Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A $100 Million Tip
A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered Starbucks to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips that the coffee chain paid to shift supervisors. Saying baristas were entitled to $86 million in back tips plus interest, San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett also issued an injunction preventing Starbucks’ shift supervisors from sharing in future tips. Cowett said the practice was a violation of a state law prohibiting managers and supervisors from sharing in employee tips.
Will they be obligated to track down everyone who's ever worked at a Starbucks to give them their reimbursement? And will crappy baristas get the same amount in back tips as the good ones?
|3.21.08 @ 12:48PM|#
And will crappy baristas get the same amount in back tips as
the good ones?
Does anyone ever hand a tip directly to a server? Don't all tips go
straight into the same lucite box?
The Wine Commonsewer|3.21.08 @ 12:49PM|#
You know, I appreciate good service, but in the case of
Starbucks I can't understand why there should be a tip involved at
all. It's like tipping the kid at McDonalds. Getting coffee at
Starbucks is nothing like ordering drinks at a bar or a meal at a
restaurant.
I mean, it's a free country, but when I see the jar sitting there I
don't pay it much mind. In fact, I am SURPRISED that there could
possibly be 100 million in tips to kick back to the baristas. Who
tips these guys?
Guy Montag|3.21.08 @ 12:55PM|#
TWC,
I usually use a credit card at SB and you get a reciept that you do
not have to sign. Well, unless you go to the worst (of 3) SBs on
Crystal Drive in Arlington, VA, the SB in the Crowne Plaza hotel.
They want you to sign and total, they have a big giant tip line on
the check too.
a Duoist|3.21.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Of the one hundred million dollars ordered for Starbuck employees, how much actually goes to the bumper-sucking lawyers who brought the case?
|3.21.08 @ 12:57PM|#
oudemia,
I am not a big consumer of Starbucks brand coffee (being that my
local roaster tastes better and costs less) but every Starbucks I
have been has not had a "tip jar". In fact, until now I hadn't
realized that Starbucks baristas were allowed to take tips. Now I
feel bad about that cup I had last night at B&N.
|3.21.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Guy--I haven't had to sign at SB for a debit card in over a year
now.
I will tip if I'm given exceptionally good and friendly service, I
like to encourage that through more than just repeat business, but
otherwise I don't bother with the tip jar.
Of the one hundred million dollars ordered for Starbuck
employees, how much actually goes to the bumper-sucking lawyers who
brought the case?
The plantiffs should get, what, 15% of the total bill? Does anyone
have a tip calculator?
robc|3.21.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Guy,
I enjoy putting a line thru the tip line at places like that. If I
have to walk up to a counter, you aint getting a tip.
Mr. Pink|3.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Here's the world's smallest violin playing for the baristas of
the world.
Learn to f**king type!
|3.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
TWC,
I usually tip my Baristas but there are extenuating circumstances,
namely that in addition to my hot beverage I usually have them
grind 2(or more) pounds of fresh coffee for me and that usually
throws a kink in their operation. I guess I am sort of like that
guy in the Visa Checkcard commercials who insists on paying with
cash.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.21.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Guy, our Starbucks folks are great, but still, it's just a
grande of Frog Roast (leave a little room for cream, please).
how much actually goes to the bumper-sucking lawyers who
brought the case
recently got notice of a windfall like this on something though I
don't recall what. five dollar gift cards for each plaintiff.
$485,000.00 legal fees for the bottom feeders.
|3.21.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Is this a good thread to announce that
Eliot Spitzer has been named the Whore Critic for The New York
Times? If not, I'll wait until later.
I'm offended by these non-tipping-situation tip requests, too.
Yeah, yeah, everyone's underpaid, but why don't the businesses pay
their people adequately? Why look to me? What extra service am I
paying for? I'm a pretty generous tipper in situations I recognize
as tip-worthy, but this is too much.
a Duoist,
A guess would be about 40% of the total. Maybe a little less, but
likely no less than a third of the total haul. It ain't over yet,
though--look for an appeal.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.21.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Kwix, yeah, I understand that. And when I was buying gift cards and coffee at Christmas time, I did tip the girl. She was well worth her tip and then some.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:03PM|#
"Of the one hundred million dollars ordered for Starbuck
employees, how much actually goes to the bumper-sucking lawyers who
brought the case?"
How to put this delicately, fuck you. Even if the lawyers got 100%
this will aid all employees of starbucks by stopping the illegal
practice.
I am constantly amazed by libertarians that deride the court
system. If you don't believe in government regulation or litigation
for illegal practices what the fuck is left? Oh, that's right boot
licking subservience to whomever has more money.
|3.21.08 @ 1:04PM|#
I usually throw some random change in there if I get any back. I don't normally use cash, but I do for purchases under $5. If the total comes to $2.86 or something, usually they'll get the extra $0.14
some guy|3.21.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Observe and gawk at me, the only human on earth who has never
been in a Starbucks.
I did, however, get a Starbucks gift card for Christmas. What
should I get with it?
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:06PM|#
No nebby, fuck you. Yay, the baristas will get a few
pennies more each "split" and a few dollars from the settlement,
and the lawyers have yet another profitable reason to sue. Plus,
the costs get handed over to the customers. Good job!
Oh, and to anyone who serves me something yet does virtually no
work, and expects a tip: fuck you too.
|3.21.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Okay, regardless if you feel that it is proper or not to tip
your barista, let's get to the real matter here.
Who in the fuck is the State to tell a business that it's
supervisors/managers cannot share in the tip jar. I can just see
that as a selling point for the promotion:
"Good news is you just got a promotion to supervisor and a $1.00 an
hour raise. Bad news is you will loose $5.00 an hour in tips and
have to work a more "flexible" schedule."
Fuck that noise. If the employees feel it's a dishonest way to run
the company, well that's where fucking unions come in now isn't it?
Petition the company to change it's policy or they strike. No need
to draft an (damn near) irreversible law to regulate a fucking tip
jar.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:09PM|#
"I'm offended by these non-tipping-situation tip requests, too.
Yeah, yeah, everyone's underpaid, but why don't the businesses pay
their people adequately? Why look to me? What extra service am I
paying for? I'm a pretty generous tipper in situations I recognize
as tip-worthy, but this is too much."
Thanks Mr. Pink. No one forces you to tip. I do it whenever I get a
chance as a way of recognizing how lucky I am to not be in that
situation. It's a box you put some change in if you feel like it,
to be offended by that is asinine.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:09PM|#
I did, however, get a Starbucks gift card for Christmas.
What should I get with it?
Go in your kitchen, make a pot of weak coffee, then steam some
milk, add the coffee, and add 2 lbs of sugar (HFCS!!!). Then hand
yourself the gift card and drink your shitty latte.
Congratulations, you just saved yourself the drive to
Starbucks.
|3.21.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Getting coffee at Starbucks is nothing like ordering drinks
at a bar
Some of their better coffee drink/milkshakes actually require about
as much work as a mixed drink. And I would say filling a beer glass
and a coffee mug are pretty much the same.
I usually throw some random change in there if I get any back.
I don't normally use cash, but I do for purchases under $5. If the
total comes to $2.86 or something, usually they'll get the extra
$0.14
Same here. I don't buy coffee at Starbucks, but when I used to buy
ground coffee at the coffee shop, I'd throw in an extra buck.
My general rule is to tip the service at any place I plan to go
back to. The servers remember, and if you stiff them, well,
accidents can happen . . .
Nonny|3.21.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Do you tip the bartenders at bars? My spouse and I tip or not depending on what we are ordering. If we are ordering something that has to be done individually, like cappuccinos, we usually tip unless the service has been sub par. We don't tip for a large coffee that is dispensed out of a thermos bottle.
|3.21.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Oh, and before anybody says that unions don't work in the food service industry, understand that California (the state in question here) is one of the few who actually have an active Food and Service workers union.
|3.21.08 @ 1:10PM|#
nebby -
Starbucks employees are some of the best-paid teenagers ever.
Do you go to Starbucks and see that they employ single-mother 40
year olds? No.
So tone down that self-righteous bull.
|3.21.08 @ 1:11PM|#
I did, however, get a Starbucks gift card for Christmas.
What should I get with it?
Get one of their frozen coffee drinks when it warms up. I despise
Starbucks coffee, but their milkshakes are really good.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:12PM|#
Those "pennies" were earned by the baristas labor and will go to the light bill and feeding their families. If you are a complete self centered asshole that might be hard to empathize with.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:13PM|#
If you are a complete self centered asshole that might be
hard to empathize with.
If you are a self-righteous moron, it might be hard to empathize
with people who make sense.
|3.21.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Will they be obligated to track down everyone who's ever
worked at a Starbucks to give them their reimbursement?
It's not as big a problem as you think. After attorney and
settlemant management fees, they'll have maybe $10,000 to
distribute. Not even worth the postage.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:15PM|#
"Do you go to Starbucks and see that they employ single-mother
40 year olds? No."
So you officially know nothing of which you speak. Were you aware
that starbucks is one of the only service industry employers with a
halfway decent health plan? Starbucks has shitloads of single
parent and low income adult employees for that very reason.
|3.21.08 @ 1:16PM|#
When the coffee shop craze got strated, the barristas actually
had a skilled job operating the steam machines, ensuring that the
timing, temperature, and other variables were just right.
Now most of them have gone to these automatic machines that pretty
much "assemble" your beverage the same way a soda fountain does.
I'm sur ethe next technological improvement is to have the
customers fill their own cups...
I don't even go into stores where they have the automatic machines,
much less tip a barrista, or a dumb-fuck like nebby.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:17PM|#
I didn't realize saying fuck the little people and their pennies was "making sense".
|3.21.08 @ 1:18PM|#
R C Dean,
I despise Starbucks coffee, but their milkshakes are really
good.
I thought Starbucks was a milkshake company, like Dairy Queen. You
mean they sell coffee, too? Whoa.
nebby,
Now, now, you're putting us on. I almost believed you until your
penultimate post. So many agent provocateurs amongst us!
My stepson is looking for work. All of these types of jobs are
generally held by high schoolers or college-aged kids. They're
usually being supported by their parents, aid, loans, or all of the
above. Exactly why is wealth redistribution necessary? If you have
extra money and want to help out, give it to those who need it. And
will use it wisely, not on ten shots of tequila that you won't get
to partake of.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
I didn't realize saying fuck the little people and their
pennies was "making sense".
Maybe that's because nobody said "fuck the little people", the
scary libertarian in your head said it. Take your Seroquel and
it'll stop.
SMS|3.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
If you are a complete self centered asshole that might be
hard to empathize with.
This is true. Notice how little empathy you're getting.
The full story mentions that the supervisors who share the tips
also help the customers and serve drinks, so they're just as
entitled to it as the baristas.
Douglas Gray|3.21.08 @ 1:21PM|#
A tip is given by a customer to the specific barista who serves him. The whole notion of that "tip" jar is communistic. STARBUCKS should institute a new policy, that the person serving you just reaches into the jar and pockets the money immediately after you tip them. Neither the company nor the IRS have any business messing with those tips. If a barista gets a generous tip and chooses to share it with others on that shift, that is a personal choice.
Guy Montag|3.21.08 @ 1:22PM|#
I, also, usually put a line through the tip area at places like
SB that do that nonsense.
However, I do sometimes tip at SB when the Barrista is especially
hot, like the one in the Crystal City Underground with the hottie
Etheopian chicks.
some guy,
Venti Mocah, whole milk with whip.
|3.21.08 @ 1:22PM|#
nebby--You want more money? Go get a marketable skill backed by a college education. Don't bitch at us for your poor career choices.
|3.21.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Tips are not just for good service, although that is a big part
of it. It's also rent on a seat.
The thing that bugs me about tipping at SB is that most people
don't stay there. Why should I tip someone if I am not staying and
stinking up the place for at least a little while? Same goes for
any place where the no one has to pick up after me.
|3.21.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Guy,
My reaction to gorgeous Ethiopian girls is something along the
lines of "Here is my wallet, please be gentle".
SMS|3.21.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Oh, and I hope you enjoyed that health plan while it lasted, Nebby. What do you think is going to happen in to it now that Starbucks has this big judgment against it? They're going to have to start cutting expenses somewhere.
|3.21.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Tips are not just for good service, although that is a big
part of it. It's also rent on a seat
Amen. When I go to a restaurant I usually tip more if I go at a
busy time and sit longer (if it's to my own choosing).
Starbucks, however... Have you seen what they have to do to make
the milkshakes? It comes in a box.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:27PM|#
"Yay, the baristas will get a few pennies more each "split" and
a few dollars from the settlement,.."
That wasn't you? Or was that yay not sarcastic and you do support
the workers?
BTW, I own my own business and employ 31 people. I am just not such
a tool that I can't remember struggling to make ends meet and feel
empathy for people who count out the change from their tips to keep
the lights on.
Mr. Pink|3.21.08 @ 1:29PM|#
I'm very sorry the government taxes their tips, that's fucked up. That ain't my fault. It would seem to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. Look, if you ask me to sign something that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it, put it to a vote, I'll vote for it, but what I won't do is play ball. And as for this non-college bullshit I got two words for that: learn to fuckin' type, 'cause if you're expecting me to help out with the rent you're in for a big fuckin' surprise.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
I am just not such a tool
No, dude, you are. Really.
people who count out the change from their tips to keep the
lights on
I would like to meet these people. Do they live in Imaginationland?
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:33PM|#
So you are completely unaware the poor exist?
I often defend libertarianism as being about liberty and not just
being a club for selfish people. Thanks for making that a lot
harder.
|3.21.08 @ 1:34PM|#
So, despite always being heralded as one of the greatest places to work, it turns out that Starbucks has been underpaying its managers and hoping that the tips make up the difference The problem is that in California, that's illegal. Greatest place to work my ass.
|3.21.08 @ 1:35PM|#
nebby,
dude, chill out.
Libertarians, in general, just want to have more control over how
they help others and for less of their "help" to be wasted in
bureaucracy and for political gain.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Reinmoose,
Is that How Episiarch's comments read to you? The poor only exist
in imaginationland?
Rob|3.21.08 @ 1:39PM|#
nebby,
my power bill has been insane the past 6 months; BGE has been
raping me like a little whore. counting change as i type. as long
as you feel the pain...wanna help me out?
full disclosure:i'm not a 40 yr old single mother; (more like a 24
year old single guy with a heavy drinking problem) but i have been
known to fuck a few 40 yr old single moms if that counts for
anything...
BTW, i own a blog that employs no one.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 1:40PM|#
If you don't believe in government regulation or litigation
for illegal practices what the fuck is left?
I believe in litigation for restorative justice and for
compensation for harms. Absolutely.
That's not really what we have in our current civil court system,
though.
A tip is given by a customer to the specific barista who serves
him. The whole notion of that "tip" jar is communistic.
Actually, it's not. Restaurant tips are properly pooled because the
person who is the point of contact isn't the only person whose
efforts are needed to contribute to the enjoyment of the customer.
Wait staff at restaurants typically share their tips with busboys,
janitorial staff, etc. because even if you're a great waiter if the
plates don't get picked up off the tables or if the bathroom looks
like crap, you aren't getting a good tip.
In the case of a Starbuck's, I can see the logic of tip sharing,
because if one of the baristas is fucking up, it doesn't matter how
good the person serving me is doing - the store will be a disaster
zone.
That's one of the reasons I think the law is absurd. I can
almost-but-not-quite see having a law that prevents owners from
seizing all tips and taking them for themselves - but a law that
says that a supervisor can't share in tips seems to undermine basic
fairness, if the entire experience at the store is
generally what's being tipped.
|3.21.08 @ 1:40PM|#
nebby--You can't see anything fundementally wrong with a
$100,000,000+ award simply for splitting tips with a manager in
violation of a state labor regulation?
It only enriches the plantiff's bar all the more, increases the
already crazy weight of bureaucracy and labor law, screws the SB
customers and this is a good thing?
Yeah, you win since you care the most.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Fine. I will joyfully accept the rib if it means less people hold such an asinine position as the one I am arguing against.
some guy|3.21.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Get one of their frozen coffee drinks when it warms up. I
despise Starbucks coffee, but their milkshakes are really
good.
Thanks. It's already warm here where we don't know how to vote. Now
if only I can find one...
Guy Montag|3.21.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Go get a marketable skill backed by a college
education.
Fixed.
Some marketable skills require college, many do not.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 1:46PM|#
I will joyfully accept the rib
That's good, because you're getting it, joyfully or not.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Rob,
If someone is taking money from you they have no legal right to, I
am definitely on you side.
The courts determined 86 million was illegally taken. Getting that
back plus a little interest equals 100 million. If you want the
penalty for illegally taking 86 million to be $500 I am sure you
will find people willing to take you up on that deal.
|3.21.08 @ 1:58PM|#
nebby--You can't see anything fundementally wrong with a
$100,000,000+ award simply for splitting tips with a manager in
violation of a state labor regulation?
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The fact that they
added interest seems to indicate that they are actual and not
punitive damages.
Starbuck's knew what the labor laws were in CA, and they didn't act
in accordance with it. So every penny that was illegally split
should be compensated.
What is fundamentally wrong is people arguing that somehow
Starbuck's shouldn't have to follow that law or that it is unfair
of them to be punished for failing to follow the law.
You can argue that the regulation is unfair or stupid or
whatever....but it is what it is. Starbucks could have forgone the
CA market if they didn't like it. But what they can not do is
merely ignore the regulation and not pay a price.
As for whether supervisors should share in tips or whatever....the
cold reality is that managers and supervisors are treated
differently at all levels of government. If I remember correctly,
the Bush admin ruled that supervisors -- even if hourly -- weren't
subject/entitled to overtime compensation because they are
considered management.
Rob|3.21.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Rob,
Nope, since you haven't been stolen from I am not worried about
you. BTW you did not need to identify yourself as being in your
early twenties, I could tell from your post contents.
|3.21.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I do it whenever I get a chance as a way of recognizing how
lucky I am to not be in that situation.
I've had to do heavy manual labor for low wages and no benefits. At
the time I would have considered myself fortunate to have had a job
where the heaviest thing I had to lift was a scoop of coffee beans.
Given how unlucky I felt, I guess by your logic I should have taken
money out of the tip box -- except that I couldn't afford even to
go into a Starbucks at the time.
|3.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
One of the benefits of working for SB is that they have a stock purchase program, where employees have part ownership of a company they work for. If this verdict is upheld, it directly affects the bottom line of SB. And who suffers? The customers and employees (the ones that care, anyway). We should thank the lawyers for driving the stock price down and the price of a coffee up - it's part of fighting injustice for a nominal fee.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Yes Joe, taking someone else's money is exactly the same as
giving a tip of my free will out of gratitude for how well my life
has gone (and for the service, of course).
I dug ditches for sprinkler lines. That work was a pleasure
compared to serving the people with the attitudes displayed
here.
|3.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. The fact that
they added interest seems to indicate that they are actual and not
punitive damages.
$86,000,000 in coffee house kitty spillage? I call major bullshit.
I'd really like to see the math behind that number.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Perhaps you should see the math before deciding it is
bullshit?
How many starbucks do you think are in California?
|3.21.08 @ 2:10PM|#
$86,000,000 in coffee house kitty spillage? I call major
bullshit. I'd really like to see the math behind that
number.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, your expertise aside, the
courts most likely double checked the math and the defendants had a
chance to object to the number and offer their own numbers.
Dave W.|3.21.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Who in the fuck is the State to tell a business that it's
supervisors/managers cannot share in the tip jar.
I think the idea is that the law is helping to enforce the typical
expectations of a customer. The idea is that the typical customer
thinks that the low paid employees are sharing in the tips and that
the high paid employees are not.
Even accepting this putative justification, one could make a couple
of arguments against this law.
One argument is to say that if typical customers have that
expectation of the low paid employees getting the tips, then it is
up to the customers to give the tips on condition of these
expectations being met. I think that is fine in theory, but
transaction cost prohibitive in practice. Therefore, I don't
personally agree with this argument against the law.
A different argument is that typical customers don't have the
expectations assumed by the law, and that typical customers want
the manager and the regional manager and the CFO of Starbucks and
all the fine Starbucks shareholders to share in the tips. I think
that anyone who makes that argument hangs around here at the
HitnRun too much and needs to de-vulgarize a bit.
|3.21.08 @ 2:13PM|#
We should thank the lawyers for driving the stock price down
and the price of a coffee up - it's part of fighting injustice for
a nominal fee.
I never understood this line of stupidity...
how is it the lawyers fault for taking on a client who wants to
sue?
Jesus Christ...nebby has a point...you can on the one hand want
private contracts instead of regulations and at the same time hate
lawyers and blame them when parties are aggrieved litigate.
We are a litigious society...accept it. Lawyers are just there to
meet the demand of people who want to sue.
Nash|3.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I'm a hardworking American blood sweat and tears. College education healthcare talking points. End justifies means always, looking out for morons, people not individuals but money metric, lowest common denominator, socialism works really. Blather on blather on self-righteous.
|3.21.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Waitaminnit... Does this state law apply to delivery drivers,
too? And how many (and which) other states have a similar law, I
wonder?
My husband is a multi-unit supervisor for a pizza chain and
sometimes he helps a store in trouble by delivering and he keeps
the tips. Lots of shift supervisors have to do the same thing -
drivers no-call no-show all the time - does this law state that a
shift supervisor (or their superior) who does the work and EARNS
the tips has to give up those tips to some shmuck who didn't even
bother to show up that day?
I'm completely baffled by this.
|3.21.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, your expertise
aside, the courts most likely double checked the math and the
defendants had a chance to object to the number and offer their own
numbers.
Right CT. No court has ever railroaded a defendant with deep
pockets. Ever.
You'd think with this much money at stake, the judge could have
mustered more than 4 paragraphs. Kinda hard to double-check the
figures with that kind of brevity.
|3.21.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Starbucks shift supervisors serve drinks and mop floors as well.
At the end of the week (or every two weeks) all the money in the
tip jars is totaled up, and then distributed based on the number of
hours each of the employees worked.
My expectation is that the tips are going to the people serving me
the drinks and cleaning the store (and that includes the shift
supes) so I don't see how sharing out the tips with a shift
supervisor is such a big deal.
|3.21.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Exactly my thoughts, Celeste - you do the work, you should share in the tips, regardless of your job title. If all you do is sit in the back office making schedules, running P&Ls and playing solitaire, you don't.
|3.21.08 @ 2:33PM|#
In the food service industry, whether or not someone recieves a
tip isn't based upon how hard their work is, nor how long you
occupy a table, nor even how well the employee performs his job.
Tipped personnel are those who are paid at below the minimum wage.
They are mostly servers and bartenders. So my rule of thumb is I
tip servers and bartenders and no one else. And, although I didn't
much like it when I was a waiter, the IRS had as much claim to
taxes on my tips as it did on my hourly wages. It is income, after
all. 'Course, the amount of tip income we were required to report
was far below what I actually earned. We usually shared our tips
with the busboys and the bartenders, but I don't see reason why
supervisors should be sharing tips (besides the fact that counter
employees shouldn't be getting tips anyway if they're making over
the minimum.)
And to Some Guy: give your gift certificate to some homeless guy
and go to DunkinDonuts and get a coffee. Black. No sugar. If you
want a milkshake, go to an ice cream shop.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Celeste,
Employers get many breaks and allowances for how they treat someone
if they are a supervisor. One of the rules that balances out those
benefits granted to the employer is the rule against splitting
tips. If you want to argue that the companies hide behind the
supervisor designation to shaft those employees, you will get no
argument from me.
|3.21.08 @ 2:35PM|#
What are tips? Tips are basically a way that restaurants can lie about their prices.
|3.21.08 @ 2:37PM|#
While in one of our local SBs a while back, my bill came to
$5.01. I had a $5 and a $20 on me, so not wanting to break my $20
(and walk around the rest of the day with 99 cents in my pocket) I
reached into that little clear plastic box on the counter to snag a
penny (I thought it was a take-a-penny thingie like all the
convenience stores have).
All four drones behind the counter went apeshit, yelling loudly
that that was their tip jar and to get my hand out of it. Of
course, everyone in the place then turned to see who the heartless
wretch was who would steal tip money from downtrodden
barristas.
Needless to say, I haven't been back to SBs since.
IRS|3.21.08 @ 2:37PM|#
'Course, the amount of tip income we were required to report
was far below what I actually earned.
That's a fallacy - you are required to report all earned tip
income, not just the amount the restaurant puts on your W-2.
I'll find you Shirt, I want my 2 dollars.
coffee_fiend@coffeenation.com|3.21.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Good points, ChicagoTom.
Nebby, I apologise for my earlier dig. No excuse, I was outta
line.
|3.21.08 @ 2:42PM|#
I just see a big difference between an actual 'manager' or
'assistant manager' at Starbucks and a 'shift supervisor'. As far
as I recall (I worked for about a year at Starbucks) assistant
managers and managers did not share in tips. Shift supervisor is
just one step up from barista, and barely one at that. It's a title
that's pretty much meaningless.
And in this case, if shift supervisors can't share in tips, while
they're doing the exact same work as the regular baristas, it seems
to me that it's the state shafting the shift supervisors, and not
Starbucks.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Tom,
I know you make too much money to be a "drone" but try a thought
experiment. If someone behind you in line had taken that five out
of your hand would you have gone apeshit?
You thought it was a take a penny box? The dimes, quarters, dollars
in there did not give you pause?
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Celeste,
Nope, it is Starbucks. By calling those people supervisors the
company reaps large benefits. The company is then supposed to
compensate those supervisory workers for those benefits. Starbucks
wanted the advantages of calling those people supervisors and to
then put the responsibility for compensating them extra on the
backs of the line workers.
If they are doing the same work they are not supervisors. Starbucks
is trying to have it both ways.
|3.21.08 @ 2:51PM|#
"That's a fallacy - you are required to report all earned tip
income, not just the amount the restaurant puts on your W-2."
Wait a minute ... let me just check my tax returns from the 80s ...
OK, here they are. Sonofagun! Who would have thought that the
amount the restaurant claimed for me in tips was exactly the amount
I actually received?! I guess my memory inflated my tip earnings
after all these years.
|3.21.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Sorry, but the cost of a restaurant meal INCLUDES the "seat
rental" whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. If the owner
does not include factore that into the cost of his food, fuck him.
I tip for the service I am given, nothing more, nothing less. And I
tip WELL over the "accepted" norms when it's earned.
Oh, and SB coffee sucks. Tim Horton's for the win, baby.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Bronwyn,
When your husband filled in for a driver was he paid a drivers wage
or did he continue to receive a supervisors wage?
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Employers get many breaks and allowances for how they treat
someone if they are a supervisor.
Breaks and allowances - from whom?
If you mean from the NLRB, that body should not exist and none of
its rules should exist.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I'll find you Shirt, I want my 2 dollars.
Uh, my brother, this morning, got his arm caught in the microwave,
and my grandmother, she dropped acid and freaked out and hijacked a
school bus full of...penguins.
|3.21.08 @ 3:03PM|#
nebby -
I think it's probably a difference in definition. A Starbucks shift
supervisor is a regular barista who is responsible for
opening/closing duties at the store, like passing out the tills.
They don't have hire/fire authority. They don't actually 'manage'.
They're just the ones who have access to the safe on a given shift,
and they're right there schlepping drinks with the rest of the
baristas.
If I call someone a "sanitation engineer" they're still a person
mopping floors, and a "qa engineer" is still just a software tester
where I work. I think you should look at the actual
responsibilities of the job, rather than the title, since title
inflation seems to be all the rage.
Going forward, it seems Starbucks can avoid this simply by changing
the title 'shift supervisor' to 'sr. barista'.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"If you mean from the NLRB, that body should not exist and none
of its rules should exist."
Talk about imaginationland.
So you are not even in favor of child labor laws?
If that 6 year old fucker didn't want to pick coal he should have
gotten a college education and a marketable skill I guess.
|3.21.08 @ 3:06PM|#
JW said:
Right CT. No court has ever railroaded a defendant with deep
pockets. Ever.
I can't keep up...so who is the asshole? The lawyer? The person
suing? The judge? The jury? The government ? The system?
And no deep pocketed entity has every frivolously litigated against
a poorer defendant (often times a competitor) just to tie them up
in court and force them to either settle (since its cheaper than
lawyer fees) or to force them to burn their money on lawyers?
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Celeste,
If Starbucks changed the title and stopped claiming the shift
supervisor was a supervisor then they would have to comply with the
rules for non-supervisory employees. Starbucks doesn't want that so
they call them supervisors.
Do you see where Starbucks' actions are the issue here yet?
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 3:09PM|#
I think the main question here is "when was nebby fired from Starbucks, and why?"
|3.21.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Celeste,
Like it or not, titles mean something in the USA.
There may not be a "functional" difference...but once you give
someone an official job title of "supervisor" our government's
regulatory bodies (Federal and State) treats them as "management"
and this subjects them to different rules.
We can debate whether the rules are proper or not, but they are the
rules
I agree that in practice, many people are mislabeled, but many
companies purposely play the "job title" game to avoid the
regulatory rules. In this instance, Starbuck's rolled the dice and
lost.
They could have created a non-supervisory position..like a "Senior
Barista" or something and made the job description to contain
non-management duties.
|3.21.08 @ 3:11PM|#
Gee, Nebby, he kept his regular wage. Why? Because while he was driving for the one store he was also supervising 5 others. He wasn't "just driving", he was doing somebody else's job on top of his own.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:16PM|#
The reason I ask is that you can tell what role he was really
fulfilling by looking at his wages. As you just admitted, he was
really still being a supervisor. Part of his supervisor's duties is
to fill in where needed. That is why he was not entitled to the
tip. He doesn't have to give it to the driver who did not show up,
but I am sure the other drivers would have appreciated him
contributing the tip to them. That would also make him the kind of
manager that has less problems with absenteeism and turnover.
Everybody wins.
|3.21.08 @ 3:17PM|#
I see where Starbucks' actions are at issue - I'm not defending them. My sympathy goes to the shift supervisors who, going forward, will be doing the same work as regular baristas, but won't be getting a share of the tips for it.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 3:20PM|#
So you are not even in favor of child labor laws?
Right, because the reason children don't work in coal mines in the
US is because of the child labor laws.
Hell, I was just the other day trying to put my 20 month old into a
coal mine and the damn law wouldn't let me.
Spare me the dribble that comes from your statist education with
its false and hagiographic "progressive" histories.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:21PM|#
I think the main question here is "when was nebby fired from
Starbucks, and why?"
What is not in question is that you lost the argument and now are
making silly jabs without substance.
FWIW, I never worked in a starbucks and I have only been in one a
handful of times. I get my coffee from a hipster approved indie
coffehouse fifty feet from my house. Elijah Woods was hanging out
there all last weekend so I got to see his adorable new fringe
beard.
Frodo!
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 3:22PM|#
BTW, nebby, even in libertopia it would be easy to contrive a
protection against child labor, simply by declaring anyone below a
certain age incompetent to enter into an explicit or implicit
contract.
I suppose you feel just as incompetent to participate in bargaining
for labor conditions as a child would be, and that's why you
reflexively use the child labor laws as your go-to example. Nebby
the fucking braindead child.
|3.21.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Everybody wins but my husband and our family, you mean.
But that's ok with you because we're filthy rich and can afford to
lose $20 or $30 here and there, right?
O_o
I'll be sure to enlighten my husband.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:25PM|#
There was child labor right up to the day it was outlawed by the
laws you said you oppose.
Own your convictions at least.
Coffee fiend, you are a true gentleman/lady.
Thank you.
Ska|3.21.08 @ 3:26PM|#
I'll tell you why I tip bartenders - so they will serve me
before you and buy me back.
Considering a SB coffee slinger will not do either of those things,
I will not tip them.
The end.
|3.21.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Point of order. Is this a Godwin.
So you are not even in favor of child labor laws?
If that 6 year old fucker didn't want to pick coal he should have
gotten a college education and a marketable skill I
guess.
A ruling from the judges would be appreciated.
|3.21.08 @ 3:29PM|#
nebby -
there's a difference between what you see as preferential business
practices and what's moral.
There is nothing moral about preventing Bronwyn's husband from
collecting tips that he rightfully obtained.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 3:29PM|#
What is not in question is that you lost the argument and
now are making silly jabs without substance.
Now we're back to Imaginationland.
nebby, why does the government have to force you to not hire
children? What kind of monster are you?
|3.21.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Episiarch -
you should know by now that the law is not because of what you or I
would do without it, but because of what other people might
do.
Duh!
|3.21.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Reinmoose - I'll just add to that and say that there's also
nothing moral in forcing him to hand those tips over to someone who
didn't do the work.
What a nutty, communist idea.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:33PM|#
"Everybody wins but my husband and our family, you mean.
But that's ok with you because we're filthy rich and can afford to
lose $20 or $30 here and there, right?"
It does suck when you lose money. It sucks even more when you lose
money you are actually entitled to. Are you starting to see the
baristas point?
As far as you husband, I have no idea what you can afford. I did
work at a Dominos and our multi-unit manager made 90-110K a year in
1986. When he filled in he gave his tips to the drivers making six
bucks an hour. His family seemed to have survived.
Furthermore, to put it in selfish terms, part of the reason our
manager did so well was bonuses from a low absenteeism and turnover
rate. People recognize quality management that cares.
|3.21.08 @ 3:37PM|#
As far as you husband, I have no idea what you can afford. I
did work at a Dominos and our multi-unit manager made 90-110K a
year in 1986. When he filled in he gave his tips to the drivers
making six bucks an hour. His family seemed to have survived.
Furthermore, to put it in selfish terms, part of the reason our
manager did so well was bonuses from a low absenteeism and turnover
rate. People recognize quality management that cares.
nebby -
You do realize that what you're arguing for is the same thing that
we're arguing for, right?
If these practices were mandated by law, do you think they would
have the same results?
|3.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
J sub D,
It's Godwin's Law only if the children are Jewish. If not, then
it's Dickens' Law.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
The law is to address what other people have done, not what they
might do.
I don't need a child labor law to stop me. I also don't need a law
to stop me from stealing my employees tips to supplement my
non-supervisory wages for someone I labeled a supervisor.
|3.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Nebby, there were about four pennies and a nickel in the box. I
guess the head barrista had just made a bank run.
At our local conveniences stores, it's not unusual to see quarters,
as well as Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea dollars
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Wow, nebby, you are stupider than I thought. You just
so don't get it, do you.
Tell me something that you do do, and then I will propose
a law that fucks you, and I will claim it is "for the children" or
"for the poor people". Plus, I will adopt a moralizing,
self-righteous tone while doing so.
Sound good?
|3.21.08 @ 3:43PM|#
I can't keep up...so who is the asshole? The lawyer? The
person suing? The judge? The jury? The government ? The
system?
Magic 8-Ball sez "All of the above." Probably.
And no deep pocketed entity has every frivolously litigated
against a poorer defendant (often times a competitor) just to tie
them up in court and force them to either settle (since its cheaper
than lawyer fees) or to force them to burn their money on
lawyers?
And that has to do with the present case, how exactly?
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Reinmoose,
We are talking about two different things. Laws set the floor and
protect the little guy. The ceiling can be whatever you decide is
best for your business.
I wouldn't have brought up child labor if there hadn't been such a
know-nothing statement as all labor laws should be abolished.
People violate child labor laws in this country even with the risk
of punishment. So arguing, there would not be violations without
the law is silly.
|3.21.08 @ 3:47PM|#
The real point here is that you don't know what you're trying to
argue.
Take it one front at a time.
First it was something about not caring about the poor
baristas.
Then it was something about child labor law.
Then it was attacking Bronwyn's husband because you don't think he
was using the best management strategy to get the best results from
his employees (der....the carrot approach?), and possibly also
suggesting that it should be illegal for him to accept tips because
of how you perceive his job description to be.
Now you're arguing...what? I can't keep up.
Nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Epi,
So you have now expanded your argument from all labor laws are
pointless to all laws everywhere are pointless.
Yeah, I am the stupid one.
"Tell me something that you do do, and then I will propose a law
that fucks you, and I will claim it is "for the children" or "for
the poor people". Plus, I will adopt a moralizing, self-righteous
tone while doing so."
Well, you have had a moralizing self righteous tone this whole
time. We just have different morals.
Laws can go bad for sure, but are you really so juvenile that you
think the sole purpose of laws is to fuck you?
|3.21.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Your MUS's salary in 1986 is irrelevant here - a sup makes what
his or her franchise owner can afford (or wants) to pay. The
differences can be substantial and have nothing to do with effort
required. I'll just tell you that, including bonus, my husband's
take-home today from a franchise group is nowhere near what it was
15 years ago when he worked for corporate. Times have changed, and
don't think for a second that a MUS would be making the equivalent
of that 1986 salary in 2008 dollars. It doesn't happen.
Furthermore, to put it in realistic terms, not everyone needs free
money to spur them to work hard and do their best. Some people
don't care and won't care, no matter what you do. Some people will
skim and steal and break policies simply because they think the
rules don't apply to them. Then you fire them and they apply for
unemployment insurance and you wind up paying them anyway. At
least, that's how it works in Indiana - a right-to-work
state.
In at-will states, it's a little easier to deal with the
low-lifes.
You can be the best supervisor on the planet and, if your stores
are in one-horse town meth head meccas, no matter how much money
you give away, it's a constant uphill battle to build a reliable,
strong team.
At bottom, bully for the manager whose pockets are so full he can
give away free money. That's nice and admirable, but it should be
left to the individual's prerogative.
The point is that this shouldn't be legislated.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Now you're arguing...what? I can't keep up.
Well, I am arguing several points with several different people. If
you can't keep up I would suggest looking at the names of the
people I am addressing.
If I have to pick one, I will go with there is nothing wrong with
laws that prevent employers from stealing from their
employees.
Attack away.
|3.21.08 @ 3:55PM|#
nebby, no one said it's ok to steal from employees. What is
being argued (by everyone other than you, it appears) is that it's
not ok to, by force of law, prevent someone from keeping moneys
they worked to earn - regardless of their job title.
It all goes back to that well-loved libertarian idea that forced
wealth redistribution is wrong.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Think real hard about this quote:
"Some people will skim and steal and break policies simply because
they think the rules don't apply to them."
You are almost there.
|3.21.08 @ 3:56PM|#
The overwhelming point that you're missing is that it's none my
business what you choose to pay your employees. It's one thing if
you've broken a contract with them, at which point it becomes a
judicial matter.
But would you, or would you not like it if we all decided that you
needed to pay your employees 500% more than you currently do, and
we decided this based on what we perceived was best for
"everyone?"
|3.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
nebby, you're so sweet to encourage me that way.
You're now going for the argument that "it's the law, they should
suck it up." Fine. My only point is, "the law is wrongheaded and
should be tossed out."
|3.21.08 @ 4:00PM|#
nebby -
do you think there is a disproportionate proportion of management
positions in Starbucks in California, as it compares to other
states (that do allow management to share in tips)?
It's possible there is, but that would have to be what you're
getting at in order to prove wrongdoing.
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Chicago Tom,
If Starbucks doesnt violate the law, how can they get sued and
appeal to get it overturned?
Unlike you, I strongly support individuals (and the bogus
individuals that companies are) violating bad laws. This is one for
the employee and employer to negotiate out, not for the state to
interfer in.
Violating bad laws is good for America. Keep it up Starbucks!
|3.21.08 @ 4:01PM|#
If I have to pick one, I will go with there is nothing wrong
with laws that prevent employers from stealing from their
employees.
If this means not jacking them out of agreed upon compensation,
sure thing. We agree.
But if we're talking about tips, then that's a whole different and
nebulous ball game. We haven't even scratched the surface of what
the patron intended when they supplied that tip. Should part of it
gone to a senior employee? Should it have gone to just the barista?
Did they have any expectation at all? Maybe they just liked the
cute redhead behind the counter.
We're assuming that there is a code somewhere, carved in stone and
handed down from the restaraunt gods as to who exactly should be
getting a tip.
Frankly, I don't care who gets my tip. That's for the staff and
management to work out. Why the state thinks they have to get
involved and have a say is a real puzzler.
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:03PM|#
If I have to pick one, I will go with there is nothing wrong
with laws that prevent employers from stealing from their
employees.
What theft? The money was in Starbucks jar. It was never the
employees money until given to them by the employer. If they choose
to give some to "supervisors", thats too damn bad for the
baristas.
However, if the tip is handed directly to the employee, it is
theirs to do with as they wish (its a gift from the customer at
that point), unless they have an agreement to do otherwise with the
money.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Now we really are branching off into libertheory and not talking
about Starbucks at all.
How about this, the above discussed judgment was perfectly correct
and appropriate under current law, but there are people out there
who think the law should be changed.
Peace at last.
|3.21.08 @ 4:04PM|#
So let's say that a typical US starbucks has 1 "management"
position per 5 employees (1 management position + 4
baristas).
Are you suggesting that a typical California Starbucks has 2
management positions, or 3 management positions per 5 employees,
and that is how they are shafting the people placed in "management"
positions?
If they tried to do what I consider to be the right thing, by
having 0 "managment" positions per 5 employees (meaning, mostly,
"shift supervisors, or whatever) so that all the employees who
participate to the customer experience share the tips, would you
not complain that they were circumventing the law?
The implication is that they should have immoral business practices
because the law is immoral. Is that about right?
|3.21.08 @ 4:04PM|#
And that has to do with the present case, how
exactly?
It is exactly as relevant as your "courts screw deep pocketed
defendants" comment. Except that my comment was to refute your
quaint notion of how the guys with the deep pockets are nothing but
mere victims of "the system" ( a system that their deep pockets
allow them to have much more sway/influence over the regulatory
bodies than you or I or any other working class stiffs have)
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 4:06PM|#
nebby is for laws that force people to behave the way (s)he
likes. nebby is against laws that force him/her to not behave the
way (s)he likes.
Freedom doesn't factor in unless it's his/her freedom.
Hope that clears everything up.
|3.21.08 @ 4:06PM|#
If Starbucks doesnt violate the law, how can they get sued
and appeal to get it overturned?
Well let's see...there is this thing called "the court"...and
people who have something called "standing" may sue to
challenge/overturn laws or restrain the government for enforcing
the while the courts sort out the validity/constitutionality of the
laws.
Or is your position really that the only way to challenge a law is
to violate it?
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
nebby,
How about this, the above discussed judgment was perfectly
correct and appropriate under current law, but there are people out
there who think the law should be changed.
Peace at last.
Close. After "...law should be changed.", add on, "The lawyers
bringing the lawsuit and the legislators who passed the laws, and
the judges upholding the law should all be shot for opposing
freedom. Peace at last."
That should about cover it. :)
nebby|3.21.08 @ 4:07PM|#
"a system that their deep pockets allow them to have much more
sway/influence over the regulatory bodies than you or I or any
other working class stiffs have)"
What elephant in what room?
I got eggs to dye. Bye.
|3.21.08 @ 4:11PM|#
It is exactly as relevant as your "courts screw deep
pocketed defendants" comment.
Except that could be what is happening in this instance. If
Starbucks was the plantiff, you might actually have a point.
$86,000,000 is a magic number. Take a number that may, or may not,
have any merit, but the court accepts it for whatever its reasoning
is (and since the opinion could fit on a 3x5 card, good luck
figuring that out) and multiply times the number of class members
the plantiffs were able to shove down the throat of the defense
("objection noted"). Viola! Penalty!
Hence, bullshit.
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:11PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Would starbucks have had standing if they were following the
law?
This seems to vary, Im not a lawyer, but it seems sometimes the
only way to get standing is to first violate the law.
I would be all for them sueing, assuming they are granted standing,
but they shouldnt have to. The state should just keep the fuck
out.
Also, I dont think people should consider the law when deciding how
to act. Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse in court, but I
shouldnt need any knowledge of it to get thru the day. I oppose
drug laws but Im not going to start smoking pot just to violate
them, but if I decide to, Im not going to consider the law before I
do it. And I shouldnt have to.
|3.21.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Unlike you, I strongly support individuals (and the bogus
individuals that companies are) violating bad laws. This is one for
the employee and employer to negotiate out, not for the state to
interfer in.
I support civil disobedience as well, usually as a form of protest.
The thing is...most people who perform acts of civil disobedience
also face/accept the penalties. So if Starbucks thinks $100 million
is worth it to get press/coverage on this issue of unfair
regulations that doesn't allow supervisory positions to share in
the tips than so be it.
me -- I think I would have challenged the regulation first -- and
then acted accordingly based on the success/failure of that
challenge.
Either that, or I would have created a job position/description
that would allow them to share tips that doesn't run a foul of
state law.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 4:12PM|#
"nebby is for laws that force people to behave the way (s)he
likes. nebby is against laws that force him/her to not behave the
way (s)he likes.
Freedom doesn't factor in unless it's his/her freedom."
As long as we are going for empty headed slogans without
meaning:
Freedom isn't free, it costs a buck o' five.
Really now, goodbye.
|3.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Would starbucks have had standing if they were following the
law?
Standing is granted to anyone who is directly affected by the law.
So anyone doing business within the state of california would have
standing to sue over the regulations.
Also, I dont think people should consider the law when deciding
how to act. Ignorance of the law may not be an excuse in court, but
I shouldnt need any knowledge of it to get thru the day.
What? People shouldn't have to consider the law to decide how to
act? Seriously?? Why not? People don't have a responsibility to be
informed of the laws where they live/work/etc and to act in a
manner that conforms to the laws? No thanks....i oppose
anarchy.
And let's not conflate Corporations and people. Corps might be
considered "people" under the eyes of the law, but most
corporations have at least a lawyer at most a legal team. It's
called due dilligence, and yes anyone doing business should have to
do it.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#
As long as we are going for empty headed slogans without
meaning
You've been going for them the whole time, so you might as well
keep going.
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:16PM|#
ChicagoTom,
I support civil disobedience as well, usually as a form of
protest. The thing is...most people who perform acts of civil
disobedience also face/accept the penalties.
You posted probably before you saw my last post, but Im not
necessarily talking about civil disobedience. If you are violating
the law as a protest, you should face the penalties as part of your
protest. Im just talking about not needing to consider the
government at all as long as you are acting in a non-harmful to
others manner.
Look, as is obvious by posting here, I am interested in politics.
Why? Because I want to one day have a world in which I know longer
have to ever pay attention to politics again. Ditto the law.
|3.21.08 @ 4:16PM|#
You can think Nebby is being a bit shirty and full of 'tude, and
hate the lawyers, but the fact is that Starbucks appears to have
broken a (stupid, unlibertarian) law and gotten spanked for it. So
I agree with the underlying point Nebby is making about lawyers
enforcing the law via lawsuits.
I don't shop at Starbuck's, but if I did, I'd think about finding a
new coffee place to do business when they raise their prices even
more to cover the cost of this bloody lawsuit.
As for tips -- if the person serving me has a good attitude, they
get a tip of 15% to 25%, depending on how great a job they did. If
they act like Nebby apparently does, like it's an entitlement, not
so much so. I don't care if you think your life sucks (even though
by the standards of most of the rest of the world, you have a great
life), if you want my money or a tip, do something to improve my
life, if only by smiling and being pleasant when serving me a
drink. If you're unwilling to make that minimal effort to help
others and give them value they want to compensate you for, you
deserve a sucky life.
|3.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Does NOBODY realize that nebby is just joe? Lower case and
all.
Don't feed the troll.
CB
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
What? People shouldn't have to consider the law to decide
how to act? Seriously?? Why not?
Because if I act in a moral/ethical manner, it should be impossible
for me to violate the law. It isnt, but it should be. So why do I
need to consider the law before acting?
Im not an anarchist either, but the only government I support isnt
to damn far away from it.
|3.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
a system that their deep pockets allow them to have much
more sway/influence over the regulatory bodies than you or I or any
other working class stiffs have
But yet, Starbucks seemed to have missed this train. Could it be
because most labor law is written heavily against businesses
interests?
|3.21.08 @ 4:20PM|#
This idea that corporations wield untrammeled influence in government is silly. Look at this law. Look at most laws. Look at California's open-ended consumer protection laws. No, businesses have their influence, but their influence is nothing compared to the influence of the masses.
robc|3.21.08 @ 4:21PM|#
a world in which I know longer
I support isnt to damn far away
In that world, Im going to take spelling lessons.
|3.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
JW you are working off of so many assertions it's amazing.
$86,000,000 is a magic number.
You are asserting...without any facts to back it up, that based on
the amount of the judgment, Starbucks must have gotten
railroaded.
It's "magic" to you because you "think" this number was just pulled
out of someones ass.
I'm gonna go ahead and confidently assert that the court knows more
about the validity of this number than you do. It may seem
excessive to someone who isn't involved in the proceedings (like
you), but since this is the product of litigation, in our
adversarial system, both sides were allowed to present their facts,
and this was the number the court found to accurately reflect the
damages in this case.
There is NOTHING that indicates that anyone was railroaded. You can
wish it and repeat it baselessly all you want, but either put up
some PROOF or STFU.
Furthermore, just because SOME deep pocketed defendants MAY have
been railroaded -- reasonable people do not use that as a
justification to start from the position that all deep pocketed
plaintiffs must be getting railroaded whenever there is a judgement
against them.
|3.21.08 @ 4:30PM|#
This idea that corporations wield untrammeled influence in
government is silly. Look at this law. Look at most laws. Look at
California's open-ended consumer protection laws. No, businesses
have their influence, but their influence is nothing compared to
the influence of the masses.
. Could it be because most labor law is written heavily against
businesses interests?
Like the Lousiana Florist regulations?
The reality is that many are the equivalent of CFR laws. There to
protect the established players. Many regulations are nothing but
anti-competition laws and barriers to entry to protect the
established entities. These come into place because of lobbying and
donations by companies who want to protect their bottom line and
don't want to innovate or compete with innovators.
And the reason many why there are also lots of regulations to
protect laborers is because before these regulations came about,
most businesses were in fact taking advantage of their
workers.
Let's keep in mind that regulations tend to come AFTER abuse
happens. Regulations weren't there on day 1. They were a response
to the actions of the actors.
|3.21.08 @ 4:36PM|#
God forbid we have regulations that
would hurt an innovative entrepreneur like Eric Pony
From the article:
Bremner found pieces of documents that had been cut to remove
signatures and notary seals. Loan applications, escrow agreements
and other documents had signatures that had been taped on, he
said.
...
The group is accused of targeting unknowing homeowners whose homes
had escalated in value by offering dreamlike mortgage refinancing
offers, with promises of cash back and lower monthly payments,
Bremner said.
Victims later learned they had been locked into high-interest rate
loans, excessive fees and unfavorable terms. In some cases, the
cash back never materialized.
Late Tuesday, the alleged ringleader in the scam, 25-year-old Eric
Pony, and his sister, Paulette Pony, 23, turned themselves in to
police to face charges including conspiracy, grand theft, forgery
and elder abuse. Five other suspects were also
arrested.
|3.21.08 @ 4:39PM|#
You are asserting...without any facts to back it up, that
based on the amount of the judgment, Starbucks must have gotten
railroaded.
No kidding. That's the whole idea behind calling bullshit. It's a
HUNCH.
since this is the product of litigation, in our adversarial
system, both sides were allowed to present their facts, and this
was the number the court found to accurately reflect the damages in
this case.
You should talk to Radley about how that adversarial system is
working out. I'm thinking there might be a few bugs in that
system.
There is NOTHING that indicates that anyone was
railroaded.
There is also nothing to suggest that anyone wasn't. You know as
little as I do, but yet have no trouble with your own confirmation
bias.
You can wish it and repeat it baselessly all you want, but
either put up some PROOF or STFU.
Surely. Oh wait, THERE IS NONE since the court issued a 4 paragraph
opinion. And since Starbucks is appealling the judgement, I'm
guessing things weren't as adversarial as you presume.
|3.21.08 @ 4:40PM|#
What? People shouldn't have to consider the law to decide
how to act? Seriously?? Why not?
Because if I act in a moral/ethical manner, it should be
impossible for me to violate the law. It isnt, but it should be. So
why do I need to consider the law before acting?
robc, what side of the street do you drive on? Is that a moral or
an ethical decision?
|3.21.08 @ 4:47PM|#
Like the Lousiana Florist regulations?
That's terrific. What does that have to do with what we're talking
about?
God forbid we have regulations that would hurt an innovative
entrepreneur like Eric Pony
Isn't fraud already against the law? And again, what does this have
to do with the case at hand?
Stop throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.
|3.21.08 @ 4:52PM|#
I found
this googling the case to see what is out there:
Tracked on Jun 26, 2006 7:09:37 PM
As a shift supervisor my day was as follows.
Come in, run open store procedures, count tills.
While a barista set up the bar for open I would set up the pastry
case, brew our two coffees, make whip creams and ice teas. Then I
would run a till while my opener ran bar for about an hour, during
this time I would recieve the pastry order. Then we would switch.
After three hours, my second barista came in. At that time I would
send the opener on a fifteen and run bar. An hour later the third
barista would come in and by that time we would be full swing. I
would spend most my time hopping between bar and tills and/or
floating and doing cafe sweeps to clean and restock. We would
rotate who was on bar. T
Things would slow down around 11. I would split my time between
doing any counts for orders that might need doing, assign cleaning
lists (which included tasks for me) and rotate people out for
lunch. At 1 a second shift (or manager) would come in and we would
do a change over. I would spend the last hour of my shift doing
some prep or cleaning.
All in all I did everything a barista did, I made drinks, I
stocked, I cleaned, I ran a till, I poured coffee and I assisted
customers with retail. On TOP of that, I placed orders, did counts,
counted tills, assigned tasks and handled customer issues.
As a shift supervisor, I had as much labor and face time as any
other employee. I contributed as significantly to the customer
experience as any other barista...yet this son of a bitch Jou Chou
(sorry, this guy needs an ass kicking) says that I'm stealing from
him? My base rate of pay is a freakin DOLLAR more than a barista, I
do their job PLUS part of a manager's job.
This shit is going to backfire spectacularly. Any tipped person who
does stuff to draw attention of the goverment to their tips is a
blooming idiot.
Soy Caramel Frap|3.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Nebby,
I think you've done a very good job poking holes at some
libertopian thinking. You've clearly put more thought into your
position than your opposition. It's a shame to see the low level of
analysis of many libertarians.
Charles|3.21.08 @ 5:10PM|#
I am impressed and a little shocked at the people who managed to
keep fighting with nebby. I couldn't even read it all.
That said, you should tip at least ten percent to any
waiter/waitress/server/bartender, because their salaries are lower,
often below minimum wage (thus your prices are lower) in the
expectation of tipping. And you can spout off about tips shouldn't
be expected, or the tip starts at zero and goes up with good
service, all you want. You're still a dick.
robc|3.21.08 @ 5:11PM|#
parse
robc, what side of the street do you drive on? Is that a moral
or an ethical decision?
Ethical. Unless Im doing it to intentionally ram people, then
probably moral.
As I was typing that sentence I was actually thinking about
speeding and decided that fit just fine. Following traffic rules is
an ethical issue, just like a lawyer following his profession's
ethical code. Driving in a way that endangers others is
immoral.
And, yes I have to "know" the law to know which side of the street
to drive on. But, that is more of a social construct than a law. It
just happens to be a law too. But, when I decide to drive on the
right, it isnt because Im obeying the law. Im doing it to allow
traffic to flow properly. Unlike selfish people who follow the law
for their own benefits, I do things like that in order to be nice
to others. :)
Charles|3.21.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Well, unless your server gives you actively bad and rude service. Then stiffing is okay. But anyone who is passable deserves at least ten or fifteen percent.
Soy Caramel Frap|3.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
To be a bit more substantive, the summation of Nebby's
antagonists seems to be:
-Regardless of what the law says, Starbucks shouldn't be held to
account for it
-Regardless of what the law says plaintiffs are entitled to,
lawyers shouldn't take these cases at the market rate
-If we're actually talking about *changing* the law (which is a
potentially correct critique, and has more validity than those
above), let's suggest abolishing all labor laws and not even
consider the idea that those very laws protect against things like
child labor.
-Morally, it's wrong to tip your barista, because that's easy work,
whereas I lifted 200 pound blocks for 12 hours a day. It's hard to
see how this critique fits in with libertarian theory, given that
you presumably were freely able to change jobs, but instead chose a
difficult job at low wages, rather than a more pleasant one with
tips. Not that you're at all resentful, because libertarians are
purely meritocratic in their thinking.
robc|3.21.08 @ 5:15PM|#
SCF,
Can you find anyone who suggested all those things? Combining them
together just makes a gianter strawman.
robc|3.21.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Regardless of what the law says, Starbucks shouldn't be held
to account for it
Just as a hypothetical (not saying this law is unconstitutional),
what punishment is fitting for someone who violates an
unconstitutional law?
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 5:19PM|#
SCF is nebby. I guess he/she/it finished dyeing eggs. Sock puppets, unite!
robc|3.21.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Regardless of what the law says plaintiffs are entitled to,
lawyers shouldn't take these cases at the market rate
I have no problem with lawyers getting market rates. Im a
libertarian, whatever they negotiate with their clients is fine by
me. However, in a class action, they need to negotiate their rate
with ALL their clients. In other words, I favor an "opt-in" system
for class action lawsuits, not an "opt-out". You are only
representing members of the class who sign on with you before the
trial. You only get damages for the clients who sign on, and you
get your percent from that.
Kolohe|3.21.08 @ 5:23PM|#
nebby, I had some sympathy for your position, but this:
nebby | March 21, 2008, 3:16pm | #
The reason I ask is that you can tell what role he was really fulfilling by looking at his wages. As you just admitted, he was really still being a supervisor. Part of his supervisor's duties is to fill in where needed. That is why he was not entitled to the tip. He doesn't have to give it to the driver who did not show up, but I am sure the other drivers would have appreciated him contributing the tip to them. That would also make him the kind of manager that has less problems with absenteeism and turnover.
Is one of the most asinine things I have ever read, if serious.
Soy Caramel Frap|3.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Just as a hypothetical (not saying this law is
unconstitutional), what punishment is fitting for someone who
violates an unconstitutional law?
Well, theoretically, the law is struck down if it is
unconstitutional.
However, there is no independent, God-like arbiter of
constitutionality available to rule on constitutionality. Thus,
judges decide what's constitutional or not, and presently, this law
is understood as constitutional. You can suggest that this is a
poor understanding of the constitution (as I might), but it is the
prevailing understanding. You can also suggest that it's such a
poor understanding that it shouldn't be obeyed, but that's
equivalent to calling for the demise of rule of law. If you're
doing that, that's fine, but most people don't want such a
revolution.
Otherwise, until the law is struck down as unconstitutional, it is
constitutional and we're bound to accept its consequences
irrespective of our personal opinions.
|3.21.08 @ 5:25PM|#
No kidding. That's the whole idea behind calling bullshit.
It's a HUNCH.
OK..I call bullshit on your hunch.
You should talk to Radley about how that adversarial system is
working out. I'm thinking there might be a few bugs in that
system.
Criminal and civil litigation are quite different. In this case we
are talking about a dispute between two private entities, not the
government vs a private individual. I definitely have more faith in
civil litigation than in criminal ones where the courts defer too
much to the government.
So I ask you...what do Radley's posts on criminals being railroaded
by the gov't have to do with civil litigation between to private
entities?
But regardless...just because some cases have been miscarriages of
justice doesn't mean that MOST are or that it is
fair/safe/smart/logical to start from that assumption whenever
looking at trial outcomes.
There is also nothing to suggest that anyone wasn't. You know
as little as I do, but yet have no trouble with your own
confirmation bias.
No one is claiming they got railroaded. Just because Starbucks
chose to appeal doesn't prove railroading. I don't think its
"confirmation bias" to believe that the courts treated both parties
fairly in this litigation. The burden of proof is on the person
claiming that things were unfair.
Look JW...Im not gonna play this game with you.
You wanna pretend that any verdicts you don't agree with must have
been a railroading, feel free...it exposes you though.
There is no reason to suspect Starbuck's didn't get a fair trial.
Unless there is some evidence (or even a claim by a litigant) that
there wasn't a fair trial, then yeah..i am gonna assume the court
got it right. And maybe that's why it was only 4 paragraphs --
because it was a pretty obvious violation of the regulations (I
didn't know that opinions had a minimum length in order to be
considered fair/valid)
That's terrific. What does that have to do with what we're
talking about?
It refutes the assertions made upthread that regulations are merely
there to hinder business...follow the thread JW -- not every
comment/reply is ONLY about THIS SPECIFIC Case.
I see by your comments that you are having a hard time keeping up
with more than once thought at a time. it's ok though -- reading is
hard work.
Soy Caramel Frap|3.21.08 @ 5:31PM|#
SCF,
Can you find anyone who suggested all those things? Combining them
together just makes a gianter strawman.
Alright, I'll admit it's full of exaggeration and hyperbole.
Nonetheless, I don't find much substantive in argument or reasoning
in Nebby's antagonists. Am I missing something?
Soy Caramel Frap|3.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#
I have no problem with lawyers getting market rates. Im a
libertarian, whatever they negotiate with their clients is fine by
me. However, in a class action, they need to negotiate their rate
with ALL their clients. In other words, I favor an "opt-in" system
for class action lawsuits, not an "opt-out".
Fair enough. I'm not well-versed in the issues surrounding class
actions, but I understand the basic premises to include minimizing
the strain on the judicial system, and addressing a market failure
(the transaction costs associated with suing for small quantities
of money). But given that we have the current system, I don't see
why there's outrage over the lawyers' fees in this action.
If the law is bad, legislators should stick up to the plaintiff's
bar and change it.
|3.21.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Criminal and civil litigation are quite different. In this
case we are talking about a dispute between two private entities,
not the government vs a private individual. I definitely have more
faith in civil litigation than in criminal ones where the courts
defer too much to the government.
Very much so. The threshold of evidence needed for a "conviction"
in civil is much lower. It's much easier for a plantiff to show
harm.
So I ask you...what do Radley's posts on criminals being
railroaded by the gov't have to do with civil litigation between to
private entities?
My faith in the judicial system has been very eroded by criminal
miscarriages as well as class action torts. Feel free to continue
to believe in a system that needs a serious attitude
adjustment.
Funny how good progressives such as yourself suddenly become law
and order types with full faith in the system when the ox being
gored is one you can get behind.
No one is claiming they got railroaded.
Hmmmm...
Starbucks reacted furiously. Valerie O'Neil, a spokeswoman,
described the award as fundamentally unfair and beyond all common
sense and reason. It was "an extreme example of an abuse of the
class-action procedures in California's courts". Ms O'Neil also
criticised the brevity of the judge's ruling - it was only four
paragraphs long - and said the company would appeal.
Sounds like it to me.
Just because Starbucks chose to appeal doesn't prove
railroading.
Of course not, but it strongly suggests that they didn't think they
were given a fair trial.
I don't think its "confirmation bias" to believe that the
courts treated both parties fairly in this litigation.
Of course you don't.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming that things were
unfair.
That's what appeals courts are for.
There is no reason to suspect Starbuck's didn't get a fair
trial. Unless there is some evidence (or even a claim by a
litigant) that there wasn't a fair trial, then yeah..i am gonna
assume the court got it right. And maybe that's why it was only 4
paragraphs -- because it was a pretty obvious violation of the
regulations (I didn't know that opinions had a minimum length in
order to be considered fair/valid)
Man, that's some thin gruel of reasoning. Let's ask a
labor attorney:
"Thursday's ruling could very well lead to an increase in similar
litigation elsewhere, says Elise Bloom, a partner in the Labor and
Employment Law Department of Proskauer Rose. Bloom was not involved
in the case.
Bloom thinks Judge Cowett's decision was wrong. "This very liberal
reading of California statue and the definition of who is a manager
inappropriately expands the universe of people who can't share in
tips."
Bloom cites the court's failure to recognize the service function
of shift supervisors. In her view, shift supervisors significantly
enhance the level of service which makes customers much happier and
therefore more likely to leave larger tips."
nebby|3.21.08 @ 7:31PM|#
ebby, I had some sympathy for your position, but this:
nebby | March 21, 2008, 3:16pm | #
The reason I ask....."
I admit I was being a devil's advocate there. The law would not
apply to her husband because there is not a tip pool in that
situation. I just wanted to puncture a bit of that "how dare you
suggest anyone but my husband deserves to keep their tips" bullshit
she was spouting. Her example wasn't relevant to the case we were
discussing and neither is my reply.
|3.21.08 @ 7:39PM|#
It's "magic" to you because you "think" this number was just
pulled out of someones ass.
Look!
Magic!
Mr Chou claimed that it was illegal in California for
management to share employees' gratuities and as his case
progressed, it emerged that Starbucks supervisors typically claim
about $1.71 per hour from the tip pool.
By multiplying $1.71 by the number of hours worked by supervisors
at Starbucks between 2000 and 2008, the court arrived at the award
of $86.6 million in back-tips, plus an estimated $19.1 million in
interest. Only current and former Starbucks employees in California
will be able to claim their share of the compensation.
So, no actual harm shown, just a Solomonic, simplified calculation
of what it *might* be in a perfect world.
So where was the state labor commission for the past 8 years? You'd
think they would have jumped on a juicy violation like this.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 7:43PM|#
I don't think I would admit that I think averages and
multiplication are magic.
Next I will introduce you to the magical kingdom of
percentages!
|3.21.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Piss off nebby. Go back to sniffing egg dye. I don't think I'd
admit much of any of what you've said so far.
It's obvious from what I've read so far, that these "supervisors"
or shifts as SB baristas call them, do much of the same
work as the baristas; actually these shifts do more than they
do.
This is legitimate business practice colliding with a stale and
static law written god knows how long ago. I bet you're going to be
really shocked when I say that a business should be free to run
itself as it sees fit, short of fraud or direct harm to their
employees.
You can take issue with whether it's right for SB to do what they
do, but this case was little more than semantics of what a
"supervisor" is and a disgruntled piss-ant ex-employee.
Famous Mortimer|3.21.08 @ 8:03PM|#
The whole expectation of tipping has essentially turned into a
form of panhandling.
How did it get this way?
Soon, every business will involve some form of tipping. Oh, and God
forbid if you don't allow yourself to get bullied into indulging
this cultural shift.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 8:21PM|#
"You can take issue with whether it's right for SB to do what
they do, but this case was little more than semantics of what a
"supervisor" is.."
Do you not realize that is the same question? If Starbucks
classifies these employees as supervisors, then the decision is
correct. If starbucks does not classify these employees as
supervisors when dealing with the regs than the decision was
terrible. Starbucks chose the classification, it was not forced on
them. Starbucks just wants the benefits of the classification
without the responsibilities.
"I bet you're going to be really shocked when I say that a business
should be free to run itself as it sees fit, short of fraud or
direct harm to their employees."
That is exactly what I believe. I just have a differing concept of
harm than you. I can certainly see both sides of that question on
this issue, but as soon as you start in with the all these laws are
crazy tripe you are having a different, and quite pointless,
conversation.
|3.21.08 @ 8:51PM|#
I just wanted to puncture a bit of that "how dare you
suggest anyone but my husband deserves to keep their tips" bullshit
she was spouting.
I never, ever suggested that and you damn well know it. Read what I
wrote way back at 2:15.
If someone hands you a tip, you should get to keep it. That was
what I was saying. Particularly in the delivery business, a driver
gets tips in direct proportion to the amount of work he or she does
(ie. number of deliveries).
My initial (2:15) comment was a question - ie, does the CA law
apply to delivery drivers, a situation in which tip pooling
typically does not occur? In the case where tip pooling does not
occur, would a shift supervisor who has to make a few delivery runs
be forced to hand over the tips she earns on those runs to the
remainder of the drivers?
It was a totally fair question and I NEVER suggested that my
husband was some super special snowflake who alone in the world
deserves to keep his own tips.
That mis-characterization of my words proved to me quite positively
that, rather than playing devil's advocate, you're just acting like
a jerk. Pardon my french, but piss off.
And once again, drawing the line with shift supervisors, who take
on some supervisory functions *on top of* regularly full-time
barista/make-line/grunt-work/customer service duties, is unfair.
They routinely earn only marginally better wages than their near
subordinates and contribute just as much, if not more, to creating
a positive customer experience. They should have every right to
share in collected (pooled) tips, if the *employer* wishes it to be
so.
The government should keep its nose out.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 9:04PM|#
Bronwyn,
The way you phrased your original post made it seem like you were
trying to make a point. If you were honestly wondering with no
preconceived notions than no, this does not apply to your husband.
I assumed you were being sarcastic because the context made it seem
obvious to me that the issue was pooled tips, I apologize if you
truly were unaware that this only applies to pooled tips.
As far as starbucks, they drew the line at who was a supervisor.
Your beef is with them.
|3.21.08 @ 9:10PM|#
I cited my husband as a "for example" - although he is a MUS,
not a shift sup - and no, I did not know whether the law applied to
pooled tips or all tips.
Apology accepted.
My beef is with the law, actually, but if you want to argue from
the point of "it's the law so obey it until you can change it" then
yeah maybe Starbucks-CA could have reworked the titles in their
reporting structure so that shift sups wouldn't be left out in the
tip-jar cold.
... and with such a spectacular run-on sentence, I'll leave it at
that.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Bronwyn,
You are being gracious. I will remind myself in the future to not
assume the worst about one poster just because I am dealing with
other unreasonable poster.
|3.21.08 @ 9:31PM|#
I can certainly see both sides of that question on this
issue, but as soon as you start in with the all these laws are
crazy tripe you are having a different, and quite pointless,
conversation.
I asked this question before: why is it any of the state's business
to decide who should get tips and who shouldn't? How is that crazy
to ask that? If you don't like the way the company you work for
compensates you, then work to change their minds or hit the fucking
road.
Nah, just get a lawyer instead and pretend to speak for a 100,000
other people. And THAT's not crazy?
Why shouldn't someone who performs the same work, such as waiting
on customers, not get tips? Just because the company adds
responsibility to their plate and adds "supervisor" to their title?
That's semantic bullshit.
Starbucks chose the classification, it was not forced on
them.
Please show me where there is a definitive definition of
"supervisor" that fits every company exactly the same in every
way.
nebby|3.21.08 @ 9:53PM|#
I do not have the section number but there is a provision in the
california code that states how supervisory responsibilities are
determined. Starbucks uses that definition with no problem to avoid
overtime and many other regulations. They just thought they could
get away with later disowning their own determination.
As far as the gubbmint shouldn't be involved at all, I already read
the argument that there should be no law concerning driving on the
right and I have little stomach for further exigesis of that line
of thought.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245