Re: Starbuck's ruling

More | Report Post

Leaving a tip on a table or bar is initiated by the carelessness of
the customer. While leaving a tip on a table or at a bar is clearly a
unintentional carelessness that could result in the customer's tip not
being received by those whom it was intended for, tip jars with no
ones name on them are the intentional soliciting of such carelessness
so that employers may control the tips to their interests. By putting
out a tip jar, with no designation as to who such tips are intended
for, business owners are intentionally attempting to solicit customers
into carelessly and unkowingly giving their tips over to the control
of employer.

How can you say that there is no difference between a customer
unknowing leaving an undesignated tip on a bar and business owners
intentionally collecting undesignated money with the intent to control
such money to his own interests?

That is why state laws explain that No employer shall collect any
gratuties, If employers are able to collect gratuities they can
control the money to thier interests without the customer's knowledge.
No employee or group of employees would be able to substantiate that
the tips where their's and their's along for the tips have been
collectec by the employer as undesignated money.

While customers who unintentionally, however carelessly, leave a tip
at the bar or at a table are leaving undesignated money that may end
up benefitting the employer, employers who collect undestignated money
through the use of a tip jar are intentionally attempting to collect
undesignated money that they will control to their interests.

/24/08, Ann wrote:
> Placing a tip in a jar is no more an instance of the employer
> collecting the tip than is placing a tip on the bar when you order a
> drink or on the table when you walk away after eating. So long as
> the employer isn't sharing in the tips, the employer isn't
> collecting tips. There is nothing in the law preventing tip jars.
> No matter how much you want it to be there.
>
> As far as how the Starbucks settlement is distributed -- that hasn't
> even been determined. You don't know that your concerns won't be
> addressed.
>
> But in the end, am I worked up about this? Nope. Does it keep me
> up at night, wringing my hands at the injustice of it all? Nope.
> There's nothing in the law mandating that tips be given to
> individual employees by the customer, so sometimes, tip distribution
> isn't going to be fair. Sometimes, slackers will get as much of the
> tip as people who work hard. Life isn't fair. Welcome to the real
> world. Unfair does not equate with illegal.
>
> On 4/24/08, George wrote:
>> So when you put money in a tip jar you are tipping but you are not
>> leaving a tip for a specific employee. Why doesn't the tip jar
>> explain who you are tipping? Why aren't there several tip jars
>> with different names on them so customers can choose, for
>> themselves, who they want to tip?
>>
>> It seems to me that Starbucks is intentionally preventing
>> customers from determining who should receive their tip. If
>> employers are allowed to prevent customer from determining who
>> should receive their tip, how will the courts ever be able to
>> determine who is entitled to a share of the tips and how much each
>> is entitled to?
>>
>> While the Starbuck ruling awarded $100,000,000.00 to the baristas
>> in all California restaurants, presumably the money will be
>> divided up equally among all barista's working in California. Some
>> however may have only worked there a few months. Others may
>> believe they are entitled to a larger share. How can you say that
>> there is no issue here?
>>
>> I just don't understand how you can say that nothing in section
>> 351 of the California labor code bans pooling tips when the law
>> clearly states that No employers shall COLLECT any gratuites.
>>
>> POOLING
>>
>> Pool\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Pooled; p. pr. & vb. n. Pooling.]
>>
>> To put together;
>>
>> COLLECTING
>>
>> the act of gathering something together
>>
>> Why is pooling tip not collecting tips?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/23/08, Ann wrote:
>>> 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.