Required tip pooling, tip credits and service charges are all topics of
concern for employees in the service industry. All these restaurant
practices have one thing in common. They all deny the customer of his
right to determine how much an individual should receive in addition to
his hourly wages, or to put it another way, they all deprive the
customer of his right to tip. The IRS along with federal regulations
have defined tipping.

The IRS states:
To constitute a `tip' in the commonly accepted meaning of the term, it
is inherent in the nature thereof that certain fundamental
characteristics be present. It must be presented by the customer free
from compulsion; he must have the unrestricted right to determine the
amount thereof; and such amount should not be the subject of
negotiation or dictated by employer policy. Generally, the customer has
the right to determine precisely who shall be the recipient of his
generosity. The absence of any of these factors creates a serious doubt
as to whether the payment is really a tip and indicates that it is in
fact a service charge for the use of certain facilities.

You see, when customers are actually allowed to tip they have the right
to detemine whether a tip is given, the amount and who will be the
recipeint of their tip. When customers are denied such rights they are
denied their constitutional right to tip. Our constitution guarantees
liberty which in turn guarantees Americans the right to determine if
one's money is spent, how ones money is spent and to whom such money
will be spent on. When restaurants require that tips must be pooled or
require that tips must be shared with other workers, such as is the
case with employer mandated tip outs, the customer's liberty to
determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
much financial benefit he or she will receive are denied the customer.
When restaurants take the tip credit and pay their tipped employees
wages at a rate lower than the minimum wage, the customer's liberty to
determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
much financial benefit he or she will receive are again denied the
customer. When restaurants charge customers a flat percentage as a
suggensted alternative to tipping, as is the case with automatic
gratuities or service charges, again the customer's liberty to
determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
much financial benefit he or she will receive are denied the customer.

The question that remains is how can restaurants so blatantly deny
customers their constitutional right to tip when at the same time they
are accepting such moneys as a tip? If restaurants want to deprive
customers of their liberty to give a tip which would undeniably include
determining if the tip was given, the amount and who should be the
recipient, then they should simply prohibit tipping. Instead the
restaurant industry seems fixated on accepting such moneys without
allowing the customer the liberty to actually present a tip. It seems
that the restaurant's attitude is, oh, we will take your money, but we
are not really going to allow you to tip.

However, the problem with such an attitude is that while businesses may
have every right to run their business however they choose, they are
not allowed and cannot be allowed to defraud their customers. I beleive
all the above mentioned business practices are clearly fraud on the
customer for they all deny the customer of his right to tip while
fraudulently leading the customer to beleive that he may tip.

What are your thoughts on these business practices? Do you think
employer required tip pooling, the tip credit or service charges are
fraud on the customer? Are customers being deceived with any of these
business practices?

You see tipping allows the customer to determine who will be the
recipient of his tip, how much the recipient will receive and whether
or not a tip will be given. The current business practices of this
country deny the customer of his ability to determine such matters.
When customers are denied such matters their can be no claim by the
employees that such money is to be controlled by them for the business
has successfully deprived the customer of bestowing such money any one
employee. As a result the business is free to utilize such moneys to
it's own interests.

On 4 Dec 2005 10:48:52 -0800, "george" >
wrote:

>Required tip pooling, tip credits and service charges are all topics of
>concern for employees in the service industry.

PLEASE!!! You buy the restaurant and YOU get to make up the rules.
No one is required to work for anyone at this time. If a waitperson
doesn't like the OWNERS POLICY.....they still get to choose and walk.

Besides...most people were looking for a job when they found the last
one.

You bring up some good points in your discussion. I like the way you
researched your response a bit before posting, and I enjoyed the technical
manner in which you placed your argument...good job.

Now, with that being said, the reason behind all of this is simple. Answer
the question, "What can I do that will bring people to me?"

There is no business like restaurants. If you want clothes, you must go buy
clothes. If you want a car, you can't just make a car at home. Food on the
other hand, can be done cheaply at home and with reasonably choices for low
effort preparations. So, restaurants, being the alternative to cheap, home
made food, has to compete with this.

How do you do that? With reasonable prices, excellent service, great food,
and a fun and/or an attractive setting. How do you plan to pay for excellent
service, great food, and a fun and/or attractive setting with prices that
are low? You put the "gratuity" in the hands of the public.

In turn, what does this really do for the public? They pay more money (15%
average gratuity) to a low priced meal. Making their ticket higher in the
end.

What if, instead of "reasonable pricing" we simply increase the price of our
food by fifteen percent, and than pay our servers an hourly wage?

Lets see...hypothetically speaking, in my restaurant, the bottom line profit
for the owner right now is in the red. Meaning, he is spending more money
than he is getting. A 15% increase in food, resulting in less people coming
in (competition will be cheaper) would ultimately cause him to go even
further in the red now that he's paying hourly wages. Now you have a closed
restaurant.

Putting a "required tip" mandate...what would that do? Ultimately, it would
be the beginning of the end of your restaurant. I stated in the "Required
Tipping" post my views on this, but, unless it happened city wide, it would
never work for just one. It would be a complete trend killer, destroying
everything the public has known from going out to eat.

Although, it remains to be something I feel would boost the job market
within restaurants. We are currently a laughing act (Waiting, the movie). We
are not considered by the public as a "real job". What is a "real job"?

As defined by the public, a "real job" is something you get good money for
and have advancement opportunities for a career. In a restaurant with
required tipping, you would make good money and there is always
opportunities for a career in restaurants.

So why are we not considered a "real job", because the general public views
servers as a personal butler that must bend for every wish they have and god
forbid that anything goes wrong or else you put in all your effort for
NOTHING!

Bottom line, you don't tip your insurance agent for their service, you don't
tip your real-estate person for their service, you don't tip your gas
station counter person for their service. All of this is accounted for in
the awesomely outstanding prices we all bitch about. Americans, either be
good to your service industry no matter what business, or else shut up when
the owners find new ways to profit.

Thank you for your time,
J.Robinson

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Required tip pooling, tip credits and service charges are all topics of
> concern for employees in the service industry. All these restaurant
> practices have one thing in common. They all deny the customer of his
> right to determine how much an individual should receive in addition to
> his hourly wages, or to put it another way, they all deprive the
> customer of his right to tip. The IRS along with federal regulations
> have defined tipping.
>
> The IRS states:
> To constitute a `tip' in the commonly accepted meaning of the term, it
> is inherent in the nature thereof that certain fundamental
> characteristics be present. It must be presented by the customer free
> from compulsion; he must have the unrestricted right to determine the
> amount thereof; and such amount should not be the subject of
> negotiation or dictated by employer policy. Generally, the customer has
> the right to determine precisely who shall be the recipient of his
> generosity. The absence of any of these factors creates a serious doubt
> as to whether the payment is really a tip and indicates that it is in
> fact a service charge for the use of certain facilities.
>
> You see, when customers are actually allowed to tip they have the right
> to detemine whether a tip is given, the amount and who will be the
> recipeint of their tip. When customers are denied such rights they are
> denied their constitutional right to tip. Our constitution guarantees
> liberty which in turn guarantees Americans the right to determine if
> one's money is spent, how ones money is spent and to whom such money
> will be spent on. When restaurants require that tips must be pooled or
> require that tips must be shared with other workers, such as is the
> case with employer mandated tip outs, the customer's liberty to
> determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
> much financial benefit he or she will receive are denied the customer.
> When restaurants take the tip credit and pay their tipped employees
> wages at a rate lower than the minimum wage, the customer's liberty to
> determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
> much financial benefit he or she will receive are again denied the
> customer. When restaurants charge customers a flat percentage as a
> suggensted alternative to tipping, as is the case with automatic
> gratuities or service charges, again the customer's liberty to
> determine who will receive the finacial benefits of his tip and how
> much financial benefit he or she will receive are denied the customer.
>
> The question that remains is how can restaurants so blatantly deny
> customers their constitutional right to tip when at the same time they
> are accepting such moneys as a tip? If restaurants want to deprive
> customers of their liberty to give a tip which would undeniably include
> determining if the tip was given, the amount and who should be the
> recipient, then they should simply prohibit tipping. Instead the
> restaurant industry seems fixated on accepting such moneys without
> allowing the customer the liberty to actually present a tip. It seems
> that the restaurant's attitude is, oh, we will take your money, but we
> are not really going to allow you to tip.
>
> However, the problem with such an attitude is that while businesses may
> have every right to run their business however they choose, they are
> not allowed and cannot be allowed to defraud their customers. I beleive
> all the above mentioned business practices are clearly fraud on the
> customer for they all deny the customer of his right to tip while
> fraudulently leading the customer to beleive that he may tip.
>
> What are your thoughts on these business practices? Do you think
> employer required tip pooling, the tip credit or service charges are
> fraud on the customer? Are customers being deceived with any of these
> business practices?
>
> You see tipping allows the customer to determine who will be the
> recipient of his tip, how much the recipient will receive and whether
> or not a tip will be given. The current business practices of this
> country deny the customer of his ability to determine such matters.
> When customers are denied such matters their can be no claim by the
> employees that such money is to be controlled by them for the business
> has successfully deprived the customer of bestowing such money any one
> employee. As a result the business is free to utilize such moneys to
> it's own interests.
>