More reason to never step foot in a Starbucks ever again. (As if we needed any more.)
eh, i kind of think he's right on this one.
California has way more employee protections in its laws than most other states, and any company who employs people in California should know this. If they can't stick to the regulations, then what the fuck do they expect to happen? Pay up, bitches! If you want access to the lucrative California market, you have to play by the rules!
I just noticed that if you stand at Sixth and Pine, there are no less than three (and possibly four) Starbucks' within visual range in a one block radius.
Why not just pay the shift supervisor a rate that doesn't need to rely on tips for customer service. I mean, who the fucks tips a CSR?
I read it as Schultz is mad starbucks can't siphon money from barrista tips to cover supervisors' wages.
What a bunch of bullshite.
this isn't about california alone. i think michigan and mass also have similar suits.
in california, you can tip share, but not with management. it wasn't about intentionally breaking the rules, but interpreting them in a different way. i don't get the feeling that the shift "supervisors" were against tip sharing.
in mich, they have laws against mandatory tip sharing, i don't know all the details there.
but still, the idea that at starbucks you could have tips without having tip sharing is difficult to imagine. and to imagine that shift supervisors don't serve customers is also a bit silly. starbucks may have to change titles and the way they structure things to work around these laws, but it doesn't look like a case where the management is screwing the worker.
"A spokeswoman said Thursday that Starbucks Corp. has no intention of ending the practice of sharing tips among baristas and shift supervisors in California while it seeks an injunction."
I had no problem sharing tips with Shift Supervisors when I worked at Starbucks. "Shift Supervisors" are basically glorified baristas that have many of the same duties as a barista (making drinks, cleaning), but have to directly deal with a lot more B.S. (angry customers, pressure from store managers, etc.). They are not managers, as people are led to believe, but baristas with seniority. Sharing tips with them is completely justified.
Yeah, baristas, see, Howie Schultz just sold the Sonics for several hundred million, he makes hand over fist each day from the biggest coffee chain on Earth (that's expanding faster than the universe), and he's a little strapped for cash. I'm sure you'll understand!
Fundamentally, the trouble is that they shouldn't be called "Supervisors." This is just obnoxious title creep, coming back to bite him in the ass. I hope every bibg-box electronics store that refers to their salespeople as "partners" is similarly forced to give those "partners" a seat at the boardroom table.
Gven their job description, it seems fair that they share tips.
Bring back my almond flavoring. Then I can tip the baristas. Otherwise I'm off to some other caffeine producing shop.
See, if Starbucks wasn't so mulishly opposed to collective bargaining for its employees (partners, my ass!), then who got the tips and who did not could be spelled out in a labor agreement.
All labor agreements contain (or had better contain) clauses that say if any part of the contract is in conflict with state or federal law, then the state or federal law applies.
Therefore if Starbucks employees in California had been unionized, none of this would have happened. There might have been one grievance in one bargaining unit in California. It would have been settled or arbitrated in favor of the baristas, and now Starbucks wouldn't be on the hook for this amount of money, and Schultz wouldn't look like even more of an asshole than he does already.
Greedy fucker! I buy my 2-pound bag at Costco once a month and that's it. Chinese tea in three varieties is less than $2.50 for a box of 100 bags in the ID. As a daily dose of caffeine, Starbucks can't compete with that, and the tea is even cheaper in bulk.
we've already covered this, but just to reiterate:
"Shift Supervisors" are basically glorified baristas that have many of the same duties as a barista (making drinks, cleaning), but have to directly deal with a lot more B.S. (angry customers, pressure from store managers, etc.). They are not managers, as people are led to believe, but baristas with seniority.
so in reality, if all this ignorant public clamor about not giving shift supervisors tips actually gained traction, you'd be taking tips away from people who have every right to them.
Just as it would have beehoved the ELF to get their facts straight before they torched that building on UW's seattle campus, all this outrage over sbux sticking up for shift supervisors is totally ill placed.
Also, you know how I deal with this whole moral/fiscal dilemma?
I take my business to one of the dozens of local coffeeshops around town instead. You don't have to quibble about my money at all if you don't receive it!
Here's a tip, GET A BETTER JOB!
god i love that joke
Here is a thought for those baristas : Get a real fucking job!!
Memo to CEO: Oh, yes, you will.
"Here is a thought for those baristas : Get a real fucking job!!"
Yeah, they probably already have English degrees anyway.
And @12, as I've never worked at Starbucks, I'm kind of curious. Do they operate the store alone? If they make decisions on who should be doing what to make sure things run smoothly, they're supervisors and I wonder why they would be called that if they're not. I on the other hand, worked at Little Caesar's as a shift leader which carried little weight except to take the blame for everything without much pay.
Hasn't anyone here worked in a fast food place?
Shift supervisors aren't really managers... They're pouring coffee, making change and cleaning the tables just like everyone else... They should share the tip jar.
They should have just called them "lead baristas", instead of supervisors, and this wouldn't be an issue.
The real shame is that the people that these tip-sharing laws most need to protect often doesn't. It'd be good to see service staff at smaller establishments with more predatory owners be as embowered as the folks that filed this complaint.
my girl friend was a shift supervisor for a few years after being a regular old worker bee. it is more like you described, where there isn't much extra responsibility. there is a store manager, and they're really "management". the shift supervisor is like the captain of a soccer team. they're not the coach or anything, they just relay instructions and do the extra bullshit.
for example, say the flakey kid with a drug habit gets scheduled by the store manager, consistently, to open (which means you have to be there at like fucking 4:30AM).
flakey druggie is always late or doesn't show up. while the store manager would have to fire him, the shift supervisor would have to get on the horn and beg people who aren't scheduled to work to come in on their day off.
shift supervisors have to figure out how many pastries to order.
shift supervisors have to get yelled at by asshole customers.
at the same time, they're helping to make drinks when they get slammed, or run the tills, or fill up the sugar or creamer or whatever.
so to deny them tips for doing the same shit as everyone else--and MORE--is actually a seriously asshole move. i think shift supervisors might make a little more money, but not much. and it certainly isn't cash in your pocket.
@17 - just chatted with my gf and asked her this question: "so if someone sued sbux and gave all the other barristas extra money, didn't give you any money, and then said you couldn't get tipped out in the future, and they puffed themselves up like they were sticking it to the evil corporation for "cheating" barristas, what would you say to them?"
her reply: "i would say, hey shithead. i make your coffee too. i clean up your mess, why shouldn't i get tips?"
"Hello, Mr. Shultz. Glad to meet you. So, what's the problem?"
Shultz (jittery): "They want me to pay back tips I stole from the employees."
"Ah, well, then, why not declare a new Starbuck Stadium in Seattle, and have the State force them to pay you to move a minor hockey team here from Florida? Then build a Quonset hut in Seattle Center, get a hose, and pocket the difference?"
Shultz: "WOW! Thanks!"
"No prob. Hey, you know, we could always just have two tip jars at every Starbucks - one for "management" and one for "employees" - and then charge a fee to employees for handling their tips of say, 50 percent of proceeds and use that to fill the "management" tip jar ..."
Shultz: "Great idea! Do you think I can also institute a Nipple Ring Surcharge and get a Homeland Security tax writeoff for it?"
"Sure, I'll get the lobbyists on it right away."
Shultz: "Thanks for the tax-deductible advice!"
I love it when people think they know how my job works (no I am not a shift supervisor as it is FAR too much work for the paltry sum SBUX pays them). Yes, they are more like the captain of the soccer team that only relays the plays from the coach (store manager). If there is a problem with one of the baristas and the store manager is not there, they have to contact her or the assistant store manager before they can take any action against the errant barista (such as the one who refused to show up for her shift recently).
I was really thankful I wasn't a shift yesterday when some homeless guy pissed all over one of our chairs (and the floor in front of him). The shift had to clean up his piss.
Infrequent and Some Dude --
I understand your argument, but are these "shift supervisors" forced into the position or can they turn down the supervisor title and continue to just be a barista? If the latter is true, as I suspect it is, then I agree with the court's decision.
These supervisors have accepted a supervisory position - probably in an attempt to kiss some corporate ass and move up the Starbucks food chain - then they *should* have to deal with the customer bullshit, etc. That's the price you pay for moving up the corporate ladder!
being able to turn it down has what to do with it? the question is, are they a manager or are they serving customers. they much closers in duties, pay and title to baristas, not managers.
I hope the union effort wins at all Starbucks stores.
My point, infrequent, is that they chose to become shift supervisors. They *chose* to take on the extra responsibility -- probably in an attempt to move up in the Starbucks empire. If they wanted to stay a "worker" and get the well-deserved tips, then they should have chosen to do so.
No offense, infrequent, but I'm not sure you totally understand the dynamic between Management and the workers. The fact that your girlfriend is or was a shift supervisor hardly makes you an expert.
I'm just sayin'
ok what if the supervisor earns twice as much as a regular employee, do u think they should earn tips?. they may work harder but they knew this b4 accepting the job. how about when they are in the backroom on the buisness phone or doing inventory why is it fair that they still get part of the tips if they are not doing the work up front?
@27 - your whole comment is based on the mistaken assumption that these shift supervisors are somehow corporate monkeys and regular barristas are not. if you went into an sbux and i asked you to point out the shift supervisor from the regular barristas you would have a hard time doing it, because there isn't much difference between them.
you could more easily point out the store manager, which is completely different but not only do store managers not get tips, they aren't allowed to touch the tips.
so your whole pro worker middle class angle would be in conflict if you kept shifts out of the tips, because they are workers and less than middle class if that is their only job because they don't make twice as much as other barristas. at most they might make 25 cents an hour more or something.
in fact, if these shifts didn't get tipped out, they would probably make less.
so where's the social justice in that?
It doesn't matter what anybody thinks. If California law states that tips can be only given to a certain class of worker than its just that simple. Starbucks is just stalling while they try to get the judgement reduced. Then they are going to reclassify their managers in a way that meets with state requirements.
@32 it is often how the law is interpreted. in this case, is a "shift leader" a manager? if yes -- as the court ruled -- they cannot accept tips. if no -- as their wage and duties would indicate -- then they should be able to share the tips.
in ca, the shift supervisors earn around 1.25 an hour more than baristas. twice as much! ha! they are hardly management. the starbucks solution will not be a boon to the workers. it will be a redefinition of terms, or more expensive coffee. nothing else. it will not mean better pay for baristas or for shift supervisors. it will hurt the more motivated workers in the end. and that's just great.
Don't tip at Starbucks. Problem solved.
@32 - you're right, it is that simple. shift supervisors aren't management. the suit was brought by a few disgruntled barristas and some lawyers who stand to make millions.
starbucks is actually defending their employees here by fighting this suit, because as a result of the suit hard working people who deserve tips won't get them. that is the irony in this.
and it doesn't just have to do with california. people in other states are filing similar suits. in fact, this isn't the first time that this issue has been before the courts:
The Starbucks case was not the first to take up this matter. Labor attorney Sheryl Willert represented a restaurant in Washington state -- which has a tipping law similar to California's -- that was sued by its workers over the sharing issue. Willert lost the case, which was decided about a decade ago with little fanfare.
i know the notion that shift supervisors aren't corporate stooges whipping the proletariat doesn't fit the cliche narrative of big corporation screws employees, but in this case the company is actually looking out for their workers.
On Friday morning, shift supervisor Robert Velasquez was the only employee making drinks at a crowded shop at La Brea Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard in Los Angeles. Under the decision, he will now go tipless.
"When there are no baristas here, supervisors are the ones who make the drinks," Velasquez said. "And we should be able to get tips."
Velasquez, 18, says he earns about $2.50 an hour from tips, which he uses for gas money. He stands to lose as much as $100 a week as a result of the ruling.
Which raises an interesting question. If two shift supervisors close a store, are they supposed to give all the tips that they earned to people who worked the morning shift?
"It's only going to help me," said the barista, who asked that his name not be published. "Even though I'll take the money, they're hurting all the wrong people," the Starbucks employee said.
But maybe this concept is too nuanced for people to accept. Who knows.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).