From Businessweek.
Starbucks Corp. plans to appeal a San Diego Superior Court ruling last week that ordered the coffee chain to compensate California baristas for tips they shared with shift supervisors.
"The ruling would take away the right of shift supervisors to receive the tips they earn for providing superior customer service," said Chief Executive Howard Schultz, in a voicemail message to employees Wednesday night. "I want you to know that we strongly believe that this ruling is extremely unfair and beyond reason."
In the message, a transcript of which was released by Starbucks, Schultz said the media "grossly mischaracterized" the coffee chain's standard practice of allowing shift supervisors to share in tips left for baristas.
"We would never condone any type of behavior that would lead anyone to conclude that we would take money from our people," he said.
Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in Minnesota and Massachusetts.
In a separate statement Thursday, Starbucks said 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.
Starbucks responded in the statement that "shift supervisors are not managers and have no managerial authority," and customers don't differentiate between the supervisors and baristas when they tip.
Cowett also issued an injunction preventing Starbucks' shift supervisors from sharing in future tips, but Starbucks spokeswoman Valerie O'Neil said it would not comply with that order while it appeals the court decision.
Shares of Starbucks fell 57 cents, or 3.2 percent, to close at $17.05.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
While Starbucks is pretending to be concerned about the fact that, after the California ruling, their managers will not be able to receive tips, they seem to have no problem with continuing to force their workers to deposit their tips into a small plastic tip box with no one's name on it.
How can anyone receive a tip when the business is forcing it's workers to deposit all tips into a jar with no one's name on it. Who are consumers suppose to believe they are tipping? Why aren't their several jars on the counter, one for each worker?
If Starbucks truly was concerned about their workers being allowed to receive tips, then why do they refuse to provide a jar for each worker. Instead, Starbucks simply wants customers to hand over money to Starbucks so Starbucks can use the money to pay their workers. They obviously don't want their workers to be able to receive tip or they would have a jar our for each worker so each worker would receive tips.
The whole point of a tip jar is to deceive the public into a false perception that they have no right to determine, for themselves who should receive their tip. By forcing their workers to deposit all tips into a jar with no one's name on it, employees really can't claim such tips as their property. The tips are mingled all together to the point where no one employee can substantiate that a certain amount of tips were presented him.
Business owners want to control the tips customers present. The more workers they can distibute the customer's tip to, the more workers there will be who are wiling to work for low wages. Rather than allowing the public to tip whoever the public might choose to tip. Business owners are soliciting money they may use to provide tip inocme to all their employees.
If business owners weren't forcing it's workers to pool their tips, there would be no lawsuits concerning such blatant misappropriation of the consuer's tip.
If business owners were prohitted from forcing their workers to pool tips, there would be no disputes over who such tips belong to. There would be no disputes over who can share in the customer's tip. Only those presented tips would be legally entitled to the tips. Business owners would not be able share the customer's tip with workers of the business's choosing.
Tip jars, along with employer mandated tip pooling should be prohibited. If customers want their tips shared they can share them themselves. There is absolutely no reason business owners should be controlling money not intended for them.
I totally agree. Business owners should not be forcing their workers to pool their tips. If customers want their tips shared, they can share them by themselves among who ever they want.
It's about controling the customer's money. Put out a tip jar and instead of customers choosing for themselves who should receive their tip, customers will simply give the money over to the business with a false perception that the business will make sure the employee who they wanted to tip receives the tip.
They can't read our minds. How are they going to distribute our tips to the person or persons we want it distributed to? They simply want us to turn our tips over to them so they can control who gets our tip. Those workers who will work for the lowest wages will be given a share of our tips. It's about stealing our tips so the business can use the money to bribe workers into accepting low wages.
I certainly don't think business owners should be using my tip to extort low wages out of job applicants. It's like they are stealing my tip so they can say to a worker, if you will accept low wages. I will give you part of the customer's tip. It's not the businesses property. As such, the business has no right or authority to decide who should or shouldn't receive the customer's tip.
And yet, business owners across this country are forcing their workes to turn their tips over to the business so the business can decide who customers intended to tip. If business owners get their way they will be sharing our tips with everyone working for them so that we can pay their workers for them.
The real injustice is to those who actually believe employers are attempting to help their workers when they force workers to share tips. It's not about helping the workers, it's about businesses helping themselves to the customer's tip. I guess their attitude is, if customers are stupitd enought to put money in a jar with no one's name on it, why shouldn't we use it to save ourselves money. The problem is, it's fruad in my book.
Yes, it is true that Starbucks should pay it's baristas and supervisors more, but having a separate tip jar for every employee is ridiculous. As a former Starbucks employee I can not tell you have many times I've made drinks or taken care of something and then handed the cup off to another employee who then gave it to the customer. If we all had separate tips jars then customers would always be tipping the wrong person. The one who gives you the cup is rarely the one who put all the effort into making the drink. What about the people who stock supplies, clean the store, or make sandwiches. You can't tell me that every time you go into a Starbucks you're going to tip all of those people. Tip sharing is done for a reason at places where responsibilities are spread over a large range of people. Even most restaurants require tip sharing. I wait table now and I still have to tip out my bussers every night, but once again no one who tips me takes that into consideration.
All I'm saying is that tip sharing is not a rational solution to this problem: adequate pay is the solution.
I would like to know who to talk to in regards to a wrongful termination by Starbuck's Coffee Company. On December 7, 2008 Heather Louviere was the closing shift supervisor at Starbuck's on 1171 West Carson Street in Torrance, California. While she and another associate were closing the store and cleaning up inside and outside their store, a man in a mask brandished a weapon and proceeded to rob them and the store @ 12:05am. Heather was forced at gunpoint to open the store safe and the robber escaped with hundreds of dollars. The company gave Heather time off to deal with this trauma.
On December 15, 2008 she returned to work as scheduled. While at work, the District Manager, Pam Thompson, was at the store with the store manager, David Ramirez, and told Heather to take the rest of the day off because she was obviously still traumatized by the event. However, this was after they had told Heather that she violated company policy by not having the doors locked after the posted closing time of 10:00pm on the night of the robbery. They also told her that the furniture outside should have been put away ten minutes prior to closing. Along with that, they also told her that no trash should be put outside after dusk. Heather inquired as to how that is possible when David had told store partners not to put away furniture until after 10:00pm. Not only that, but there were only two employees, including Heather, working at the store after 9:40pm. The employee who left at 9:40pm was a minor and could not work any later lest he violated company policy of maximum hours of work for minors. Heather repeatedly called and texted her manager David and her assistant manager, Regina Anderson, over her concern of having only two people closing, both of which are women, and still having to close the store and performing all closing duties. Neither manager would come out and help because they were busy with their families. Additionally, there were still 4 to 5 customers at 10:00pm ordering drinks. So how is it possible to close a store, clean up and lock doors prior to the 10:00pm closing time? The surveillance footage can show this. However, Heather not wanting to cause a scene left for the day.
Heather returned to work at her scheduled time today, December 17, 2008 at 11:00am. Her manager fired her today for violating company safety and security policy. The paperwork that was given basically states that it was her fault that the store was robbed. It had nothing to do with changing policies to suit each individual store; managers not scheduling the proper amount of people for running the store. Let me add that this store is in a strip mall area that is dark and at their closing time, they are the only store open.
I cannot understand a company firing someone for having their store robbed. Why are there no night managers on the premises? How can one get fired if they are complying to a robber's demands while at gunpoint? Are you supposed to kick all remaining customers out because its 10:00pm and you need clean up? What's to say that if they finished cleaning up that they still would not have been robbed as they did the final lock up of the store? It's seems as if Starbuck's is looking for a scapegoat for their inconsistent policies and regulations and chose a shift supervisor because she didn't close up on time. Please let me know if I am wrong for thinking that this company and their policy enforcements are construed and inconsistent?
Can someone give this some press coverage?
Thank you,
Paul and De Anna Hernandez
Concerned parents of Heather L.
Regarding the closing shift story:
actually she is very in the wrong for this.
First, it doesnt matter if men or women close its closing a store all the same. Im a barista i know.
Futhermore. You have to lock the doors when the store closes. She leaving them open for 2 hours is not smart. that is neglicence
My store always closes with two people so she should not have used that as a complaint.
basically, i dont know how on earth she forgot to lock the doors thats priority number 1 when closing. Because if you dont customers keep appearing and you can't close the store.
To be very clear on tips:
Anyone that works at Starbucks knows.
Managers and assistant managers do not receive tips.
There should not be a tip jar for each person. That would be idiotic and unfair. How would the person making the drinks be tipped?
Shift supervisors are basically baristas with the capability to handle cash flow matters. They make drinks and do the same work that baristas do so they should receive tips.
Most importantly they work an hourly schedule while the managers that do not receive tips work a salary.
Finally, the service you get is determined by the store running smoothly as a whole.
Saying we should tip discriminately is discrimination.
Whether it be partners mopping the floors, taking orders, or making drinks.... they are important.
If there is no name on a tip jar, how do you determine who is entitled to the money? If there is no name on a tip jar, how do you decide how much each person should receive?
Now I have an even better question for you. Who should decide who is entitled to a tip? Who should decide how much an employee should receive as a tip.
The answer is, only the customer should be deciding such matters. The reason being, it is his property.
If you put out a tip jar with each person's name on it, customers can determine both who is entitled to their tip and how much that person is entitled to.
When customers are able to deterine both who is entitled to their tip and how much they are entitled to, that employee's tips can be protected as his legal property. When customers are prevented from determining both who is entitled to their tip and how much they are entitled to, the employee's tips are unprotected.
You see, there becomes no way to substantiate either who the tips were intended for or how much they are entitled to.
Post a Comment