Don’t you dare tell me who is or isn’t entitled to my tip.

Your suggestion that tips are given for the whole experience not just who takes the orders, is a blatant lie. Maybe your tip is given that way, but my tips is not intended as you say. I expect to be able to decide who my tip belongs to.

Here’s the problem with your way of tipping. No one knows how much each of these workers is entitled to. You might as well throw your tip on the floor.

My way is, I tip who a want, what-ever amount I want. This way it is clear as to how much belongs to that employee.

Your way actually hurts the employees because none of them have any kind of proof to substantiate what amount of your tip belongs to them.

My way designates who my tip belongs to and what amount belongs to them. I physically hand the worker of my choosing an amount I want them to have. Isn’t that proof enough that my tip belongs to them?

You, on the other hand, want someone to read your mind and guess correctly at how much of your tip you want the waiter to have. Then guess again at what portion of your tip you want the busboys to have, Then again, guess at how much you want the hostess to have. Then again, guess at what amount you want the bartender to have. Then again, guess at what amount you want the dishwashers to have. Then again, guess at what amount you want the cooks to have.

Geof, what you are suggesting is that no one should be able to legally claim the money a customer presents a worker because customers, like yourself, don’t want that employee to have the entire tip.

I’ll tell you what, save us all a headache and stick your tip up your a**.

What good is a tip if no one knows who it belongs to?

You know as well as I do that viewing tips as that which doesn’t belong to the employee who was presented the tip only serves to aid employers in stealing those tips for themselves. You know as well as I do, if tips are viewed as that which is intened for others, besides the employee who was presented the tip, none of the employees will have any way ot prove what amount they are legally entitiled to.

Your arguments are transparent. You want tips regarded as something no one can claim as their own. That way, employers can steal the tips customers are presenting their employees.

Tips must be regarded as that which belong to the individual whom physically received the tip. If tips are not regarded this way, there will be no possible means to substantiate who the tip belongs to and what amount belongs to them.

Customers, like yourself, must be admonished for expecting that your tips be divided up among workers. Unless you leave a detailed explanation of how your tip should be divided up, the employee who you presented your tip should have every legal right to keep it as their own.

Those tips are given for the whole experience not just who takes the orders. They never were yours alone from the beginning.

What cannot be denied is that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has allowed business onwers to take possession of the tips customers present workers in the service industry. Without any consent, what-so-ever, from tipping customers like myself, the courts are illegally giving over our tips to business owners.

While the courts suggest that the employees who we tip are giving over our tips to their empoyer, I will not believe such when every year more and more employees come forward testifying that they have not agreed to give their tips over to their employer.

The reason it’s called employer required tip pooling is, the employees have not agreed to pool their tips. The employees have not agreed that tips will become their employers property and customer’s have not agreed that their tips will become their employer property. But in the end, tip are now the employer’s property, thanks to the Ninth Circuit.

Wouldn’t you call it stealing?

It’s seems to me that tips are the property of the employee in some instances but in other instances where we have an employment agreement suggesting that tips become the property of the employer, now tips are not the property of the employees at all, and now we have an agreement that says they are not the property of the employee.

Is the Ninth Circuit refering to CFR 531.52? It states,

Whether a tip is given and it’s amounts are matters detemined solely by the customers and generally he has the right to determine who shall be the recipient of his gratuity. In the absense of an agreement to the contrary between the recipient and a third party, a tip becomes the property of the person in recognition of whose service it is presented by the customer.

The problem is, there was no employement agreement submitted as evidence in this case. Cumbie was in court because she didn’t think she agreed to such an agreement. She didn’t think it was even legal for her to agree to such a ridiculous agreement. She was in court to explain that she was forced into the agreement.

Employers are currenly extorting these agreements out of their employees. If you don’t agree to let us control your tips, your not going to work here.

Another problem is, CFR 531.52 DOES NOT state, as the Ninth Circuit has suggested, that sometimes the customer’s tip becomes the property of the employer. What it states is that, it is the sole right of the customer to determine whether a tip is given.

Now lets look at how federal regulations define that which is not a tip. CFR 531.55 addresses amounts received from customers which cannot be considered tips. What CFR 531.55 explains is that tips which are turned over to the employer are considered the employer’s property and cannot be considered tips.

Was the Ninth Circuit refering to CFR 531.55 when the Ninth Circuit stated that where we have an employment agreement suggesting that tips become the property of the employer now tips are not the property of the employees at all, and now we have an agreement that says they are not the property of the employee?

Here is the problem with suggesing that CFR 531.55 substantiates that tips can become the property of the employer by way of an employment agreement between the employer and his employees.

CFR 531.55 is not in regards to employment agreements between employers and their employees, in the normal sense. The employment agreements CFR 531.55 is in concerns to are employment agreements between the customer and hotel that provide banquet facilities and which could, theoretically, include amounts for distribution to employees of the hotel or amounts which must be credited or turned over to the employer. In either case, the customers is aware and consenting to the tips becoming the employer’s property to control.

While the Ninth Circuit has suggested that empoyers can enter into an agreement with their employees which would, in effect, deprive customers of their right to determine who will be the recipient of their tip, CFR 531.52 along with CFR 531.55 actually support and substantiate a much different opinion.

While CFR 531.55 suggests that negotiations or employment agreements between customers and a business can result in tips becoming the property of the employer, CFR 531.52 clarifies that the customer must be aware and consenting, by stating that whether a tip is given is a matter detemined solely by the customer.

If, as the Ninth Circuit has suggested, tips may become the property of the employer without any consent, or acknowledgement that such will be the case, from the customer, then CFR 531.52 would not have stated that whether a tip is given is a matter determine by the customer.

CFR 531.55 cannot be suggesting that employment agreements between a normal employer and his employees can result in tips becoming the employers properrty because as CFR 531.52 explains whether a tip is given is a matter determined solely by the customer.

If employers could simply enter into an agreement with their employees which stipulates that tips will belong to the employer, then business owners, rather than the customer, would have the right to determine whether a tip is given or whether addition income for the employer is given.

When CFR 531.52 states that whether a tip is given is a matter determine solely by the customers, it contradicts and thus rules out any notion that an employer can enter into an arrangement with his employees where tips will not be given and that instead additional income for the employer will be given.

What this would suggest is that Cumbie’s employer has a right to determine who the customer’s tip belongs to,
even though customers have not authorized Cumbie’s employer to appropriate their property in such a manner.

The truth of the matter is, only those customers who presented such tips are authorized to decide whether or not their tips belong to Cumbie. Where does this judge get off pretending that he has somekind of authoriy to decide who the customer’s private property belongs to?

Federal regulations, CFR 531.52 clarify and substantiate the fact that it is the right of the customer, not Cumbie’s employer, not judge O’Scannlain, to determine whether a tip is given, it’s amount and who will be the recipient of his tip.

Judge O’Scannlain apparently thinks he is authorized to determine whether or not customers are giving their tips to the waitress or her employer.

Where does this guy get the idea that he has been authorized to govern the customer’s private property?

Judge O’Scannlain went on to quote CFR 531.52 as support for his ruling by suggesting that CFR 531.52 gives employers a right to determine who will be the recipient of the customer’s tip. The judge suggested that Cumbie had agreed to let her employer take contol and posssession of the tips and that CFR 531.52 substantiated that such arrangements were legal.

The truth of the matter is, Cumbie didn’t agree with a third party that tips wouldn’t belong to her as CFR 531.52 suggests could interfere with the customer’s right to determine who will be the recipient of his gratuity.

Instead, Cumbie had no choice. Cumbie’s employer mandated such an agreement. Either give her tips over to her employer, or find a different job.

You see, what this case comes down to is whether or not Cumbie agreed wtih her employer that tips wouldn’t belong to her when she accepted the job. While Judge O’Scannlain stated in court that Cumbie had agreed that her tips would, in essence, belong to her employer, Cumbie was right there in court to dispute such a claim.

The truth of the matter is, Cumbie could not have entered into an employment agreement stipulating that her tips would not belong to her.

Federal regulations, CFR 531.56 clarifies that fact that when Cumbie accepted the job, she had no legal claim to any tips yet. Therefore Cumbie, could not have agreed, as Judge O’Scannlain suggested, that her tips would belong to her employer.

CFR 531.56 states,

Individual tip 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. The fact that he is part of a group which has a record of receiving more than $20 a month in tips will not qualify him. For example, a waitress who is newly hired WILL NOT be considered a tipped employee merely because the other waitresses in the establishment receive tips in the requisite amount.

So Judge O’Scannlain lied when he stated,

Tips presumptively belong to the server unless there is a contract between the employees and the employer, Judge then states “which we have here”.

The truth of the matter is, there was no contract produced as evidence in this case.

The truth of the matter is, even if there had been somekind of agreement at the time of Cumbie’s hire, CFR 531.56 substantiates the fact that such an employment agreement would have no merit due to the fact that Cumbie had no legal claim to her tips yet. Cumbie couldn’t have agreed that her tips would belong to her employer because she had not yet qualified as a tipped employee or one who is legally entitled to enter into an agreement concerning the customer’s tip.

The Cumbie ruling errored in so many ways.

Federal laws state that nothing in this section, section 203(m), shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.

Federal regulations define “THE POOLING OF TIPS” as where employees practice tip splitting, as where the waiters give a portion o THEIR tips to the busboys.

The Ninth CIrcuit’s ruling is exactly the misconstuing of federal law that section 203(m) prohibits.

How can the waitresses practice tip splitting when the Ninth Circuit has construed section 203(m) to where the tips don’t belong to the waitresses?

How can the waiters give a portion of their tips to the busboys when Judge O’Scannain has misconstrued federal laws to where tips don’t belong to the waiters?

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is in direct violation of section 203(m). It is a construing of section 203(m) that prohibits those employees who customarily and regularly receive tips from pooling or governing their property.

You see, what the courts have refused to acknowledge, is the fact that the “pooling of tips”, as referenced in section 203(m), is a governing of private property.

When section 203(m) states that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the “pooling of tips” among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, what it is explaining is that, due to our Constitution, employees who customarily and regularly receive tips cannot be prohibited from govening the tips customers present them, just as no citizen of this country can be prohibited from governing and enjoying the use of their private property.

This Judge should be locked up in prison for aiding and abetting in the theft of private property. That’s all this case amounts to. What was given to Cumbie. now belongs to Woody Woo.