A California Superior Court judge is stealing shift supervisors tips and some think Starbucks is at fault. Recently, (if you haven’t heard about it already) a California Superior Court judge found that Starbucks long standing and nationwide policy of allowing shift supervisors to be apart of tip-pooling is illegal and has ordered Starbucks to pay baristas eight years worth of tips.
Some bloggers (and ‘reputable’ newspapers) believe that Starbucks ‘got caught with its hand in the tip jar’ and is ‘stealing tips’. This ‘perception’ is being taken as truth which is far from it. These bloggers (StarbucksGossip.com included) do not understand what this lawsuit is about. Starbucks is not withholding tips from baristas, but rather a single judge found (thinks) that Starbucks letting shift supervisors take part of a tip-pool is illegal. Starbucks feels that to those who work directly on the floor with day-to-day operations should receive tips and this
5 responses so far ↓
1 Oscar // Mar 25, 2008 at 8:24 am
You bring up a good point, this is probably not Starbucks’ fault. I do however; disagree with the whole tip idea. People get paid to do a job, tips should be for extreme, extraordinary customer service, not for just making a drink.
2 Boring Market // Mar 25, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Oscar, this brings up a much larger debate about if tipping should be allowed in retail environments. A lot of people share the same view such as yourself of only tipping on rare occasions and that only making a drink does not constitute a tip. That simply completing the service which an individual pays for isn’t grounds for an automatic tip. However, Starbucks is doing more then just completing the action you paid for by also providing the customer with an welcoming experience. This experience should be tipped, because you do not get that anywhere else and it is truly a luxury.
3 joebaggadonuts // Mar 28, 2008 at 8:53 am
If Starbucks wants supervisors to have special rewards for superior service of the baristas under them, they can pay them special rewards. OTOH, shift supervisors appear to be doing barista work too, so it’s not clear to me why the Judge found this way. I have never gone to Starbucks and found some one of the three individuals behind the counter simply giving orders; they are all working directly with customers. Thus, if tips are allowed, it seems right that they be shared with supervisors, who are actually indistinguishable from the shift workers to the typical consumer.
4 Boring Market // Mar 28, 2008 at 11:45 am
Joe, you are absolutely right. Shift supervisors and baristas do the same amount of customer service, with the same amount of effort to connect with the consumer. Therefore, should be able to be in the tip pool. I would think this judge got a misrepresentation of the duties and tasks of a shift supervisor and most likely never been inside of a Starbucks before.
5 Garner // Apr 22, 2008 at 11:06 am
I do not believe employers should be forcing workers to share tip in the first place. Starbucks could have put out several tip jars with each worker’s name on it so customers could choose who they actually wanted to tip.
However, Starbucks, like many restarants across this country, are requiring that their employees pool all tips they receive.
If our states were properly prohibitting employers from forcing their workers to pool tips, there would be no dispute over who the tips customer present belong to. Customers should be determining who their tips are intended for. Business owners have figured out that if they can force their workers to pool tips, customers will not be able to determine, for themselves, who their tips are intended for and subsequently the employer will be able to offer workers a share of the pooled tips if they will simply agree to work for lower wages.
Business owners know that if they are allowed to take control of the tips customer’s are presenting, then they can utilize the money to bribe low wages out of job applicants.
Leave a Comment