I absolutely agree with Starbucks (and you). I've worked the supervisor position at the bookstore/coffee shop for the past year, and while we don't have a tip jar like Starbucks, supervisors definitely do the same amount of work as a regular shift, maybe more. We have to make sure employees are on time, oversee inventory, etc, and still do an actual shift of working the cash or unloading stock or whatever it is.
I do hope Starbucks wins this. Supervisors watch, they supervise, but that's in addition to working a regular shift.
Yeah, shifts are left in a tenuous position because of this decision. What incentives are left to promote someone from barista to shift? "Sorry, you'll in effect get a pay cut because you're no longer eligible for tips." :\
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how all the technical talk is going to affect the appeal. But to my untrained eyes, I see a lot of grey areas when comparing the labor law code with Starbuck's internal structure. I hope Starbucks can use that to their advantage. *crosses fingers*
I'm sure you were a good supervisor. Sounds like you really cared about your duties and the people under you.
I have a questions about this whole issue. If Starbucks does have to pay the tips back, does it come out of Starbucks' own pocket, or do they have to take the money back from the shift supervisors from the past eight years or whatever it is? I assume it's the former, but they're both equally crappy options.
The money will come from Starbucks. The case was granted class action status in 2006 and was a "baristas in CA" vs. Starbucks case. Which is why Starbucks is the party to appeal, and if they lose, then they'll definitely take a hard hit financially.
Yeah, it's such a lose-lose situation. I hope you're not getting too much grief from customers at your store. Whenever something happens at the company level or if the media has a new Starbucks story out, people from my store used to coming in and expect us to have all the answers. I kept having to tell them I don't know, and had to refer them to the company site for the media contact.
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).
In general labor laws are bad. Many of them draw as strong a line as possible between the employee and the employer. And then the more regulated an industry is, the harder it is for an employer to treat their employees as human being deserving respect. Instead of people working together to make a product, it turns into management versus labor.
Why can't government just leave private industry alone?
The state vs. private issue definitely brings out the intrinsic tension that comes with any labor law. Unless the entire US is one big company and can be defined by one uniform job structure, labor laws will always be in conflict with one company or another. It's just so sad, because each worker affected is a person with financial/family needs, and not just a +1 to the statistics of numbers.
I don't think anyone would want one uniform job structure. Sailing related jobs (where you spend weeks at a time on a boat) are very different from firefighting (where you respond to emergencies) and these are very different from the feast-or-famine demands placed on engineering companies.
If you're willing to accept that labor laws will always be in conflict with one company or another that means that you're willing to accept the lost jobs and lost benefits associated with these conflicts. Who pays for that? The consumer? The person who doesn't get hired? The person who doesn't get a promotion? Starbucks ongoing plans to buy more environmental sustainable or socially responsible coffee?
The principal is that every bit of inefficiency means less wealth is produced.
The goals of these labor laws are good: human dignity and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your work. But, human dignity are the related freedom to work are inherently compromised when you're holding a law to someone's head.
Well, of course, when the discussion is taken out of the realm of the purely theoretical, there's going to be all sorts of real life examples to demand various nuances within an X vs. Y context. I certainly don't fancy the jobs of labor law crafters.
Not that conflict is a bad thing. It can lead to change (for better or for worse) and at least certain issues are openly discussed during times of conflict. In this case, for example, we get to see just how important tips are to the survival of many baristas and shifts (and the uglier side of the discussion about tips and entitlement, though strangely these same people tend to be oblivious about their own overtaxing sense of customer entitlement ;p).
Comments 13
I do hope Starbucks wins this. Supervisors watch, they supervise, but that's in addition to working a regular shift.
Reply
Yeah, shifts are left in a tenuous position because of this decision. What incentives are left to promote someone from barista to shift? "Sorry, you'll in effect get a pay cut because you're no longer eligible for tips." :\
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how all the technical talk is going to affect the appeal. But to my untrained eyes, I see a lot of grey areas when comparing the labor law code with Starbuck's internal structure. I hope Starbucks can use that to their advantage. *crosses fingers*
I'm sure you were a good supervisor. Sounds like you really cared about your duties and the people under you.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
In general labor laws are bad. Many of them draw as strong a line as possible between the employee and the employer. And then the more regulated an industry is, the harder it is for an employer to treat their employees as human being deserving respect. Instead of people working together to make a product, it turns into management versus labor.
Why can't government just leave private industry alone?
Reply
Reply
If you're willing to accept that labor laws will always be in conflict with one company or another that means that you're willing to accept the lost jobs and lost benefits associated with these conflicts. Who pays for that? The consumer? The person who doesn't get hired? The person who doesn't get a promotion? Starbucks ongoing plans to buy more environmental sustainable or socially responsible coffee?
The principal is that every bit of inefficiency means less wealth is produced.
The goals of these labor laws are good: human dignity and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your work. But, human dignity are the related freedom to work are inherently compromised when you're holding a law to someone's head.
Reply
Not that conflict is a bad thing. It can lead to change (for better or for worse) and at least certain issues are openly discussed during times of conflict. In this case, for example, we get to see just how important tips are to the survival of many baristas and shifts (and the uglier side of the discussion about tips and entitlement, though strangely these same people tend to be oblivious about their own overtaxing sense of customer entitlement ;p).
Reply
Leave a comment