A disturbing recent trend in corporate America
A disturbing recent trend in corporate America is the practice of shifting payroll responsibilities over to the server. Traditionally, bussers and bartenders have been payed out from server tips, which is only appropriate considering they too are directly involved in the providing of the service .
Recently, others too such as sales departments, host,
managers and even outside supplier and purveyors have been added
to that list. This attempt to shift operational cost to the worker is both unethical and illegal. This year Starbuck’s lost a case when it assumed it could use their barista’s tip jar to pay their operational cost, mainly their management’s pay. How can a company issue payroll from income they have not declared in their revenue statements? If that practice occurred, is that misreporting information to the SEC and the company’s shareholders? Even if no tax laws or accounting practices were violated, other issues arise, especially in the definition of existing wage and employment laws. Many current laws are base on clearly defined relationships and responsibilities. When these roles are changed the individual’s responsibility changes as well. Since a server may pay additional operational cost, does minimum wage laws still apply? What then is the definition of this employment relationship, "subcontractor", "consultant" or even "partner"? Corporate American can’t have it both ways. I encourage all server’s to continue question these trends. We often hear about the shrinking middle class. Considering the service and retail sector is largest employer, we as service professional have a opportunity to make a changes for all Americans.
Speaking of …., now comes another big, embarrassing
dispute for the coffee chain starbucks. A former barista filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court in Manhattan, accusing
Starbucks of cheating thousands of baristas in New York State by
giving a share of their tips to shift supervisors. Lawyers for
the barista, Jeana Barenboim, of Brooklyn, point to a state law
that says no employer or agent of an employer can accept,
directly or indirectly, part of an employee’s tips. The
lawsuit was inspired by a ruling two weeks ago in which a state
judge in San Diego awarded $105 million to baristas throughout
California, finding that the company had improperly allowed shift
supervisors to share in the tip pool. At the more than 7,000
Starbucks coffee shops across the United States, the baristas
leave out a tip jar. The workers pool the money each week, then
the shift supervisors and baristas typically divide that money
based on how many hours each employee worked. Maimon
Kirschenbaum, one of the lawyers who brought the case in New
York, said, “We’re making literally the same pitch as was made in
the California case, that Starbucks let the shift supervisor
partake in the tip jar.” He is asking a federal district judge
to make the case a class action on behalf of all baristas in New
York State. The $105 million award in California stung the
Seattle company’s management team at a time when sales in the
company’s shops have dropped for the first time ever; Starbucks
is even closing some of its shops. In a voice-mail message to
employees last week, Howard Schultz, the company’s chairman and
chief executive, called the California ruling “extremely unfair
and beyond reason.” “I want to personally let you know that we
would never condone any type of behavior that would lead anyone
to conclude that we would take money from our people,” Mr.
Schultz said. Starbucks said it would appeal the California
verdict, asserting that the shift supervisors do work much like
rank-and-file baristas. In New York, Starbucks has been hit by
other problems. The Industrial Workers of the World is pushing to
unionize many Starbucks shops in New York City. Last April, the
National Labor Relations Board charged Starbucks with breaking
the law 30 times in fighting the unionization effort. Daniel
Gross, one of the leaders of the unionization drive, said that
after the California ruling, baristas in New York began debating
whether shift supervisors should share in the tips. “It’s a
very divisive issue,” he said. “A lot of baristas feel that shift
supervisors are part of our team, that they’re absolutely on the
floor with us, making drinks. Others don’t feel that sense of
camaraderie with them.” Liberté Locke, a barista at the
Starbucks on Union Square East, admits feeling torn over the
issue. “On one hand, Starbucks sees them as management,” she
said. “They handle the cash. They handle the keys. They lock the
doors. They run the stores when managers are away. They have
power to discipline baristas through performance reviews. But on
the other hand they are paid significantly less than the other
managers, and they often work along side of us.” She added:
“So part of me feels that they should be able to receive part of
the tips. But under the language of the law, I feel they
shouldn’t receive tips.” Ms. Locke said that she is paid
$10.03 an hour after three years on the job, while one shift
supervisor she works with makes $10.25 an hour after three years
with Starbucks. Several baristas estimated that they receive
between $1.20 an hour and $1.80 an hour in tips. the lawyers
said, “The fact that shift supervisors are underpaid doesn’t mean
that baristas should bear the brunt of that.” Last month in a
federal lawsuit in Houston, Starbucks reached a settlement for an
undisclosed amount with 350 assistant managers who asserted that
they were required to work off the clock. Starbucks faces similar
lawsuits in Florida and California.