DISQUS

AMERICAblog: More lawsuits against Starbucks and tips

  • Mykel1 · 1 year ago
    Corporate malfeasance pretty much is an American past time now.

    .
  • Indigo · 1 year ago
    I get it about the tip jar at Starbucks, although I think it's silly, but I don't get it about how they over-price the coffee and underpay the baristas. I hope that isn't a Seattle thing, I'd like to think Seattle is cool. As for Starbucks the company, they've become a joke . . . a Starbucks on every corner . . . meaning that they're overexntended and approaching the down slide. That's probably just as well. Like many late 20th century institutions, they're not ready for the new frugality.
  • BLOGGING BITCH! · 1 year ago
    I heard that Hillary was at a Starbucks and her coffee got cold due to the fact that she had to returng RPG fire. I'm sure she remembers it well.
  • John Aravosis · 1 year ago
    Ok that made us laugh out loud.
  • BLOGGING BITCH! · 1 year ago
    Didn't McCain tell them that their tips were never coming back?
  • BLOGGING BITCH! · 1 year ago
    Wal-Mart sues brain-damaged woman...

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/25/wal-ma...

    SCOTUS let's them.

    Wasn't Hillary on the Board of Wal-Mart? Does she remember it?
  • Mykel1 · 1 year ago
    Flippin a coin, heads I join em, put on a suit and tie. Have my conscience lobotomized and feelings cauterized and get rich screwing all the little people.

    .
  • Mykel1 · 1 year ago
    Having adjusted my MSM mantra induced, don't worry be happy attitude and gracefully adorned my issued, happy go lucky persona, I am ready for the world.

    I can pretend with the best of them!!

    .
  • Zoe_Brain · 1 year ago
    Given that the shift supervisors are just barristas who get an extra buck an hour for supervising the other barristas, I think you will see mass resignations.

    From Overlawyered
    I am a Barista at Starbucks. The comment about the judge is interesting. I wonder if she (as managemnt in the courts system) would clean the the toilets and mop the floors as the "shift superviosrs" at Starbucks that she just dumped on do?


    Given that the average tip rate is $1.71 an hour, this would mean that "shift supervisors" would get less than those with fewer responsibilities. And as for late hours, when the "shift supervisor" is the only barrista on duty, they'll have to prohibit tipping altogether.
  • RepubAnon · 1 year ago
    Interestingly, those "supervisors" probably aren't really managers under federal labor law. Do they spend more than 50% of their time doing non-managerial things (retail environment - non-retail requires 80%)? If not, they aren't "managers" for purposes of federal wage and hour laws.

    Starbucks is caught in a cleft stick - on the one hand, supervisors can't split tips with the employees. However, if they aren't really managers, they are entitled to overtime pay rather than a fixed "salary."
  • jr · 1 year ago
    "let the market regulate itself"-millionaire CNBC anchors while the apple of their eye treats employees like serfs
  • Rachel Luxemburg · 1 year ago
    I am a former Starbucks barista, and I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that "shift supervisors" absolutely deserve to be in on the tip pool.

    They get about $1 or $1.50 an hour more than baristas for the privilege of being able to open the store safe, tell people when to take their breaks and lunches, and hold the key that lets them override errors or give refunds on the cash registers. They are not true managers. They spend better than 90% of their time doing the exact same job as baristas do. They've earned their tips.

    The salaried managers are a different story, but they weren't in on the tips anyway.
  • concerned voices · 1 year ago
    I would like to know who to talk to in regards to a wrongful termination by Starbuck's Coffee Company. On December 7, 2008 Heather Louviere was the closing shift supervisor at Starbuck's on 1171 West Carson Street in Torrance, California. While she and another associate were closing the store and cleaning up inside and outside their store, a man in a mask brandished a weapon and proceeded to rob them and the store @ 12:05am. Heather was forced at gunpoint to open the store safe and the robber escaped with hundreds of dollars. The company gave Heather time off to deal with this trauma.

    On December 15, 2008 she returned to work as scheduled. While at work, the District Manager, Pam Thompson, was at the store with the store manager, David Ramirez, and told Heather to take the rest of the day off because she was obviously still traumatized by the event. However, this was after they had told Heather that she violated company policy by not having the doors locked after the posted closing time of 10:00pm on the night of the robbery. They also told her that the furniture outside should have been put away ten minutes prior to closing. Along with that, they also told her that no trash should be put outside after dusk. Heather inquired as to how that is possible when David had told store partners not to put away furniture until after 10:00pm. Not only that, but there were only two employees, including Heather, working at the store after 9:40pm. The employee who left at 9:40pm was a minor and could not work any later lest he violated company policy of maximum hours of work for minors. Heather repeatedly called and texted her manager David and her assistant manager, Regina Anderson, over her concern of having only two people closing, both of which are women, and still having to close the store and performing all closing duties. Neither manager would come out and help because they were busy with their families. Additionally, there were still 4 to 5 customers at 10:00pm ordering drinks. So how is it possible to close a store, clean up and lock doors prior to the 10:00pm closing time? The surveillance footage can show this. However, Heather not wanting to cause a scene left for the day.

    Heather returned to work at her scheduled time today, December 17, 2008 at 11:00am. Her manager fired her today for violating company safety and security policy. The paperwork that was given basically states that it was her fault that the store was robbed. It had nothing to do with changing policies to suit each individual store; managers not scheduling the proper amount of people for running the store. Let me add that this store is in a strip mall area that is dark and at their closing time, they are the only store open.

    I cannot understand a company firing someone for having their store robbed. Why are there no night managers on the premises? How can one get fired if they are complying to a robber's demands while at gunpoint? Are you supposed to kick all remaining customers out because its 10:00pm and you need clean up? What's to say that if they finished cleaning up that they still would not have been robbed as they did the final lock up of the store? It's seems as if Starbuck's is looking for a scapegoat for their inconsistent policies and regulations and chose a shift supervisor because she didn't close up on time. Please let me know if I am wrong for thinking that this company and their policy enforcements are construed and inconsistent?

    Can someone give this some press coverage?

    Thank you,
    Paul and De Anna Hernandez
    Concerned parents of Heather Louviere
  • john · 11 months ago
    As a recent manager of Starbucks, I sympathize with what has happened to your daughter. And unfortunately, it is a no-win situation for her. Up here in Northern California, it is a (unwritten) standard that we open stores 10 mins prior to posted time and close 10 mins after posted time. Meaning a shift sup. could recieve displinary action for failing to meet this expectation. Under security and safety guidelines, no trash should be brought outside when it is dark, yet under operational standards, there should be limited trash after close. Recently, the labor standards were changed at Starbucks, essentially crippling the non-peak hours. During this timeframe, the work of 3 employees must be done by 2 and they are still accountable for its entire completion as well as any one offs the manager may need them to do (ie merchandising and visuals). I have come to realize most of the things that made me want to work for Starbucks, was an illusion controlled by whoever had the most authority at the time. Many documents that are written to guide the workplace are subject to very loose interpetation even though it is clearly written. From what I have seen, a manager can terminate employment of any direct report if they so chose with very little documentation as long as they are in good standing with the Partner Resources Manager (internal name for HR). And these same managers are able to blatenly violate Starbucks code of conduct and disregard their "guiding principals" with no accountability or remorse.