Why is there a law in California stating that No employer shall take all or any part of the tips presented by customers?

Wouldn’t such acts by an employer be stealing?
Whouldn’t such acts by an employer be illegal? Isn’t stealing someone’s private property a crime in this country?

What California Labor Code 351 proves is that our judicial system has become so corrupt that our elected officials must write additional laws in their attempt to stop blatant corruption.

When our legislators have to enact special laws explaining that it is illegal for someone to steal someone else’s private property, it should be evident that there is a huge problem in our justice system.

If our justice system had been working properly, states like California wouldn’t have had to enact a special law to prevent employers from stealing the tips customers present, would they?

The fact that California has a law explaining that employers are prohibitted from taking the tips customers present workers in the service industry is proof that the courts are so corrupt that a special law had to be passed to insure that judges would not continue ignoring such crimes by employers.

The result, however, is, employers are free to steal the customer’s private property. No laws can get in the way of our judicial system, They can and will twist any law you throw at them.

Just think about it, Why do we have to write a special law to prevent business owners from stealing the customer’s private property, his tip? Shouldn’t this problem have been settled years ago when employers first attempted to steal the tips customers were presenting their worker?

This whole situation just cries out, please someone straighten these judges out before they destroy our country? There are leash laws for dogs, do we need them for judges too?

I agree that this law is useless because it states that employers cannot take our tips but creates a situation where there is no way to prove if they are breaking the law or not. They will be able to manipulate their workers and make a larger profit off of tips without any consequences.

When you give your tip do you expess exactly how you want your tip divided? Do you explain that you want the waitress to keep 50 percent and that you want the cook to have 50 percent of your tip? The reason I ask is that you seem to think it is reasonable to expect the waitress to know how you want your tip divided up. I think if you want to tip both the waitress and the cook, then it should be your responsibility, not the employer’s or the waitress’s responsibility to divide your tip the way you want it divided.

How can you expect people to read your mind and correctly guess at not only who you want to tip but what amount you want each to receive?

Why simply hope that they share when you could simply give each a tip and not have to worry about whether or not they shared your tip.

The thing is, I respect your right to tip both the waiter and the cook. Why don’t you respect my right to tip only the waitress? When employers mandate tip pooling, customers like myself are stripped of our right to tip an individual of our choosing. While such practices could be viewed as a practice which simply attempts to accomodate customers such as yourself who want to tip several workers, such practices deprive customers like myself of our right to determine who our tip should belong.

Do you understand what I am saying. Employers shouldn’t be allowed to pool the tips of customers who want to choose for themselves who they are tipping. By allowing employers to require tip pooling, customers like myself are prevented from determining who should receive our tip. If employers where prohibitted from requiring tip pooling, customers such as yourself would still be able to tip several workers.

The point I am making is that while an allowance of employer mandated tip pooling strips customers such as my self or our right and ability to determine who will receive our tip, prohibitting employers from mandating tip pooling would not infringe on your rights to give several workers a tip.

Allowing employers to require tip pooling directly interferes with the customers right and ability to determine who he is tipping. If employer required tip pooling where properly viewed as a violation of state law, all customers would retain the right and ability to determine who their tip belongs.

While you suggest that tips should be shared, why don’t you just share your tips yourself and keep your thoughts to yourself about how my tips should be shared.

When I go to restaurant I do not give my tip just for the waitress but to cook for great food and hope they share

(sorry, not good writer it has been long time since i write)

The word take is defined as to get into one’s hands, possession, control, etc., by force or artifice.

Legally, take is defined as to obtain control, custody, or possession of often by assertive or intentional means b : to seize or interfere with the use of (property)

While state laws clearly explain that an employer shall not take, collect or receive any part of the gratuities paid, given or left for an employee by a patron,

California judges are blatantly lying and ruling that employers who collect and approptiate tips through the use of a tip pool are not violation state law.

Why are judges being allowed to lie about the meaning of the word “take”?