« Starbucks pays $75,000 to settle dwarf barista's lawsuit | Main | OPEN THREAD conversation-starter: Are you pumped up about the Pumpkin Spice Latte? »

August 18, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

James Connolly

Also good news. No one should be screwed out of wages they've earned.


No one should be screwed out of wages they've earned.

Except by their lawyers who got 2/3 of the money.


All that for what comes out to a little over $1100 per person. Outside of a moral victory it really doesn't seem all that worth it.

James Connolly

Still more than nothing, which is what they would have gotten if they hadn't sued.


James, once again you don't see reality. My bonus last quarter was bigger and I worked no OT. These managers are unable to manage their time.

Christian Dior

Interesting post, I will write it myself.


This post makes me want to go to law school...

We dont need no stinking name here

What Northwest said. You took a job as a salaried person, it is assumed that one of the benefits of salary is you have X amount of work to do and get Y money for it. How fast or slow you do your job is your own thing. Salary is great when you are competent and only a detriment when you aren't. There is absolutely NOTHING a manager has to do at Starbucks that should consistently have them working more than 45 hours a week.


The real winners here are the attorneys.

Coffee Drinker

In my experience people who become good managers work waaaay more than 45 hours a week, especially in Seattle. Some of it will be off the clock and no one will ever know about it. Hours in the store and telecommuting should be paid for.

As for the lawsuit, such lawsuits at times keep our corporations more accountable...at times but not always, obviously. I don't know if SBUX as a corp. overall tries to force people to work for free; I do know there are individuals and districts or business units, who will promote it either subtly or even blatantly "or else" sort of hanging over the head. Lawsuits often thrive on the lowest common denominator of human behaviour.

SBUX Alum Bill

SBUX only settled because they knew the case had merit. They would otherwise have fought it out in court & used the resulting favorable judgment as a deterrent against future lawsuits. If managers are working long hours because of inefficiency, that still doesn't give the employer the right not to pay them for time worked. Good employers will pay their employees for time worked & train them to become more efficient (if efficiency is the issue).


All I have to add to this is that the "fairness" of the current work structure for managers really is going to depend on a district-to-district and store-to-store basis. Some managers aren't afforded the labor to staff their stores in a manner that allows them to get all of their non-barista projects done in a 40-hour week. Other managers have plenty of labor and can easily slip off the floor to take care of business.

It's true that a good manager should be able to get everything done in a 45-hour week, but there are also plenty of circumstances that can cause a 45-hour week to easily turn into a 50+ hour week or worse. Keeping a small staff with an optimal schedule doesn't allow for much flexibility sometimes...


Erstwhile is spot on, additionally, district or regional requirements are often assigned on top of standard workload. With mandatory conference calls, huddles, and a number of other time consuming activities, the allotted noncoverage is rarely appropriate. And if you are asked to take on additional responsibility, under the guise of developmental opportunity or what have you, you don't receive additional time to do it which always means longer days. I have always been a high performing SM in five stores in NYC, the largest money making area in the company, but it would be a dream to work a 40 hour week.


I never found 40 hours to be too little. I had no desire to work more....however, this was in the days of an 8 hour admin day, and noncov during the week....once that was 86ed, I bailed....


When I was a Store Manager, I could do my job on about 40hours (lets say about 43) some of the time. Other times, when say a shift supervisor gets the flu and the district is so understaffed there's no one to flex in, that meant another shift. When I was hired, yes I was told I was salaried. But I was also told that the work week was 40 hours a week, managers are not supposed to work more than that, and time work=time paid.

Technically, by definition of the position manger in labor laws in many localities, Starbucks Managers are 'not' managers. Just because you accept a position in a salaried position doesn't negate that. Starbucks still has to follow the laws. And if the law states that there are certain criteria required for a manager to be exempt, then starbucks must follow it.


PS I am kicking myself for not signing the paperwork to be part of this! I could really use that 1000 dollars right now!

That Guy

Maybe Im spoiled but all of my DMs have stayed out of my business (by that i mean they let me run my own store) as long as I hit my #s up and down. Obviously my store is successful so if I need 16 hrs of non cov a week here and there, and 8 hr admin days, nobody complains. I bet if any of you needed the extra time but prooved it was a good investment your DM wont stand in your way

Roy Stanton

As usual, only the lawyers win!

What Barbie knows

I still want to get paid for all of the 1/2 hour breaks the schedule program automatically assigned to every 8 hr shift. I never took a break, nor was I allowed to. 5 years,2.5 hrs/week=625 hrs not paid for. That's ALOT of money we are all owed.


What about the thousands of other managers who didn't dare sign the law suit for fear or retaliation?

I want money too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Site

Ads (2)