Starbucks to ignore tip-sharing court ruling

[DainBramaged]

Source: AP Via USA TODAY

Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz says the coffee chain will not pay its California baristas back for tips they shared with shift supervisors, defying a San Diego Superior Court ruling last week.
Schultz, in a voicemail message to employees Wednesday night, called the ruling unfair and said, "I want to personally let you know that we would never condone any type of behavior that would lead anyone to conclude that we would take money from our people," the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Friday.


When I read these headlines about Starbucks skimming or stealing from our partners it's just beyond my comprehension how irresponsible it is," the CEO said. The company said in a separate statement Wednesday that there is no money to be "refunded or returned from Starbucks."

The California lawsuit was filed in 2004, and was granted class-action status in 2006. Last week, San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay baristas more than $100 million in back tips and interest, saying state law prohibits managers and supervisors from taking a cut from the tip jar. A hearing is set for May 1 before Cowett on how the California tip money should be distributed.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-03-28-starbucks-tips_N.htm

---

Fucking scumbag, skimming tips from the lowest paid workers and then thinking he can get away with not paying them back.

Must be a RePuke!

[selador]

1. lol you are kidding me right?

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Howard_Schultz.php

howard schultz is an incredible businessman (imo).

he's also a staunch democrat

[DainBramaged]

2. Then explain why he is NOT going to abide with this ruling

ANYONE who fought this long and this hard against his "baristias" to prevent them from keeping their tips is a SCUMBAG and the money they spend defending themselves could have been put to better use.

Incredible Democrat, not under these circumstances, more like greedy prick who doesn't want to pay his people a living wage so they have to survive on tips.

PS

he hasn't given shit compared to even people I know. $9400 in 2007, right incredible Democrat.

[selador]

3. why?

im saying he's a democrat

iow, you are wrong.

and i didn't say he's an incredible DEMOCRAT. i said he is an incredible businessman. he frigging founded starbux for pete's sake.

my point is that your kneejerk reaction was wrong. he's not a repub. he's a dem.

and i didn't say he wasn't a scumbag. i said he wasn't a REPUBLICAN.

facts matter

hth

[DainBramaged]

12. He's a scumbag FAUX-Democrat for STEALING from his employees

to pay his "shift supervisors". What don't you understand about this/ And IT IS AGAINST THE LAW in California FOR GOOD REASON.

He is acting like a Repuke PIG and when you STEAL from your lowest paid employees, I don't care how much money you give to good causes, you just plain suck.

If he had just STOPPED in 2004 and not given them reason to continue with the lawsuit, HE WOULDN'T have to pay $100 million in tips back. ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. Imagine the saving to the corporation not having to pay a living wage or payroll taxes or SSD, and you wonder why they fought this for FOUR YEARS.

Knee jerk my ass. He is a scumbag.

[selador]

15. again, you can't read or understand that hes a DEMOCRAT

you conflate terms.

i'm not a partisan who ignores evidence like you

guess what? dems can be scumbags too.

the point is (i've read his book, have you) he is a longtime 100% democrat

the fact that he is (in this case) doing the wrong thing doesn't automatically make him a repub

but if you are going to lie and redefine terms so any dem who does anything wrong is automatically a repub, then that's a silly tautology

that's partisan doublespeak of the highest order.

schultz is a longtime dem, and very vocal about his politix. but don't let facts get in the way of your rant, man

[stimbox]

17. So because he is a longtime Democrat, it's ok for him to cheat his employees? n/t

[selador]

20. no

again you have difficulty with reading comprehension

I NEVER SAID WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS OK

never

i said he is NOT a republican. that's a matter of fact TANGENTIAL to what he is doing here

but you can't seem to grok the distinction

for you - he is doing something wrong. therefore he must be a repub

QED

an intellectually honest approach would be for the OP to say "oops, i was wrong. he's not a repub. my bad"

[stimbox]

24. Good.

To me he's a scumbag, union busting Democrat who acts like (and might as well be) a Republican.

[selador]

30. i think

you need a more broad view of him.

read up a little. in MOST issues he is equal to, or to the left of most democrats. for example, he came out for universal health care long before it was popular, and various other issues. starbux is actually, apart from the union thang, viewed as a very "progressive" company.

but he is VERY anti-union.

i am a union member myself, and i have MANY serious problems with unions. but i also think there are many positive aspects to them. in brief, i think the conflict between two opposing sides is a good thing. neither side has the monopoly on being right.

[LiberalFighter]

39. DINO

[selador]

82. riiiiiiight

longterm progressive history, extensively documented and over 98% of all donations given to democratic candidates.

but he's a democrat in NAME only...

lol

[Ignis]

25. Easy with the high horse there. :)

Have you really never seen a "No True Scotsman" argument on DU?

The DINO is a much-reviled creature around here, so you'll forgive us for using a broad brush with anti-labor corporatists.

[selador]

31. yes

but it is (imo) fundamentally intellectually dishonest to just deny a democrat IS a democrat because they commit a certain act or hold a certain viewpoint.

i don't think schultz is a DINO any more than (the alternative argument from the right) schwarzenneger is a RINO because he happens to be prochoice.

what i take issue with is the lack of reading comprehension. all i said was HE IS NOT A REPUBLICAN

[Ignis]

36. Well, let's be honest: You did a little more than *just* that.

For example:

you can't read or understand

i'm not a partisan who ignores evidence like you

but if you are going to lie

don't let facts get in the way of your rant

again you have difficulty with reading comprehension

finally a logical post

Now, I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't say such things, but I am saying you shouldn't be surprised at snippy responses when you take this approach.

Good luck, either way. :hi:

[selador]

38. kewl n/t

[Selatius]

19. He's anti-labor union. Starbucks has consistently fought unionization attempts.

Schultz being a Democrat is irrelevant to the company's hostility towards unionization attempts.

[selador]

21. bingo. LOGIC: how refreshing

THANK you.

finally a logical post.

exactly. he *is* a democrat.

he is ALSO anti labor union, at least when it comes to his own company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/weekinreview/08gross.html?fta=y

"Do-goodism is an important component of Starbucks’ brand appeal. Starbucks is regarded as one of the most progressive members of the Fortune 500. It provides health care benefits and stock options to many part-time employees. It says it is committed to paying coffee growers in impoverished companies above-market prices for the beans. And its chief executive, Howard Schultz, called for universal health care coverage long before it became popular for corporate chieftains to do so.

“People prefer to do business with and work for socially conscious companies,” writes Joseph A. Michelli, author of “The Starbucks Experience.”

The same holds true at Whole Foods. Like Starbucks, the organic foods supermarket maintains what it calls socially responsible sourcing guidelines and supports alternative energy. (In 2006, Whole Foods made what it says was the biggest corporate purchase of green power ever.)

Again, like Starbucks, it has a chief executive, John Mackey, who is hostile to organized labor. In 2003, he told Fortune magazine that unions are “highly unethical and self-interested.” And, like Starbucks, Whole Foods suffers no apparent consumer sanction as a result of its position. Sales rose 12 percent in the first quarter."

[DainBramaged]

28. YEAH, what he said

He is a DINO who will not allow Unions in his precious little coffee shops and STEALS from his employees.

He is nothing but a PUKE to me. I stand by my original statement.

PUKE PUKE PUKE.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
:puke:
So there.

[selador]

33. stand by what you want

don't let logic or intellectual honesty get in the way.

you said he must be repuke.

he isn't.

he is actually quite well known (and quite vocal) for being pretty far on the left on many issues, and has been for universal health care, etc. for far longer than most dems (and many still don't support it).

but instead of simply admitting that he's a dem WITH WARTS, you just can't admit you were wrong. lord forbid. this is the internet. you CAN'T admit you are wrong. the entire internet would burst into flames

face it. you ASSUMED he was a repub, and when confronted with a million points of data to the contrary, you fold yer arms and ignore it.

typical

[DainBramaged]

34. .......................

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: (these are for the posts I didn't add them too)

Lighten up Francis

He will forever remain a scumbag until 1) He returns the stolen lucre, 2) Unionizes his stores.

[selador]

37. stripes will get you somewhere

like i said, i have no prollem with you saying he;'s a scumbag. that's an opinion.

i take issue with yer inability to admit that a dem CAN BE ONE TOO

regardless, i still think yer OK WITH ME!

[sofa king]

132. It's easy to conflate evil with Republicanism.

For a lot of the readers here at DU, the two have been virtually synonymous their entire adult lives, because the GOP has held a virtual monopoly on evil in America. And, if you ask me, they're much better at it than our folks ever were.

Thanks for reminding us that improper behavior knows no political boundaries.

[pipoman]

128. You have stated this twice now

"and has been for universal health care, etc. for far longer than most dems" and spoken of his fierce anti union stand. Any chance these 2 issues are connected? Universal health care would save his company millions and eliminate the possibility that his company will have to provide insurance due to statute changes in states which don't already have such a provision. Keeping out unions is self serving too.

[Voltaire99]

55. You're about as shallow as they come.

HTH!

[TheWatcher]

103. Yes the facts do matter. Here is a very convenient one oyu seem to keep ignoring.

A court made a ruling.

He says they are going to ignore it.

I don't care if he is Democrat Republican or Independent.

You can't just ignore a courts ruling and pretend you did nothing wrong.

[DainBramaged]

105. That is the correct interpretation of the article and of Starbuck's response

No matter what the case summary reads or how much of an expert some people think they are because they buy coffee there.

This response by Starbucks just makes them look like every other corporate demon out there.

[Shakespeare]

115. LOL....I really got under your skin, didn't I?

But don't let facts and rational discussion get in the way of your outrage! :rofl:

[totodeinhere]

123. That judge should throw his ass in jail for contempt of court.

[Shakespeare]

125. There is NO contempt of court. The case is on appeal.

Jesus, people. Are you all that dim?

[Stargazer99]

121. He probably knows in this administration he can get away with it

[anitar1]

5. Starbucks has probably been using the Barrristas tip money

to pay for part of the supervisors salary. It is an old ploy. I quit buying Starbucks 5 years ago. Their name is rightly, Charbucks. Someone else coined that name a few years ago.

[harmonicon]

47. this is about people keeping their tips

This lawsuit seeks to establish that so called 'supervisors' are management and not labor. They are labor and they should be able to keep their tips. Democrats should be outraged by this ruling if we support the common worker.

[Zuiderelle]

58. Agreed. The "shift supervisors" do the same work as the baristas and are not compensated much more.

They deserve a share of the tips.

[dysfunctional press]

92. state law says otherwise.

when i went from waiter to wait-captain/shift supervisor at the club i worked at, i stopped getting tips, even though i would still be waiting tables as well.

[Hannah Bell]

127. They can't have it both ways.

The "supervisor" designation allows them to bypass certain regulations applying to hourly labor.

You can't then turn around & say, "Oh, they're workers like everyone else!"

I think they are labor, myself. But Starbucks is trying to have it both ways for their own benefit, not their supervisors'.

They're not the only ones, btw.

[dysfunctional press]

93. who passed the law in california, democrats or republicans?

regardless- it is the law in california that supervisors don't share in tips.

[harmonicon]

104. *pulling hair out*

Apart from in-name, these people are not supervisors. I highly doubt that this law was written with this sort of case in mind. These folks who are supposed management do all of the same work as those poor down-trodden folks who make 50 cents less than them an hour. Yep, they make a whopping 50 cents more an hour for doing the exact same work and more, do you really think they shouldn't get their tips? I think they should.

[dysfunctional press]

108. the law says that they shouldn't.

starbucks knows the law and they classify them as "supervisors" for a reason.
and no, they shouldn't share in the tips- they're supervisors.

[harmonicon]

136. Where is your orchard?

If a law is going to be broken, it should be me stealing money from your money tree that you keep there. I honestly hope you some time have to eat serious fucking shit and work a minimum wage job as a clerk. Then maybe you'll understand what those tips could really mean to someone and how taking them away with an underhanded law is not only wrong in principal, but also ethically and morally bankrupt. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself. So, if the law said it was ok for children to work and be paid pennies on the dollar for what adults make, you'd be ok with that. I know you would, because, "it's the law".

[dysfunctional press]

139. iused to work as a waiter- then i got a promotion to waitcaptain/shift supervisor.

i got a raise, but i still waited tables- as well as being responsible for the bookkeeping/scheduling for the shift. but i no longer got a share of the tips- it was a private country club, and no cash was ever exchanged- tips were automatic, 20% of the tab, and were shared equally by the waitstaff- the buspeople also got a share, although not the same as the waitpeople. there were members who gave cash in addition to the check, and that was for each waitperson to keep for themselves.
but i digress.
when i went to the captain position, my actual take home pay went down as a result of not getting tips, so i am pretty familiar with the situation. and the law. it may seem unfair and it probably is- but it IS the law.

and your attempt at a comparison to child labor is just pathetic, btw...:eyes:

[harmonicon]

142. so you see that it's stupid, but you support it because it's law?

Sometimes laws are wrong.

[dysfunctional press]

143. then they need to be changed.

until then- it is the law.

and it's not always unjust- in some cases, in other restaurants and companies, the supervisors might make plenty of money and don't need and aren't entitled to a share of the tips- changing the law could possibly allow supervisors in that type of position to essentially pick the waiters' pockets...what has to change is that starbuck's should better compensate their supervisors, or change the structure so that the employees wouldn't be considered supervisors under the law.

[Mike Daniels]

106. Because not all Democrats are pure angels interested in serving others

I guarantee you that when inner city drug dealers vote they probably vote for Democratic candidates.

Face it, being a Democrat doesn't automatically mean you're a saint.

[bemildred]

4. I look forward to watching this clown do the perp-walk to explain to the judge. nt

[Giant Robot]

6. Ummmm OK I did not read the article

At work right now and time limited, but how exactly does one get get to ignore a court ruling? And what paperwork do I have to fill to be able to ignore court rulings at will, cause that sounds like a neat super power.

[Ignis]

7. He's spinning it as an attempt to get money from Starbucks.

Rather than as a corrective action to get back the tip money that was illegally taken by supervisors from baristas. He's also trying to use weasel words to deny that "supervisors" are managers.

Here's more from the article on that subject:

Starbucks responded in the statement that "shift supervisors are not managers and have no managerial authority."

Cowett also issued an injunction preventing Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, but Starbucks said it would not comply with the order while it appeals the court decision, the P-I reported.

So they're playing a waiting game, and hoping to stall until an appeal. Business as usual.

:thumbsdown:

[Giant Robot]

8. Ahh so its being appealed

And he's being a fucker about it.

I get it.

That and he thinks he can arrogantly flaunt his being above the court system. Way to go.

[harmonicon]

48. but shift supervisors aren't managers

Hell, in most retail, even supposed 'managers' are just labor and have no real power. This is about stealing from the poor to give to the poor. Just because one person gets 75 cents more an hour and is then called a 'supervisor' because someone has to be in charge when the phone rings does not management make. This ruling disgusts me. The workers should be standing in solidarity, not fighting one another for a few measly tips. I would like to know who spear-headed this lawsuit, because it has right-wing nut-job written all over it.

The low-paid starbucks employee is not the real beneficiary of this. The real winners in this are the companies that seek to rip off labor and pit worker against worker.

[Thothmes]

84. My guess the real winners will be the

platoons of lawyers that are billing by the hour for the plaintiffs and the defendent.

[harmonicon]

87. true enough NT

[dysfunctional press]

94. plaintiffs aren't usually billed by the hour in lawsuits, are they?

doesn't the mouthpiece usually work for a share of the settlement?

[Shakespeare]

96. Here's how plaintiffs' counsel is paid in class action suit cases:

If the case settles without going to trial, a (significant) stipend is set aside from the settlement fun to pay counsel. Usually in the neighborhood of 25% of the total settlement fund.

If the case goes to trial and plaintiffs prevail, counsel usually gets 1/3 of the award.

[Occulus]

110. I know it was a typo, but

"settlement fun" made me chuckle.

:D

[Journeyman]

9. Starbucks is saying they will not comply with the court order while they appeal it. . .

the headline is irresponsible in its conclusion, imo.

You'd be a fool to comply with a ruling directing redistribution of money while you appeal the decision. If you did, and the ruling was overturned on appeal, you'd need to go to court yourself to get your money returned -- an impossibility in this case as there would be probably thousands of people who'd receive payment.

I hope, if found culpable, Starbucks immediately distributes the judgment against it. But I can understand their reluctance to comply until they've exhausted all their legal options. That is, after all, the nature of our judicial system.

[pattmarty]

10. Contempt of court and throw the motherfucker in jail, PERIOD.

[izquierdista]

118. If they won't comply with a court order

Then perhaps their corporate charter should be suspended.....or revoked.

[Shakespeare]

124. There's no contempt of court. The case is on appeal.

So Starbucks isn't supposed to pay anything until the appeal is decided. But don't let facts get in the way of your hysteria.

[stimbox]

11. Union busting, capitalist scumbag is more like it. n/t

[Zuiderelle]

13. Does anyone know what the wage difference is between a barista and a shift supervisor?

[timtom]

16. Good luck with that.

The lynch mob is waxing heavy today. Parsing facts is an inconvenience.

Without investigating, I'd be willing to bet that shift supervisors are hourly employees, too.

As such, I'd say that they deserve a cut of the take.

Do they take orders? Do they make capuccino?

[Zuiderelle]

18. That's what I'm wondering.

[Xithras]

26. 50 cents, and they are baristas themselves.

"Shift Supervisor" is simply a title given to experienced baristas in exchange for a couple of minor extra job duties and a small raise. If you buy coffee at Starbucks with any regularity, you've no doubt been handed cups that were prepared by Shift Supervisors.

Starbucks argument is that they aren't managers because they don't set schedules, can't discipline, and can't hire or fire. The judges decision is basically that if you have ANY supervisory rights over your fellow employees, you're a manager and ineligible for tips.

[Shakespeare]

41. Not that most people here will bother to give this any thought, but this is an interesting case....

....because it's going to further define the idea of exempt and non-exempt employees. There's been a huge increase in wage/hour claims, especially with class action cases, and it's one of the most rapidly evolving areas of legal precedent right now.

I see both sides' points of view on this, and I don't find either side to be particularly villainous. I'm more interested (on an academic level) in what the appellate court has to say regarding the further refinement of exempt/non-exempt.

[DainBramaged]

57. Some of us do give this a LOT of thought

I will go back to one of my original statements, that if Starbucks felt they could get away with continuing to use tips as part of their wage package (as if they really are a restaurant and exempt from paying minimum wage without including tips) and they have fought this lawsuit tooth and nail because they KNEW the eventual outcome/cost of doing business (while management continues to stiff their employees) would increase if they lost, they should have just stopped the practice 4 years ago.

This also brings into question their wage packages for their employees and if they are conforming with the law in substituting tips for wages.


Starbucks is anti-union, and this is a perfect example of why they are, they consider their employees no better or worse than Walmart. At least Costco has an incredible retention record and really does pay a living wage to employees.

[Zuiderelle]

59. They don't use tips as part of the wage package. And they are compensated well.

How do you get to the fantasy that they are being stiffed by their management? Why do you think that they are not being paid a living wage? Waitstaff in restaurants are normally paid far less than minimum wage, but Baristas have a starting wage of at least $8 an hour. They also receive benefits (even domestic partner benefits), which most restaurants don't provide.

[DainBramaged]

62. "How do I get to the fantasy"???

I think I'll let that go and just ignore your comments.

[Zuiderelle]

63. Why would you ignore my comments that they are fairly paid with benefits?

Simply because you have a fantasy that they are being abused by management? That's pretty silly.

[DainBramaged]

64. I am also NOT a Pelosi fan

Bother someone else.

[Zuiderelle]

66. Cute. You can't answer to the fact that they are paid well.

[Shakespeare]

69. Then you don't understand the facts of the case.

They don't use tips as part of the wage package (which DOES include bennies and stock options). It's just bizarre that you keep comparing them to Walmart, when they're about as far from that example as you can get.

Starbucks is not the bad guy here.

You're all hyped up about the wage issue, when you don't even UNDERSTAND the wage issue in this case, and you certainly don't understand the facts of the case.

[DainBramaged]

73. (sigh) Whatever, I am glad you are a legal genius

Believe what you like, but this IS a wage issue. Otherwise, there wouldn't BE tip sharing with "supervisors" because there would be a wage differential between the class of management and workers.

And I do compare them to WalMart because Starbucks will not allow unionization of their workers, in spite of the fact that they are "servers" and need Union protection. And $8 an hour is far from a living wage. Unless you live in China.

As someone else said it better than I did, when it comes to parties, money trumps all.



have a nice evening. I need to bone up on my legal opinions.:sarcasm:

[Shakespeare]

74. As a matter of fact, I DO work in the legal field, and deal frequently....

....with precisely these types of claims.

I did NOT SAY this wasn't a wage case. In fact, that's exactly what it is. If you'll read my response to Xithras on this thread, I go into some detail on exactly what kind of wage case this is, and why it's significant.

What I DID say is that Starbucks doesn't use the tips as part of the wage package. HUGE difference.

Chill out and learn a little bit about how this law works.

[Gormy Cuss]

101. Shakes, have you read the decision?

I'm not surprised to hear that there's been an increase in wage/hour claims because there are a lot of gray areas in the definitions from what I recall. One of my employers lost a case for taking the truly stupid stance that all employees were salaried, including the production secretaries and receptionists. Didn't take much effort to change THAT notion once the lawyers became involved.

I'd be interested to know what major factors other than the word "supervisor" influenced the decision here.

[Shakespeare]

102. I've only read the Westlaw summary so far, but...

...it seems the case will really hinge on whether Starbucks can argue successfully that "shift supervisors" are non-exempt (non-managerial) employees.

The really big wage/hour cases preceding this one were the ones with Walmart and K-Mart, and the corporate violations there were pretty egregious. The employee class group prevailed (as they well deserved to) on a number of issues, all covering non-exempt employees, including how meal and rest breaks were handled, and how overtime was handled.

This one is much less heinous (it really doesn't look like Starbucks is a bad employer), but the narrower scope will serve to refine case law and state code regarding the exempt/non-exempt issue. And that's generally a good (helpful) thing.

[rAVES]

14. Above the Law... get used to it... :(

[Xithras]

22. My wifes cousin is a barista. She thought the lawsuit was stupid.

Starbucks Shift Supervisors are usually trained baristas themselves, often work side by side with the baristas, and only make about 50 cents an hour more. Usually, they're just baristas who have been given a tiny raise in exchange for tacking on a few extra duties to their existing jobs. It's a grey area position where they are technically in charge of the other workers, but they are working themselves and aren't a traditional "supervisory manager". Starbucks stores do have normal Store Managers, and they don't get a cut of the tips. Only the shift supervisors do, since they're working with the baristas directly.

There are basically two possible responses that Starbucks will take if this happens. 1) They'll ban tips entirely (as in, if you take one, you'll be fired). Schultz has already said that he will not allow inquitable pay within the stores, which is what would happen if some employees were getting tips, and other employees, doing largely the same job side by side with the baristas, were prohibited from doing so. Allowing tipping would also make it impossible to recruit shift supervisors, since those tips can add over a dollar an hour to their wages and a shift-supervisor "promotion" would suddenly become a pay cut.

The other possibility would be to eliminate the shift supervisor position entirely and implement a standard assistant manager position. They would be paid more, but because they couldn't partake in tips, would be prohibited from working with the baristas to fulfill customer orders. This makes more work for the baristas, and essentially creates a new management level position that will do nothing but bark orders all day...a position that Starbucks has always tried to avoid creating.

As she put it, the lawsuit was filed by a fired employee who was pissed off and looking to get even with the company for something unrelated to this. The actual payouts to employees as a result of the suit won't amount to more than a couple hundred bucks each, and the long term result will either be less money or more work for the baristas.

On edit: I almost forgot. She also pointed out that there are many instances where Shift Supervisors are the only ones on duty. You may have two working together during a slow time. They're making the coffee, selling the donuts, and keeping the place clean, without any other employees in the building. According to the lawsuit, and according to this judges interpretation of the law, it's illegal for them to take a tip.

[DainBramaged]

32. Then Starbucks needs to raise their wages to a living level

Sorry, I disagree with your explanation here. Any one who thinks that 50 cents is adequate pay for increased duties needs their heads examined. And by sharing the tip jar, that takes the responsibility for paying a living wage away from the employer.


Since it was a class action lawsuit, i don't think ONE employee was behind this.

And once more, it is against the law to share tips with AN supervisor in California, and for goods reason.

[Xithras]

42. It was started by one employee, and has greater implications.

That employee found a labor attorney to take the case, who found other plaintiffs (also all ex-Starbucks employees) and had it certified class action.

The increased duties of a shift supervisor, by the way, are basically access to the safe and and a key to lock the front door at closing.

By the way, as a business owner myself I find this decision disturbing for another reason. My company doesn't have managers, and my employees are instead sorted into project groups (we do contract software development). Each group has a "lead" programmer that basically runs things in the group. They have no control over the group and can't hire, set hours, or discipline, but they nominally oversee the work done by the other employees in the project group and ensure that their work fits with the overall goals of that particular project. If they do detect a problem, their only recourse is to politely ask the other employee to revise it. If the employee declines, their only recourse is to bring it to my attention. Since we typically have multiple projects running at any given time, it's not uncommon for a single employee to be a project lead on one job, and simultaneously be a regular developer on two others. Project lead status is decided by current workload and the applicability of their particular skillset to the individual projects. It is not optional, and they are chosen by me when I'm assembling a project plan for a customer job.

Legally, because they oversee the work done by other employees, they nominally meet the legal definition of supervisors. I've known that for a while, and wasn't concerned about it. According to this ruling, laws pertaining to managerial employees ALSO apply to supervisory employees. That could be a problem not only for my company, but for a lot of other small and family run businesses where people regularly wear multiple hats.

[salib]

46. Unfortunately, while you are obviously trying to reason your way through this economy

I suspect that you are simply trying to rationalize what is a clever way to "save money" and thus "pay less for the same amount of work." No a very worker friendly approach.

If I am wrong, let me know, but be honest.

[Xithras]

51. We've never had managers, even when the economy was good.

Actually, I've been told that I run my company like a communist. All employees are equal, there are no managers, etc. Considering that I profited a whopping $19,000 from it last year (which is why I also have a teaching job), you could even argue that it only exists for the good of the workers :)

The point is that we don't need managers. Employees are perfectly capable of managing their own time if given a few basic ground rules to operate by. My employees don't punch a timeclock, don't have a dresscode, and don't have to deal with supervisors breathing down their necks. When a new job is landed, I pull a team together, tell them the hours budgeted for the job, and let them rip. The companies finances are open for their review, and they understand the implications of missing deadlines (i.e. missing deadlines means we are doing the job at a loss, and the difference comes out of the Downpour Fund ...when that fund hits zero, I can't afford to pay them any longer.)

We've worked this way for six years now without issue. If anything, it's the MOST worker friendly job site I've ever seen, and my employees love it. They understand that every project group we put together will need to have someone tasked with organizing it, and that each of them will be expected to fulfill that role from time to time. Most people would consider that a fair trade-off in exchange for never having to answer to a real manager. Our office deign is very flat. There's me. There's the Office Manager (a fancy name for receptionist...she orders paper clips and printer paper between answering phone calls) who manages nobody and answers to me. There's our sales guy who also manages nobody and also answers only to me (he's kind of a hermit really, hanging out in his office on the phone with the door closed all day...but he keeps the jobs flowing in so nobody complains). And then theres the ever-fluctuating developer base. We have 9 at the moment. Our lowest was 6, and a couple of years ago we hit 17 briefly. The developers also answer only to me, and have no manager.

And before you assume I'm the manager, chew on this. I'm only in the office with them an hour or two a day. I'm typically in class, and deal with the business end of the company after my classes are out and my employees have gone home in the evening. They're in the office without me, all day long. Managing themselves.

Still think it's a worker unfriendly environment? I actually didn't plan to run the company like this, but when I started the company in 2002 it was just the easiest way to do things. I'd landed a contract project that was too big to handle myself, so I hired two unemployed dotcommers on contract and rented a dinky office to work in. Since I had a "real" job, the two other programmers were left to work on their own quite a bit. As we grew the company, it just kind of stuck around.

[Zuiderelle]

54. Sounds like your employees have a really great situation there.

Congratulations to you for that.

[Shakespeare]

43. Couple of things...

Starbucks treats its employees VERY well compared to other comparable hourly jobs (benefits, even to part-time employees, stock options, etc. etc.). We need MORE companies like Starbucks, and I always cringe when I see people go into kneejerk criticism of the big, bad corporation. We need more Starbucks, more Costcos, more GOOD corporations.

Since this is something I deal with as part of my job, here's a little more info on wage/hour issues in California.

1. Most class action lawsuits don't start with a group of employees, and often they don't even start out with ONE employee. They start with a plaintiff's attorney who sees the opportunity to make some serious cash and (the better ones) to help further define case law.

2. Yes, it's against the law to share tips with a supervisor, but the crux of this particular case is going to be to define who's a manager, who's an exempt or non-exempt employee. From what I've read of the case, it's a bit of a stretch to consider a Starbucks shift supervisor a manager, and that is the specific issue the court will decide on appeal. They may well rule in favor of the class, but whichever way they rule will better define the terms under which wage and hour claims are brought.

[Zuiderelle]

35. This sounds about right. Much ado about nothing with the lawsuit.

[Jester Messiah]

23. When did court rulings become optional??

Oh... B*sh... right.

[Wizard777]

27. Does anyone know if California has manager on duty laws?

The business codes in some states require a manager to be on duty while the store is open. If there is no manager there then you must lock the doors. But like much of the other business codes it's not enforced. Usually because there is no enforcement entity. But that would help to clear up if the supervisors are indeed that or if they are really managers.

[Xithras]

45. Not that I've ever heard of.

n/t

[Wizard777]

53. Most people in the manager on duty states are unaware of the law.

As far as that goes most business owners are also unaware of the law.

[sasquatch]

29. Arrest him, pronto

[Shakespeare]

44. Um....no.

Try understanding the law before you say things like that.

[sasquatch]

49. The guy's ignoring a court ruling

If I ignore a court ruling you can bet your sweet ass that I'll be in police custody before you know it.

[Shakespeare]

50. LOL....you REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

The case is on appeal. Starbucks couldn't pay if they wanted to until everything is decided.

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. When a case like this is on appeal, everything is stayed until the appeal process is exhausted.

It just doesn't work that way. Even if somebody ignores a civil judgment, they're not taken into custody. A long series of discovery and debtor's hearings are conducted, and THEN they pay.

Please learn how the process works before you go shooting your mouth off.

[sasquatch]

71. Ok, I understand now

[Shakespeare]

75. Coolness.

:thumbsup:


:hi:

[Xithras]

52. You're advocating debtors prisons?

It was a ruling for money which levied a debt against Starbucks. Schultz is free to refuse to pay all he wants, because it's not a criminal proceeding. If he misses payment deadlines established by the courts, the plaintiffs can petition the courts to seize Starbucks assets and take the money forcibly.

It's not illegal to avoid paying your bills, but debt holders do have the ability to force payment if you have anything worth selling. If the judgement isn't overturned on appeal, the plaintiffs will get their money whether Schultz wants to pay it or not.

[LiberalFighter]

40. Do other places "share" the employee tips with their supervisors?

[Wizard777]

60. Not really. Tip sharing places either don't stay in business too long or quickly abandon it.

Everyone in the tip pool thinks everyone else in the tip pool isn't earn thier fair share of the tips. Personally I don't the company has the authority to require tip sharing. Technically that is a payment to the server by the customer. Kinda like the CEO's Bonus is a tip from the Board. Can the frontline employees tell the CEO he has to share his tip from the noard? No. He'd tell them that's none of their damned business. It's the same with their tips. It's none of the companies damned business. I would also be curious to hear the IRS take on this considering they have to pay taxes on the tips. If someone left me 1.000 tip and I had to share that with 9 other people. I would want to be writing off a 900.00 loss.

Besides in most places it not really tip sharing. But Tipping. In bars a bartenders will tip their bar backs. They don't share their tips with the bar back. They give them a tip. It's entirely up to the bartender how they give the bar back. If anything at all. It's not a set amount or percentage. That's why it's tipping and not tip sharing.

[Voltaire99]

56. Revoke their corporate charter.

When fines aren't enough, there's one sure way to punish rogue corporations: yank the charter.

Any DUers who swill this anti-labor scum's overpriced coffee are Dems in name but Repuke's in conscience.

[Wizard777]

61. Your Business can kill someone without having to worry about that.

[conflictgirl]

72. Talk about a knee-jerk reaction

Any DUers who swill this anti-labor scum's overpriced coffee are Dems in name but Repuke's in conscience.

So let me get this straight. You're saying I'm a "repuke" in conscience because I would rather support the coffee company that pays their employees better than minimum wage, offers benefits to part-timers (and their domestic partners) and tuition reimbursement, than support the local coffee shop that pays employees only the minimum wage and offers no benefits at all? Neither company is union. Where I live the owners of the locally-owned coffee shop happen to donate to Republicans, pay their employees minimum wage and offer no benefits - in comparison Starbucks is a far more progressive alternative. Avoiding Starbucks and giving money to a Republican-supporting local competitor is the perfect example of a stupid knee-jerk reaction. I'm not going to stop buying coffee just because no unionized coffee shop exists around here, but I'm not going to feel guilty about my occasional Starbucks purchases either when they treat their employees far better than a lot of other companies do (including a UNION grocery store I worked for)!

Is there some unionized competitor we should all be supporting, or is your solution just to stop buying anything unless it's sold by union companies?

[Shakespeare]

76. "rogue corporation?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

ignorance + outrage = endless hilarity

[BlueJazz]

65. .

[BlueJazz]

67. supervisor (According to the Dictionary)

1. a person who supervises workers or the work done by others; superintendent.
2. Education. an official responsible for assisting teachers in the preparation of syllabuses, in devising teaching methods, etc., in a department of instruction, esp. in public schools.
3. (in some U.S. states) the chief elected administrative officer of a township, who is often also a member of the governing board of the county.

"a person who supervises workers or the work done by others"

Starbucks is Bull-shitting everybody...

[Shakespeare]

78. You do understand, I hope, that dictionary.com is not the law....

The California Labor Code determines what a supervisor is.

You have no CLUE what you're talking about, but don't let that stop you. :eyes:

[DainBramaged]

79. Why do you think you are the expert here

and that people aren't entitled to their opinions or to post same?

What utter bullshit.


This isn't FindLaw, or Rackum, Wreckum, Beatum and Smith, this is DU, and not a fucking law office.

And if you AREN'T a lawyer, I call bullshit. "Working" with these cases is a far cry from trying them.


Look up smug and elitist in the dictionary, they fit you perfectly.

[Shakespeare]

80. No, it's NOT bullshit.

If another poster honestly thinks that pulling a definition from dictionary.com proves ANYTHING in the debate over what constitutes an exempt or non-exempt employee, there are entire armies of attorneys that will double over laughing. In fact, I think I'll print out this thread and post it in the breakroom for its sheer entertainment value.

I never said I was an attorney; I'm a senior litigation assistant with an M.A. who handles class action suits DAILY (with more than 12 years' experience working at top tier law firms on both coasts; ergo, I know my stuff). I know the ins and outs of these cases QUITE well. Researching case law on wage/hour issues is part of my JOB. Yeah, I know what I'm talking about, so you can cry "bullshit" all you want.

I'm sorry you have a problem with somebody trying to explain what's going on in the face of pig-ignorant, knee-jerk hysteria, but you're not going to bully me into silence.

Every time I read one of these posts, I keep seeing this:

[DainBramaged]

85. I'm not bullying you into anything, you're the bully here

But you have no right to tell people their opinions don't matter. You don't own DU.

Know what, you want to make a point about Starbucks, start your own fucking thread and show everyone how adept you are at case law. (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) And how funny our comments are in your "break room".

That screams "research assistant" to me.

Boy, let me consult you when I have need for legal advice. Oh wait, FindLaw and Google, the research assistant's best friends. And you obviously think your extensive "knowledge" makes you a Starbucks expert too, just because you bought coffee there.

We're done. And I don't mean just for tonight.

[Shakespeare]

88. No, I'm not.

I'm not telling ANYBODY their opinions don't matter. I'm simply correcting INCORRECT INFORMATION, and if their opinions are BASED IN incorrect information--as many in this thread are--I'm damn well saying so.

I don't HAVE to start my own thread to discuss Starbucks. Who the fuck are YOU to tell me where I can and can't post?

You were spouting bullshit, I corrected you, and you don't like it. Poor you.

"We're done." ooooooh, aren't you tough....

[Zuiderelle]

83. Funny. You are offended by my using the word "fantasy" yet you use "smug and elitist" to insult

a well-informed poster. Why is that?

[DainBramaged]

86. You just don't understand "ignored" do you?

Now I checked of the red x. Don't have a good night.

[Zuiderelle]

89. Apparently you didn't until now. Congratulations on finding it.

Too bad you'd rather stand by your fantasies than understanding facts.

[BlueJazz]

95. I'll bet you're young and have never been Fucked by Corporate ..

..Actions and lies.
Supervisor means the same thing to probably 99.2 percent of the population. Just because some sleazy piece of Human Garbage
wants to avoid the wrath of the populace by hiding under the "California Version" of the word Supervisor does not mean he can waltz
down the aisle without paying something for his deceitfulness.....

[Shakespeare]

98. Ah, but you have it exactly backwards.

Nobody is hiding behind anything--Starbucks is appealing precisely because their position is that the code definition of "supervisor" is incorrect in this case. What they have to prove on appeal is that their "shift supervisors" are truly non-exempt (non-managerial) employees. The appeal court will decide if their argument is valid or not.

As I said upthread--if you bothered to read it--this case is significant because it should further refine the state code.

[BlueJazz]

113. Perhaps....I guess the trouble I have with such terms is.....

..I can hear the starbuck's power brokers saying something like:
"We'll call these people "Shift Supervisors" so they'll think they are a REAL Supervisor....when in fact...heh..heh..
they're just a glorified Grunt"
"And of course, if anybody says anything, we can say: "Hey, that's what the California Law means and..(wink,wink) we didn't
try to deceive anybody"

Yeah..Right..

I mean..they could have call them ...ah "Head-shift worker" or something besides a word that almost everybody
interprets as "Boss"

If you ask 100 people for a synonym for Supervisor, you'll wind up with a LOT of "Boss" or "Manager"

I don't know..there just seems something Sleazy with the whole deal...

[Zuiderelle]

131. I'm not young and I've been fucked by a lot of things.

So keep your condescension under control.

[BlueJazz]

91. Well...if I tell somebody "You're a fucking Asshole Jerk" and then ....

...when called on my nasty words and etiquette start making excuses like:

"Oh...no..no..Those words don't REALLY mean what you thinK they mean...it means..Blah..Blah..Blah..."

You know...why don't we just "Make up " anything we want???
Let's see ...A "Plane" is something that floats in the water or is it something like a submarine??

I remember when going to college how the Women who had good sense wouldn't have anything to do with the Law Students cause
(and I quote) "Shakespeare was kind to the mealy mouth Fuckers...Ask a Lawyer what 2+2 is and they have to consult 14 books to come up with the answer...They're in a perpetual state of "Super-By-Polar-ness" with no balls at all.

[Shakespeare]

97. I made no excuses. I was VERY precise with my words.

And I wasn't an "asshole jerk" about it, either.

You posted a snarky and, unfortunately, uninformed response. I corrected you. End of story.

A thicker skin--and a dose of common sense--would suit you better.

[BlueJazz]

99. LOL!...What the hell are you talking about??

I think you need some help ...Pal...
I didn't call you anything..I was using an example..
Jesus Christ...You scare me...Paranoid Joe...Geez...

On Edit:You Know..I'm gonna put you on ignore..You're Nuts...

[Shakespeare]

100. Oh, you know quite well what I'm talking about.

Your "example" was one long personal attack.

[BlueJazz]

112. Sorry...if you feel that way....but it wasn't....Actually it was from a ....

friend of mine who had this weird Girlfriend (that he was dating)

Look...I would like it if we stop this animosity between us...
I'm sorry if I went overboard....and I apologize for giving you the wrong idea....

[Hannah Bell]

68. The very wealthy all belong to the same party;

the money party.

When you find yourself confused over pubs doing "nice things" & dems doing "bad things" - or vice versa (if you're a pub) - remember this little fact.

It will help you sort out the issues.

[Codedonkey]

140. Got that right... Those damn greedy rich shift supervisors....

They make like 9/hr, rich bastards....

[Zuiderelle]

70. It's FUNNY to watch everyone get all up in arms about a fair employer.

Splitting the tips between baristas and shift supervisors who make nearly the same wage is hardly reason for a lawsuit. And so many here immediately jumping to conclusions that this fair employer is somehow cheating its employees is very entertaining. And illuminating. I guess we can all be bandwagon hoppers at times.

Slow down and learn the facts before assuming the worst.

[Shakespeare]

77. Funny, and kind of sad all at the same time.

And none of them can be bothered to pause for just a moment and listen to detailed explanations of the case.

As per usual.

[tinrobot]

120. Exactly. Starbucks has great benefits and is one of the good ones.

Even part time employees get health care and a 401K.

[YankmeCrankme]

138. And the facts are?

The article says that supervisors are not allowed to receive tips according to the law. Starbucks had their supervisors collect a portion of the tips. The court ruled that was illegal. If the supervisors had no managerial duties as Starbucks says, why were they supervisors? What differentiated them from the rest of the baristas?

If they were supervisors, they aren't allowed any of the tips.

This is clearly Starbucks' problem. They should have in place documents identifying job titles with duties and responsibilities. Honestly, I would expect the court to examine these documents and ask questions about what these people did.

If these people aren't really supervisors then they shouldn't be called that.

[bitchkitty]

81. I think that a lot of the people on this thread have never

worked in the restaurant business. I did, for 8+ years, at places like Ruby Tuesday's, TGI Friday's and such.

I made damned good money - and I made good money because of the people who worked with me - the bussers, the bartenders, the hostess. We tipped out to these people, and I was glad to do it.

Sounds like the supervisors are doing the same work - and they definitely don't just stand there and supervise during a shift. They should be tipped out - if they didn't, they would make less money than their staff, and who would want to be a supervisor? Starbucks could raise their pay, but if it were me, I'd much rather have the tips...

[YankmeCrankme]

90. What differing views of supervisor/management

What is the job description for a supervisor or manager at Starbucks? This should be a written document that would help in knowing what Starbucks expects the supervisors to do.

Are they paid hourly or do they get a salary? Again that would help distinguish what the differences are.

What responsibilities do they have over the non-supervisor workers? To me this is important. Do they have a say over what hours the regular employees work, do they decide duties? Are they responsible for hiring/firing, employee evaluations, raises?

If the Starbucks supervisors do these things and are salaried/exempt they shouldn't get a share of the tips. They're management, they should get paid a management salary and shouldn't have to rely on tips to make ends meet or to fill in they income.

If Starbucks wants manager level positions they need to pay manager level salaries. Otherwise, take the additional responsibilities away and don't differentiate between workers and everyone shares tips.

Frankly, there was a big stink at the Wynn casino in Las Vegas because he forced his dealers to share tips with shift managers who draw a salary. Dealers ended up losing 25% of their tips and weren't very happy about it and forced a showdown with Wynn.


Not knowing exactly what the job description is or what their complete duties entail it sounds like Starbucks is taking advantage of their supervisors because they didn't want to pay them in proportion to their responsibilities and expected the tips to make up the difference in wage they should have been paying them.

[Codedonkey]

107. Good! Those filthy rich shift supervisors make enough money...

I mean jeez, they are making probably $9/hr... They are practically millionaires, they don't need no stinking tips when they work...


amiright

[CANDO]

109. Ignoring laws just like our "CEO President"

eom

[MilesColtrane]

111. Schultz needs to comply with state law.

Pony up the money for the baristas and stop the managers from dipping into the tip jar.

Better yet, eliminate the tip jars and start paying all of them a decent wage.

[rocktivity]

114. I remember reading something like this on DU involving a Vegas casino

(Gets of shiftless lazy ass and does her own research)

Dozens protest new tip policy outside Wynn Las Vegas

Dozens of protesters rallied outside Wynn Las Vegas against the resort's new policy that redistributes a portion of casino dealers' tips to their supervisors.

...a San Antonio accountant...told the Las Vegas Review-Journal..."It's wrong for...(Steve Wynn) to steal money from people who live paycheck to paycheck...If he thinks his front-line managers don't make enough money, he should give them a raise, and not do it on the backs of their subordinates..."

And looky what else I found!

Starbucks Tips Case Gives Hope To Dealers

3/26/08--Serving coffee is a lot different from dealing cards. But not to casino dealers in Las Vegas, who are cheering a landmark ruling last week by a California court against a tip-sharing policy at Starbucks they hope will build public support for a similar lawsuit filed by dealers at Wynn Las Vegas.

...For Wynn dealers, the Starbucks decision is a ray of hope in an uphill, 18-month legal battle attempting to reverse a casino policy of splitting dealer tips with supervisors. That policy costs dealers at least 15 percent of their tips — most of their total pay, which before the new policy could reach more than $80,000 a year.

The lawsuit is part of a multiprong strategy by Wynn dealers, who also voted to be represented by the Transport Workers Union and filed a state ballot initiative to fight the policy. Nevada’s labor commissioner is expected to rule on the matter this year after a state court determined that, absent a formal decision by the agency, the courts had no authority to hear the case...

:headbang:
rocknation

[Bill McBlueState]

116. Why not just pay everyone a living wage?

I certainly tip and tip pretty well, but it seems like it would be fairer to everyone if we changed our tipping custom to be more like the European model -- Everyone gets paid at least minimum wage, and customers leave a dollar or two if the service was above average.

Our present custom puts too much power over a server's livelihood in the hands of tightwads and assholes who happen to eat out.

[Omaha Steve]

117. Will this be counted in the next Fortune 500 calculations?

Seems a valid thing to consider.

[DainBramaged]

119. Starbucks, not just coffee for the "morans" any more.

It's so sad that some people here think Starfucks is still a wonderful corporation, looking out for their employees, offering "health insurance", but being adamantly anti-union and anti-living wage.

Just because they buy coffee there or know someone who may have worked there once.

[davidthegnome]

122. Huh

I'd be the first to agree that corporations, particularly those that have seen such accomplishment and profit, should pay their employees a living wage. I think I also have to point out, however, that the tip jars do add up.

Living as I do, in a small rural community in Northern Maine - we don't have Starbucks here. We have Tim Hortons. My little sister who works there would LOVE to work for Starbucks instead. The benefits and the pay are both superior.

Minimum wage here is 7.25 an hour. True, this is no longer a living wage, but it is possible (if you are very cautious) to live on it in an area where housing and land are far less expensive than in most.

The fact of the matter here is quite simply that this isn't even a real grievance worthy of media attention. A living wage? Yes, that's something to get fired up about. However, this is NOT the case being made here.

For the same work, there is no reason they shouldn't get an extra fifty cents an hour when extra duties are added. These extra duties do not include those that a typical manager would hold - or we would have seen a "class action" lawsuit long before now. Except it would be on behalf of the shift supervisors.

The media is really quick to go on the offensive against any corporation - and while to some extent this is a good thing, it is not a good thing in cases like this. Frankly, I believe the ruling was absurd. It has the potential to create more work for the regular employees, get a few thousand laid off so they can shift resources to bring in some "real" supervisors who make more than an extra fifty cents an hour.

This is not a case of a CEO abusing his priveledges or of the workers being ripped off. This is a case of greed, pure and simple... and for once, not on the part of the CEO.

While I'm sure there ARE good reasons to question the moral character of this CEO, this is not one of them.

One issue that should hold far more attention than it does - both from us and from our media, is the fact that living wages are almost impossible to find for the vast majority of the work force. Compared to employees working for many other major corporations, the Starbucks employees are doing considerably better.

On the other hand, considering the average salary of the CEO... well, we know where most of the money that could make up living wages is going. Want a reason not to like him? There you go, it's even valid.

[YankmeCrankme]

133. Huh is right

If these supervisors are fulfilling the traditional role of supervisors (evaluating performance, input into raises, hiring/firing workers, setting shift schedules, assigning work duties) they should be paid as supervisors, not laborers. They shouldn't be allowed to take money from subordinates to compensate for an inferior income. Perhaps the supervisors should be fighting the corporate officers to get more pay from Starbucks and not from those they supervise.

Now if all they are responsible for is to open and close the work place, they could be considered leads, not supervisors. As leads they are co-workers who have the same duties as everyone else, but who have a little more responsibility like opening and closing the doors, ordering supplies, maybe. Extra responsibilities that have nothing to do with supervision would earn a little extra an hour and a share of the tip jar.

[davidthegnome]

134. I thought it had been pointed out

That they are not fulfilling the traditional role of supervisors. Honestly, if they were, do you think Starbucks would be able to get away with a + 50 cents an hour pay increase? Don't you think that, if they were indeed required to act in the traditional manner of supervisors, they'd be demanding more?

These people aren't idiots, if that was the case, they would have taken this to court a long time ago.

I guess the only way to really answer the question though is to discover what exactly their duties are. On the side of common sense, I think it very highly unlikely that they act in the traditional manner - others here with more information regarding the issue than I have have clearly indicated that they do not.

[YankmeCrankme]

137. I've read most of this thread and I didn't see anyone confirm what the

duties of the shift supervisors are. In the article Starbucks says they don't have managerial duties, but who knows. Why describe them as shift supervisors if they don't have any responsibilities or duties other than serving the customers?

A corporation such as Starbucks would have in place all job designations and associated responsibilities. That's just the way it is with large corporations. Apparently, by calling them shift supervisors designated them by state law as not being allowed to collect tips. Since they did, they violated the law and Starbucks is liable.

They need to reclassify their workers so there isn't any such thing as a shift supervisor, but that wouldn't help in this instance, only in the future.

[Tatiana]

126. Do we know who evaluates the employees or provides input towards written evaluation?

Seems like that would be a determining factor as to whether the shift supervisors are exempt or non-exempt.

And we'd probably not even be having this conversation, if not for Chao and Bush's anti-Labor Department.

[Hannah Bell]

129. People designated "Supervisory" are generally classified

"Exempt".

The company doesn't have to follow regulations for hourly with exempt personnel. Overtime is a big one, but there are others.

You can't argue that Johnny's a supervisor so i don't have to pay him o/t, but he's also a worker, so he should share tips.

The company shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

also, if the "Supervisor" gets to share tips, his position would seem to give him an unfair power over control/division of the tip jar.

[saigon68]

130. Lots of love in this thread

[mbperrin]

135. The dumbass had better have an appeal ready to go to avoid

the old contempt of court citation which puts belligerent asses in jail.

Who does he think he is - Dumbya?

[Shakespeare]

141. 1. It's already being appealed.

2. You don't go to jail in a civil case. You don't get contempt of court in a civil case.

[mbperrin]

144. You do in Texas. I served 24 hours for failing to produce

a car title within 24 hours in a district court case. My wife had to get a duplicate from the state to ensure my release. Judge McKim told me he would hold me up to 3 days for failing to do as he ordered.

[Shakespeare]

145. Not in California. What kind of civil case was it?

In most states (if not all), if a judgment is entered against someone in state court and they refuse to pay, you have to go through a lengthy process of post-judgment discovery and a debtor's hearing to determine your ability to pay, and if you STILL don't pay, then a bench warrant can be issued if the plaintiff wishes, but even then you're not arrested unless and until the sheriff's department has the time to track you down (these warrants are very low priority).

But with this case, which is a federal case, the process is a little more complicated, and since it's on appeal, the judgment is stayed until the appeals process is either exhausted or the original ruling is overturned.

If it were as easy as you suggest to jail someone over a judgment, we'd be re-introducing debtors prisons (quite literally), which would be a horrible, horrible thing for society.