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?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.
A $100 Million Tip
Comments to "A $100 Million Tip":
oudemia | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Of the one hundred million dollars ordered for Starbuck employees, how much actually goes to the bumper-sucking lawyers who brought the case?
Kwix | March 21, 2008, 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.
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 1:00pm | #
Here's the world's smallest violin playing for the baristas of the world.Learn to f**king type!
Kwix | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Pro Libertate | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Kwix | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
R C Dean | March 21, 2008, 1:10pm | #
Getting coffee at Starbucks is nothing like ordering drinks at a barSome 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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.
R C Dean | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
J sub D | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Coffee Fiend | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 1:17pm | #
I didn't realize saying fuck the little people and their pennies was "making sense".Pro Libertate | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
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.
mk | March 21, 2008, 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.
mk | March 21, 2008, 1:25pm | #
Guy,My reaction to gorgeous Ethiopian girls is something along the lines of "Here is my wallet, please be gentle".
SMS | March 21, 2008, 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.Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 1:27pm | #
Tips are not just for good service, although that is a big part of it. It's also rent on a seatAmen. 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 1:31pm | #
I am just not such a toolNo, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 1:37pm | #
Reinmoose,Is that How Episiarch's comments read to you? The poor only exist in imaginationland?
Rob | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 1:43pm | #
Go get a marketable skillFixed.
Some marketable skills require college, many do not.
Episiarch | March 21, 2008, 1:46pm | #
I will joyfully accept the ribThat's good, because you're getting it, joyfully or not.
nebby | March 21, 2008, 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.
Pro Dairytate | March 21, 2008, 1:55pm | #
What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem.ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Joe S. | March 21, 2008, 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.
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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 2:09pm | #
Perhaps you should see the math before deciding it is bullshit?How many starbucks do you think are in California?
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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. | March 21, 2008, 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.
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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.
JW | March 21, 2008, 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.
Celeste | March 21, 2008, 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.
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.
Shirt | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
What are tips? Tips are basically a way that restaurants can lie about their prices.
Tom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 2:41pm | #
Good points, ChicagoTom.Nebby, I apologise for my earlier dig. No excuse, I was outta line.
Celeste | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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?
Guy Montag | March 21, 2008, 2:44pm | #
Tom,Good thing you were not in a Calzone place in Manhattan!
nebby | March 21, 2008, 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.
Shirt | March 21, 2008, 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.
The Winter Soldier | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Celeste | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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?
I think the main question here is "when was nebby fired from Starbucks, and why?"
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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.
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 | 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.Everybody wins.
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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
J sub D | March 21, 2008, 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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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?
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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!
Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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?
Pro Libertate | March 21, 2008, 3:38pm | #
J sub D,It's Godwin's Law only if the children are Jewish. If not, then it's Dickens' Law.
nebby | March 21, 2008, 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.
Tom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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?
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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?
Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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?"
Bronwyn | March 21, 2008, 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."
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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!
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
Reinmoose | March 21, 2008, 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?
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
JW | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 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.
ChicagoTom | March 21, 2008, 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 | March 21, 2008, 4:15pm | #
As long as we are going for empty headed slogans without meaningYou've been going for them the whole time, so you might as well keep going.
robc | March 21, 2008, 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.
prolefeed | March 21, 2008, 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 whe