Posted by George on 4/22/08

More | Report Post

Would anyone like to comment on the ruling in the
Starbucks tip pooling case?

What I would like to know is how Starbucks wss able to set
up a system where tips would be collected in a little
plastic box with the word "TIPS" written on it?

California labor code 351 states clearly that,

No employer or agent shall COLLECT, take, or receive any
gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left
for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from
wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require
an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of
a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the
employee from the employer.

How can Starbucks collect gratuities in a tip jar when
such collecting is prohibitted by state law?

The only way I could see these tip jars as conforming to
state law is if there were serveral jars put out with a
different name on each one. That way if you wanted to tip
a manager you could. If you wanted to tip a particular
barita you could. If you wanted to tip the manager and the
barista, you could tip them both. However, when emplooyerx
are allowed to put out a jar with no one's name on it,
shouldn't such acts be considered an unlawful collecting
of gratuities.

I think I now understand why California'a prohibit
employers from collecting tips. When they are collected,
there is no way to discern who the tips actually belong to
and the business is free to distribute the tips to who
ever will accept the lowest hourly pay. It seems
Starbuck's tip jar is simply a means to deceive consumers
into giving Starbucks additional inocme to bribe job
applicants into accepting low hourly wages.

Re: Starbuck's ruling, 6/04/08, by sharwinston.

Employment Law Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST