Yuku free message boards

Wynnaccount you wrote,

The Wynn dealers are lucky that their attorneys don't argue, as you suggest, that Nevada is not interpreting it's laws correctly (as if a State can actually do something like that). They would be laughed out of Court.

"CLEARLY": , this case is not about what you want or think Nevada is or is not doing, it is, like it or not, about whether Mr. Wynn has the unilateral right, under the law, to add non-contributors to the pool established by, or for the benefit of, the recipients of said tips and gratuities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would the Supreme court laugh at Nevada law? All I am doing is reciting the law word for word. It says that state laws cannot be intepretted in a manner that prevents me from entering into an agreement with other employees to divide our tips among ourselves. If I want to enter into an agreement to divide tips and gratuities with other roulette dealers, an interpretation of NRS 608.160 cannot prevent me from doing so. My employer's mandated tip pool, like Wynn's mandated tip pool, is preventing me and other like me from entering into an agreement to divide tips and gratuities among themselves. Instead, Nevada has ruled employers may mandate an agreement for the division of tips where the employer will divide his employee's tips among those of the employer's choosing.

I just don't understand how you can say such an argument would be laughed out of court. When state laws explicitely instruct that nothing in section 608.160 is to be contrued to prevent such employees from entering into an agreeement to divide tips and gratuities among themselves, such explicite instructions are supposed to apply to those interpretting the law, such as the Nevada Supreme Court, judges and the Nevada Labor Commissioner.. The purpose of part 2 of NRS 608.160 was to insure that the law was interpretted correctly.

NRS is not being interpretted correctly. Proof of this assertion can be witnessed in the case of Wynn dealer's lawsuit. Obviously if employees were being allowed to enter into an agreement to divide tips among themselves, there would not currently be an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Wynn has instituted a policy whereby dealers must turn their tips over to him so that he can divide the tips among who ever he wants. The dealers at Wynns are unable to divide their tips among themselves when state laws are being misinterpretted as laws that do not prohibit employers from mandating tip pooling as a condition of employment.. When employers are errantly allowed to mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, the employees, subsequently, are prevented for entering into an agreement to divide tips among themselves, for instead, they must enter into an agreement with their employer where he will divide the tips among who ever he chooses.

This case is not about whether Mr. Wynn has the unilateral right, under the law, to add non-contributors to the pool established by, or for the benefit of, the recipients of said tips and gratuities, it's about whether or not employers have a right to prevent their employees from entering into an agreement to divide their tips among themselves. Who can or cannot be included in an employer mandated tip pool that subsequently prevents employees from entering into an agreement to divide tips and gratuities among themselves should not even be up for discussion. State laws clearly explain that nothing is to be construed to prevent such employees form entering into an agreement to divide tips and gratuities among themselves.

The dealer's at Wynns are being prevented from dividing tips and gratuities among themselves. Who is preventing them from entering such agreements? The state of Nevada. By interpretting NRS 608.160 as a law that does not act to prohibit employers from mandating tip pooling as a condition of employment, the state of Nevada has construed NRS 608.160 in a manner that prevents employees from entering into an agreement to divide tips among themselves. Ask any of the dealers at Wynns if they can enter into an agreement with other dealers to divide their tisp among themselves. They cannot enter into such an agreement when their employer is mandating that they must enter into an agreeement where Wynn will divide the tips among who-ever he wants.

The lawyers who are attempting to argue that team leaders should not be included in Wynn's tip pool, are missing the boat completely. It's not about who can be included in an employer mandated tip pool, it's about why Nevada is construing NRS 608.160 in a manner that prevents employeess from entering into an agreement to divide tips among themselves. It's about why Nevada is construing state laws in a manner that allows employers to "take" their employee's tips. It's about why employers are being allowed to violate other labor laws such as NRS 613.230-613.130. It's about why the state of Nevada is ignoring state laws such as NRS 613.110. It's about why the Nevada Labor Commissiner is ignoring the instructions of AC 608.160.

I will not sit by as some paid off lawyers attempt to sabatage the dealer's efforts to obtain clarification on NRS 608.160. Dealers do not want to know who can or can't be inclued in a employer mandated tip pool that steal's their tips. Dealers want to know why the state of Nevada is allowing employers an ability to steal their tips.