Jimmy Jo Meeker

Starbucks Stops Paying the Rent

On the other hand, when a customer tips an employee, he is
"paying" that employee, and Starbucks should not be allowed to
tell a customer who he can, and cannot give a gift to. So, in this
case, the court was right, and should move to fine Starbucks, or
arrest the person who violated the court injunction, for that would
be morally correct. The point is, you decide for yourself what is
right, and what is wrong, but the question is, will you decide
correctly? Having known that the tip would have been shared with
the "shift manager" the "customer" might have decided to wait until
the waitress had left the building, or tipped her "under the table".
Of course, maybe the waitress didn't really want the tip that badly,
and was happy taking a percentage while passing the rest on to
her "shift manager"? Does this sound like "prostitution" (sales) to
anybody else? I think I should have put more thought into this
blog post before hitting the "send" key.

Starbucks Stops Paying the Rent

Another commented that Starbucks management should at lest comply
with
a court injunction rather than act as if they are "above the law". How can
you be physically above an abstraction? Besides, will you do evil because
a court orders you to? Do you want to burn in hell? Godly people SUBMIT
to authority: SUBMIT means be willing to obey, and not obey. See
Daniel 12, KJV. Also, Acts 5:29, KJV. You ought to obey God rather than
men. OUGHT means "moral obligation", as in "debt", and not "should".
A person who submits to authority is willing to obey, but might not. In my
opinion, the court injunction ordering Starbucks not to share tips with
others is immoral, because Starbucks should be allowed to decide how
to compensate their own employees. Or is government now going to do
payroll, as well as collect taxes?

Anyway, the main problem Starbucks faces is one that McDonald's does
not face: McDonald's tries to make sure that they own the property upon
which their restaurants sit. Landlords may keep raising rental costs such
that they absorb all the profits that would have gone to Starbucks. At
some point Starbucks will have to start buying real estate to avoid this
escalating rental cost structure. For landlords are collecting what could
go to shareholders as dividend income, or to the company as retained
earnings. The "partners" are competing with shareholders, customers,
and the Company itself.