I imagine Mr. Pink doesn’t tip at Starbucks. Hell, I don’t “tip” at Starbucks. Occasionally, I don’t feel like having 30 cents clanging around in my pocket all day, so I throw it in the tip jar. But there’s only so much I can pay for a cup of coffee in good conscience.

Apparently, there’s a lawsuit kicking around the New York Court of Appeals over who owns the tips at Starbucks. The baristas are fighting to keep control over the jar and not share the tips with assistant managers.

It’s kind of sad. At this point, why not just dump the tip jar out on the floor at the end of the day and watch them fight over it…

The Starbucks decision could have a significant impact on the hospitality industry in New York. Here’s a report from CBS News:

The Court of Appeals was asked by a federal court to interpret New York’s labor law and its definition of an employer’s “agent,” who is prohibited from tip sharing.

On one side are low-level baristas who serve customers and share tips weekly based on hours worked. On the other side are assistant managers who don’t get any gratuities and want some. In between are shift supervisors with limited management responsibilities who serve customers and also share tips.

Starbucks — which thinks that its assistant managers should not get tips — points out that their assistant managers are salaried full-time employees with performance-based bonuses. Lawyers for the assistant managers argue that they are not “agents” because they don’t have hiring and firing capabilities.

I feel sorry for these people, I really do. They shouldn’t have to fight over loose change. I do think that assistant managers are in the wrong; they get bonuses, and they knew damn well their jobs were not “tips” jobs when they signed up.

But this does, you know, illustrate a little bit of what Quentin Tarantino was getting at when he wrote that bit for Mr. Pink. Society somewhat arbitrarily decides which people get tips and which people don’t. It’s not like you are tipping your Starbucks barista for his or her specific skill and talent in pouring your coffee. Instead, you’re slavishly giving a billion-dollar corporation loose change because they put a freaking jar on the counter. I can see why the assistant managers want a cut.

Of course, if the assistant managers win, hospitality personnel will come out of the woodwork wanting tip money, and “mandatory gratuity” will go up. Middle-class customers will get screwed a little more, to help out lower-class service employees, who can’t otherwise get a living wage from their employers.

You know what I think?

“I’m very sorry the government taxes their tips, that’s f**ked up. That ain’t my fault. It would seem to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government f**ks in the ass on a regular basis. Look, if you ask me to sign something that says the government shouldn’t do that, I’ll sign it, put it to a vote, I’ll vote for it, but what I won’t do is play ball.”

N.Y.’s top court to decide who can tap Starbucks’ tip jars [CBS News]

• How Not To Answer the ‘Order to Show Cause That You Shouldn’t Be Disbarred’
• By All Means, Allow Law Students and Grads to Work for Free
• About Two-Thirds of Parents Want Their Kids to Be Lawyers (Relatedly, About Two-Thirds of Parents Don’t Read the News)

The amendment says that an employer conducting an investigation may require or demand access to a personal account if an employee or prospective employee has allegations of work-place misconduct or giving away an employer’s proprietary information. The amendment would require an investigation to ensure compliance with applicable laws or regulatory requirements.

Under the amendment, employees would be present when their social network profiles are searched and whatever information found is kept confidential, unless it is relevant to a criminal investigation.

This amendment "says they have a right to enter your digital home," [Dave] Maass said. "It's astounding that they would try to codify this and that all employers could do this… the national trend is to move away from this. It's shocking that the amendment is going in the right opposite direction."

It has become clear that the only limiting factor on how much value I am to a case is how much responsibility I am given: the more responsibility I am given, the better the outcome. I am in kind of an uncomfortable position at the firm because although I am a “first year,” I have 15 years business and real world experience, as much as many senior associates. When I first got here I did not know what to expect, but after working here for several months now it has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met.

After conquering Silicon Valley, he decided to take his talents in a new direction, and in 2007 began law school at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia, PA

Mr. Berry’s communications were, as Ms. Conroy knew, entirely proper under the duties of his employment. Upon information and belief, refusing her project nonetheless angered Ms. Conroy and she lashed out by maliciously "reporting" Mr. Berry's e-mail to Mr. Marks.

Such vindictiveness is outside the scope of Ms. Conroy’s employment.

Complaining to Mr. Marks had no purpose other than to harm Mr. Berry and interfere with his employment.

Although the new law will reportedly prevent potential bosses from checking out a candidate's Facebook page, it will allow them to look at sites that are expressly intended to help people sell themselves to future employers, such as the business-oriented social networking site LinkedIn. Information about the candidate that is generally available on the Internet is also fair game. In other words, employers are allowed to google potential hires. Companies may not be allowed to use information if it is too old or if the candidate has no control over it, however.

Startups are a wonderful thing, but they cannot by themselves increase tech employment. Equally important is what comes after that mythical moment of creation in the garage, as technology goes from prototype to mass production. This is the phase where companies scale up. They work out design details, figure out how to make things affordably, build factories, and hire people by the thousands. Scaling is hard work but necessary to make innovation matter.

The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that's the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs.

Scaling used to work well in Silicon Valley. Entrepreneurs came up with an invention. Investors gave them money to build their business. If the founders and their investors were lucky, the company grew and had an initial public offering, which brought in money that financed further growth.

Today, manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is about 166,000 -- lower than it was before the first personal computer, the MITS Altair 2800, was assembled in 1975. Meanwhile, a very effective computer-manufacturing industry has emerged in Asia, employing about 1.5 million workers -- factory employees, engineers and managers.

There's more at stake than exported jobs. With some technologies, both scaling and innovation take place overseas. Such is the case with advanced batteries. It has taken years and many false starts, but finally we are about to witness mass- produced electric cars and trucks. They all rely on lithium-ion batteries. What microprocessors are to computing, batteries are to electric vehicles. Unlike with microprocessors, the U.S. share of lithium-ion battery production is tiny.

That's a problem. A new industry needs an effective ecosystem in which technology knowhow accumulates, experience builds on experience, and close relationships develop between supplier and customer. The U.S. lost its lead in batteries 30 years ago when it stopped making consumer-electronics devices. Whoever made batteries then gained the exposure and relationships needed to learn to supply batteries for the more demanding laptop PC market, and after that, for the even more demanding automobile market. U.S. companies didn't participate in the first phase and consequently weren't in the running for all that followed. I doubt they will ever catch up.

Consider this passage by Princeton University economist Alan S. Blinder: "The TV manufacturing industry really started here, and at one point employed many workers. But as TV sets became 'just a commodity,' their production moved offshore to locations with much lower wages. And nowadays the number of television sets manufactured in the U.S. is zero. A failure? No, a success."

I disagree. Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs, we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry.

Consider the "Golden Projects," a series of digital initiatives driven by the Chinese government in the late 1980s and 1990s. Beijing was convinced of the importance of electronic networks -- used for transactions, communications and coordination -- in enabling job creation, particularly in the less developed parts of the country. Consequently, the Golden Projects enjoyed priority funding. In time, they contributed to the rapid development of China's information infrastructure and the country's economic growth.

We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars -- fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability -- and stability -- we may have taken for granted.

"The bottom line is they were not in tune with what their customers wanted and what the world was demanding of them and I think it hurt them significantly."

So when you hear about "stealing intellectual property," a term that may have little meaning to you, think about it as a means of contributing to unemployment and harming our economy.