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

More | Report Post

Again, no answers, just more lies.

The thing is, you lawyers know there is something wrong here. The
opinions laid out in most tip pooling lawsuits are ridiculous.
That's why you refuse to discuss them.

There is obviously some reasoning behind these ridiculous rulings
that the average person is not privy to.

However, the bottom line is, there are lies being perpetuated in
an effort to justify rulings in favor of employer mandated tip
pooling.

For instance,

Customers don't care if they are deprived their liberty to
determine who is entitled to their tip.

Did you ask them?

Our judges are authorized to determine who is or isn't legally
entitled to the customer's private property, his tip.

Who authorized them?

Tip pooling is about fairness to the employees.

Is that why lawsuits concerning tip pooling have become an
epidemic?

Employees who provide service to the customer are legally
entitled to the customer's tip.

Is that why customer's don't have to tip them?

Tip pooling is legal only if certain employees are included.

Doesn't an employee have a right to share his tips with whom-ever
he likes?

The criteria for determining whether or not a tip pool is legal
is dependent on who is included.

Why wouldn't the criteria for determining whether or not a tip
pool is legal be dependent on whether or not it was authorized?
Aren't we talking about the appropriation of private property?

Tipping has nothing to do with the constitution.

Then why isn't it illegal? Obviously it's a headache for many
businesses. Look at Starbucks.

Oh that's right, it wasn't a headache until they lost the case.
And yet, Starbucks is still putting out a tip jar.

On 4/06/09, George wrote:
> Hey Sharwinston, have you ever heard of Dunahoo v. Huber. This
> case contradicts your assumption that tipping has nothing to do
> with the Constitution. In fact, it paints you out to be nothing
> but a liar.
>
> Here is a fact very few people know.
>
> In the early part of the 1900's several states passed laws
> prohibiting tipping. Here is how it turned out.
>
> Dunahoo v. Huber, 185 Iowa 753 (1919) (statute violates the
> state privileges & immunities clause because there was no
> reasonable grounds for allowing employers to accept tips and
> prohibiting employees from accepting tips when "engaged in like
> services".") Ex Parte Farb, 178 Cal. 592 (1918) (statute
> violates the due process provisions of the U.S.Constitution and
> the freedom of contract provision of the California
> constitution).
>
> Anti-tipping statutes were repealed in Arkansas, Mississippi,
> South Carolina and Tennessee in 1925, 1926, 1922, and 1925,
> respectively.
>
> I guess you are the one assuming here.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> On 1/27/09, George wrote:
>>> Does a customer have a constitutional right to determine
>>> who is legally entitled to his tip?
>>>
>>> If your answer is NO, please explain why a citizen of the
>>> United States should be deprived such liberty. Is there
>> any
>>> harm in allowing customers to determine who should be
>>> entitled to their tip?