Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip

More | Report Post

On 3/11/09, sharwinston wrote:
> No. Tipping has nothing to do with the Constitution.
> Explanation: Tipping has nothing to do with the Constition.
> Harm: No. Tipping has nothing to do with the Constitution.
>

yet, the intent of the patron appears to be the legal guidepost
for determining ownership of the tip. interestingly, the
employer gets to decide to whom the patron intended to leave
the money.

In the January "Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens" decision, a California
Court noted:

"We dare say that the average diner has little or no idea and
does not really care who benefits from the gratuity he leaves,
as long as the employer does not pocket it, because he rewards
for good service no matter which one of the employees directly
servicing the table renders it."

"At bottom, Lu’s [***and perhap's George's???****] entire
argument here is premised on his assumption that all of the
money a dealer receives in gratuities is that dealer’s personal
property. [An earlier case] found “erroneous,” the “assumption
that the entire tip left by the patron is the waitress’s
personal property,” ... because it is rarely obvious just which
employee a tip was intended for...."

Similarly, in the March "Budrow v. Dave & Buster's" decision, a
California Court wrote:

"It is in the nature of a tip pool that it is based on the
general experience of each particular establishment, that it is
only broadly predictive of the reasons for and the patterns of
tipping in that particular restaurant and that, in the final
analysis, this is the best that anyone can do. It is simply not
possible to devise a system that works with mathematical
precision and solomonic justice in each one of the millions of
transactions that take place every day."

"Section 351 provides that the tip must have been “paid, given
to, or left for” the employee. Given that restaurants differ,
there must be flexibility in determining the employees that the
tip was “paid, given to or left for.” A statute should be
interpreted in a reasonable manner."

"Ultimately, the decision about which employees are to
participate in the tip pool must be based on a reasonable
assessment of the patrons‟ intentions. It is, in the final
analysis, the patron who decides to whom the tip is to
be “paid, given to or left for.” It is those intentions that
must be anticipated in deciding which employees are to
participate in the tip pool."

so, you're right that it's not a constitutional issue. george
is also incorrect in that he thinks the problem is an unjust
system (well, it is that, but that's not the fix for george's
problem). what george needs to know is that the rules as they
exist aren't as he's interpreted them, but instead the law has
been interpreted in a way he doesn't like (to allow tip
pooling). that doesn't mean everyone hates him, or is corrupt.
that just means he's wasting everyone's time complaining about
the injustice. what he needs is a new law, or a new case
interpretation, rather than to moan.