Thanks for the chuckle.

I rarely buy coffee (not really my cup of tea, wot?), and when I do it's always just regular coffee.  I feel no compulsion whatsoever to tip someone for pouring coffee from an urn into a takeaway cup, and making change.  

I've always been a good tipper, however, when a tip is warranted.  Pouring me a cup of coffee isn't tip-worthy...nor is selling me a pack of smokes, or any such-like transaction.

But if you aren't a regular, continue being a dick.

Frankly, though, I'm still not convinced that it is.  But I'll definitely pay attention to what the other customers are doing the next time I visit one.

Hey, take it up with the dicks who decided a cup of coffee should cost more than $2.  I am also the kind of dick who doesn't much care for barista chit-chat, even if it gets me my cup of coffee 30 seconds faster.

Hey, take it up with the dicks who decided a cup of coffee should cost more than $2.

Exactly.  

The only place I tip for coffee is my local neighborhood joint because I sit there for hours on end on weekend and use their free wifi.  They also come by and pick up my dishes.

I think some people tip because of a feeling that the baristas should be subsidized by our tip dollars.  However, working in an industry which is notoriously low paying, I have a sinking feeling that their baristas get better than the starting salary in my industry.  I know for a fact that some of Starbuck's managers get paid more than mid-management in my industry. When random strangers start tipping me for the service I do for the public through my industry, I will tip the baristas.  

I tip because I appreciate the effort the workers are making.  Yes, they get paid an hourly wage, but they get that no matter how lousy they are.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say anything about why you tip.  I was just generalizing.  So hope you weren't offended.

Owners get the profit from their enterprise.  They shouldn't be taking money out of the pockets of their employees, any more than their employees should be stealing from the till.

Owners get the profit from their enterprise. They shouldn't be taking money out of the pockets of their employees, any more than their employees should be stealing from the till. I agree, but I don't think you get it - what I'm saying is, what about the times when the owner is the only person who's doing customer service at that point? There's a coffee shop I go to in town where the owner and his wife basically run the place during the day (with no one else working, just the two of them), and then at night they hire someone else to man the counter. They have a tip jar on the counter all day. Should I tip if I go at night, but not during the day? Should the owner give the daytime times to the night shift workers, even though they never stepped foot in the place during the day? If the owner is the only one who is interacting with the customer I don't see how this is "taking money out of the pockets of their employees" - especially when in many small businesses there are no employees in the first place. Here's another example - my barber owns and operates his own establishment. It's just him - he has no employees. Does that mean I should not tip him for good service? If he hires another person, but continues to cut hair (which is pretty common - usually one guy owns a barber shop and then sort of rents out the other chairs to other barbers who don't have the startup capital), does that mean that I should tip if one of the other barbers cuts my hair, but not if the owner cuts my hair?

If the owner is personally tipped by a customer, then that is his money.  If the money goes into a pool, then it isn't, any more than the profits of the enterprise belong to the staff.

If the owner is personally tipped by a customer, then that is his money. If the money goes into a pool, then it isn't, any more than the profits of the enterprise belong to the staff.

Alright, I can handle that answer. That pretty much makes sense to me - I don't think we're very much in disagreement. If I owned a place where a lot of tipping went on, that's the formula I would use.

It appears in CA at least owners are barred from dipping into the tip till.  I agree, this seems a bit weird as you can easily imagine situations where the owner is actively serving customers as a waiter, host/hostess, or cook.  In small businesses it's rare that an owner can just sit around and pay somebody else to do all of the work for her.

One wonders if the CA law has an exemption for taxi drivers, as they are often one man corporations.  As the only employee, and owner, are they barred from taking customer tips?

"I agree, this seems a bit weird as you can easily imagine situations where the owner is actively serving customers as a waiter, host/hostess, or cook.  In small businesses it's rare that an owner can just sit around and pay somebody else to do all of the work for her."

Speaking as someone who used to date a waitress, she only made $1.85/hr in regular wages.  Everything else came from tips.  Since there's no interstate commerce involved in a local restaurant, minimum wage laws don't apply.  Meanwhile, the owner's son, who occasionally worked as a manager, was driving a new Corvette and a regular at the nightclubs.  Should he have had a right to the tip jar?  Fuck no.  

I don't care for the "tipping" system of paying, but that's the norm.  Shit service gets 10%, average service, 15%, better service, 20%, and exceptional service (take the time to come over and talk to us), 25%.

I'd be glad to see the whole system go away, but I doubt it's going to happen in my lifetime.  

there's only one way to find out...

Meanwhile, the owner's son, who occasionally worked as a manager, was driving a new Corvette and a regular at the nightclubs. Should he have had a right to the tip jar? Fuck no.

I don't think you or JimmyHavock are getting what joshv and I are saying. In a case like that I think we would both agree (sorry to speak for you joshv) that the son would not have a right to tips. The question is, if the owner is actually serving customers (which is exactly the Starbucks shift supervisors were doing - they serve customers just as often as anyone else working there), then does he or she deserve to be tipped? Let's say the owner's wife waits tables and gets tipped - should she take that money at the end of the night and give 100% of it to the other waitresses to split among themselves? According to California law, as I understand it from this case, that is what she would be required to do, but that doesn't seem right to me.

"The question is, if the owner is actually serving customers (which is exactly the Starbucks shift supervisors were doing - they serve customers just as often as anyone else working there), then does he or she deserve to be tipped?"

I'll grant you that.  If they're doing all of the work, they probably deserve a share of the tip jar.  It's just that I so seldom see that in the places I frequent.  Who decides when and where the managers get a share of the tip jar?  

there's only one way to find out...

Let's say the owner's wife waits tables and gets tipped - should she take that money at the end of the night and give 100% of it to the other waitresses to split among themselves?

The profits of the restaurant come from the efforts of the staff.  Should the owner's wife split the profits with them?

The profits of the restaurant come from the efforts of the staff. Should the owner's wife split the profits with them?

No they shouldn't, because they're already getting paid for those efforts (particularly if we're talking about a coffee shop, where they're paying at least minimum wage). I'm not talking about the owner collecting all the tips and dividing them up at the end of the day - I'm talking about a situation where the owner is directly waiting on a customer, and the customer directly tips the owner. In that situation, do you think the owner is obligated to refuse the tip, or what? I want to know your answer to that question, and I also want to know if you would tip at an owner operated barber shop. Answer me.

I think he already answered that question downthread:

http://www.treesandthings.com/comments/2008/3/21/143539/916#26

Illegitimi non carborundum.

yeah, I didn't see that until I had already posted (actually, I think he posted it right about the same time I started writing my reply, so in fairness to me, when I was composing my thoughts he hadn't actually said it, yet).

Almost as soon as I posted my comment I saw your comment pop up.  Great minds, or something like that, I guess.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

By mandating that supervisors get a percentage of tips, Starbucks is paying them out of the tip jar.  Starbucks should be paying their supervisors a wage good enough that they don't need the tips, not expecting to get by with paying them $9.75/hr by letting them take a portion of the barista's money.

The legal question at hand is that "owners and agents" are not allowed to dip into the tip till, at least in CA.  I fail to see how a supervisor, making a little more than a regular barista, and doing essentially the same sort of work, constitutes an "owner".  If you can make this mental leap, perhaps you could share your logic.

You forgot half of the formula: "owners and agents."  The supervisors are not owners.

"You forgot half of the formula: "owners and agents."  The supervisors are not owners."

I don't claim to know the legal definition of an "agent", but I seems that it could be stretched to mean any employee, if it means a hourly supervisor whose job is substantially similar to those he supervises.  From a legal perspective I am sure the judge has his reasons, but from a moral perspective I don't see how a hourly supervisor who does the same job as everyone else, shouldn't be entitled to a fair share of the tips.

The supervisor is supervising (assigning stations), and thus is an agent of the owner.  The owner should pay him enough that he doesn't lose income by not getting a share of the tips, instead of paying him out of the tip jar.

The supervisor is supervising (assigning stations)

I think this is probably the best underpinning for the sort of moral argument joshv is asking for. If a supervisor is assigning stations, then he or she has the ability to influence the amount of work done and also (potentially) who will get what as far as the tip allocations are concerned. In such a situation there is an inherent power imbalance, whereby the supervisor could take any number of actions to rig the system so more tips flowed his or her way than to the other workers. It just seems that from a common sense perspective that any person who might have the power to unilaterally influence the allocation of tips probably shouldn't be drawing from that tip pool.