![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Starbucks Case
Mar. 22nd, 2008 12:48 pmSo, a court ruling in California has ordered Starbucks to pay back over $100 million in tips to baristas.
Basic details:
♦ There are two types of Starbucks employees most usually seen working on the floor—the baristas and the shift supervisors. Both are paid hourly wages and, under Starbucks rules, receive tips shared from a pool.
♦ California labor code, section 351 prohibits "employer or agent" to "collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron..."
♦ As defined by the same code, an agent means "every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees."
♦ The class-action law suit was filed by a former California barista who claimed he was short-tipped because shift supervisors got a share of the tip pool.
♦ The judge ruled in favor of the baristas and ordered Starbucks to pay back tips that were given to shift supervisors (and therefore owed to baristas) to all current and former Starbucks baristas in California since 2000.
♦ Starbucks filed for an appeal. The decision of granting one is pending.
♦ On a side note: yes, I do know about this law suit last year, while I was working at Starbucks (as a barista).
Me? I'm on Starbucks' side for this one.
Now, Starbucks is going to have to make a really good case to prove to the judge that shift supervisors should not be considered "agents" on par with employees in the managerial level, if they're even going to be granted the chance to appeal. The fact that shifts are called "shift supervisors" will definitely work against them, and I'm not sure how they can get around that. So, all reality considered, Starbucks stands a pretty good chance of losing the appeal.
But at least they'll get the chance to state their side. During the case that led to the initial ruling, the judge reportedly did not allow the shift supervisor's side to argue their case. And when a decision of law came down to pretty much semantics and a bunch of misunderstandings, I have issues with that.
The main issue is defining the role of a shift supervisor. From personal experience and from seeing similar experiences expressed by baristas from stores all over the country (and the world), I know I'm not exaggerating when I say that shifts are more or less glorified baristas. They do everything baristas do, are paid hourly just like baristas, and are no different than baristas except with the added duties of being in charge of giving breaks to baristas and having keys (someone has to open the door in the morning to let the workers in and to have access to the safe to bring out the tills so that everybody can have one and ring people up). They also have added duties of ordering supplies and keeping tabs on shipments when they come in. These duties take up a lot more time and energy—I've seen my share of shifts not going on lunch breaks—but they don't necessarily constitute "agent" responsibilities.
Yes, shifts do get paid more, but let's just say that by the time I left Starbucks with two excellent review-based raises under my belt, I was making perhaps just slightly over a dollar less than what a new shift would be making.
This is where I see a conflict between California labor law's definition and Starbucks' in-store structure. At Starbucks, employees on the managerial level, i.e., the assistant managers and store managers, do not get tips. They are salaried. They truly are the "agents" in Code Section 351 that should not receive tips.
However, just because shifts have the unfortunate title of a "supervisor," they are now ruled to be ineligible to receive tips. And the facts of the case seemed to be fuzzy. One of the articles I read about the ruling quoted one of the plaintiff lawyers as saying how people with the power to hire/fire should not share the tip pool. You know what? I agree with this 100%. That's why assistant and store managers don't get tips. Shift supervisors do not have the power to hire or fire!
And do shifts get to "supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees"? Yes and no. Yes in that they run the floor. No in that they don't get to file disciplinary actions (e.g., filing write-ups), conduct performance reviews, make weekly schedules (and therefore oversee labor and expense/revenue issues of the store), and access payroll. The ultimate responsibility to supervise all employees falls on the store manager—not even the assistant manager.
What it all boils down to is this:
If Starbucks cannot convince the judge during the appeal that the "agents" in Code Section 351 are actually the in-store managerial employees, they will lose. For the long term, I think Starbucks' best course of action is to change the title of shifts to "leads" or something similar, because that describes shifts' role much better.
Funny how a labor law meant to protect workers' rights end up stranding shifts in a no-man's land of being considered neither a tip-deserving employee (in the eyes of California labor law) nor a full-blown manager (according to Starbucks).
P.S. – lest you think I'm the only (former) Starbucks barista who believes shifts should be entitled to their share of tips, here is the post in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
baristas on the issue, with baristas/shifts/managers commenting to weigh in on both sides.
ETA: Here's another post in the community. On the ranty side and captures initial reactions well.
Basic details:
♦ There are two types of Starbucks employees most usually seen working on the floor—the baristas and the shift supervisors. Both are paid hourly wages and, under Starbucks rules, receive tips shared from a pool.
♦ California labor code, section 351 prohibits "employer or agent" to "collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron..."
♦ As defined by the same code, an agent means "every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees."
♦ The class-action law suit was filed by a former California barista who claimed he was short-tipped because shift supervisors got a share of the tip pool.
♦ The judge ruled in favor of the baristas and ordered Starbucks to pay back tips that were given to shift supervisors (and therefore owed to baristas) to all current and former Starbucks baristas in California since 2000.
♦ Starbucks filed for an appeal. The decision of granting one is pending.
♦ On a side note: yes, I do know about this law suit last year, while I was working at Starbucks (as a barista).
Me? I'm on Starbucks' side for this one.
Now, Starbucks is going to have to make a really good case to prove to the judge that shift supervisors should not be considered "agents" on par with employees in the managerial level, if they're even going to be granted the chance to appeal. The fact that shifts are called "shift supervisors" will definitely work against them, and I'm not sure how they can get around that. So, all reality considered, Starbucks stands a pretty good chance of losing the appeal.
But at least they'll get the chance to state their side. During the case that led to the initial ruling, the judge reportedly did not allow the shift supervisor's side to argue their case. And when a decision of law came down to pretty much semantics and a bunch of misunderstandings, I have issues with that.
The main issue is defining the role of a shift supervisor. From personal experience and from seeing similar experiences expressed by baristas from stores all over the country (and the world), I know I'm not exaggerating when I say that shifts are more or less glorified baristas. They do everything baristas do, are paid hourly just like baristas, and are no different than baristas except with the added duties of being in charge of giving breaks to baristas and having keys (someone has to open the door in the morning to let the workers in and to have access to the safe to bring out the tills so that everybody can have one and ring people up). They also have added duties of ordering supplies and keeping tabs on shipments when they come in. These duties take up a lot more time and energy—I've seen my share of shifts not going on lunch breaks—but they don't necessarily constitute "agent" responsibilities.
Yes, shifts do get paid more, but let's just say that by the time I left Starbucks with two excellent review-based raises under my belt, I was making perhaps just slightly over a dollar less than what a new shift would be making.
This is where I see a conflict between California labor law's definition and Starbucks' in-store structure. At Starbucks, employees on the managerial level, i.e., the assistant managers and store managers, do not get tips. They are salaried. They truly are the "agents" in Code Section 351 that should not receive tips.
However, just because shifts have the unfortunate title of a "supervisor," they are now ruled to be ineligible to receive tips. And the facts of the case seemed to be fuzzy. One of the articles I read about the ruling quoted one of the plaintiff lawyers as saying how people with the power to hire/fire should not share the tip pool. You know what? I agree with this 100%. That's why assistant and store managers don't get tips. Shift supervisors do not have the power to hire or fire!
And do shifts get to "supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees"? Yes and no. Yes in that they run the floor. No in that they don't get to file disciplinary actions (e.g., filing write-ups), conduct performance reviews, make weekly schedules (and therefore oversee labor and expense/revenue issues of the store), and access payroll. The ultimate responsibility to supervise all employees falls on the store manager—not even the assistant manager.
What it all boils down to is this:
If Starbucks cannot convince the judge during the appeal that the "agents" in Code Section 351 are actually the in-store managerial employees, they will lose. For the long term, I think Starbucks' best course of action is to change the title of shifts to "leads" or something similar, because that describes shifts' role much better.
Funny how a labor law meant to protect workers' rights end up stranding shifts in a no-man's land of being considered neither a tip-deserving employee (in the eyes of California labor law) nor a full-blown manager (according to Starbucks).
P.S. – lest you think I'm the only (former) Starbucks barista who believes shifts should be entitled to their share of tips, here is the post in
baristas on the issue, with baristas/shifts/managers commenting to weigh in on both sides.ETA: Here's another post in the community. On the ranty side and captures initial reactions well.
