The truth about tipping

The key here is that the busboys and bar tenders really aren't servicing the customer. They're servicing you, the waiter. I know for a fact that a well motivated bar tender or bus boy will take care of you faster, getting you one or even more tables a night.

There were plenty of nights that I tossed some extra $$ towards a great bar tender or busboy, over and above the "tip out."

Mark

BitterWaitress.com seems to have been replaced by ShamelessRestaurants.com.

" The stealing will not only continue, it will intensify when our government blatantly condones such crimes as legal business practices."

I wonder, does the government actually, condone this thievery? Has it ever been challenged in a court of law?

It's hard for me to believe that a court would favor this practice. If, it has never been challenged, it needs to be.

A lot of chain restaurants practice stealing.

Thanks for that, I wouldn't have known what happened.

Haven't looked at it in a while, but it was entertaining. Will check out the new site, thanks again.

Well what do people who can't afford to give extra do? Right now I'm on a razor thin budget and can't afford to tip people as much as I'd like to. Also, I wish I still used my debit card so I'm not given the eye at a certain coffee shop that has 'tip cups'.

Then you do what you can. I'm not going to preach at you, but I've always looked at the tip as part of the cost of the meal, just as the tax is. I've been in the same situation that you speak of: I was out of work for 4 months, so the only times I ate out were at places where there wasn't tipping (fast food or deli), and there was usually a coupon involved. I'm still putting my finances back together, but when I take a friend and his wife out to dinner (in return for doing the same for me when I was unemployed), I'll be making sure that I've got enough for the entire meal, including tax and tip.

I'm also not saying that you HAVE to leave a tip of a certain percentage. It's up to you to decide what the proper amount is: According to "them," the "proper" tip for good service is 15%. But what you leave is up to you. If you've gotten poor service, then you should leave less, and if possible, be sure to let your server know why they're getting less than they might expect, or even nothing. If you get really exemplary service, then leave more, if you can afford it.

Mark

Except that that doesn't make any sense. Tipping doesn't guarantee service for you at any given visit, or it would be done up-front and thus, couldn't be done on a % basis. Only if you frequent the same place over and over and tip well to a given server will you get any benefit.

The problem are the folks that tip 20% religiously for good service or bad, and the servers that expect it and demand it!

Talk about a late comer! I had to look up my original comment because this posting was two months ago! Anyway, why doesn't my comment make sense? There are so many people out there that want everything for nothing and then complain when they don't get it.

I agree tipping for bad service only encourages it.

Talk about a late comer! I had to look up my original comment because this posting was two months ago! Anyway, why doesn't my comment make sense? There are so many people out there that want everything for nothing and then complain when they don't get it.

Ha! Better Nate than Lever!

Dunno why that thread popped up, but it was in the "Latest Comments" section. Ain't FR great? Like mummies arguing.

Anyhows, my point is (and I think we generally agree) is that as a "good tipper" I get no more credit for my benevolence in the form of good service than the people who are skinflints and never tip and then complain about bad service.

Proof being that a custom based on a percentage of the bill guarantees that the server/waitstaff/food-delivery-engineer can't know if you're going to tip generously or stiff them till after the service is rendered.

I tip 20% or more for good service, especially when I'm at a bar because then successive tips give a clue as to how they will pour you on the next round. But at a restaurant, unless they know you, it doesn't do any good.

So you are correct that there are people out there who don't tip and scream bloody murder about the service. But there are also people who tip well and whine about everything anyway.

Tipping is NOT capitalism because the terms of trade in capitalism are agreed up-front. Tipping is more like blackmail to keep the bartender's good humor while you drink; and it is merely alms to reward hot waitresses and punish bitchy ones.

I disagree. Tipping is capitalism because you are willing to pay more money for better service (especially in your bartender scenario). If I pay more money for a Mercedes I get the quality built in...if I become a skin flint and purchase a 1976 Ford Pinto I am asking to get burned.

Tipping is NOT capitalism because the terms of trade in capitalism are agreed up-front. Tipping is more like blackmail to keep the bartender's good humor while you drink; and it is merely alms to reward hot waitresses and punish bitchy ones.

I disagree. Tipping is capitalism because you are willing to pay more money for better service (especially in your bartender scenario). If I pay more money for a Mercedes I get the quality built in...if I become a skin flint and purchase a 1976 Ford Pinto I am asking to get burned.

The courts have ruled that customers do not care who get's their tip without even bringing any customers into the court to substantiate the judge's ridiculous ruling. A judge in California has actually ruled that because customers do not care who receives their tip, businesses should be allowed to share the tips received from the public with anyone who gives direct service to the customer. However, the problem with such a ruling is that it not only disregarded asking the public if they care who receives their tip, it deprived customers of their right to determine who should receive their tip. As it stands in California, a customer can clearly explain to the business owner that his tip is intended for one specific employee and yet California case law will allow the business owner to take that tip away from the specified individual so that the business may share it among other employee's. You see, while we have a constitution that guarantees liberty our courts apparently don't believe that the public should be afforded the liberty to determine who should receive their tip. The only reason I can come up with for why the courts would so blatantly deprive customers of their constitutional right to determine for themselves who should be the redipient of their tips, is so that businesses can steal this money for themselves. Do you see any reason why customers should not be afforded their constitutional right to determine who will be the recipient of their tip?

California's current stance on your tips is that they are not the property of the person to whom you gave it, but are instead, the property of anyone the courts feel served you in some way. Employers in California may share your tip with anyone the courts have deemed serve the customer in some way. You see, when the courts rule that tips are the property of those who serve the customer instead of ruling properly that tips are the property of the person to whom the customer gave the tip, there can be no legal entitlement on the part of any individual and as such not one employee can claim his employer stole his money. You see the claim by the plaintiff was that her employer was stealing her tips through employer required tip pooling. To counteract her claim that her employer was stealing her tips, the judge simply ruled that the tips she had received were not her property but instead were the property of those whom the court feels should receive tips.

Since this particular judge convieniently beleived the tips received from a customer cannot belong to one individual but instead belonged to all those employees who serve the customer, the plaintiffs claim that her tips were stolen was overruled by the judge whose contention was that the courts should determine who the customer's tip in intended for.

In another court case in Florida, the judge ruled that Outback could share their waiter's tips with hostesses even though the Outback openly admitted that hostesses were prohibitted from receiving tips. His bases for allowing businesses to steal their employee's tips was that anyone whom the business shares tips with is to be considered a tipped eemployee and as such, the federal laws which state that tips are the sole property of the tipped employee would allow employers an ability to share the customer's tip among all employees who are considered tipped employees. The problem with this ruling is that it again deprived customers of their constitutional right to determine for themselves who should be the reciepient of their tip and legally considered the sole property owner of their tip by giving over such rights to the employer. As it stands in Florida, an employer can share your tip with anyone he has included in a tip pool for this particular judge ruled that tipped employees are anyone whom the business includes in their tip pooling scam. In Florida, employers who require tip pooling are simply insuring that those who are legally entitled to the customer's tip receive their share irregardless of whether or not the customer's intent differs.

The courts are obviouly not concerned with the constitutional rights of the public for they beleive no one cares if their constitutional rights are deprived them. The scam behind all of this is that the public has been kept in the dark about these matters. Most people have no idea that the courts have unconstitutionally deprived them of their liberty to determine who will be the recipient of their tip. That is why I am writing this article right now. I want the pulbic to know that the judicial system in this country is violating our constitution and justifying such acts by claiming that we do not care. How can we care if no one knows what is actually going on? Now comes the part where I expose myself as a lunatic conspiracy nut job.

I beleive the media has been paid off to censor any articles esposing what is happening to the tips our public presents workers in the service industry. I have submitted 1000's of articles to nearly all the major news outlets with not one acceptance. Now, I understand that I am not a proffessional writter and am not oblivious to the fact that my articles may not stand out against all the good writers across this country. However, the topic of my articles is news worthy. America's tips are being stolen in a joint effort by our federal government, state governments and business owners of this nation. The financial benefit of the tips our public gives workers in the service industry are fraudulently being stolen by business owners with the aid of our government officials and judicial system. Our constitutional rights are being deprived us so that businesses can break the law and get away with it.

All we tipped employees want is what has been given us. If you don't want to tip us, that's fine, it's your constitutional right. However, if I do not want to share my tips with workers whom you did not give a tip is it so wrong of me to insist on my constitutional rights? I should be allowed the same liberty you have. Just as you have every right to not tip, I should have a right to not share my tips with other employees especially when I know customers have every right and ability to give tips to these other workers if it is truly their intent that others should share in it.

The government is not only condoning thievery, they are rewarding thievery. This thread has exposed how our federal government has blatantly violated the constitutional rights of it's citizens by depriving them their liberty to determine who should be the recipient of their tip. Business are crediting the financial benefits of their worker's tips to themselves through an unconstitutional bill passed way back in the late 60's. Is has taken over 4 decades to expose this corruption because the news media refuses to address any real issues in America and would rather concern itself with advertising and taking payoffs to mold the public's perceptions to the interests of those with the most money. The current false perception is that employees are sharing their tips because they think it's fair. Heaven forbid that the truth should be exposed and the public informed that employees are not actually sharing their tips because they thought it was fair but that business are instead stealing their employee's tips so they can lower their payroll expenses. That is exactly what both the tip credit and employer required tip pooling are. Both these criminal business practices illegally take control of the tips the public is presenting certain workers in the service industry so that they may be used to reduce the business's payroll expenses.

If a business is allowed to reduce the wages of an employee simply because customers chose to tip him, the customer's tips are fraudulently becoming savings to the business and thus personal income for the business owner void of any consent on the part of the customer. If a business is allowed to share the tips certain workers receive from customers with other workers, again the customer's tips are fraudulently becoming savings to the business and thus personal income for the business owner void of any consent on the part of the customer. Business who require tip pooling can reduce their payroll expenses by offering tips instead of higher wages to employees even if customers do not actually tip these employees. Employer required tip pooling is nothing more than employers using their employee's tips to pay their workers.

The question that remains is, are customers tipping so business owners can use the money to pay it's staff and thus see more profits for themselves. I belirve customers are tipping to finacially benefit the workers who are openly being abused by the low wages that have become so rampant across this nation. I believe that our public does care who gets their tip and certainly believes businesses should not be stealing it for their own personal gain.

I am only one person, and as right as I am, I am nothing without the support of my fellow Americans. I ask today that you stand up with me in this fight for our Constitutional rights. Please tell everyone you know the truth of what is actually happening to their tip and how our judicial system is making a mockery of our constitution by depriving you and the rest of America their liberty to determine who will be the recipient of their tip. Our courts have ruled that we do not care about liberty. If we do not speak up we will no longer have any liberty.

Mark wrote:

The key here is that the busboys and bar tenders really aren't servicing the customer. They're servicing you, the waiter.

I don't go to work to be serviced, do you. I go to work to make money for my family. You are right, however, that busboys and bartenders aren't servicing the customer, however, they aren't servicing the waiter either, they are servicing the business owner. The courts, however, seem to believe that everyone working in a restaurant is servicing the customer and as such should share in the customer's tip irregardless of whether or not the customer is in agreement.

Here's a question for you. If a customer chooses not to give a tip, didn't the waiter still service the customer? The reason I have asked this question is because several judges around this country seems to beleive that any person who serves a customer is entitled to a tip. That is the current ruling in Califorinia, Massachusetts and several other states. Anyone in California who serves a customer is entitled to a tip, well, that is, a tip from a waiter. While waiters can be forced to give other workers a tip, customers don't have to give the waiter a tip. Do you see an unjustice here? The waiter who is simply going to work to provide for his family can be forced to give tips to other workers and yet the customer who is actually being serviced doesn't have to tip. If California were actually right and tips belong to those who serve the customer, then it seems to me servers could simply take the money from the customer like business owners are doing to their waiters.

California is wrong in assuming that tips belong to anyone who serves the customer. If they were right, tipping would not be voluntary. Tipping is and always has been voluntary. Tip pooling is no different than tipping and should be treated no differently than tipping. No one has to tip and no one should have to pool tips. Pooling tips, like tipping, is a constitutional right of an individual to spend his money however he chooses. Tip pooling has corruptly been changed into a means to legally steal other people's property. Tips are defined under federal law as the sole property of the tipped employee. While those workers who are actually given tips have a legally entitlement to such money, those who are not voluntarily given tips have no entitlement to such money. If a waiter refuses to give his busboy a tip, it is no different than a customer refusing to give the waiter a tip. But our courts think differently. They seem to errantly believe that waiters are non-citizens and that they should not have the same rights as all other citizens of the United States. They believe waiters should be forced to tip other workers so the business owner won't have to pay these workers.

The confusion over what tip pooling actually is has been the root of the problem that has taken it's toll on workers across this nation. While I and many others understand that tip pooling is no different than tipping and as such can only be legal if voluntary, those interested in seeing that employers are able to steal their worker's tips insist that tip pooling is the legal means by which employer's have been allowed to steal their worker's tips. They refuse to debate the issue. They refuse to answer the simple question of why would our federal government allow stealing?

You see, it is the federal government's current contention that tip pooling, including employer required, has been allowed under federal law. Employers can steal their employee's tips and give them to other workers who the customer had every right and ability to tip but didn't. The reason why federal laws would allow such blatant theft are left unaswered and yet the logical interpretation that the law which allows tip pooling is simply allowing workers their constitional right to voluntarily give tips to other workers is disgarded as an unsubstantiated lie. You see, our governemtn wants the public to believe that others along with myself are lying to you. You should instead believe that their is a logical reason behind allowing employers an ability to steal the tips you present workers in the service industry. Now they may argue, those other workers deserve tips or the employer really isn't stealing, it's tip pooling, not stealing and it's allowed under federal law.

What do you think. Is tip pooling the right of an employer to take the tips away from the worker whom the customer has
presented a tip so that others may share in it, especially the employer, OR, is tip pooling the constitutional right of an individual to voluntarily give tips to other workers? Which one sounds right to you? Well I guess it really doesn't matter because your government doesn't think you have any business determining matters concerning your money. That's right, they are going to ignore any imput you have on this issue and continue to interpret federal laws as allowing business owners an ability to steal the tips you present workers in the service industry. The only way they will hear us is if we make some noise. Please help us make some noise on this issue. Our nation is deteriorating at the hands of an openly and blatantly corrupt government who refuses to even explain their actions.

By the way, those of you who think that I am waiter are incorrect. I am simply a concerned citizen you see's through the injustices being perpetuated against waiters and other workers who earn their living from the good will of our people. I am almost to the point of believing that our government dispises good will so much that this is the reason they are allowing business owners an ability to steal the good will of the American public. They seem to want the American way to be not about good will towards others but instead about willing good will to the highest bidder.

" am only one person, and as right as I am, I am nothing without the support of my fellow Americans. I ask today that you stand up with me in this fight for our Constitutional rights. Please tell everyone you know the truth of what is actually happening to their tip and how our judicial system is making a mockery of our constitution by depriving you and the rest of America their liberty to determine who will be the recipient of their tip. Our courts have ruled that we do not care about liberty. If we do not speak up we will no longer have any liberty."

I will certainly do what I can. I will email your post to everyone I know. They are dead wrong. It is nothing more than stealing.

Thanks for your reply.

HairOfTheDog asked:

What the heck does "The courts have ruled that employers may share the customer's tip among employees whom the customer had every right to tip but didn't" really mean anyway?

It means that the courts have ruled that it doesn't matter who the customer actually gives a tip to. The courts have ruled that customers don't care who get's their tip and as such any tip presented is considered by the courts to be the property of who ever the courts feel should share in the customer's tip. It means that if a customer chooses to tip one individual, his rights to do so will not be respected by the courts and instead the courts will determine for the customer who should be the recipient of his tip. It also means that you can specifically inform the business owner that your tip is not intended for the hostess but instead is intended for the waiter or another specified worker and yet the business can legally disregard your specific instructions that the hostess should not share in your tip based on an errant ruling by the courts that employer required tip pooling is allowed under the law. It means that business owners can take your tip away from amy employee to whom you present it and give it to other workers irregardless of whether you want the business to take such actions or not. Businesses can now share your tip with anyone the courts feel should share in your tip. Your right to determine whether your tip is intended for one employee or all employees serving you will be deprived you because the courts believe you don't care who get's your tip.

What it means to workers is that if customer don't speak up and let judges like this know that they do care who recieves their tip, businesses will continue to have a legal ability to steal the tips you present us.

Mysterio wrote:
I think it's ridiculous that the employers are lowering the wages to steal part of the tip. I think it's scummy business practices. But I don't want the government doing anything about it.

You have missed the point of this thread completely. The government is the one who approved this criminal business practice in the first place. The government should be doing something about it, for it is their mess to begin with. The tip credit has included a provision which states that a business owner can reduce the wages of an employee who receives tips if and only if the employee is allowed to retain all tips. The mess started when none of those writing this legislation took the time to look up the meaning of the word "retain". "Retain" is defined as, to keep in possession or use, and yet, this bill which blatantly allows employers an ability to use their employee's tips to reduce the wages of their employees states that in order for an employer to utilize the tip credit, he must allow the tipped employee to "retain" or use his tips. You see, if those writing this bill would have taken the time to look up the meaning of the word "retain" they would have realized that this bill is illegal to begin with. This bill violates federal law when one understands what the word "retain" actually means.

You see, it is impossible for an employee to use his tips for his purposes when his employer is allowed to use them to reduce the employee's income. This legislation has acually included provisions which prohibit itself. Why would Congress pass a bill which prohibits itself? How about for money. It is a clear violation of federal law for an employer to retain any part of his employee's tips and yet there where many lobbiests willing to pledge campaign contributions to anyone who would support the tip credit bill. Since those being offered money must have known that such a law would be in violation of not only the Fair Labor Standards Act but the Constitution of the Untited States, they had to include a provision upholding the current law which stated clearly that an employer must allow the tipped employee to retain all tips. You see, our constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived property without due process of law. If the tip credit was understood clearly as a means to deprive the tipped employee of his tips, such a law would be unconstitutional. Therefore, it was necessary that congress include a provision which distorted the truth of this bill's intent, which was clearly to deprive the tipped employee of his property, his tip. By stating in the provisions of this bill that employers could only take a tip credit if and only if they allowed the tipped employee to retain all tips, the true intent of this bill, which was to circumvent the federal law which mandates that employers must allow the tipped employee to retain all tips, would be less conspicuous.

Those who wrote this bill could contend that they had no idea that this bill was actually circumventing previous federal laws and that they had included provisions specifically designed to prevent this bill from circumventing previous laws. They could disguise the true intent of this bill which was clearly to allow business owners an ability to circumvent the previous law and the constitutional rights of their employees by including a provision which appeared to prevent such violations

The tip credit bill has allowed business owners an ability to deprive the tipped employee of his property, his tips. Businesses who utilize the tip credit can reduce the wages of an employee based on the fact that he received tips. When employers are allowed to reduce the wages of an employee who receives tips, the financial benefit and use of this extra income customers have bestowed on him are deprived the tipped employee. You may have given Jane the waitress a $20 tip, but her employer, thanks to the tip credit, is now allowed to reduce her wages by $20 because you gave her a tip. Jane will not retain the use of your $20 tip because she will not actually receive it. While Jane may go home with your $20 tip, her paycheck will be shorted $20, due to the fact that our federal government doesn't understand that the tip credit they passed into legislation has allowed her employer to benefit himself to the fincial benefit of your tip. Is jane retaining her tip when she goes home with the same income she would have had you not tipped her? You see, if Jane wouldn't have received any tips during her work day, her employer would have had to have paid her the full minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. But, since you chose to give Jane a tip, her employer is now allowed to reduce her wages by an amount up to $24.16 if she receives at least that much in tips. Jane will go home with no more in her pocket than she would have had you not even tipped her. Her employer, on the other hand, will go home with an extra $20 in his pocket, for you the customer, unknowingly saved him $20 by tipping his employee. Because you tipped his employee, the employer is allowed by federal law to lower his payroll expenditures for the day and as such can benefit himself to your tip.

This federal law has deceptively allowed employers an ability to retain the financial benefits of their employee's tips and at the same time included provisions for preventing employers from retaining the financial benefits of their employee's tips simply to mislead and deceive the public into beleiving that this bill does not violate federal law and the constitution of the United States. Those who support this law will argue "but the employee is still retaining his tip? "the employer is simply being allowed to reduce the workers wages". Those who have supported this law cannot and will not explain why Jane will have to go home without the financial benefit of the tip you gave her.

This law was specifically designed to deprive Jane of the finacial benefit of your tip so that business owners could fraudulently benefit themselves to money not intended for them. To disguise such blatant criminal intent, this law was written with provisions suggesting that this law could not allow business onwers an ability to retain their employee's tips when clearly this law was enacted with the specific intent of allowing business owners an ability to retain their employee's tips.

Soothing Dave wrote:
I think the question is whether people are paying extra for good service from one person, or if they are paying extra for good service period.

No the question is shouldn't people have the right to determine for themselves who should benefit from their tip?

Several judges have errantly ruled that employers should be allowed to divide a customer's tip up and distribute it to workers whom the business owner believes should share in the customer's tip. Apparently these judges believe that customers are simply paying extra for good service like you have mentioned. The problem with such beliefs is that it deprives consumers of their 5th amendment rights to liberty. Liberty is the right of every citizen of the Untited States to spend his money however he chooses.

When the courts ruled that people are tipping for good service and subsequently ruled that employers should be allowed to divide the consumer's tip up among all those who contributed in some way to the customer's good service they overlooked the fact that our constitution guatantees customers and every person in the USA liberty. By ruling that a customer's tip is to be regarded as the property of all those who in some way provide good service, they have errantly ruled that customers cannot tip an individual. You see, by ruling that employers can take tips away from those who actually receive them from customers so that they can be divided up among other workers whom helped to provide service to the customer, the courts have in effect ruled that customers will not have the right to present a tip to an individual of their choosing. According to these errant court rulings any tip presented by a customer must be regarded as the property of all those who in some way aided in serving the customer.

The answer is, customers should be afforded their constitutional right to determine for themselves who should receive their tip. Tips should not be viewed as money which busisness owners can use to pay their staff. My interpretation still affords those customers who believe their tip should be divided up among all those who provided good service their constitutional right to take it upon thmselves and divide their tip up among all those who served them. In contrast, interpretting tips as that which belongs to anyone who helped to serve the customer deprives the customer of his constitutional right to determine for himself who will be the recipient of his tip.

I've heard of cow tipping but never horse tipping.

Is this a vanity? This is exactly out of the socialist handbook and utter poop.

The 20% is if it is EXTRODINARY good service. 15% is standard and anything below that is if the waiter or waitress did something wrong.

If employers are prohibited from calculating the tips then tips should be outlawed ENTIRELY in the food service industry.

a.c.o.r.n. alert

(communist group which uses wage BS to try and register more democrats than republicans. They were caught throwing republican voter registrations in the trash. acorn has ballot initiatives regarding minimum wages.)

All this tip BS is directly from these types of commie groups.

Many states are allowing business owners an ability to take tips away from those who actually receive them from customers so that other workers can share in the customer's tip. Such allowances by these states that are allowing what is called employer required tip pooling, deprives customers of their right to determine for themselves who should receive their tip. When states interpret their laws as allowing employers to mandate that tips must be shared they are errantl;y and unconstitutionally depriving the customer of his constitutional right to liberty. You see, both the 5th and 14th amendment of our constitution guarantee that no person shall be derprived liberty. Liberty is defined as, freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others. You see, there is nothing harmful in allowing customers their choice of who should receive their tip. Clearly tipping is acceptable in our society for it is observed throughout our nation.

Our government, however seems to believe customers should not be afforded their liberty to choose for themselves who should receive their tip and has subsequently interpretted it's laws on tips in a manner which violtates the constitutional rights of the public by interpretting federal laws as allowing employers to mandate that their employees' must share their tips with other workers. When our government errantly determined that federal laws allow employers to mandate that the customers tip must be shared with other workers it unknowingly deprived customers of their right to determine for themselves who should be the recipient of their tip for their current interpretaion has allowed business owners an ability to take their tip away from their intended recipient so that it may be shared with others. It must be realized that not only is it the right of a customer to determine who will be the recipient of his tip it, it is also the responsibility of the customer to determine who will be the recipient of his tip. If customers want others to share in their tip, it should be incumbent on the customer to present tips to these other workers. No one can be expected to guess at who the customer intends to tip. Employer mandated tip pooling is not and cannot be allowed under federal law for it violates the constitutional rights of the consumer.