Starbucks must pay $100 million in back tips

[danarhea]

A California court has ordered that Starbucks must pay 100 million in back tips to its employees. Supervisors had been taking a share of those tips. Answer the poll, and tell me if you believe the court was right to order this.

Here is my take on it, and why I believe this decision was wrong:

1) Employees at Starbucks were very much aware of this arrangement when they started to work there. If they did not like it, they could always have taken a job someplace else.

2) When you go to work for someone, you are entering into an agreement where you accept the terms of employment. If you don't like the terms, you can always go someplace else.

3) I really cannot find fault with Starbucks' philosophy that supervisors are entitled to a share of tips. According to Starbucks, the supervisors also contribute to the customers' coffee drinking experience, and if it was a good one, they certainly helped.

4) If employees at a Starbucks get out of hand, and it is a sloppy operation, guess whose butt is also on the line? The supervisor's, of course. So why can't a supervisor also share in the success of a location too? Again, a management decision, which an employee can either agree with, or go someplace else for employment.

5) If Starbucks has really mistreated its employees, the market will always be the ultimate arbiter. People will go elsewhere, and Starbucks will have problems keeping staff, which would lead them to change the policy on their own. The fact that they did not have to do this shows that their policy was not so bad to begin with. And once again, by accepting employment under these terms, the employees agree with them.

6) Notice the common thread in the points that I am making? Employment is an AGREEMENT between employer and employee, which can always be broken by the employee any time he or she wishes to. Employees are not slaves. They are not forced to work at Starbucks. After all, this is not China, is it?

All the above, I believe, are valid reasons which show the court to be wrong, but leave it to the government to get involved in somebody else's business. What will the Cali courts do next? Offer up a ruling which mandates what times Starbucks employees can go to the bathroom?

Article is here.

 

[new coup for you]

before we all start ******** on starbucks let me point out two things:

Starbucks has better benefits then any similar service industry company on the same scale. They give medical and dental even to part time employees (albeit to a more limited degree) and to employee's partners (which they draw no distinction between sexual orientation).

Second, the "Starbucksification" I contend has not homogenized the coffee industry, but instead stimulated it out of a torpor. Today every city in America is litterally swimming in indie-coffee houses and they were all built as a reaction to Starbucks.

 

[WI Crippler]

now thats out of the way, can we start ******** on starbucks yet?

 

[MC.no.spin]

The consumer is the biggest loser in this case, as if the appeal fails the company will be forced to raise prices to offset this financial loss. This should get overturned.

 

[new coup for you]

Yes, I'll start.

Dear Starbucks,

Stop putting cakes in blenders and adding two shots of espresso and contending that they're some kind of derivative of a mocha. They're actually cake-slurry, and they're disgusting.

 

[Captain America]

I can get better coffee for .99 at my local SuperAmerica.

 

[danarhea]

I can get better coffee for .99 at my local SuperAmerica.

I can get worse coffee at McDonald's. They are trying the Starbucks concept now, and frankly, their iced coffee is not only overpriced, but it also sucks. LOL.

 

[WI Crippler]

Well I'll be honest. I should probably buy stock in Starbucks as much as my wife loves the stuff.

I like their milkshakes. They call them frappacinos, but its really a milkshake.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Starbucks is just a pit stop on the race to diabetes. That said court had no right to dictate to private busisness.

 

[new coup for you]

It's not a big deal or anything but I only my indie place that gets all of its coffee from a local farming cooperative.

i mean it's not a big deal that i'm so moral.

 

[Captain America]

You guys grow coffee in PA?

 

[danarhea]

You guys grow coffee in PA?

LMAO. Didn't think about that until you posted it.

Philadelphia - Home of the Constitution and major coffee grower. :rofl

 

[Captain America]

I have an inherent nose for...


Well, nevermind. :3oops:

 

[new coup for you]

You guys grow coffee in PA?

Kennsington Philadelphia grown coffee

or so they say...

I admit it's suspcious

 

[cascadian]

You mean people actually tip at starbucks? Lol, their tip jar is full of pennies around here. Whereas the baristas at the local shops (that pour some of the best espresso shots anywhere I've found) make about $1 a drink just like a bartender.

As a customer, I would prefer to be tipping the baristas, not the manager and that's generally what I assume when I'm tipping. So I support this in a moral sense from the customer's point of view. Legally though, I don't know if this is a good precedent or not.

 

[Kali]

I am all in favor in socking it to Starbucks because they are so overated and charge too much for crappy coffeee anyways. :2razz:

 

[Caine]

A California court

This is pretty much all you had to say.

 

[Caine]

I am all in favor in socking it to Starbucks because they are so overated and charge too much for crappy coffeee anyways. :2razz:

So, because they are overrated and charge too much for coffee that somehow makes them responsible for back tips to employees who knew that part of their tips went to supervisors?

 

[ludahai]

Cowett said the practice was a violation of a state law prohibiting managers and supervisors from sharing in employee tips.

This practice was a violation of California law. Based on that, of course this was the correct decsion.

 

[mikhail]

If the employees where aware of the terms i dont see why they should get the payout.

On a complete side issue what the **** is wrong with people why does starbucks even exist if your spending that much for a cup of coffee your have too much money.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I am all in favor in socking it to Starbucks because they are so overated and charge too much for crappy coffeee anyways. :2razz:

So Starbucks forces you at gunpoint to buy thier proda?

 

[ludahai]

If the employees where aware of the terms i dont see why they should get the payout.

Because it is a violation of state law.

On a complete side issue what the **** is wrong with people why does starbucks even exist if your spending that much for a cup of coffee your have too much money.

In complete agreement here. I don't even LIKE coffee!!!!

 

[Indy]

In complete agreement here. I don't even LIKE coffee!!!!

I agree with ludahai. Everyone is so concerned by what the law exactly says when we are talking about gun control, but because this decision went against a big business all of a sudden we are willing to look the other way? Interesting how quickly some of the opinions on this forum can change isn't it?

 

[ludahai]

I agree with ludahai. Everyone is so concerned by what the law exactly says when we are talking about gun control, but because this decision went against a big business all of a sudden we are willing to look the other way? Interesting how quickly some of the opinions on this forum can change isn't it?

You may not agree with the law (and I am not convinced on that point yet), but in accordance with the law, it was apparently the correct decision.

 

[Caine]

This practice was a violation of California law. Based on that, of course this was the correct decsion.

Well, Maybe Starbucks should just pull out of California then.

That will shut those flop handed leftists up huh?