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

More | Report Post

In a landmark decision the courts ruled that anti-tipping laws
would be in violation of state privileges and immunities clauses
and went on to rule that such a statute would violate the due
process provisions of the U.S. Constituition and the freedom of
contract provisions of the California constitution. What the courts
basically ruled was that citizens of the United states can spend
their money as they see fit.

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).

My question for this forum is,

Wouldn't laws that suggest that customers cannot tip an individual
worker be an anti-tipping law and as such in violation of state
privileges and immunities clause along with violations to due
process and California's freedom of contract provisions?

While several judges across this country have suggested and ruled
that state laws deem tips to be the property of all those who
provide service to the customer, wouldn't such an interpretation
suggest that such laws prohibit a customer from tipping an
individual worker?

How can a customer tip an individual worker when state laws are
being interpretted as entitling others to the customer's tip.

Just as it has been ruled that there was no
reasonable grounds for allowing employers to accept tips and
prohibiting employees from accepting tips when "engaged in like
services", wouldn't there also be no reasonable grounds for
allowing a group of employees to accept tips and prohibitting an
individual from receiving tips when engaged in like
services?

The point I am making is, when judges rule that the customers tip
can be pooled by an employer so long as it shared with workers who
provide service to the customer, customers are denied their right
to tip just one or two specific workers. As a result customers
cannot tip an individual worker for the courts have basically
deemed their tip to be property belonging to all those workers who
provide service to customers.

While the courts suggest that they are simply interpretting state
laws, the truth of the matter is, state laws would not and could
not be construed as prohibitting customer's from spending their
money as they see fit. And yet customers are being prevented from
tipping whom ever they like by rulings which suggest state laws bar
them from such. Customers are being prevented from spending their
money as they see fit by a law that the courts say deems their tips
to be the property of a certain group of workers.

There is clearly something fishy going on here.

On 4/08/09, George wrote:
> 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?