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

More | Report Post

Let me ask the question again so you might understand the question.
Sorry about the typos.

Why do you insist on citing California rulings without including the
opinions of a judge who was clearly in dissent?

Please also explain how the courts can base a ruling on such an
erroneous assumption as "in leaving a gratuity, a diner rewards for
good service no matter which one of the employees directly servicing
the table renders it,”

Maybe some customers do. But to base a ruling on the assumption that
every customers rewards for good servide no matter which one of the
employee directly servicing the table renders it is a bit of a
stretch, isn't it?

You have harassed me for assuming that the a tip given me is intended
for me alone, and yet not one word of criticism towards the judges
who have assumed that customers don't care if the courts give their
tips over to business owners.

On 4/05/09, George wrote:
> Why do no refuse cite differing opinions?
>
> In one memorable case, Leighton v. Old Heidelberg (1990) 219 Cal.
> App. 3d 1062, the court was called upon to decide whether a
> restaurant, in firing a waitress for refusing to share her tips
> with the busboys, violated a statute declaring that a tip is the
> property of “the employee or employees to whom it was paid.”
>
> Answering that the restaurant did no wrong, Lillie, joined by
> Woods, explained that in leaving a gratuity, a diner “rewards for
> good service no matter which one of the employees directly
> servicing the table renders it,” and that nothing in the law
> prohibits an employer from determining how a tip should be
> distributed, “as long as the employer does not pocket it.”
>
> Johnson, in a vigorous dissent, argued that mandatory pooling of
> tips “is just a disguised way of requiring waiters or waitresses to
> pay the market salaries of busboys and bartenders,” and has a huge
> impact on wait staff who depend on tips for the bulk of their
> income.
>
> The court, he argued, should have deferred to the view of the state
> Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which said that tip-
> pooling arrangements violated the Labor Code unless voluntarily
> agreed to by the employees.
>
> “The law must be as vigilant in its protection of the property
> rights of ordinary working people as it is of the property rights
> of the largest corporation or the wealthiest landowner,” Johnson
> wrote. “How would the courts react if a private person unilaterally
> decided to divest a business of a fifth of its earnings and hand
> them over to another businessman? Or to chop off a fifth of a
> landowner’s holdings and give the land to her neighbor?”
>
>
> One last question.
>
> Aren't property rights a Consitutional issue?