The situation has been brewing since October 2004, when one disgruntled barista filed a complaint arguing that personnel weren’t entitled to tips under California state law. In 2006, the case boiled over when a California judge granted it class-action status.
Advice: Although this case relates directly to California employers, it carries a lesson that’s applicable everywhere. Always check state laws before establishing compensation policies. Knowing federal laws—such as the Fair Labor Standards Act ( )—won’t always be enough. Workplaces in which employees commonly receive tips pose special challenges. Make sure your compensation system accounts for employee tips, and be clear whether they can be credited against minimum wage requirements. It’s always better to have your bean counters check things out before state regulators send in theirs.
A latte of moneyUnlike the FLSA and many state laws, California’s minimum wage law allows no tip credit. That means employers may not count employees' tips as a credit toward their obligation to pay the minimum wage. Employers must pay workers at least minimum wage, and employees can keep all tips they receive. California’s minimum wage law prohibits “owner(s), manager(s), or supervisor(s) of the business” from receiving tips even if they provide the service for which the customer is tipping.
Starbucks’ policy was to share the tips among all workers—including supervisors and managers. In fact, the company sought to have attorneys represent the managers’ interests during the class-action proceedings. That request was denied and will no doubt form the basis of Starbuck’s percolating appeal.
Starbucks argues that the tips help supervisors and managers make it through the daily grind in their stores, and this ruling essentially cuts their pay. Critics argue Starbucks should pay management personnel enough that tip income isn’t necessary.
A breve, not a longoThe ruling comes at a bad time for Starbucks. Economic conditions have put the company in a French press of sorts. Company stock sold for close to $40 per share in 2006, but now trades below $20. Increased dairy and energy costs have eroded profits, and cheaper local competition in many areas has cut the company’s customer base.
A Starbucks spokesperson called the judge's decision “an extreme example of an abuse of the class-action procedures in California courts.” Additionally, the company was disappointed in the brief four-paragraph ruling. Specifically, the decision failed to address the ruling’s impact on supervisors and managers whose pay the court effectively cut.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/4649/starbucks-steamed-over-100m-verdict "