Re: Starbuck's ruling
Posted by Ann on 4/22/08

If tips are left in a tip jar, they were never "paid, given
to, or left for an employee". I see nothing in California
law preventing tip jars, rather, the numerous rulings coming
down regarding Starbucks indicate only that managers should
not be sharing in tips. The side issue would be the
question regarding whether managers are correctly classified
as many of them are performing primarily barista duties with
a "Manager" title tacked on.


On 4/22/08, George wrote:
> 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.

Posts on this thread, including this one

• Starbuck's ruling, 4/22/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/22/08, by Ann.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/23/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/23/08, by Ann.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/24/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/24/08, by Ann.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/25/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/25/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 4/25/08, by Martha.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 5/09/08, by sharwinston.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 5/27/08, by George.
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 6/03/08, by George .
• Re: Starbuck's ruling, 6/04/08, by sharwinston.