Re: Starbuck's ruling

More | Report Post

Indeed, tip jars collect tips. Tip jars are not illegal.
Giving managers a portion of said tips is the issue, not the
mere communal collection of tips. In other words, if Starbucks
were to simply continue with the tip jar but not give any of the
proceeds to management level employees, there's no issue. Thus,
the issue isn't the use of tip jars, but rather the division of
the tips collected in them.

Also, if you place money in a tip jar - you are leaving a tip.
You are not, however, leaving a tip for a specific employee --
as it is self-explanatory that a communal tip jar does not
discern to whom you would like your tip to go.

Nothing in the section of code you quoted bans pooling tips.
Rather, it bans employers or their agents (such as managers)
from sharing in these pools.

Oh, and the word is "cryptic". But I'm being fairly
straightforward.

On 4/23/08, George wrote:
> What do you mean when you say that you see nothing in
> California law preventing tips jars? Tip jars collect tips.
>
> Starbucks was collecting tips in their tip har and sharing
> them with managers.
>
> How can an argument be made that managers cannot share in the
> tips Starbucks is unlawully collecting in their tip jars?
>
> If, as you say, tips are left in a tip jar, but not left for
> an employee, then why is Starbucks being ordered to pay
> #100,000,000 to their employees?
>
> You make no sense what-so-ever, however, thank you for your
> criptic response.
>
> I guess that's why they call state labor laws LABOR CODE. You
> need to by a decryptor to decipher the secret meaning.
>
> Do you lawyers have a secret handshake too?
>
>
> On 4/22/08, Ann wrote:
>> 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.