    
george
New member
Username: george
Post Number: 341
Registered: 05-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 | | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 01:44 pm: | |
In the case of Old Heidelberg it was stated:
Third, an employer-mandated tip pooling policy is one of common sense and fairness, and protects the public, the employees and the restaurant employer. The public leaves a tip for those employees who actually service the table, and has a right to expect that those employees receive the gratuity to the exclusion of the employer. Under the tip pooling arrangement in this case, there is no way in which a gratuity can be appropriated by the employer either for himself or to make up part of an employee's wages; and, [219 Cal.App.3d 1071] in the spirit of the purpose declared in section 356, no fraud can be perpetrated "upon the public in connection with the practice of tipping."
There is even more fraud being perpetutated against the public. A customer who intends to tip an indiviual is being defrauded with no recourse. The public who leaves a tip for those employees who actually service the table expecting that those employees receive the gratuity to the exclusion of the employer are having laws or judgements passed which infringe on the rights of those of the public who leave a tip for an individual. While protecting the rights of those of the public who leave a tip for an individual does not infringe on the rights of those who wish to leave a tip for those employees who actually service the table, errantly protecting the rights of those who wish to leave a tip for a group of employees denies the public who wishes to leave a tip for an individual of their rights to do so. The public who the courts have suggested intend to tip a group of employees such as those employees who actually service the table have every means, right and ability to physically present tip to each individual of the group if it is their desire to tip several workers. To imply that tips should be viwed as that which is intended for those who service the table not only denies those who wish to tip an individual of their rights to do so it also denies those customer who wish to present a tip to those who do not service the table of their right to do so.
The courts by proclaiming that tips are intended for those employees who service the table have allowed businesses to deprive the public of their right to determine who will be the recipient of their tip. Such actions by the courts have only fostered the fraud which their laws set out to prevent. There clearly is no common sense or fairness in this judgement for it is in direct violation of the 14th amendment of our constitution which guarnatees that all citizens will be afforded their liberty to determine for themselves who the recipient of their tip should be.
|