In theOnpast 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.
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.
Showing 1-1 of 1
I'm not sure about California, but in KC there is not a large division between Shift Supervisors and Baristas. Just like Baristas, KC Sbux Shift Supervisors are on the front lines- they work the registers, the work the bar, they mop the floors, deal with angry customers, take out the trash etc. etc. etc. *In fact, the Shift Supervisors seemed to be the only ones that would wash the maggots out of the trash cans at my Sbux.* The real division comes at the Assistant Manager level. So please, no hateration towards Shift Supervisors/Baristas. Save your hate for the suits in Seattle who have no clue what it's like to work in the trenches at Starbucks.
Mal, former Starbucks Barista and Shift Supervisor
like
dislike
