Re: Response to Conanylizer
Posted by sharwinsotn on 4/27/09
no, man.... only Y-O-U care. nobody else cares, man -- NOBODY! On 4/27/09, George wrote: > Why do we have labor laws passed for public reason if as you say, no > one cares? It doesn't make sense to me sharwinston. Apparently the > public does care. > > California labor code clearly intructs that gratuities are hereby > declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom > they are paid, given or left for. > > What I would like to know is how a judge can rule that gratuities are > the the property of all workers in the chain of service when Califoria > labor code specifically instructs that gratuities may be paid, given or > left for an employee, singular? Because the labor code was passed for > public reason, it is my contention that judges should not be defining > who the customer's tip is paid, given or left for. It is my belief that > California labor code 351, specifically instructs that the right to > determine who gratuities are paid, given or left for is a matter solely > to be determed by the public and that the public's reasons for tipping, > which would include determining who they tip, should not be interpreted > or assumed by the courts. > > Wouldn't the fact that such code is passed for public reason suggest > that judges should not be imposing their own personal views on the > interpretation of such a law? Wouldn't the fact that such code is > passed for public reason suggest that the public, rather than the > courts, should be deciding who their tip is paid, given or left for? > > > > > On 4/25/09, sharwinston wrote: >> nobody cares, man.... nobody! >> >> On 4/23/09, George wrote: >>> Well no wonder why I become rude and agressive. >>> >>> Everyone seems to want to dik with me instead of discussing the >>> issue. >>> >>> It's like you are all afraid to actually discuss the issue for >> fear >>> you'll look like the terd. >>> >>> What an honor to meet such a mind screwwer. You must have a really >>> high IQ. I am glad to see you are putting your godlike mental >>> prowess to such a good use. >>>
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip. , 1/27/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 2/03/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 2/09/09, by Terry.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 3/11/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 3/12/09, by lawguy.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/05/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/05/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/05/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/05/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/06/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/08/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/08/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/15/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/22/09, by Conanalizer.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/22/09, by George.
- Re: Customer's right to determine who is entitled to his tip, 4/22/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/22/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/22/09, by Conanalizer.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/23/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/25/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/27/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/27/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/27/09, by sharwinsotn.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/28/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 4/28/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/01/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/02/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/03/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/07/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/19/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/19/09, by Chewtoy.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/20/09, by George.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/23/09, by sharwinston.
- Re: Response to Conanylizer, 5/24/09, by v.
- Re: Response to v, 5/27/09, by George.
- Re: Response to v, 5/30/09, by sharwinston.
|