Re: Response to Conanylizer
Posted by sharwinston on 5/23/09
nobody cares, man........ nobody cares. On 5/20/09, George wrote: > If I am an idiot for not knowing that property is often > taken in court from those to whom it was given, then please > explain a case, other than one relating to tips, where > property was taken from someone in court without any > evidence to back up the ruling that such property should > be taken. My point is, shouldn't there be evidence to > support the taking of what someone has been given. Should > the legality of a taking really solely on the opinion of > judges? > > In one notable California case concerning forced tip > pooling, an employer was allowed to take tips away from > a waitress so that the tips could be shared among other > types of workers. Shouln't it be the restaurant's burden > to prove that restaurant customers intended that the tips > they have given are to be divided among the waiter, the > busboy and the bartender? > > If someone took your property, wouldn't you want the > courts to expect some kind of evidence to substantiate > that the taking of your property was legal? > > > On 5/19/09, Chewtoy wrote: >> On 5/19/09, George wrote: >>> 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.... >> >> We're back to the reasoned debate phase. What happened, your meds kick in? Get a >> revised 'script? >> >> 1. Property is often taken in court from those to whom it was given. Visit bankruptcy >> or family court to see property taken away.... All the time. You're an idiot for not >> knowing this, George. >> >> 2. You want a lawsuit over every tip (you idiot!)? That's why no one (no judge, not us) >> care about who wanted to give you (or anyone) any particular tip. We need a general >> rule. The courts have agreed the general rule is: almost no one cares who they tip. So, >> even if a particular tip was given to you, fk you, it goes into the pool. >> >> Want to jump to insults? Am I part of the conspiracy? Go fkursf. I ain't seen a dime >> from you, and you're not getting anything else. >> >> To all other non-George posters: sorry for responding; Chewtoy out.
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.
|