Judge says Starbucks' tips policy violates Minnesota law

A federal judge in Minnesota says that "Starbucks' policy violates Minnesota law by requiring employees who work on a particular shift to share tips received on that shift with employees who do not work on that shift," On Sept. 30, he denied class-action status for a lawsuit filed by two former Starbucks baristas, saying that the interests of the class would be divided, because some baristas come out ahead with the current policy. Read "Starbucks' tip policy violates Minnesota law"

Comments

[TOM]

Let me ask the baristas that filed this claim a question. If you think you don't have time to get things completed on your shifts now who do you think is going to take the time to break tips down on a day by day basis. The store maanger would rather donate the tips than spend all the extra time having someone do this. Think through this situation next time people.

[Jeff Banks]

What a waste of government resources to let judges sit around and make decisions on stupid issues that have no bearing on reality. Now everyone will be fighting with their manager for morning shifts with lots of customers. Why doesn't the government let the company make its own policy regarding tips?

[BusyBean]

On top of what Tom said, you also have to remember that while the AM crew may get more tips due to higher traffic and being busier, the PM crew is the one who sets them up for success by prepping the store for them through cleaning/mixes/etc... Thusly, everyone's putting in close to the same effort and shares tips equally.

[Aces of Eight]

I have a solution, get rid of the tips, and increase the pay for employees by a little bit, or just get rid of the tips without increasing employee pay, let people whine and moan about it, I don't care.

I like tips, but this is just ridiculous. People are going to just end up suing away the few benefits they have left, and lose themselves money. Starbucks, if they lose this suit, will probably just get rid of the jars in that state.

As someone in a thread before stated, the people in low tip shifts are working hard set the other people up for success, so that they will get a lot of tips. The idea is that the entire store is a team, and that therefore tips should be evenly distributed based on how many hours you worked that week, as a TEAM. Managers don't get them because they are salaried (shifts get them because they are paid hourly, hardly anymore than a barista, and spend most of their time (pretty much all of it) on the floor). But the whole thing is a TEAM effort, that's why the current system makes sense.

If Minnesota law is that stupid, and can't possibly be interpreted to take a team effort into account, or consider the unique way in which Starbucks stores function, then just get rid of the tip jars in that state. Hell, just get rid of all tip jars. So tired of it, the debates are stupid. The lawsuits just end up shooting everyone in the foot, as well as the people who file them, and this whole debate drives me crazy.

I like tips, I like the money, but this garbage just makes me sick of it. Things would be so much easier without it.

And as for "the people who are on that shift deserving the tips". What if the person tipping was tipping a specific PERSON on that shift? Aren't they the one that deserved that tip? Why should they have to split it up? If it is going to be done this way, it should just be that all tips are individual, but that would be way too complicated.

So just get rid of it.

[Lamlot]

Well at the starbucks i worked at (was in a casino) Each time someone left or got on shift we split tips, it took all of 5 minuets. I think it works out really well, I never left any shift with less than $20. and it was a fair system, you work for the tips you get.

[Xcalibir]

It cause the persons involved were serving their self interests. They don't give a rats ass about their partners. They just want whats best for them. And how did it work out for them?

[Will]

Lamlot -- what about people who come in after and leave earlier than other people on that shift?

Take the tip jars away and see what happens. I guarantee you that the avg Starbucks employee cares more about tips than healthcare. If this new Blue Cross co-insurance crap hasn't gotten us outraged, then tips certainly will.

[Lamlot]

Will, if there is someone who comes in, we split the tips with who was working before they came in. Same thing when someone leaves. we split the tips again with who was working.

[Andy]

One problem with that Lamlot, is that a casino is 24 hours and gets steady business around the clock. A large percentage of other Starbucks, especially slower Starbucks, are busy only in the mornings, adn anyone with an evening shift mostly cleans and has very few customers and tips.

[drive]

In my city, each store has hugely different tips. I have worked at stores where the typical tip came out to 70 cents an hour, and at others where it was $2 an hour. All the stores are very different. Some are nice to work at and some suck to work at, too.

[ChristinL]

the problem i see with what lamlot is saying is lots of people come in all the time. if we did it like that, we'd be seperating out tips ever 2 hours! rediculous We're certainly not getting any extra labor hours to do it either

[Baristar]

Simple. Make a rule that an employee who clocks out then has to split the tips for the shift he or she just worked. If you don't want to be "exloited" by counting your own money off the clock, don't share in tips.

As for the argument that PM shifts generate less tips because business is more slow, you also have less people on so you get a bigger piece of a smaller pie. It may not work out that you get the same to the penny. SO what. Quit and find a cfe where you can get a morning shift. No one is forcing you to wrok at a Starbucks or any place where you have to have a PM shift.

[ICU]

"As for the argument that PM shifts generate less tips because business is more slow, you also have less people on so you get a bigger piece of a smaller pie."

Goodie. PM shifts would get to do more preparatory work (to HELP the morning shifts) for less money, and just deal with it! That sure sounds like it would work. Oh, and if you don't like it you can quit. How quaint. It's always a good solution to urge employees to either accept working on unequal terms with their partners or else just leave. Give me a break.

[Sekip Ecalp Skcus]

Readers here need to know that in some stores, tips account for 20% (or more) of an employee's take-home income. If we ask stores to take away tip jars we will be asking partners to take a 20% pay-cut or asking Starbucks to increase prices further in order to increase wages to make up for the lack of tips.

Splitting tips each time a new partner comes on would be a logistical nightmare and unfair to the hardworking closers who prepare us for success in the morning.

This is just another example of good energy wasted in our overly litigious society. I weep for the human race on a daily basis...

[Melody]

The idea that the tip pooling would ever be fractioned during the day seems very nutty to me. Just as everyone said, it is clear that the afternoon folks work very hard to prepare the morning baristas for the morning rush! All 3 'day parts' (as it is called in the world of corporate jargon) are important.

It also seems weird to me where you could have a civil suit and the judge seem pretty wishy washy if there even could be damages. In criminal law, there is an idea of "harmless error" -- so you violated some rule but nobody was harmed so all is fine -- but it just seems like in this kind of a case, if there is a violation of tip pooling, there has to be damages. The damages may be difficult to calculate, but still it seems like there are some. Oh well, definitely not my area of expertise.

[Bill]

I dont accept the premise that if an afternoon barista is doing non-customer service prep work so the morning rush baristas are more efficient the next day they are entitled to a share of tips. Neither does the law in Minnesota as it is now written.

The solution however is not to stiff the afternoon and evening people.

It is for the Starbucks Corporation to pay them a decent wage in the first place. When I leave a tip, it is to reward the person who helped me. I really don't care to tip the people who stocked the shelves, swept the floor, drove the truck, changed the light bulb or any of the other mundane tasks that are only tangentially related to preparing my beverage.

[Bill]

Melody--

The judge is not being wishy-washy. He just recognizes that only some members of the class (as the lawyers defined it) actually suffered damages. Others came out ahead.

[nobody's latte]

bill - i would hate to work with you. i am sure you think that you are the only one who does anything at his work and everyone else is a slacker and have done nothing to contribute to your work. see this computer you are reading this on? someone designed it. someone planned manufacturing. someone made it. someone distributed it. someone shipped it and someone put it on a shelf. yet according to your "philosophy" the only person who had anything to do with this computer is the person who rung up the sale when you bought it. wow...you big thinker you.

[Melody]

@Bill - Oh yes of course, that's why he denied it as a 'class' - There were diverging interests. As you can see, I can't wrap my head around splitting up tips this way. I actually think, from what I know, the way tips are split up now by Starbucks is the right way to do it (weekly splitting up of tips based upon proportion of hours worked - someone correct me if I am wrong there).

[Karen]

The customers are ultimately the ones who will pay for this if tip jars are removed or tip policies change. Starbucks will either have to pay higher wages and raise prices, or baristas and shifts will have less incentive to appease customers. Without tips my take home pay would be almost 30% less. I couldn’t afford that and would have to get another job. My replacement would probably not be of my caliber because they would be the type to accept a job paying even less than I did. So service would be worse.

Starbucks better fight this with everything they have. Picture the company problems if they had to raise prices even higher than they are now or reduce service and quality even more than it has already been reduced presently. Customers and partners are already at their wits end. This type of suit could hurt Starbucks more than all the horrible decisions management made prior to the recession and the recession combined.

If they kept tip jars but split tips up according to shifts that would be a disaster too. The great partners in the later shifts who set the stage for us partners in the morning would also have less incentive to create a smooth and productive morning. We all work hard and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the incredible afternoon and evening partners that make my morning shifts possible and astute customers appreciate it as well. I’m sure morning customers would hate it if we had to make them wait longer so we could make and stock product, while cleaning the bathrooms and floor drains, at the same time as changing light bulbs, and then needing to split the tips every hour when new partners clocked in or clocked out. It would be chaos and lengthen the wait time considerably.

Even if this policy just effects Minnesota, it would be better for Starbucks to close the stores there then attempt to work it out.

[Sneaky]

Starbucks will either have to pay higher wages and raise prices, or baristas and shifts will have less incentive to appease customers.
Posted by: Karen

I am sorry but I find your logic quite faulty. If its true that the only incentive you have to appease your customer is a tip, then you should find a job outside the service industry right away.

One doesn't see a tip jar at McDonald's, Jack-In-The_Box, Wendy's, Burger King, etc. Their hourly pay is similiar and in most cases less than yours. Their jobs are significantly more complicated due to the large menus, and yet service is not "worse", the staff is not a lower "caliber" and customers are not at their "wits end".

[me myself and I]

I'm not arguing with the first part of your post, but have you been in a McDonalds or Burger King lately? Did they actually speak your language? Did they make you feel welcome? There are good exceptions of course, just the same as there are bad exceptions at Starbucks, but in general the level of friendliness at a typical Starbucks is way above of the typical other mentioned outlets.

But I do agree, whoever takes tips as granted is wrong in our industry. And it still surprises me how many people tip very generously for just serving them a cup of coffee with a smile. They must be treated very badly in other places. I thank you anyways. With or without a tip.
I like my tips, but if someone decides to take away the jars I'll survive too. It's a bonus from a customer, NOT part of your pay. Those are your wage, the markout, the discount, the health benefits (you might argue over that these days, but still), bean stock etc.
If you wouldn't work for the package without tips, then you should never have signed on. Nobody ever promised you any amount of tips before you signed on. As people mentioned here before, some stores make over 2 Dollars an hour in tips others not even a quarter of that. You can't count on tips. Customers could stop giving any tomorrow. Would you have to quit then because you would lack your bus money? That's insane. Of course we all would love to get paid more. But is our job really, worth way more? Of course it is, but how about compared to other jobs? Not so much anymore. Even though I would love to see Starbucks paying a salary that wouldn't require a full time barista to get a second job to just pay for rent and food, in the real world it's not gonna happen. Especially during times when people are willing to work for anything as long as it brings in just a little more than welfare.

I don't know what it is about this topic, but it always gets me enraged. There is way to much entitlement thinking going on within my fellow baristas.

[Karen]

"One doesn't see a tip jar at McDonald's, Jack-In-The_Box, Wendy's, Burger King, etc."

Posted by: Sneaky | October 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Sneaky-Do you want fries with that?

[Georgia Latte]

Yawn.... not the tip issue again... this site is rather stale recently... I know its a different state; but same arguments.

[Sneaky]

Sneaky-Do you want fries with that?
Posted by: Karen

Hey Karen - do you want VIA with that . . . !

[Cubical Drone]

After working as a barista for numerous other companies in the Seattle area, the one thing that everyone fights for the most seems to be the tips. Working close and doing all the major manual labor and getting little to no tips in 6 months then working an opening once and leaving with $40 in my pocket, yeah, there is a huge difference. If you break it up by day, it screws the people in the morning who like their thicker wallets because they have to give some tips up to give to the evening people but technically speaking, the evening people are screwed to begin with in this situation either way in this one.

Spilting them based on the day rather then the change in shift saves time and money, plus people tend to trust their managers counting the money rather than coworkers. The way Sbux has it is the fairest way possible, split it even and move on.

[Fork me, I'm done!]

The main issue in CA regarding tips is the state's definition of management VS Starbucks' definition.
What makes this country so great?
The never-ending appeals process!
Thank you-"Thank You for Smoking"! A must see.

[dan]

I don't understand how this would work logistically. Are we going to have a separate cup for pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, dollars - for the customer to tip into? Cause I'm not sorting out change every shift that I work.

[stan]

daily would work out the best. if you have shitty servers all day, there is shitty money. if you have great workers, tips are great for that day.

you can pinpoint then who actually gives a crap.

[Earnest Guiseppe]

Tip income has been a part of the Starbucks Total Pay Package for as long as I have been around (12 years), so taking that part of the package away would be insane. It would be the equivilant of taking benefits for part time partners away...it is that engrained in who we are.

Those that compare us with Burger King, McD's, etc... and claim that they don't have tip jars out are comparing apples and oranges....SBUX is only similar in that we serve the public food and bev., but Starbucks has always been well above in the way they treat customers and partners, and allowing the customers the right to tip or not tip is part of that difference. If you go in a store and don't get good, or even outstanding service then don't tip...but if you get great service where they know your name when you come in, have your drink ready for you already, and serve you with genuine care, then tip if you can.

[Will]

In my experience, DT stores usually make way less in tips than cafe stores, but often do much more work. I've never thought that was very fair. I've long since help that since DT stores are more profitable, that there should be a bonus of at least 50 cents an hour for working in one.

Taking tip jars, after slashing health care benefits and almost every single other aspect of total pay and labor would be disastrous.

[Karl Dahlquist]

You can see what these ambulance chaser attorneys are up to... I suggest you call Michelle Drake and give her a piece of your mind...

(Marketwire) -- 10/20/09 -- On September 30, 2009, Judge Patrick Schiltz of the Federal Court for the District of Minnesota declared that Starbucks Coffee Company's tip distribution policy violates Minnesota law. Faced with a request for clarification from Starbucks, Judge Schiltz affirmed the breadth of his holding, writing, "Starbucks' policy violates Minnesota law by requiring employees who work on a particular shift to share tips received on that shift with employees who do not work on that shift."

In spite of Judge Schiltz's unequivocal declaration of the policy's illegality, Starbucks has yet to change its policy. E. Michelle Drake, attorney for the Plaintiffs, noted the high-risk nature of the strategy Starbucks has decided to pursue. "Minnesota law provides for a $1,000 civil penalty per violation. By not changing its policy, Starbucks may have already subjected itself up to civil penalties in excess of a million dollars -- just in the past few weeks alone."

While Judge Schiltz denied the present Plaintiffs' bid for class certification, individuals may still bring their own cases, either by filing individually or by filing in groups. Such individuals would be eligible to recover damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Nichols Kaster, PLLP, the law firm bringing the class action lawsuit on behalf of baristas, is actively seeking current and former Starbucks employees as clients. If you have worked for Starbucks as a barista during the last three years in Minnesota, please contact Dana Landis at (612) 256-3228 or by email at dlandis@nka.com. Additional information regarding the case can also be found at www.nka.com.

Contact:
Michelle Drake
(612) 256-3249

[you can't be serious]

Oh my god you guys, get over it. Guess what? Most other cafes split tips according to shift, they do -not- pool tips and split them weekly. Nobody complains because night shifts tend to be longer and have less people working them, thus tips work out pretty evenly. And if tips don't work out evenly to the dollar, well guess what? Thems the breaks. It's pretty standard to split tips as people leave. It takes all of five minutes, tops, and then you don't have people spending ungodly amounts of time splitting tips at the end of a week. If you can't "wrap your mind around it" then you really aren't trying hard enough, because it isn't that difficult a concept and it's more mind boggling that starbucks tries to do weekly pools.

[Aaron]

While I hope this won't cause in-fighting at stores over how to split up tips, and that baristas and shifts will decide collectively to maintain the way things are currently set up, this decision is still important because Starbucks current policy is not really to treat tips as personal property of those receiving them, which is how they legally should be treated in most states.

In regulating for its employees how tips are split up, they are basically treating tips as Starbucks property, regardless of whether they forfeit it all to employees in the end. They are the ones controlling how tips are split up. That is in clear violation of Minnesota law (yes I have looked it up).

As I said, in the end, I do find the way they choose to FORCE employees to split tips up to be very fair, the fact remains that they are FORCING.

Further, the way Starbucks treats tips creates confusion and conflict in other ways: For instance, at my store, several months ago, our tip jar was stolen. About $70 must have been in it. What Starbucks told us was: "too bad. drop tips more." BUT, they would not cover our loss. Under Minnesota law, the tips are supposed to be our personal property, BUT we are not allowed to take them and keep them on our person, where they would be more safe than in a jar sitting on a counter that anyone could easily snatch and run. Since Starbucks does not ALLOW that, it follows that they MUST take responsibility for what happens to the tips if they are stolen. They even acknowledge this through their action by having tips dropped into their safe. Nonetheless, they did NOT take proper responsibility in this case, and cover our losses. They just said, "too bad. Drop more often". Well, then it follows that they should have no problem with us dropping tips every single time anyone leaves any, lest they be stolen, but of course they don't want that. The whole situation I've described illustrates the muddled way tips are treated at starbucks. Are they personal or company property? Who is responsible for them? This ruling will clear that up, and make Starbucks stop breaking the law by trying to CONTROL employees' personal property.

[Emily]

With the way tips are done now, it's not always a manager who does them; in my store it's almost always been a senior barista, occasionally a shift. I do tips most weeks, and whoever the shift on duty is on Monday afternoon does them if I have to take a Monday off for whatever reason.

Some people trust the current system because a "manager" does them, but it isn't required to be a manager, and quite frankly, there have been more complaints about tips on the weeks that certain shifts do them as opposed to when I (a tenured barista, non-shift by choice) do them!

[BigD]

Anyone else catch that blurb at the bottom of the article that this firm has also sued Caribou Coffee over their tipping practices? I used to work for Caribou - their tipping practices are exactly what they are trying to get Starbucks to do - you get the tips you worked for on your shift... am I missing something, or does this sound a little odd?

[buggie]

our store is open for 20 hours a day and while the morning is busier than the night shifts, we still get a heck of a lot of people at night due to our great location and large cafe. the problem is we night baristas have all the duties of closing up the store, while dealing with lots of teenagers, huge asian groups, mexicans, and broke college students... which barely ever tip. it wouldn't be fair for us, doing the same work plus more for less tips than our morning counterparts.

[George]

Minnestoa law states,

Sharing of gratuities.
For purposes of this chapter, any gratuity received by an employee or deposited in or about a place of business for personal services rendered by an employee is the sole property of the employee.
No employer may require an employee to contribute or share a gratuity received by the employee with the employer or other employees or to contribute any or all of the gratuity to a fund or pool operated for the benefit of the employer or employees.
This section does not prevent an employee from voluntarily and individually sharing gratuities with other employees. The agreement to share gratuities must be made by the employees free of any employer participation.

It sounds to me like the judge was suggesting that Starbucks could force workers on a particular shift to share tips. I don't know why or where he came up with this notion that state law prohibits employers from forcing workers on one shift to share their tips with workers on another shift but what the law states is that no employee can be forced to share his tips with anyone.

What the law also states is that while an employee would have a right to collect his personal tips in a tip jar, Starbucks would have no legal right to collect tips for all those employees working a particular shift.

The way I see it is, an employee can put a tip jar out for himself and voluntarily share his tips with other workers. If a jar is put out for several workers to share in, it must be voluntarily agreed upon by all those sharing in the tips and the employer must have no say in how the tips are shared.

The question that remains is, who put out the tip jar at Starbucks?

If it was an employee, then the money belongs to that employee. If the tip jar was put out by Starbucks to collect funds for it's employees, then the tip jar is in violation of state laws which clearly explain that no employer may require an employee to contribute or share a gratuity received by the employee with the employer or other employees or to contribute any or all of the gratuity to a fund or pool operated for the benefit of the employer or employees.

The way Minnesota's laws are written, tips are protected as the property of an individual, not the property of a group.

The reason tips are protected as the property of an individual is, customers must be afforded their liberty to determine who is entitled to their tip.

When tips are errantly viewed as the property of a group of workers, there will be endless disputes over who the tips actually belong to.

Starbucks should not be putting out a tip jar in the first place, it's in violation of state law. If employees want to put out a tip jar, they should have to put out one for each employee so that customers can choose who they are tipping. This way, there will be no disputes over who the tips belong to.

If employees want to simplify things and put out a tip jar for a group, then it should be agreed upon by all those participating. If some workers don't want to participate in a tip jar collection method, then they should be able to put their own jar out if they feel the communal tip jar method is cheating them in some way.

The bottom line is, customers must be allowed to determine who their tip is intended for. If customers can't determine who their tip is intended for then those workers who receive tips cannot be protected to their tips.

[George]

The truth of the matter is, Starbucks knows that if they do not put out a tip jar, their employee won't receive much in tips. Starbucks is soliciting tips for their employees however, their true intent has nothing to do with helping their employees, Their true intent is to lower their staffing costs. The more customers tip their workers, the less Starbucks will have to pay them.

Rather than allowing each employee to solicit tips by way of their own personal tip jar, Starbucks would rather force their workers to share all tips like the restaurant industry does. In order to force all their workers into sharing tips, Starbucks insists on having only one tip jar out with no-ones name on it.

When a tip jar is put out with no-ones name on it, Starbucks is able to control the money as they choose. The more workers they choose to include in their tip pool, the less they will have to pay in hourly wages.

The restaurant industry has been utilizing this overhead cutting method for years. Rather than only a few of their employees receiving tip income, the restaurant industry has realized that they can dramatically lower their payroll expenses by sharing the customer's tip with all their workers.

While in most restaurants only the waiters are tipped and thus an employer can only lower the hourly wages of the waiter, restaurants which require their waiters to share their tips with other positions in the restaurant can lower more workers's hourly wages.

Starbucks simply wants to do the same thing that most restaurants are doing. That is, they want to steal the customer's tip for themselves like the restaurant industry is doing. Let me explain.

When a waiter keeps all his tips, his employer can only lower that paricular waiter's hourly wages. When a waiter is forced to share his tips with other types of workers such as busboys and hostesses, their employer can lower all of their hourly wages. While customers are tipping to increase the earnings of workers in the service industry, their employers have figured out ways to steal the customer's tip.

If a worker is expecting to receive tips, an employer can refuse to hire this employee unless the employee agrees to work for a low hourly wage. While customers are tippping to increase the employee's earnings, his employer is refusing to employe him unless he gives over part of the tips via lower hourly wages.

In other words, rather than simply telling an employee that in order to get a job the employee will have to give over part of his tips to his employer, employers are telling the employee that he must work for a much lower hourly wage in order to obtain a job where tips can be expected.

Each time an employee gives in and accepts a lower hourly wage in exchange for a job which normally receives tips, the employer is benefitting himself to the customer's tip. Rather than stealing the tips directly, employers have figured out that they can steal the tips indirectly.

Now that employers have devised a means to can get their hands on part of the customer's tip, they have now figured out how to get an even bigger share of the customer's tip. It's called tip pooling. When employers require that employees pool tips, what they are doing is setting themselves up to where instead of offering lower wages to only a few of their employees, they can offer low wages to many more employees.

Employers are forcing their workers to share tips simply so they can lower their staffing costs even more than they would if each worker were keeping his own tips.

The dirty truth of the matter is, every time you tip an employee, his employer is pocketing a portion of your tip. However, when employers are allowed to force workers into pooling tips, the employer may well be pocketing every bit of your tip.

Minnesota is absolutely right in suggesting that employers should not be allowed to force workers into pooling thier tips. It's bad enough to have to put up with employers extorting low wages out a worker in exchange for a chance to receive tips. Now that employers in many states have been allowed to pool tips, employees in the restaurant industry are the lowest paid workers in our country.

Just ask yourself this question, why are so many workers accepting such low wages?

It's because they have been tricked into believing they will receive additional income by way of tips. What they don't know is, their employer has devised a means for taking most of the tips for himself. As a result we have workers in the restaurant industry earning the least of any of our workers dispite the fact that customers are tipping them billions of dollars a year.

Your tips are being stolen by business owners. You can either stop tipping or put and end to this abuse by protecting the workers who receive tips. I believe we should put an end to employer tip stealing. If customers want to help low paid workers, they should be able to tip. The truth of the matter is, tipping is not going to go away. People like to help other people. It's a shame they can't take it a stip further and make sure they are really helping them.

[RocknJava]

I have been in the coffee biz for about 6 years now and I can kind of see where the baristas are coming from. When I first started, landing a morning shift was an award. I worked afternoons for about 3 years before I even got an offer for a morning position, which equaled more tips! You basically have to work your way there. I am a believer that you earn your tips. I dont think someone who works 2 hours a week should get the same amount of tips as someone who works 40 hours a week. Thats just me though!

[Simon]

Anyone who argues that the team doesn't set up the individual in order for that individual to provide the legendary service that produces the tip is either fooling themselves or trying to fool someone else. Everything that happens at a Starbucks is a TEAM effort, and I still feel that the partner who has no people skills but works hard at prep and cleaning deserves the tips as much as the bubbly cashier.

[George]

No one deserves a tip unless the customer chooses to give them a tip. I am sick and tired of people suggesting that certain people deserve a tip. Many people work hard in America and deserve more for their labor. No one deserves a tip. It's not the customer's responsibility to pay workers, it's the employers responsibility to pay his workers. IF customers want to tip, it's their perogative. On the other hand, employers are, and righfully should be, required to pay their workers.

If you want to argue that certain workers deserve more pay, then take it up with Congross who apparantly thinks workers should only be paid $7.25 an hour. That adds up to only $14,000 a year or a little over $1000 a month. How do you make a car payment, pay rent, pay utilities, pay for food and clothing on $1000 a month? Hell, most CEO's are spending more than that on their car payment.

The point that I am making is, I don't give a crap about who you think deserves a tip. Employers shouldn't be messing with tips at all. If you think certain workers deserve a tip, then tip those who you think deserve a tip. Employers shouldn't be deciding who deserves a tip. Judges shouldn't be deciding who deserves a tip. The only one who should be deciding who deserves a tip is the person who is giving the tip. You decide who gets your tip and I'll decide who gets my tip. Hows that?

Tip jars should be outlawed unless they have a name on them. That way, each customer can decide who he wants to tip.

This team concept several bloggers keep refering to is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. We all work for ourselves. There is no team. Business owners are working to make themselves money. Workers are there to make themselves money.

Everything that happens at Starbucks happens because the owner wants to make money for himself. IF it were truly a team, all workers would be sharing equally in the revenues. Don't tell me any business is a team effort. It's about making the owner money. The problem is, the workers have to make money too.

Workers can't make money when their employer is dead set on paying them as little as possible and insists on controlling the tips customer's give them.

Employees must be protected to the tips they are given. Allowing employers to collect tips in a jar with no one's name oh it doesn't protect employees to the tips they are given, it prevents customers from giving certain workers a tip. Instead of giving a specific worker a tip, tip jars collect money for the employer to utilize to pay his employees. How can employees benefit from a tip if their employer is simply using the money to lower his staffing costs?

The truth of the matter is, employers shouldn't be handling tips at all. They shouldn't even be allowed to know how much customers have given an employee. If they know customers are giving their employee a substantial amount of tips they will most certainly try to take it away from the employee. Employers are there to make money for themselves. If they can't directly take the tips for themeselves they will lower the employee's wages in an effort to benefit themselves to the tips.

This is why tipped employees shouldn't pay taxes on their tips. While I used to think that tipped workers should have to pay taxes on their tips just like all other workers have to pay taxes on their income, I have just realized that when a tipped employee is required to pay taxes on his tips it's an open invitation to his employer to lower his hourly wages.

While customers are tipping employees billions of dollars a year, the fact that they have to declare such tips as income is creating a situation where employers know exactly how much their workers are receiving in tip income. As a result employers are now lowering the hourly wages of all those workers who receive substantial tip income and have subsequently realized that they can benefit themselves even more to the tips customers are giving their employees by sharing the customer's tip with all their employees.

Managers are being included in the sharing of tips because businesses, like Starbucks, know that they can save even more money if they can share the customer's tip with more workers.

The only way to stop employers from indirectly stealling the tips customer's present is to prevent employers from getting their hands on the tips and by preventing them from knowing how much the employee is receiving.

If the IRS wants more revenue from workers then let's make epmployers pay their worker's more.

Isn't that the problem we are faced with today? We don't have enough tax dollars because most workers aren't making any money. If workers made more, we would have more tax dollars.

[George]

Bill stated,

I actually think, from what I know, the way tips are split up now by Starbucks is the right way to do it (weekly splitting up of tips based upon proportion of hours worked - someone correct me if I am wrong there).

Shouldn't tips be split by the customer rather than the owner of the business?

Why would you suggest that the right way to distribute tips is to let the employer divide them how he wants them divided when tips belong to the customer?

Business owners shouldn't be controlling the customer's money, period.

You are wrong in suggesting that tips should be divided up in a manner where tips are split weekly and based on hours worked. As the customer's property, tips should not be divided up for the customer without his permission. If tips are divided equally at the end of the week based on hours worked then customers who may want to tip one worker more than another are stripped of their right to determine who should receive their tip and what amount they should receive.

You see, when tips are split based on hours worked, you are appropriating the customer's private property without his authorization.

What if some customers don't want their tips split up based on hours worked. What is some customers want to tip only those workers who actually gave them the kind of service they expect.

Your suggestiong that it is right for Starbucks to split the customer's tip up among employees based on hours worked totally disregards the customer's right to determine who should receive his tip and what amount an employee should receive.

What you are suggesting is that Starbucks should be able to confiscate the customer's tip and use it to pay their workers just as they do with the money customer's spend when they purchase a coffee from Starbucks.

Don't you understand that there is a difference between the money paid for a cup of coffee and money given as a tip?

Money paid for a cup of coffee belongs to business owner. He can do what ever he wants with the money. Money given as a tip is not supposed to be treated by the employer as if it's his property. Therefore, employers should keep their greedy hands off the tips customers present their workers. Dividing the customers tip up among their workers does not constitute keeping their greedy hands off the tips.

Business owners are confiscating and distributing the customer's tip to as many workers as they can in an effort to benefit themselves to the customer's tip. The more workers that a business can include in their tip pool, they less they will have to pay their worker's out of their own pocket.

Employer required tip pooling is nothing more than a business practice designed to steal the financial benefit of the customer's tip.

How long are we going to continue allowing business owners to steal our tips?

Why is it ok for business to blatantly steal private property and yet the rest of the public is subject to our laws?