* Found on-line, somebody's "forcing workers to share tips with supervisors", implying the the supervisors are not workers at Starbucks. Who writes such stuff, may I ask any reader. Could this be inciting all the workers of the world to unite against something ? Just see what fits the pattern, the reader, just see what fits the pattern.

* "Laura Ho, who tried the baristas case, said the court's verdict follows state law." What is the text of the law ? where is the newspaperman to inform on such detail ?

* "I feel vindicated," Chou [the complainant] said in a written statement released by attorneys. "Tips really help those receiving the lowest wages. I think Starbucks should pay shift supervisors higher wages instead of taking money from the tip pool."
(this and the above found on-line in an article attributed to Associated Press).

By other reports, which so far as I know no party to this row had ever denied, the tips are being shared equally between the employees present.

If I am not mistaken on this count, then the store does not take anything from the tip pool but the computation is being done on a simple and seemingly equitable basis — and the statement attributed to the complainant is plainly false.

    So far as I know the supervisors receive somewhat higher wages. If I am not mistakent on the count, then the statement attributed to the complainant of there being something done "instead" of something else is another statement plainly false.

* On the wisdom of "San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett" one cannot really opine, not knowing the particular law had been applied. What is all this about ?

Where is the Press to inform one on such things ?