17 Comments

My nephew-in-law (who works as a barista at another chain other than Starbucks) says that shift supervisors are required to fill in for barista’s on break or otherwise unavailable and routinely directly service customers. So doesn’t this ruling take away their rightfully earned tips from those customers?

Yes, this ruling is baffling (and seemingly wrongheaded). Further explanation would be welcome.

perhaps Starbucks should just prohibit tipping in its CA stores. Allow customers to donate to a fund for treating Caffeine addiction instead

This sort of lawsuit makes me feel like a chump for leaving tips at coffee shops in the first place.

My understanding, not being an employment law lawyer, is that management cannot share in tips left for employees under CA state law. There may a basis if the tips are intended to hourly employees and the management is salaried.

Keep in mind that, based upon my reading of the news stories, is that the verdict DOES NOT include any punitive damages and is solely compensatory damages based upon the factual evidence at trial that the portion taken by management was $1+ per employee.

On a personal note, I have appeared before Judge Cowett on a number of occasions. She is a very thoughtful and analytical judge. Although Starbucks might hate to see themselves held liable for such a high damage award, it isn’t because of a rogue judge. Or that Starbucks wasn’t well represented (Akin Gump).

Just to correct my post above, the hourly tips taken per employer PER HOUR were $1+. With 120,000 class members, this obviously adds up. I’ve heard that the testimony was that the tips lost per employee averaged more than $1,000.

120,000 baristas in the state of california alone? It’s just staggering to think that the economy is so flush with money as to support that many people who do nothing more than serve coffee, a job even a chimp could do.

All that money being divied up, I wonder how much the Attorneys get off the top!

50-60 Mill? Plus expenses, the employees will get a coupon for a cup of coffee at Bucks!

As to whether or not Starbucks violated California law, I haven’t the faintest idea. However, there wouldn’t have been a tip problem if it were up to me. Why in the world would you tip someone for handing you a cup of coffee? It is not as if they provided you with any service. You don’t tip the counter people at fast food restaurants like McDonalds now do you? Isn’t Starbucks’ coffee already overpriced enough? Some people just don’t know what to do with their money.

My understanding, not being an employment law lawyer, is that management cannot share in tips left for employees under CA state law. There may a basis if the tips are intended to hourly employees and the management is salaried.

The “shift supervisors” at Starbucks are hourly workers. The question that I have is “what defines a ‘supervisor?'”

These shift supervisors could not hire, terminate, or discipline an employee. They worked the counter just as a “regular” employee did. Their responsibilities were to look out for the store when management was not around. If they are looking after the store when the management was not there, are they then, by exclusion, not “management?”

I am a Barista at Starbucks. The comment about the judge is interesting. I wonder if she (as managemnt in the courts system) would clean the the toilets and mop the floors as the “shift superviosrs” at Starbucks that she just dumped on do?

Most of my family works at starbucks and their a fair company with great benefits and as a son of a shift supervisor I say that it is fair for shifts to get tips because the work the same as regular baristas plus they work a lot harder on what the do by being responsible My Name is Melddrk Aguilar 17,current Barista in Florida.

California labor laws state clearly that,
No employer or agent shall take, COLLECT or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron.

The problem is, a few corrupt California judges have ruled employers may force their workers to pool tips even though such would be the collecting of gratuities California laws prohibit.

Since Starbucks was forcing it’s workers to pool all tips into one fund and essentially collecting gratuities, the employee’s tips were mingled with the managers tips. The problem is not that managers should not be receiving tips. My god it’s a person’s constitutional right to tip who-ever they want.

The problem is, once the tips are illegally collected, there is no way to know exactly who the tips were actully left for and how much each should receive.

Judges in California have painted themselves into a corner. While state laws do not, and connot, suggest that managers cannot receive tips, the judges who have allowed employers to illegally collect tips through employer mandated tip pooling now must make up lies to substantiate their ruling that state laws do not prohibit employers from mandating tip pooling.

For instance, what authority does a judge have to rule as to who each and every customer’s tip belongs to? It’s the customer’s tip. However, when employers are allowed to collect tips, through tip pooling, there becomes a question of who do the tips belong to. Rather than stating the truth, that being that judges have no authority to determine who can or can’t share in a customer’s tip, judges must lie and suggest that state laws define who can or can’t share in the customer’s tip.

The question that remains is, why would judges misinterpret state laws in a manner that suggests that state laws define who the customer’s tip belongs to? The reason is, so employees who are presented tips cannot claim the tip as their own. You see, by suggesting that state laws define who the customer’s tip belongs to, those workers who receive tips cannot claim that their employer is taking their tips when they force them to contribute their tips to a pool that the employer will control.

Business owners want to control their worker’s tips. There are many benefits to controlling other people’s money. Since state laws clearly explain that employers cannot take their employees tips, employers have cleverly devised a plan that allows them to benefit themselves to the customer’s tips. Employers across this country are currently forcing their workers to pool tips simply so the business can use the tips to pay workers who don’t receive tips. The more workers they can share the tips with, the more workers they can pay low wages to. It saves the business money.

My question is, our we tipping to save business owners money? I certainly am not. I do not think judges should be ruling that business owners can collect and control my tips. If I want my tips shared I can share them myself. This is a public issue. While judges in many states have ruled that employers may confiscate the public’s tips and share them among workers of the business’s choosing, such has been allowed without any consent on the part of consumers. The justice system in this country is infringing on our public’s property rights by giving the public’s tips over to the control of business owners.

Employer mandated tip pooling must be prohibitted across this country for it is cleary an unauthorized appropriation of the public’s property, their tips.

This whole situation would not have happened if employers were properly prohibitted from forcing their workers to pool tips.

As you have all made reasonable complaints about how silly a company Starbuck’s is, I would suggest that you look up on why the drinks are as pricey as they are. Sure, you can go to any other coffee store and get a cheap, low-quality-roasted-coffee and pay your cheap bill. However, go to Starbuck’s and you will find that your money goes a long way. Your money does not just reach the thousands of Barista’s (who do work hard for that tip, and do not just hand you the drink), your money reaches countries like Africa and many countries in South America where the coffee is grown. Starbucks, unlike other companies who buy their coffee at cheaper prices and sell for more, gives the actual people who farm the coffee good pay and insurance, as well as make sure that the quality of coffee beans will meat your needs. That among many other reasons is why Starbuck’s is the best coffee company internationally-because they not only care about you, their customers, but they care about their employees as well. You can complain all you want, but before you do that, take your head out of your butt and look up and research before you start handing out suggestions to people who know more than you.

If, like you say, Starbucks cares about their employees and customers, why are they confiscating and ocntrolling the tips their customers present? Can’t they keep their greedy hands ofd the public’s tips?

Aren’t they making enough money that they shouldn’t have to resort to stealing the customer’s tip. You see, at Starbucks, customers can’t tip anyone they want. Instead they must unknowingly give their tip over to Starbucks so Starbucks can use it to pay their workers.

If Starbucks wants customers to believe they care about them then why don’t they get rid of those tip stealing jars? How can I tip an employee when the employee must give control of my tip over to his greedy employer? I don’t need to do any research to know what’s going on here. Businesses who require tip pooling are stealing the consumer’s tip, end of story.

I would suggest that you look up on why the drinks are as pricey as they are.

How about trying to maintain a 57% – 59% gross profit margin? Would that be one of the reasons as well?

George,
with all due respect, when I am someplace with a pooled tip jar I am more likely to tip (even if it just the spare change from my order.) Banning pooling will just limit my tipping to waitresses and valets. It may be just a little each time, but there are lots of customers like me. Ban pooling and you will simply cut, if not eliminate, the employee tips.

Please note that I am including all such instances of a pooled tip jar and not just Starbucks, so please spare us the “well the exploiting corporation should make that up out of their obscene profits” argument. The mom and pop smoothie shop down the street doesn’t have obscene profits to spare.