Let the Games Begin

There is breaking news on this summer’s salmonella outbreak. At first the Centers for Disease Control thought the bacteria was coming in on tomatoes, so stores and restaurants pulled tomatoes from the shelf. Then after ruining this year’s tomato crop for farmers, the CDC announced that no, it wasn’t tomatoes, it was actually Serrano peppers from Mexico that were to blame.

Me, I kept eating salsa. Over 1300 people came down with salmonella poisoning during this outbreak. But I would guesstimate that over 130 million people ate some combination of tomatoes and/or peppers during the time period between the start of the outbreak and the location of the source of contamination. So the odds of getting salmonella were about the same as the risk of being stung to death by killer bees, and only a little riskier than being ripped to pieces by a pack of dogs. Most of us don’t build our lives around avoiding bee stings and dog bites.

I don’t want to make light of salmonella. One of my coworkers got it a couple of years ago, and he said he remained curled around the toilet for three days, because there was no point in going anywhere else. He wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemy. About one in five of the people who came down with the stpaul strain involved with this outbreak were hospitalized.

Well, one of the hospitalized people has hired an attorney. And who has the attorney sued? Not the CDC, for missing the source during the initial investigation. Not the farmer, who was the actual source of contaminated produce (how much money could a Mexican pepper farmer have, anyway?). No, no, the attorney has sued Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart sold this guy the peppers that made him sick.

This attorney actually has a practice dedicated to suing companies based on food borne illnesses. According to the press release, his position is that Wal-Mart should have known that the peppers had salmonella and prevented them from being sold. I guess that Wal-Mart is supposed to check every box of produce from every source for every possible contaminant and pathogen.

I fell for the guy who got sick, but suing the supermarket is not the answer. If this suit is successful, what’s next? Suing the supermarket for selling honey and dog food?

Bad Law I, Starbucks 0

Here's a quiz for you: Next time you pop into Starbucks for an infusion of caffeine and ambience, take a fast look at the staff working the store. Now, quick: who's the boss? Is it the person running the expresso machine, the person running the register, or the person grinding coffee in the back? Thinking back on my recent visits to my favorite coffee emporium, I honestly couldn't tell you. Sometimes I've gone in and found only one person working the store. I guess that he's the one in charge on those occasions.

This matters because in California, there is a law that says that members of management cannot share in pooled tips. Last week a judge in San Diego ruled that Starbucks had violated this law because they had allowed shift supervisors to share in the tip pool. The judge slapped the company with a fine of...$100 MILLION dollars (when I say that I'm tempted to touch my pinkie to the corner of my mouth, ala Dr. Evil).

I think this decision is wrong for a couple of reasons. First of all, it perpetuates the us versus them view of the workplace that runs contrary to the way a lot of top performing organizations function these days. Think back to your experience of Starbucks. If you cannot tell who the boss is, it's because everyone is working. There's no foreman there behind the counter. Think of a football team. The quarterback may run the plays, and he may get paid better than the linebackers. But no one ever gets confused that the quarterback isn't playing the game as a member of the team.

I don't know many specifics about how Starbucks runs their stores, but I suspect that the shift supervisors are not really what I would consider management anyway. Managers have hire and fire authority. Managers schedule the associate's work shifts, and formally review the other team member's work performance. If the Starbucks shift supervisor does not do these things, it is hard to consider that person as a manager.

Finally, this judge's decision irritates me because it takes away my ability to make up my own mind. When I'm standing there with a latte in one hand and my change in the other, thinking about whether to put the change in the tip jar or back in my pocket, just who am I tipping? More often than not, I'm rewarding the worker who jumped in where needed to keep the line moving, or the worker who showed the newbie how to run the coffee grinder. Before last week, I didn't even know that Starbucks had shift supervisors, but I'll bet there the ones who set the tone for the whole experience.

And this judge just ruled that I shouldn't be allowed to tip them.

Let's hope Starbucks wins on appeal.