Be extra-nice to your Starbucks' barista today
By Owen Morris in News
Wednesday, Jun. 3 2009 @ 10:15AM
 |
The case was brought by a former barista named Jou Chau and ended up encompassing 120,000 former or current baristas who had their tips pooled. Breaking down the numbers, the original settlement would have worked out to around $800 per wronged barista.
Once you factor in legal fees and taxes and more legal fees who knows if the final amount would have even covered a cup of coffee, which is why many baristas don't seem that upset by the reversal. On the popular barista Web site Starbucks Gossip, reaction to the ruling was mixed. A commenter named Melody posted this:
In the past I had written long blog entries here trying to explain that I thought shift supervisors were NOT management based upon California code 351 read in conjunction with California decisional law ... I'm glad to see the court of appeals decision in favor of Starbucks. It is NOT the case that I support everything Starbucks does (I'm still frustrated with brew on demand/PPR problems) but this is a good result.On the opposite end are baristas hoping that the decision will be reversed again. Lawyers for Chau and the baristas said they're now "looking to the California Supreme Court."
Not that many baristas believe that would solve the problem. As one poster put it, "If the Supreme Court decides to even hear the case and overturns the appellate court's decision, Starbucks would just change the title of shift supervisor to something like 'lead barista.'"
"Shift supervisor" isn't a desk job; it often involves making espressos and running the register. It can be tough to tell a barista and a shift supervisor apart, which is why the appellate court ruled the way it did. Supervisor or barista, they still appreciate a tip.
1 comment(s) / Post a Comment
