I think the bottom line is that Courts are walking back the old rule, and they are hanging their hats on some interest “facts” to do it, and I think the distinction you’re not seeing doesn’t exist apriori, just in Starbuck’s own policy. In other words, you’re correct. There is no obvious distinction in the abstract.

Which is why I say it’s perilous to duplicate this situation unless they really are only titular supervisors and you have a strongly equitable policy like Starbucks did.

why a tip jar (subject to distribution to supervisor) differs from a tip tossed on a restaurant table (subject to only pooling but not to supervisors) eludes me.

the opinion noted starbucks’ workers could freely pocket any tip handed to them personally. do restaurant tips handed to the server fall outside of the scope of restaurant tip pools? can a server keep any money handed to them directly by a customer, or can an employer require these funds to be pooled (as I thought)? the opinion suggests the fact workers could keep “personal” tips helps distinguish the common nature of the tip box (in addition to the fact that supervisors and workers performed common tasks).

however, that a 4″x4″ unmarked plexi box near the register is some sui generis not-before-seen money-thingy rather than an express tip pool isn’t obvious to me (I’d thought the traditional rules — no sups — would apply).

tossing money in a box or on the table after a meal generally means I want to reward the chain of (I’ll go with that, rather than just “direct”) service; I don’t understand why a box-fed slush fund differs from the cash swept up from a table by a server/busperson after the meal.

the individually-handed v. common tip has some intellectual attraction (e.g., workers can keep anything directly given to them by a patron but must pool anything not directly given a person), as it directly relates to customer intention. however, despite the recent opinionS giving weight to the supposed intentions of customers, they allowed the employer (or the court) to guess these, or to estimate what the bulk of customers intend, rather than to seek out individual intents in the thousands of daily tip transactions.

I think the personally-handed-by-customer (no pooling; no taxing by supervisors) v. left-behind-by-customer (pooling; distribute to everyone in the chain) (and whether in a box or on a table) distinction would more accurately handle the individual intents.