Re: Response to Conanylizer
Posted by George on 5/19/09

The injustice of the situation is, when an employee
receives a tip from a customer, his employer is now
able to take the tip away from him with the excuse
that it might have been intended for someone else.

Imagine someone stealing what another person has
given you and when you go before a judge, the judge
looks you straight in the eye and says "what was given
you wasn't intended for you, therefore I must rule
in favor of the party who took what was given you.

Judges are ruling that tips given an employee are
not intended for the employee who was given such tips.

Do you understand what I am saying? Do you really
think a man should be stripped of his property
due to an opinion by a judge that those providing
such property really didn't intend for him to
have the property?

Where is the proof? Where is the evidence to back
up such a claim? If the customers who gave the tips
were there in court testifying that they did not
intend for the worker to keep their tip, then I
might be able to understand the judge's ruling.
But to simply assert that those giving such tips did
not intend for the employee to have the tips, without
any evidence to support the opinion, is an injustice
that cannot be defended.

No man should be subjected to a tyranical justice
system where evidence has no place in the courtroom.

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.