far easier to satisfy than the definition of "executive," which would exempt shift supervisors from overtime pay, meal period requirements and the like. “

D. Gregory Valenza is a partner with Shaw Valenza in the firm's San Francisco office. The Shaw Valenza firm serves public and private sector employers.

Imagine that, an attorney for employers saying Starbucks obviously violated California law when Howard is telling everyone the Judge was off her rocker. Who do you believe?

[Incensed Barista]

“There were many days when the entire schedule was our shifts and the SM.”

If your SM is really scheduling shifts without any Baristas he must be blowing his labor budget by a longshot and tips would be the last thing your store would need to worry about. In case you had not heard, stores are supposed to schedule baristas for every shift. Hope you are not outing your SM for failing to schedule properly and getting him into trouble.

["why do you hate america!" S. Colbert]

The US court system is based on appeals. It is a constantly evolving organism. Try to imagine America without an appeals system.

[Melody]

Putting on my legal hat for a moment:

To Anon at Apr 4, 2008 12:47:13 PM:

Did you read the case law you gave?

Law is made in the facts of each case.

** Jameson v. Five Feet Restaurant, Inc., (107 Cal. App. 4th 138) -

This case may be distinguishable from the present case involving Starbucks. In Jameson, "floor managers" received 10% of tips earned by servers. Jameson, 107 Cal. App. at 141).

The evidence at that trial showed that "(1) the floor manager's duties include scheduling servers' stations, disciplining servers, hiring employees, and recommending the discharge of employees; (2) the floor manager supervises servers on a "daily basis" even while assuming host duties;" Id. at 144.

I do believe that the Starbucks case is open to interpretation. The Jameson case involved managers who had actual discpline power, thus had real power to coerce and compel.

Granted, I believe that colorable arguments exist on both sides, but it is hard to see how a shift supervisor has any ability to compel anyone to do anything when he or she cannot discipline in any way. (I assume?).

Also, see for example:
Louie v. McCormick & Schmick Rest. Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153

In that case, servers were forced to pool their tips with bartenders in a restuarant. That case has some very interesting language in it.

>>>
Recognizing the need to ensure that all service employees share equitably in gratuities left by tipping patrons, the court concluded that restaurant owners must have discretion to determine how a tip-sharing arrangement should operate:

"An employer must be able to exercise control over his business to ensure an equitable sharing of gratuities in order to promote peace and harmony among employees and provide good service to the public. To deprive a restauranteur of the ability to regulate and control the conduct of his own business, leaves the door open to anarchy in the restaurant industry. It is for this very reason that employer mandated tip pooling among employees has been a long-standing practice establishing a policy in the industry which permits the employer to operate a well run, well ordered restaurant business." Id. at 1071.

In making this observation, the court did not impose any restrictions on the tip-pooling arrangements that restaurant owners could devise, other than the � 351-mandated requirement that only service employees receive gratuities "to the exclusion of the employer."Recognizing the need to ensure that all service employees share equitably in gratuities left by tipping patrons, the court concluded that restaurant owners must have discretion to determine how a tip-sharing arrangement should operate:

"An employer must be able to exercise control over his business to ensure an equitable sharing of gratuities in order to promote peace and harmony among employees and provide good service to the public. To deprive a restauranteur of the ability to regulate and control the conduct of his own business, leaves the door open to anarchy in the restaurant industry. It is for this very reason that employer mandated tip pooling among employees has been a long-standing practice establishing a policy in the industry which permits the employer to operate a well run, well ordered restaurant business." Id. at 1071.<<<

This then begs the question of whether Shift Supervisors are "service employees."

The Starbucks case is definitely an interesting one, and much was left up to the discretion and interpretation of the judge! Though, frankly speaking, as a matter of strategy it might have been easier to just settle than to get to this crazy juncture that they're at now.

In making this observation, the court did not impose any restrictions on the tip-pooling arrangements that restaurant owners could devise, other than the � 351-mandated requirement that only service employees receive gratuities "to the exclusion of the employer." Id. at 1160-61.

[Melody]

Sorry about double posting some of the text sections.
greenapronbook.com

[buck star]

"Liar. Lawywer. What's the difference?" Please tell me you recognize that quote people!

I am glad that in this current day and age there is nothing more exciting happening in the law profession than to take money away from working class people.

But, I suppose that the working masses can unite to change the law; since there is concensus that this isn't really a moral issue. I advise all shift supervisors and up to write a letter to their congress rep. asking for your respective state to change the wording in the law to distinguish between true managers and pseudo managers. Any baristas who have our backs can feel free to jump in on this too, because we would have your back as well. If we take a grassroots internet based approach to get the legal wording changed, I bet it will save bullshit lobbyists from being lobbied in DC by Starbucks when they should be saving this money to give to me in the form of a Christmas bonus next year!!

Onward,
Shifts Getting Shafted Inc.

[Bastardized Barista]

why do you hate america!" S. Colbert.

Actually, he US court system is based on justice. It permits even lowly employees (baristas) to successfully sue huge multi-national corporations(Starbucks) when the latter steals from the former. What a novel concept.

[no name]

Melody,
Thank you for your post of Apr 4, 2008 11:38:32 PM. I'm fascinated by all these tip-pooling cases & even tho I have my own strong opinions I really appreciate the lively discussion around it. Thank you for adding a legal opinion to all of our speculations!

[funky latte]

Here's my solution. Get rid of Store Managers(good cut for Howie) besides these sm's are taking a paycheck and not even showing up at work half the time.(Not all of them but some) The store can run on shifts and baristas, I see it all the time. Don't get me wrong I know this has nothing to do with tips but I will quit as a s.s. if tips go away.

I KNOW that SMs not showing up for shifts and/or disappearing all day is RARE and SSs spending their shifts in the back is ALSO RARE but we have to have ZERO TOLERANCE on this!
PLEASE, if this is happening in your store, please don't just complain about it here-please report it immediately to Partner Service or your DM or your RDO!!!
It's so wrong there arent even words to express how wrong it is!!!
PLEASE tell someone!!!

[NotInNashvilleAnymore]

I remember working at a store as a SS in Nashville, Tn...Belle Meade to be exact, and the manager at the time wouls spend very little time on the floor. He never closed the store. He constantly was hitting on anything female, young, and blonde-haired. He was a terrible mamanger. Well a little birdie made a complaint anonymously and well a couple of weeks later he gave his notice. He was an embarassment to the company. Anyhow, my point is that Store Managers basically feel they can do as they please. I truly dont think the DM's care as long as they are getting sales results. And then the SM gets all the credit for the sales of the store when its the ss's and baristas who are the people truly running the store. I wont name the former manager but for the sake of being funny...he has the same first name as the actor _______ Montalban from Fantasy Island.

I was in a Starbucks, and overheard these customers who had just been helped by a 35+ years Barista (I'm a regular so I know that she's that BY CHOICE for the flexibility) and the customers at the end of the transaction stated as they walked away, "No tip for the manager"!

What the heck! Not only is there a misconception about of company but about who's who! Perhaps instead of "name" tags, employee should wear "title" tags!!

^
(35+ years old, not has worked there 35+ years)

;)

Melody, thank you for pointing out the interesting Louie case as well as your unique interpretation of California law regarding tips. However, I believe you overlooked some critical language from both the Jameson and Louie cases that you quote from in your post. And the language you overlooked is certainly language Starbucks would not want anyone to see.

First, you state that the Jameson case, in which a California Court specifically said that “tip pooling is only permitted among employees who are neither employers nor agents,” may be distinguishable from the Starbucks case, because the floor manager in the Jameson case performed different duties (such as disciplining servers, hiring employees, and recommending the discharge of employees”) than the duties shift supervisors perform at Starbucks.

However, you ignored the fact that the Jameson decision upheld an injunction that prohibited the Five Feet restaurant “from requiring or permitting servers to pay any portion of their tips to any individual who hires, fires, supervises, directs or controls any other employee in the restaurant including, but not limited to, any owner, manager, assistant manager, floor supervisor, maitre d', or any other individual that hires, fires, supervises, directs or controls the acts of other employees in any manner or for any length of time, regardless of whether that individual also performs some services tantamount to serving, and/or assisting in the service of, patrons of [Five Feet].”

I think this language makes it pretty clear that any agent, not just Jameson’s floor manager, is prohibited from taking tips from a tip pool, at least according to the court in Jameson.

You also state that in the Louie decision, “the court did not impose any restrictions on the tip-pooling arrangements that restaurant owners could devise, other than the 351-mandated requirement that only service employees employees receive gratuities to the exclusion of the employer.”

However, I cannot help noticing that the Louie decision specifically says “[t]ip pooling is permissible under California law if an employer or agent does not take any part of a gratuity given to an employee by a patron or otherwise violate section 351,” and that “tip pooling is only permitted among employees who are neither employers nor agents under section 350”.

I think it would be hard for a court to come up with clearer language to make the point that agents, such as Starbucks shift supervisors, are not permitted to take part in a tip pool with other employees.

[Embracing Diversity]

Apr 5, 2008 4:34:22 PM
It would seem that the appeal(s) will center around the (Starbucks) argument that Shift leads/Supervisors are not agents as they have no managerial authority. It's pretty clear that you believe that Shifts ARE agents, and one Judge did too, so you have company.
There are many of us out here who believe that Shifts are not agents. So I guess all that's left to do is wait and see what the final appeal court decides.

[Angelletum]

These lawsuits are just ridiculous to assume that someone would really go through with it. In all of the states I have been to baristas and shifts are only separated by $1.50 to $2.00 in pay an hour. Shifts perform the same jobs as baristas and also extras to keep the business running in order. Ok, so if you take away shifts tips and give it to the baristas only, baristas will be making anywhere from $3-$4 an hour more than shifts. So please explain how a barista can complain, with this there would be no reason for shifts because no one would want to be one if they could get more pay as a barista. Shifts should get pissed and go for higher pay and ask for all of their back pay in bonuses to help compensate for their loses. The problem is you signed a contract saying the pay was fine when you got hired so get over yourself you lazy baristas and think about the big picture here.

[Incensed Barista]

I think tips are given for a number of reasons. Some people just don’t want their small change. Who knows why people tip. I do think shift supervisors, store managers, assistant store managers, and baristas all contribute in some way. Does anyone deny that SMs and ASMs also contribute? If they contribute, why don’t they get tips? Is it because Starbucks knows that certain employees should not be in the tip pool even though they perform customer service?

[Juggalette_Barista17]

i personally don't see why tha shifts shouldnt get tips too. they're not on salary like tha SM & ASM's so they should get them too. tha fact that someone else is getting paid more than you are is probably based on tha fact that they maybe started before you. you get raises with reviews....as i recall. and instead of sueing cause you dont get your way you should talk to your manager or district manager if it's that bad. [sorry if i sound bitchy] or file a grievence if you're really that upset.

[Bastardized Barista]

Angelletum,

“baristas and shifts are only separated by $1.50 to $2.00 in pay an hour”

So supervisors make 20-25% more, on average, than baristas. I'd call that a reasonable difference.

“Shifts should get pissed and go for higher pay and ask for all of their back pay in bonuses to help compensate for their loses.”

I agree supervisors should get pissed. AT STARBUCKS, for not paying them what they are due, not at baristas for seeking tips that the LAW says belong to the baristas, not Starbucks to do with it what it wants.

“The problem is you signed a contract saying the pay was fine when you got hired so get over yourself you lazy baristas and think about the big picture here.”

What contract did you sign? I have never heard of any store level employee signing a contract to work at Starbucks. This is just more inane propoganda coming the suits in Seattle who are worried the baristas are taking money out of their severance packages.

[first time poster long time reader]

When I tip at Starbucks, it is my intent that the tip goes to the barista, not the managers. The fact that Starbucks has the nerve to fight the law and stiff the people making our coffee to subsidize the salaries of the managers pisses me off.

[first time poster long time reader]

And as an aside to the managers: Just because a company you work for instructs you to do something illegal does not mean you should listen.

The tips DO NOT go to the managers. They go to the baristas and the supervisors. both of whom do customer care.

[Allie]

I'm Sorry but I started out as a Barista and then after a year became a Shift Supervisor, but there were some Barista's that still made more than me! This lawsuit makes me angry b/c that ex-barista is trying to scam money from the hard working people who do twice the work that he ever did. If the ex-barista even thought about it, his starting pay was very generous (over minimum wage). The Shift Supervisors work harder than the Barista's have to while only getting a dollar more. The tip money has a strict guideline for where the money goes. And if you note the Company policy states that the tips go to hourly employees only! In any other company or restaurants the supervisor/manager would be a salaried position which is where I think this law should be enforced, not to cheat money from someone who needed that tip money just like you b/c they have a different title than you and only make a dollar more!!!

The tips DO NOT go to the managers. They go to the baristas and the supervisors. both of whom do customer care.

Posted by: | Apr 7, 2008 10:04:38 PM

Except that Shift supervisors ARE managers. It's easy people! Why can't some of you understand this?!

There's ONLY baristas and management.

No in between.

!!! The managers were stealing the tips and SBUX let them !!!

[Taylor]

Ugh...if I read one more reply that says 'when i tip, i'm tipping the person who makes my drink, not their manager!' i'm going to scream.

don't be so ignorant.

EVERYONE in the store is out there making YOUR drink. EVERYONE is responsible for the production, from stocking and cleaning, to ringing, to presenting the final product.

The difference here is, managers and ASMs are salaried (appx 40-50k/yr). Shift leads are hourly as are baristas...and oftentimes baristas with more seniority make more money than new leads.

As for 99% participation in the lawsuit: I received the CA notice when I was a supervisor. The opt-out process was ridiculous. You were automatically included in the lawsuit if you did not go through 50 hoops to get out. I overlooked the mail and 'bam'...i was in the class.

You cannot seriously believe that just because someone participates in a class-action lawsuit that they support it. The desire for money overrides morals and/or beliefs. I'm sure most of the people who were included figured they could make a few bucks and the long-term effects would probably not apply to them.

[If you were right, we'd agree!!!]

"Except that Shift supervisors ARE managers..."

ACTUALLY if you READ the judge's decision you will find that EVEN SHE said Shifts are NOT MANAGERS!!!!!
Get yourself informed before you spout off in ignorance!

[Vintage]

Ok, ok, I figured it all out.

Take all Barista's and change their title to 'Barista-'
Transfer them all to stores inside malls/airports, etc. These would be 'training stores.'
In the training store you have a manager, asm and trainer (or 2 or 3) who would supervise and direct the baristas but not help customers. None of those positions will have tips, including the Barista-. Rather all donated monies will be given to a local charity of that store's choosing (Shade Tree, Afan, etc.)
Cleaning and maintinance duties would be shared between Trainers and Barista-'s.
By showing superior customer service, desire and other lead type abilities, these 'Barista-' leave the store, take an advanced class in whatever and transferred to a... wait for it...

Stand alone store or main store (i.e. REAL Starbucks store). They are now given the title of 'Barista+'
These stand-alone stores, with new Super-Baristas could almost be self operating.
Based off of business they would have a Manager or Manager and ASM, neither of whom would share in tips, but now the Barista+ can earn tips (kind of like currently).
There would be no trainer or Supervisor needed as the Barista+'s should be skilled in everything, including working together as a team.
Garbage, dish washing and floor mopping will be contracted to outside companies.

There, by dividing the stores up between training stores and actual stores, it eliminates the need for a Shift Supervisor position.
Like haircuts, the training stores would be say... 10-25 cents cheaper, but there's no guarantee you're going to get exactly what you want. I mean, these are people learning or who don't care enough to be motivated to move up.
The high quality stores will be more expensive, but you can expect the best damn service and the company can expect that service level out of its employees.

Yearly disgruntlement tests will be given via ink blotter and those found not fit will be subject to work a day as a Wal-Mart greeter and told to STFU or get out.
The lawsuit may be 'legit' but only because someone found a loophole to screw the company through. Yay, good for them, whatever. The thing that's ridiculous is that to get their 'piece of the pie,' they've decided to screw it up for everyone else. Time and time again, it's been proven that just because something is law doesn't mean it's right. This is just another sad example.

For another look on the whole 'tip' thing, it might be fun to look at the Wynn vs. Dealers conflama over in Las Vegas. Very different outcome there.

[basic]

The SS's don't "deserve a share of the tips" - because that is (presumably) illegal. What they deserve is a higher wage!

Their anger should not be directed at their colleagues. The baristas (ex or otherwise) are not suing the SS's, nor are they trying to grab into their pockets. They are suing Starbucks - in essence - to pay SS's an appropriate wage, rather than having the SS's subsidized from the barista's tip-jar.

If the SS's work increases the tips, well... that's their contribution to over-all morale. That's - in part - why they should earn more in the first place.

No matter how you look at it, the culprit is Starbucks who has gotten away with underpaying their SS's for so many years.

[Angelletum]

To Bastardized Barista

As the statement that shifts get 20 to 25% more pay then baristas is what you are saying, how would you fill with that pay. If you take away your tips and give them to baristas, who then will be making the same or more then you if you were a shift. Yes I believe starbucks should pay shifts more but they don't. If you take away the shifts tips a newbie barista will be making the same as a shift who has been with the company for a year to a year and a half. If you were a shift you would not be fine with that.

I am a shift and I can tell you I usually make more drinks and take more orders than anyone barista does, plus I also have to handle cash,place orders and handle more customer situations. I am not salaried, so why dont I get the tips for providing the customer service. By the end of the day I can say I have done more customer service than anyone barista, so I do believe that I should get part of the tips that are giving because of service.

As part of the signing a contract that I said and was argued. When you go to a company and they say you are to be payed a set amount plus possibly get raises every 6 months. That is a contract of you agreeing to that pay, if you dont you can ask for more or go get another job. So in a way you agree to that amount in a contract situation.

If you really want to worry about tips lets put out tips jars that say barista, and shift on them. Then work it that way. By the end of the day there are less shifts thus more tips overall for them, now that would make it fair. Shifts do more work,work longer, harder and handle more customers. They deserve their share of the tips. They are not management they are baristas in training for management. The spend less then 5% of their time in the back, they are on the floor more working side by side and held to a higher standard. Work as a shift for a year and we will see how you feel about this lawsuit and how baristas are acting.

[frazzelbean]

ok, help me out here. "the goverment is an evolving organisim?? huh..what... so all along i was thinking that the goverment was based on a constituition,laws,overspending,$5,000 toilet seats. and its as simple as a earth worm an organisim. wow how fuzzy that makes me feel. come now people lets face the reality. most, people leave pay check to pay check and their will always be people who whine and moan about this or that is not fair. but since when is life "fair". yes fair wages are important but the more we go after companies for taxes etc what do yo think the result will be..?? higher prices perhaps, job cuts, less hours. hmm makes you wonder. if you all are so concerned about the wage issue then drink folgers.

Simple...get rid of the SS position. Promote some to ASM and pay accordingly. Have a Manager (SM or ASM) on duty at all times. From an outsider looking in, this is the problem. This would also eliminate many of the other problems caused by a lack of management supervision, such as customer service, gossiping about partners, customers, etc. Starbuck's....please look at this!

[sm]

I hate tips! Take the jars away today!

SM's and DM's have the ability to pay more to the baristas that improve the business (but need more authority in this area). Those that work to provide legendary sevice, repeat customers, control costs, etc. will get paid accordingly.

Get rid of SS position? Yes! SM's need a staff of well paid managers, not supervisers who are really baristas wanting more pay and no responsibility beyond making drinks and getting tips.

[LahnnaBella]

I think this whole "I'm gonna sue you!" tirade has now officially been blown out of porportion.

I am a recent Starbucks hire. I'm coming into a new location as a Shift Supervisor. I am in the process of trying to gain the trust of my partners and my managers. None of my partners feels that we should nix tips for SS's. Everyone works very hard in our store, and it shows. I don't know how much more SS's are paid than baristas, but we are still only paid hourly. I think if we were salaried and received managerial pay it would be a different story, naturally.

Also, I live just outside of Boston, so many of my partners are college students who can't work the regular 30 to 40 hr work week. Many SBUX partners are young students. It is unfair to think that because you only worked 10 hours one week and made 7 bucks in tips that it is the fault of a shift supervisor sharing in the tip drops.

Lastly, I feel that taking away tips for SS's will undermine the barista/SS relationship. Our goal is to make money and earn a living, but at the same time SBUX has a standard and they have a right to expect that all partners will meet this standard of acceptance, genuity, and consideration.

[April]

All this madness is over a word, "Supervisor"

They work JUST as hard, if not harder, than Baristas. They ARE Baristas, just with more work and not THAT much extra pay.

These people just want to find a reason to sue. Someone told them "Hey, this is a good thing to sue over, let's do it!"

[workaholic]

I worked for Starbucks. Many long shifts which is fine, you have to juggle being a barista and being a manager, and train, and volunteer for your community,be on bar, be on drive thru, clean, inventory. Again these things are fine. Ooooh I forgot to say I use to be Super Woman!!! We were always told my our DM's stay until the job is done. There was never enough payroll to get everything that needed to get accomplished. There were days you had to be on bar 8 hours a day... no payroll to get shipment in, train, wait on customers. I remember working 6 days a week, 3 days a week 5:30am-11pm for a year. This job was built for two people. I still go to Starbucks the quality is of the uttmost highest. The farmers are paid what they are worth for their beans (that is the reason a cup of coffee is more--why not they deserve to know the market price and we would be fair letting the uneducated farmer know the fair price of coffee. Why is it different to show the hard work and worth for managers at Starbucks?

[George]

Starbucks should eithter get rid of their tip jar or put out a jar for each employee.

California laws state that No employer shall COLLECT, take or receive any part of the gratuities paid left or given to an employee.

A tip jar collects tips and as such violates California labor code.

The only way to insure that employers do not take the tips given to an employee is to allow customers to decide who their tip belongs to. By putting out a jar with each worker's name on it, there would be no question over who the tips belong to and Starbucks would not be able to take part of the tips and share them with other workers.

When employers are allowed to collect gratuities they are able to mingle all the tips together so that the true owner of such tips has no way of proving what amount he was entitled to.

Either remove the tip jar or place a tip jar out for each employee. That way customers will be assured that the employer is not taking or collecting their tips.