US: CALIFORNIA $100 million tip for Starbucks servers

[Joanne98]

Judge says baristas shouldn't have to split take with bosses

by Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer, The San Francisco Chronicle
March 21st, 2008





(03-20) 17:36 PDT SAN DIEGO -- A San Diego judge ordered Starbucks to pour more than $100 million into the accounts of its low-wage coffee-servers in California on Thursday after ruling that the company had improperly required the workers to share tips with their bosses.

Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett ruled Feb. 28 that Starbucks' shift supervisors were managers in the company, and therefore ineligible to be paid out of the tip jar. On Thursday, she assessed the damages: $86.7 million, plus 7 percent annual interest, for all servers - known as baristas - who have worked at any of the chain's 1,400 California stores since Oct. 8, 2000.

Plaintiffs' lawyers said the grand total was $105.8 million. They can seek additional amounts in attorneys' fees.

Cowett also said she would issue an injunction prohibiting Starbucks from allowing shift supervisors to share in the tip pool, the company's practice until now.

"We hope this verdict will help other entry-level service workers by ensuring that employers cannot flout California law and use tips to pay supervisors," said David Lowe, a San Francisco attorney who represented baristas in the class-action lawsuit that led to the ruling.

Lowe estimated that more than 120,000 past and present employees would share in the damages. Lead plaintiff Jou Chau, a college student who worked for Starbucks in San Diego and Riverside counties in 2003 and 2004, said in a statement through his lawyers that he felt vindicated.

"Tips really help those receiving the lowest wages," Chau said. "I think Starbucks should pay shift supervisors higher wages instead of taking money from the tip pool."

At a Starbucks on Fourth and Mission streets in San Francisco, Glenda Guzman, one of two baristas working the afternoon shift, said she hadn't minded sharing tips with supervisors because sometimes they worked the cash register and brewed the coffee.

"It's a team thing," she said. "We're all partners."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14984

[glowing]

1. What a dumb fuck that Glenda Guzman is.. Doesn't she realize that she

will get more money if she's taking the tip.. and a supervisor is supposed to jump in and help when its needed.. They are supposed to be paid in a manor in accordance to their knowledge of the shop... What a tool.. They must have gone from starbuck to starbuck before they found one asshat who gave a dumbass opinion.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

2. Does anyone think this may affect the Wynn Las Vegas

tip sharing policy implemented by Steve Wynn?

http://www.lvrj.com/business/12955962.html
Tears, fears, pangs, fangs

Meeting between Wynn, dealers had a bit of everything

An autumn meeting that opened with casino magnate Steve Wynn sporting novelty vampire teeth ended with distraught dealers in tears, allegations of intimidation and -- eventually -- a judge ordering Wynn to post signs pledging not to threaten employees for union organizing.

The 37-page statement issued Monday by administrative law judge Burton Litvack was the culmination of a dispute between management and casino dealers at Wynn Las Vegas stemming from changes to the way employees share tips.

snip

The bad blood at Wynn Las Vegas dates back to August 2006, when Wynn management revealed it would add casino team leaders to the group of employees who share in the dealers' tip pool.

The policy change was controversial because dealers said it would reduce their earnings as much as 20 percent. It drew protests in front of Wynn Las Vegas by dealers from other casinos and their families who feared other companies would follow Wynn's lead.

Wynn executives said the change was justified because some of the approximately 600 dealers at the upscale resort were earning more money than their supervisors, creating an imbalance that made it difficult to recruit team leaders.

A meeting on Oct. 30 between Wynn, other casino executives and about 15 dealers to discuss the policy exacerbated the tension. According to the judge's statement on Monday, Wynn entered the meeting wearing novelty vampire teeth. The teeth were a gift from a grandchild and meant, "to establish a light mood for the meeting," Litvack wrote.

The gag didn't work.

Heated exchanges at the meeting contributed to Fields and another dealer, Tynisia Boone, filing a lawsuit against Wynn in Clark Count District Court. The February lawsuit was in addition to Fields' unfair labor charges with the National Labor Relations Board in late 2006 that led to the ruling released Monday.

snip

The labor complaint also alleged Wynn said, "I am the most powerful man in Nevada," and "if you guys have a problem with the way I am handling things, you can leave."

According to Litvack's statement, Wynn denied threatening to terminate employees for organizing. But Litvack added that Wynn, "exhibited a haughty and insolent attitude while testifying, and, as a result, did not impress me with his demeanor."

Kamer said that although the judge found mostly in favor of the company, Wynn could appeal the decision in an effort to overturn parts to which he objects.

The next step would be before the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. If parties object to findings there, they can appeal to federal court, Kamer said.