Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

tip pooling Texas

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh good grief - you're back again?
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #17
      And your opinion, GMoney, should be given special consideration because?

      I'm not getting into this with you again.
      I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

      Comment


      • #18
        Good grief, it's George. He posts his tip pooling diatribes on any legal board he can find and has been doing it for years.

        George, as someone recently responded to you on another board, nobody cares.

        Comment


        • #19
          Response to Patty

          You asked,

          And your opinion, GMoney, should be given special consideration because?

          Most other opinions are contradicted over and over by federal regulations, statutes and common sense.

          It is my belief that an opinion should have some statutory support or evidence to back it up. Mine does. It is also my belief that an opinion should be one where common sense and reasoning also support it. My opinion is supported by common sense and reasoning.

          For intanse, why in the world would a law suggest that the DOL should determine who is entitled to the customer's tip? Aren't tips the customer's private property? Doesn't our constitution support the idea that customer, like all citizens of the United States of America, are supposed to be afforded their liberty to spend their money however they choose?

          I do not beleive that it is reasonable to assume that when federal law states that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly recieve tips, that what they are suggesting is that certain types of workers are legally entitled to a share of the customer's private property, his tip, and that as such, the pooling of tips among those determinined by the DOL cannot be prohibitted. I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that a federal law would authorize the Department of labor to infringe of the liberty of the customer in such a manner.

          Do you?



          Thank you for responding Patty.

          Comment


          • #20
            You have been posting this all over the internet for several years now. I think we are all well aware of your views. However, whether you like it or not, your views and opinions have not been codified into law, and even if you managed somehow to convince everyone here on the board of the "rightness" of your opinion it would not change the law.

            If you want to try to convince your Congressman and other elected officials of your position, feel free. But continually boring us with your thoughts is doing neither you nor us any good.

            Please, go away. Before I'm tempted to MAKE you go away.
            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

            Comment


            • #21
              Federal Regulations

              My opinion is codified into federal regulations and laws.

              My opinion is that tips belong to the person presented such a tip. My opinion is that no employee should have his tips taken away from him so his employer can use the tips to compensate other workers.


              Federal law suggests that all tips are to be retained by the employee, singular, who receives the tip. Section 203

              Federal regulations,CFR 531.52 explains that "Only tips actually received by an employee as money belonging to him which he may use as he chooses free of any control by the employer, may be counted in determining whether he is a "tipped employee" within the meaning of the Act and in applying the provisions of section 3(m) which govern wage credits for tips.

              This same regulations clearly states that.
              A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for him. It is to be distinguished from payment of a charge, if any, made for the service. Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined solely by the customer, and generally he has the right to determine who shall be the recipient of his gratuity.
              Please note that this regulation totally contradicts the opinion that the DOL should determine who is entitled to a share of the customer's private property, his tip.

              Federal regulations, CFR 531.53 defines tips as that "which an employee keeps as his own"

              Another regulations, CFR 531.54, explains that tip pooling is where the waiters give a portion of "their" tips to the busboy.

              Another regulation, CFR 531.56 explains that "individual receipts are controlling" and that "an employee must, himself, receive tips customarily and regularly".

              The point I am making is, an opinion which suggests that certain types of employees are entitled to the customer's tips and as such may participate in a tip pool which shares the customer's tip is not codified in federal laws or regulations. In fact such an opinion is contradicted by such laws and regulations, not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
              Last edited by G money; 05-30-2009, 09:48 AM. Reason: additions

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by G money View Post
                The point I am making is, an opinion which suggests that certain types of employees are entitled to the customer's tips and as such may participate in a tip pool which shares the customer's tip is not codified in federal laws or regulations. In fact such an opinion is contradicted by such laws and regulations, not to mention the U.S. Constitution.
                Yet another deliberately false statement brought to us by G money. If one actually looks at the actual FLSA law, one finds the following:

                Section 3(m)(2)
                ... all tips received by such employee have been retained by the employee, except that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips
                .

                And when one looks at the regulations that G money claims supports his position, one finds the following.

                29 CFR 531.54 - Tip pooling

                Where employees practice tip splitting, as where waiters give a portion of their tips to the busboys, both the amounts retained by the waiters and those given the busboys are considered tips of the individuals who retain them, in applying the provisions of section 3(m) and 3(t). Similarly, where an accounting is made to an employer for his information only or in furtherance of a pooling arrangement whereby the employer redistributes the tips to the employees upon some basis to which they have mutually agreed among themselves, the amounts received and retained by each individual as his own are counted as his tips for purposes of the Act.


                ------

                Gee, how about that. Despite G money's assurances that tip pools are "not codified in federal laws or regulations", we seem to have no problem finding both.

                Hey G Money - if you are going to tell us lies, could you at least an effort to tell slightly plausible lies?

                I do not mind people lying to me, but I very much resent the apparent utter contempt you hold the people on this website in by thinking that we will fall for this tripe.

                Of course in fairness to G money, maybe he/she is an eight year old who just copied someone else's posting and does not actually know what any of the words or phrases mean. If so, that would explain a lot.
                "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                Comment


                • #23
                  What are you talking about?

                  Why are you suggesting that I am lying?

                  I stated that language suggesting that "certain types of employees are entitled to the customer's tips and, as such, may participate in a tip pool which shares the customer's tip" is not codified in federal laws or regulations.

                  If I am lying, then please show me the language that supports such a ridiculous idea.

                  What you have shown me is language which contradicts such a ridiculous opinion.

                  You stated,
                  Despite G money's assurances that tip pools are "not codified in federal laws or regulations", we seem to have no problem finding both.

                  I did not state that "tips pools" are not codified in federal laws or regulations. What I stated was, that "language suggesting that certain types of employees are eligible to share in the customer's tip" is not codified in federal laws or regulations.

                  I will simply respond by stating that you are mistaken. Please note, I will not respond as you have and call you a lyar.

                  While tip pools are codified in federal regulations, they include no language suggesting that certain types of workers are entitled to a share of the customer's private property, his tip.

                  The language of these regulations contadicts the idea that certain types of workers are entitled to a share of the customer's tip.

                  Please now explain what you think these laws and regulations, you have cited, mean.

                  You have provided citations and yet you refuse to clearly explain how they contradict my opinion.

                  Let's hear an explanation. What's your point?

                  You cited 203(m) along with CFR 531.54 and yet you failed to expalin how the language condradicts my opinion. I guess you just expect others to assume that such laws condradict my opinion and thus prove that I am a lyar.

                  Pretty weak argument DAW.

                  While you have supplied some language from federal law which states that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, it is ridiculous to assume that such a law is suggesting that certain types of employees are entitled to a share of the customer's private property, his tip. Only the customer can know who is entiled to his tip. The law would not infinge on the rights of the customer in such a manner.

                  Federal regulations condradict the idea that the language you have cited, which states nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, is suggesting that certain types of employees are legally entitled to a share of the customer's tip.

                  CFR 531.54 states that, A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in recognition of some service performed for him. It is to be distinguished from payment of a charge, if any, made for the service. Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined solely by the customer, and generally he has the right to determine who shall be the recipient of his gratuity.

                  Please note that the regulation does not state that tips are a sum presented by federal law. Please note that the regulation does not suggest that whether a tip is given and it's amount is a matter determined by federal law. Please also note that this regulation does not suggest that federal laws determine who shall be the recipient of the customer's gratutiy.

                  This statute, along with the others I have cited, clearly contradict the idea that federal laws and regulations, rather than customers, are authorized determine who is legally entitled to customer's private property, his tip. This statute, along with the others I have cited, clearly contradict the idea that federal laws and regulations, rather than the recipient of the customer's tip, is authorized to determine who may be included in the sharing of his tip.

                  While tip pools are codified in federal regulations, they include no language suggesting that certain types of workers are entitled to a share of the customer's private property, his tip.

                  I must reiterate, the language of these regulations clearly contadicts the idea that certain types of workers are entitled to a share of the customer's tip.

                  To reiterate but a few such regulation, CFR 531.53 clearly defines tips as cash sums, along with other types outlined in this regulation, which an employee keeps as his own.

                  If tips where to be considered the property of all those whom qualify as tipped employees, the regulations would not have stated that tips are sums which an employee keeps as his own, instead, the regulations would have stated that tips are sums which certain types of employees share in. This regulation clearly contradicts the idea that certain types of workers are entitled to the customer's private property, his tip. If certain types of employees where entitled to a share of the customer's tip, federal regulations would not state that tips are sums which an employee keeps as his own.

                  Likewise federal regulations such as CFR 531.56 would not state that "individual receipts are controlling. An employee must himself customarily and regularly receive more than $20 a month in tips in order to qualify as a tipped employee."

                  If federal regulations were suggesting that all those who receive tips from a tip pool are to be considered tipped employees the e regulation would, instead, state that, pooled receipts are controlling. An employee need not "himself" customarily and regularly receive more than $20 a month in tips in order to qualify as a tipped employee. It would go on to explain that such employees who receive tips from a tip pool will qualify as tipped employees.

                  But it doesn't state that. In fact, it clearly contradicts the idea that tips received from a tip pool are to be counted in determining whether an employee is a tipped employee by stating that individual receipts are controlling. It condradicts such an opinion further by stating that an employee must "himself" receive tips, not as a group.
                  Last edited by G money; 06-02-2009, 01:25 PM. Reason: wording

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Let's keep this simple

                    When you give an employee a tip, are you authorizing the employee to share your tip with whom-ever he choose or are you authorizng the courts to share your tip for you?

                    Do you really think that the customer's tip should be regarded as that which is given over to the courts to determine who it belongs to?

                    Don't you think customer's should be the ones determining who their tip belongs to, not the courts?

                    When employers are allowed to mandate tip pooling they are allowed to collect the tips so that they can be distributed to those whom the customer might have intended to tip. The problem is, once they are collected, the main evidence in proving who the customer intended to tip is destroyed. The main evidence is, who was the tip presented to. Isn't that enough to establish that that the employee who was given a tip was the employee the customer intended to tip?

                    Once the tip is mingled together in a tip pool, there is no way to substantiate who it was intended for and the courts must then take it upon themselves to quess at who customers may have intended to tip. However, if the courts were to rule that employer mandated tip pools are in violation of state or federal laws, there would be no need for the courts to take it upon themselves to determine who customer's intended to tip. That responsibility would fall squarely, and I believe correctly, on the shoulder's of the customer where it belongs.

                    What I am saying is, only because the courts have ruled that employer mandated tip pooling does not violate our laws is there currently a need for the courts to infringe upon the rights of the customer by determining who their tip belongs to. If the courts were to change their opinion and rule that employer mandated tip pooling is in violation of the law, customers, rather than the courts, would be responsible for determing who is entitled to their tip.

                    I guess the question is, who do you think should be responsible for determining who is entitled to the customer's private property, the customer, or a judge?

                    Do you really think employers who are allowed to distribute the customer's tip to all their workers are not going to eventually start paying all their employees $2,13 an hour like they are currently paying waiters and other who directly receive tips from customers?

                    Can you really not see what's going on here?

                    Business owners want to steal the financial benefit of the customer's tip. By pooling tips, employers are able to use the customer's tip to subsidize their payroll expenses. The more employees they can add into their tip pool, the less their payroll expenditures will be. The less their payroll expenditures are, the more money they can keep for themselves. The problem is, much of the money they are keeping for themselves is not intended for them, but instead is intended for a specific worker.

                    I guess no one cares. What's the difference if some of our citizens are being robbed on a daily basis. As long as it's not you being robbed, why should you care?
                    Last edited by G money; 06-03-2009, 02:09 PM. Reason: messed up again

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      This is getting really boring.
                      I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Response to Patty.

                        Please ask yourself these questions Patty.

                        If the pooling of tips is the sharing of the customer's tip, by an employer, among all those who provide somekind of service to the customer and not the sharing of the customer's tip by an employee who has customarily and regularly received tips directly from customers,

                        Then,

                        How much should each employee who provided somekind of service to the customer receive?

                        What factors are to be used in determining which types of employees provide enough service to be eligible for a share of the customer's tip?

                        What factor are to be used in determining the amount each participant is entitled to receive?

                        Federal regulations are completely silent on such issues.

                        Federal regulations do not state that tip pooling is where the waiters give the busboys 15 percent of the tips received. They don't state that tip pooling is where an accounting is given to the employer whereby the tips are redistributed to the employees in equal shares.

                        Federal regulations do not say that tips are a sum presented by a customer, however, the amount each employee will receive is to be determined by the employer.

                        If the tip pooling is supposed to be the pooling of tips by the employer and if tips are to be viewed as that which is to be shared among certain types of employees, why wouldn't federal laws explains what percentage each type of employee should receive?

                        The reason federal laws do not address who can be included in a tip pool and what percentage each may receive is because they intended that either the customer would decide such matters or an employee who was give a tip would decide such matters.

                        In both cases, such individuals have a constitutional right to determine such matters. If they want an employee to have a tip, they may give the employee a tip. If the want an employee to have a large tip, they can give an employee a large tip. If they want tips divided equally the customer can distribute his tip equally, If waiters want tips divided equally they can mutually agree to divide their tips equally.

                        You see, what federal regulations state is that tip pooling is where the waiters give a portion of their tips to the busboys. Clearly the amount they give the busboys is not addressed by federal law. The only reason I can come up with why federal laws wouldn't address what percentage the busboys are to be given is because those writing the law must have realized that only the waiters can know exactly what amount they want to give the busboys.

                        Likewise, federal regulations state that tip pooling is where an accounting is given to the employer for his information only or in furtherance of a tip pool.

                        Please note that federal laws do not state that tip pooling is where an employer gives an accounting of how the customer's tip will be distributed.

                        This same regulation goes on to state that such accounting is in furtherance of a tip pool whereby the employer redistributes the tips upon some basis to which they have mutually agreed among themselves.

                        Please note that the regulation does not state tip pooling is where the employer redistributes the tips upon some basis that the employer has decided.

                        Do you really think that the pooling of tips is that which totally contradicts federal regulations?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          George, we have all of us had quite enough of this.

                          We are all very well aware of your views; you need not continue to present them. You have not convinced us before now; it is unlikely you will convince us now.

                          Just so it's perfectly clear - I don't give two hoots what you believe. You are free to believe anything you like. But berating the other posters because they disagree with your position is not permitted.

                          You said a couple of posts ago that you guessed no one cares. You are quite right; we don't. Please take it somewhere else.
                          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Another misconception

                            Laborlaw77 has suggested what many people errantly believe to be true.

                            Many people have been lead to believe that if the employer is paying all employees minimum wages without "elect[ing] to use the tip credit....." the federal regs relating to tip poollng do not apply.

                            However, there is nothing codified to support such an opinion.

                            What this errantly suggests is that employers may take their worker's tips if they are not electing to use the tip credit. What this also errantly suggests is that federal laws do not protect the tips received by an employee unless a tip credit is being taken.

                            Federal laws clearly state that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.

                            Federal regulations go on to define "the pooling of tips" as where waiters give a portion of their tips to the busboy.

                            Now, if tips are not protected under federal law unless an employer elects to use a tip credit and, if employers may simply take their worker's tips and do what-ever they want with them as long as they are paying their workers minimum wage,

                            How could the waiter's give a portion of their tips to the busboy?

                            When one combines what federal laws state and how such terms are defined under federal regulations, it is clear that what federal Laws are stating is that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit waiters from giving a portion of their tips to the busboys.

                            My point is, if we go along with Laborlaw77's construing of the law, waiters would not be able to give the busboys a portion of their tips. The tips would basically belong to the employer.

                            Laborlaw77's misinterpretation of the law suggests that employers can share tips with who ever they like and that federal laws do not prohibit such.

                            However, such an interpretation is exactly the type of misinterpretation federal laws suggest cannot be construed from the law.

                            If federal laws were misconstrued as not prohibiting employers from taking the tips received by one of their employees, then waiters would not be able to give a portion of their tips to the busboys.

                            Clearly federal laws are explaining that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an employee who has received a tip from using his tips however he chooses.

                            By the way, employer mandated tip pooling prohibits an employee from using his tips however he chooses. One cannot say that employer mandated tip pooling is allowed under federal law due to the fact that such a construing of the law would prohibit the waiter, or employee, from giving a portion of his tips to other workers, such as busboys.
                            Last edited by G money; 06-05-2009, 09:44 AM. Reason: none

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              All right, I've had it.
                              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X