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

More | Report Post

Let's look at the issue from an unbiased perspetive.

A customer, let's say you, give a worker a tip. Why shouldn't he
assume that it is entirely for him? Did you, the customer, tell him
it was not entirely for him? Couldn't you the customer seek out
others you might wish to tip and tip them to insure they receive
their tip? How can the employee assume that you want others to
share in your tip? How can the employee figure out who you might
have wanted your tip shared with? Couldn't you have informed the
employee that the tip was not entirely for him and explained who it
was intended for?

It is utterly ridiculous to assume that someone who is given a tip
shouldn't view it as his own, especially when cutomers don't have
to tip. If you don't want a worker to think that the tip you give
him is his and his alone, then don't give him a tip. If you want
your tip shared, then share it yourself. If you think the employee
is being prusumptuous for viewing your tip as his sole property,
then don't tip him. If you truly believe that a worker should be
able to read your mind and know that the tip you give is not solely
intened for him then, maybe, just maybe, your expecting a little to
much in return for your tip.

On 4/05/09, George wrote:
> 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.