I have been speaking out against employer tip theft for over 10 years. How long must I wait to see justice? Does anyone care?

Our hourly wages have systemaically been reduced to nothing through efforts by the federal reserve to promote a steady rate of inflation. Every year our wages become worth less and less as the dollar is intentionally devalued by our Federal Reserve. Our manufacturing jobs have went overseas and many of the jobs we are left with force us to beg for tips just to get by. On top of that, the tips we have been reduced to beg for are being stolen from us by our employers.

Is this the way we want our nation to treat it’s people?

When an employee receives a tip, it should be respected as his private property. If customers want others to have a tip, they should tip each one individually. This way there is no confusion over how much in tips each is entitled to. This way, our laws can actually protect the tips an employee has received.

When tips are errantly viewed as the property of those employees whom customers might have intended to tip, there is no way to substantiate who the tips belong to and what amount actually belongs to them. There is no way to protect an employee to the tips he has been given when we have no way to substantiate how much each one is entitled to.

If you tip an employee it should be regarded as his and his alone. This way we know exactly how much he is entitled to and his tips can be protected. If tips are erratnly regarded as that which belongs to all those the customers might have intended to tip, there is no way to substantiate who is entitled to the tip and how much  each is entitled to.

Simply put, if we refuse to regard tips as the property of the individual who was physically presented the tip, the customer’s tip cannot be protected from the greedy hands of business owners. Business owners can take tips away from an employee when tips are errantly viewed as that which does not belong to the individual who was given the tip.

In order to insure that the recipient of your tip is protected to your tip, tips must be regarded as the property of the individual you’ve chosen to tip, not the property of some vague and ambibuous group of workers whom you may have intended to tip. The vagueness and ambiguity of such a system  makes it impossible to properly protect those workers you;ve intended to tip.  

How can a waitress know who you want your tip shared with? How can a judge know who you want your tip shared with? How can anyone know exactly how you want your tip divided up?

The only way to view tips is to view them as the property of the individual who was physically  presented the tip. Any other view of tips leaves the ownership of those tips an impossible task to sort out.

For those of you who want your tip shared, just give your tip to the owner of the business. it’s going to end up in his pocket your way. You see, since you refuse to designate who your tip is for, the employer is going to use it to pay his employees who don’t normally receive tips. This way he can use your tips to save himself the expense of paying his employees higher wages. Those of you who want your tip shared are going to have your tip stolen because there is no way to substantiate who you wanted your tip shared among and how much you wanted them each to have. Since you have neglected to inform anyone of how you want your tips divided up, and since you don’t want the individual who you phyically presented your tip to lay claim to the tip you gave, the owner is free to use your tips to reduce his staffing costs. The more employees he shares your tip with, the lower his staffing costs will be. The lower his staffing costs are, the more the owner can put in his own pocket.

What’s to stop an empoyer from using your tips to simply pay all his employees when you refuse to designate who your tip is intended for and when you refuse to accept the idea that your tip belongs to the employee who you gave it to? All you are doing when you suggest that your tip should be shared is allowing the owner of the business to take it away from the employee whom it was presented. After it’s taken away, who else can prove it belongs to them? If no other employees can prove that they are entitled to a specific amount of your tip, then their employer is free to use it in a manner most beneficial to the employer.

While you may not mind the idea of the business owner helping himself to your tip, there are people in this country that don’t want business owners stealing their tips. Your rights mean nothing if it needlessly infirnges on the rights of others. If you want your tips shared, share them yourself. You can’t expect other people to give up
their rights simply because you”re to lazy and uncaring to designate who your tip belongs to. If you want business owners to pocket your tip, then give your tip to the owner, not one of his employees. For customers who don’t want business owners stealing their tips, they should be able to designate who their tip belongs to simply by physically presenting their tip to the person whom they want to tip.

You see, what many people suggest is that a customers shouldn’t be able to designate who his tip is intended for. Those who say tips should be shared are preventing customers from desiganting who their tip belongs to. Those who say designation of who a tip belongs to should be reliant on who the tips was physically presented to are in no way interfering with the rights of those customer’s who want their tip shared.

When tips are properly viewed as the property of the individual, customers who want their tips shared can have their way simply by dividing up their tips and presenting it to each employee they want to tip. The proper way to view tips does not interfere with their rights. However, when tips are errantly viewed as property which should be shared among all those whom the customer intended to tip, those customers who want to tip workers of their choosing are unable to do so.

It’s about personal rights. Every customers should have the right to decide, for themselves who their tip belongs to. When tips are errantly regarded as that which is not intended for the individual whom it was given, customers are deprived their right to determine who their tips belongs to. When customers are prevented from determining who their tip belongs to, business owners are free to steal the money for themselves.

That’s why business owners are paying off judges to rule that tips do not belong to the individual who physically was presented a tip. That’s why judges are making up lies and suggesting that all customers want their tips shared. That’s why judges are looking right into the eyes of a waitress and telling her that her tips do not belong to her.

I agree with your thought.Thank you for your sharing.

I have searched for over 15 years for a law that says this treatment of my tips is legal, however, I have not found one law that indicates that this treatment of my tips is legal. While both my state labor laws and federal labor laws mention tip pools, not one word suggests that it is legal for my employer to take my tips from me so that others can have an equal share of my tips.

Federal laws state,

29 USC section 203(m)
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. Is this supposed to be the law that says my employer can take part of my tips and give them to other employees?

Both tips and tip pools are defined under federal regulations. CFR 531.52 defines tips while CFR 531.54 defines tip pools. So do these regulations explain that my employer can take part of my tips away  from me and share them with other workers?Here are the regulations. If you see anything that suggests that my employer is allowed to steal my tips from me so that he can share part of my tips with other workers, please point it out to me.

§ 531.52 General characteristics of “tips.”
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. In the absence 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. 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.

§ 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.

Here is the thing. According to federal regulations, federal laws are stating that nothing is to prohibit me from pooling ”money belonging to me which I may use as I choose free of any control of the employe.”

According to federal regulations nothing is to prohibit where I and other employees “mutually agree on the basis by which our tips will be redistributed through a tip pool.”

My point is, while the regulations in no way suggest that my emplyer may take my tips away from me so that he can share them equally with other employees, the regulations DO explain that I can use my tips however I choose free of any control of the employer. The regulations DO explain that I can mutually agree on the basis by which my tips will be redistributed through a tip pool.

Again, If there is something here that I am missing, please point it out to me. Federal laws, in conjunction with the regualtions which define the terms used by the law,
totally contradict the idea that it is legal for my employer to take my tips away from me so he can use them to equalize the tip incomes of my co-workers and I.

And here is when corruption on a federal level bleeds over to corruption on a state level.

California labor code does not even mention tip pools. How can we even discuss tip pools without knowing what tip pools are?

Federal regulations define tip pools in great detail.

CFR 531.54 defines tip pooling as,

“Where employees practice tip splitting”

“Where the waiters give a portion of their tips to the busbly”

“Where an accounting is given to the employer”

“Where pooled tips are redistributed to the employees upon some basis which they have mutually agreed among themselves”

To better understand what “tip pooling” actually is, it is important to understand what tips are.

Federal regulations again go into great detail in defining what tips are.
CFR 531.52 explains, among other things, that under federal law, tips are that which is received as money belonging to an employee which “he may use as he chooses free of any control of the employer”.

While Califoria law addresses gratuities, Federal laws address tips. Therefore it is incorrect to suggest that Calfifornia laws concern themselves with tip pools because California Labor Laws concern themselves with gratuities, rather than tips.

Now back to the question at hand.

Who can participate in the tip pool?

Since California Labor Laws are silent on tip pools, we must turn to federal laws and regultions.

Before we can understand who can participate in a tip pool we should fist find out whether or not tip pooling is something certain people can participate in.

Again, federal regulations define tip pooling was where the waiter’s give a portion of “THEIR” tips to the busboy.

This definition of tip pooling seem to suggest that since tips are refered to as the waiter’s property, only the waiters should be determining who can participate in their pool.

Federal regulations go on to define tip pooling as where employees practice tip pooling. This definition seems to imply that tip pooling is something certain types of employees do rather than something certain types of employees may participate in.

Federal regulations go on to state that tip pooling is where an accounting is given to the employer. Again, tip poolijg is not defined as something certain types of employee may participate in, in fact, this definition of tip pooling seems to clarify that tip pooling is where employees determine who will receive a share of tips and what amount they will recieve from the pool. An accounting, as refered to in CFR 531.54, is where someone determines matters like who is receiving tips from the pool and how much each is receiving.

The regulation goes on to state that the “accounting” which is given to the employer is in furtherance of a tip pool whereby the employer redistributes the tips to the employees upon some basis by which they have “mutually agreed” among themselves.

So, according to federal regulations, tip pooling is where tips are pooled among those who have mutually agreed on the basis by which tips will be pooled.

Clearly tip pooling is not something certain types of employees may participate in. Instead, tip pooling is defined under federal regulations as something certain types of employees may practice. What this practice encompasses is determining such matters such as who will share in tips and what amount they will receive. The point I am making is, federal laws seem to indicate that tip pooling is the governing of tips.

Federal laws do not define tips as something certain types of employees are eligible to participate in, but rather, something cetain types of employee cannot be prohibited from doing. What federal laws state is that Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an employee who customarily and regularly receives tips from governing and thus pooling his tips.

The problem is, while federal regulations are clear on this issue, federal judges are ruling that employers are not prohibited from requiring tip pooling. That’s why the California judges are ruling that employers are not prohibited from requiring the pooling of tips.

While federal laws state clearly that nothing is to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, judges are totally ignoring the fact that “the pooling of tips” is defined under federal regulations as the governing of tips by an employee who customarily and regurly receives tips which federal laws cannot be construed to prohibit.

I guess federal judges are getting those free dinners too.

Just as California has laws which seem to protect tips as the property of the employee who was given a tip, federal laws also seem to protect tips in a similar manner

The problem is, while federel and most state laws appear to protect tips, our courts just can’t seem to interpret them in a way that actually protects workers to the tips they have been given.

For instance, while federal laws state that nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips, this law is being interpretted by the courts as a law allowing employers to pool the customer’s tip among who-ever he wants to share tips among.

While at first glance, most people would probably think this law is attempting to insure that an employee who customarily and regularly receive tip will not be prohibited from pooling the customer’s tip, the courts have twisted this law into a law insuring that employers willl not be prohibited from pooling the customer’s tip.

What is comes down to is, who is authorized to govern the customer’s tip in such a manner?

Who are you authorizing to govern your tips when you tip?

Do you want the employee to govern and thus enjoy your tip or do you want employer’s to govern and thus enjoy your tip.

Just like Califfornia’s judges, federal judges seem to want busines owners governing and thus enjoying, spending and benefitting themselves to the tips we customers present workers in the service industry.

They say that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. I guess if you give em enough free dinners, even judges will interpret the law anyway you want them to, even if it’s illegal. Oh, that’s right, it’s only illegal if a judges says it’s illegal. My Bad….

When Ms. Leighton stated that her employer’s tip pool was depriving her the use of her tips, the court responded by stating “The arguement is unsound, first, because it is based on the erroneous assumption that the entire tip left by the patron is the waitress’s personal property”. .Second, if more than one employee, for example a waitress and a busboy, directly serve the table of a patron, the gratuity is left for the “employees” within the meaning of section 351″.

You see it doesn’t matter what the customer’s intent is, According to the ruling handed down in Leighton, California’s laws have determined who the customer’s tip belongs to. According to California judges, the customer’s tip belongs to whom-eve the court’s determine it belongs to.

Indeed the only evidence which either side attempted to introduce was a declaration by the appellant’s attorney. He testified to having conducted a poll of approximately 30 restaurant customers all of whom said that when they left a tip it was solely for the waiter or waitress who had served them and not for the busboy or other restaurant employees. This evidence was ruled inadmissible.