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

More | Report Post

First question, how do you read the minds of each and every
customer and assertain who they might have intended to tip?

Second question, why would you attempt to read the minds of each
ane every customer when they have every right and ability to make
the intentions clear through their actions?

Do you undestand the second question? What I am asking is, since
customers can present a tip to, pretty much, anyone they like,
why do we need someone else deciding who it might be inteneded
for? When someone else decides who a customer intends to tip,
doesn't the customer lose his right to decide who he intended to
tip?

It is not I who is assuming here, it is clearly the courts who
are assuming. Case in point....

"We dare say that the average diner has little or no idea and
does not really care who benefits from the gratuity he leaves"

This is not only an assumption, it is a blatant lie aimed
specifically at justifing a corrupt ruling.

What the judge was saying was, customers who give tips don't care
if I, the judge, steal their tips and give them over to business
owners.

My argument is not premised on an assumption that all of the
money a dealer receives in gratuities is that dealer’s personal
property. It is premissed on the fact that if a customer didn't
want the employee to assume that all the money received was his
personal property, the customer could individually present tips
to each person he intended to tip, thereby relieving not only the
employee, but the courts, of the burden of reading the customer's
mind.

On 3/12/09, lawguy wrote:

> 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.