Yuku free message boards

Tell me about these tip pools which existed in 1971. How did they come about? Did dealers voluntarily enter into such agreements or where they, like the dealers at Wynns, given no choice in the matter?

Please also explain what court case it is that I am supposed to remember? What case was about an employee who objected to being forced into a tip pool that already existed? The Moen opinion did not explain whether or not there had previously been a tip pooling agreement among boxmen, floormen, cashiers and crap dealers. The truth of the matter is, before 1971 most crap dealers where pooling their tips with only those dealers working on the same table. Why haven't those tip pools been protected? Before 1971, most blackjack dealers where pooling their tips with only those working the same shift. Why haven't those tip pools been protected. You see, the truth of the matter is, employer mandated tip pooling isn't about protecting previous tip pools, it's about employers controlling their worker's tips. Most of the dealers who were pooling tips before 1971 had no choice in the matter. They were forced to pool their tips however their employer wanted tips pooled just like the Wynn dealers are currently being forced to pool their tips however Wynn wants their tips pooled.

Now please also answer this question. Why would Don Mello write a provision allowing employers to force newly hired employees into participation in a previously established tip pool when our right to work laws state that no one can be required, as a condition of employment, to join a plan that exists in whole or in part with dealing with employers concerning rates of pay, wages and othe conditions of employment?

The argument that Don Mello included part 2 of NRS 608.160 as a means for employers to require participation in previous existing tip pools is absolutely ridiculous. Nevada'a right to work laws where enacted way before Don Mello drafted this legislation. I suppose it is possible that Don Mello didn't know about our right to work laws when he added part 2 to NRS 608.160. If Nevada did not have right to work laws, then and only then, would his comments hold any credence. You see, if a state allows closed shop businesses, then employers in that state could require participation in an agreement employees had previously established. Since, however, Nevada is a right to work state, Don Mello's explanation only proves that he either had a poor understanding of Nevad's labor laws when he drafted NRS 608.160 or that he was mistaken about his intent for including part 2 of NRS 608.160.

Since obviously you think that tip pools should be protected in a manner where employers can force newly hired employees into participating in such tip pools, please explain which one of the many tip pools employers have implemented you think should be protected. Tip pooling among all dealers working the same shift. Tip pooling among all workers dealing the same type of game. Tip pooling among all types of dealers working all shifts with the exclusion of poker dealers, keno writers and sports book writers. Tip pooling among all those working in the casino. Tip pooling among all dealers with the exception of poker dealers. Tip pooling among all dealers and all team leaders.

The point I am making is, all the above tip pools where implemented at one time and decided in all cases by casino owners, not dealers. Why should tip pools which have been implemented and decided by casino owners be protected? If you pick any type of tip pool employers have implemented you are choosing to protect the employer's decision not the employees. Until employer mandated tip pooling is prohibitted, we will never know which tip pooling employees would actually choose.

You also stated,
I believe his full explanation was that the intent was to include the language in paragraph 2 to protect the tip pools "which existed" in 1971, which would otherwise have been declared illegal by the paragraph 1 language.

Please note that Don Mello has suggested that part 1 of NRS 608.160 declares tip pools illegal. Where? I see nothing in part 1 that would declare tip pools illegal. Workers can legally enter into an agreement to pool tips without their employer taking their tips even when part 2 is totally ignored.
The truth of the matter is, part 2 was added to NRS 608.160 to conform to Federal law. You see, federal laws do not state that an employer cannot take any part of the tips bestowed upon his employees, Federal laws explain that all tips are to be retained by the tipped employee. While there is nothing in part 1 of NRS 608.160 that would declare tip pools illegal, federal law could be viewed as a law that declares tip pools illegal.

The word retain has two meaning. It can mean to keep in one's possesion, or it can mean to keep for one's use. If it is incorrectly interpretted as meaning to keep in one's possession, then federal law which states that all tips are to be retained by the tipped employee would make it illegal for a tipped employee to share his tips with other workers. You see the fact that federal laws state that all tips are to be retained by the tipped employee could be interpretted as meaning the tipped employee must keep all tips in his possession which would subsequently prevent him from sharing his tisp with other workes. You see, federal laws could be construed as preventing previously established tip pools. Nevada's laws on the other hand can not be construed as preventing previously established tip pools. Nevada's laws do not suggest that employees must keep their tips.

What I am getting at is, Don Mello obviously included part 2 of NRS 608.160 to conform to federal provisions which explain that nothing shall be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly recieve tips. While federal laws could be interpretted in a manner that would suggest that employees cannot share their tips with other workers, Nevada's laws are written in a manner that does not create such problems. There is actually no reason part 2 should even exist. Was there anything in the original NRS 608.160 that mentioned employees entering into an agreement to divdide tips among themselves? You see, the original bill establishes the intent of NRS 608.160 and at no time was there ever any intent to protect previously established tip pools as Don Mello contends he was attempting to protect.

His whole argument revolves aroung the notion that employers should be allowed to force newly hired employees into participating in previously established tip pooling practices. Why? If an employee doesn't want to participate in a tip pool, why should he be forced to participate in a tip pool? When an employee is forced into participating in a tip pool, someone gains an ability to take his tips away from him. Why should anyone be able to take an employees tips away from him when state laws start off by stating that it is unlawful for ANYONE to take all or any part of the tips or gratuities. Am I seriously to believe that my tips actaully belong to all the employees?

I am sorry that I am writing so much, however, I think I am on to something quite important here. The original version of NRS 608.160 made no provisions for the pooling of tips. And why would it, employers could take their employees tips and share them with anyone they wanted as long as they put up a sign stating that all tips belonged to management. However, in 1971 our legislators decided that NRS 608.160 should be changed to prohibit the taking of tips by an employer. Obviously if they wanted employer to be able to share the tips with workers of their choosing they could have included a provision stating that nothing is to prohibit employers from dividing tips among their employees. They didn't do that. Instead they wrote a provision clearly aimed at protectting the employee's right to divide his tips with other workers. Since there has been no effort, what so ever, to include language which allows employers to divide tips among their employees, part 1 of NRS 608.160 would act to prohibit employers from requiring tip pooling as a condition of employment. Don Mello has actually proven my point quite effectively.

Quote: The intent was to include the language in paragraph 2 to protect the tip pools "which existed" in 1971, which would otherwise have been declared illegal by the paragraph 1 language.

The problem with his explanation is, there were tip pools which existed before 1971 which would have been declared illegal by common law and our right to work laws. Obviously he wasn't attempting to protect tip pools that were illegal. You see, he cannot be suggesting that he intended to protect all tips pools, whether legal or illegal, which existed before 1971. The truth is, there were no legal tip pools previous to 1971 that needed protected from the provisions of part 1.

In my humble opinion. the tip pools which existed in 1971 were prohibitted by part 1 of NRS 608.160. As far as the language included in part 2 of NRS 608.160, it does not change the fact that such employer mandated tip pools were declared illegal by part 1. If it was his intent to protect these previously mandateed tip pools he should not have included language that protects the rights of workers to enter into an agreement to divide their tips among themselves. You see, the tip pools which existed before 1971 were not tip pools where the employees had entered into an agreement to divide their tips among themselves. The tips pools which existed before 1971 were tip pools where the employer required his employees to divide their tips among who-ever the employer wanted tips divided among. By neglecting to add language that explicitely allows employer to divide their worker's tips among employees of the employer's choosing, part 1 of NRS 608.169 acts to prohibit such acts by employers and thus acts to prohibit all such tips pools employer's established before 1971.

Thank you again Don Mello for explaining quite clearly that part 1 of NRS 608.160 declares employer mandated tip pools illegal. As far as your attempts to provide employers with an ability to require previously established tip pools, employees have no right and should have no right to ask their employer to force others into participating in their tip pool. If employees want their tip pools protected then they can simply go to any lawyer and have their agreement written up as a legal contract where those who have chosen to participate will be legally obligated to participate. As far as forcing people into contracts, that is not, has never been and will never be in the best interests of the people. In other words, we do not need state laws attempting to protect our tip pools. Legally binding contracts do not need additional protection. I just don't understand why Mr. Mello would want to protect certain agreements without first insuring that the agreements where perfectly legal.

Wynnaccount,

While you have stated "That limited power granted an employer by the courts ( to be able to force a newly hired dealer to join an existing dealer tip pool) has now, in the eyes of Wynn LV and the authors of the above article, graduated to total and complete control over the dealer's tips", It is my belief that the LIMITED power you refer to does not and cannot exist. When an employer is allowed to mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, there are no limits and can be no limits on which employees an employer may apply such mandates to. There can be no limits on who can be included in a tip pool, for tip pooling is the act of an employee sharing his tips with anyone of his choosing. I am disturbed by the fact that you can call employer mandated tip pooling an existing dealer tip pool. There has never been an existing dealer tip pool. The tip pools which have existed have been employer mandated and controlled tip pools, not dealer tip pools.

As far as forcing newly hired employess to join an existing tip pool being beneficial to the dealers, what benefit is there to the current dealers if their employer is allowed to force newly hired employees into participating in their tip pool? What if the newly hired employees don't contribute tips? Is it doing us any good to condone our employer's ability to add new employees to our tip pool? You make it sound as if it's beneficial to dealers to allow their employer to force newly hired employees into participating in their tip pool. Is is beneficial to the employees at Wynns that newly hired team leaders will now be forced to participate in the dealer's tip pool? It sounds like our laws our now protecting the newly hired employees more than they are protecting the dealers who allegedly set up a tip pool. Most newly hired employees would probably want to join a tip pool including experienced dealers. I don't understand how so many people can say that our current interpretation of Nevada laws are protecting the previously established tip pools when they are clearly attempting to allow employers an ability to alter the previously existing tip pools. You see, when people are added to a tip pool, you change the previously agreed upon tip pool.

My point is, the current interpretation of NRS 608.160 is not protecting any employees, it's protecting employers. How can anyone say it's protecting workers. The workers who have previously agreed to share their tips can have their agreement changed at any time by their employer. He can add in newly hired workers at any time. The workers who are newly hired are obviously not be protected when the interpretation clearly targets them as employees who should be forced into an agreement. So who is being protected?

Please also note that the current tip pools employers have been allowed to mandate have not "graduated" to total and complete control over the dealer's tips. It has always been that way. I was force to pool my tips with keno writeres, cocktail waitresses, slot personel, floor supervisors and casino management 31 years ago. No one stepped in to stop such practices. Many casinos shared our tips with who ever they wanted. There has been no graduation to the point we are now witnessing. The casinos gained an ability to control our tips when Nevada judges ruled that NRS 608.160 does not act to prohibit employers from mandating tip pooling as a condition of employment. The only way to stop employers from controlling our tips is to get this ridiculous ruling overturned. Take means Control. Control means Require. If employer can require conditions concering tips then they can control conditions concerning tips. If an employer can control control condition concerning tips then they can take such tips.

If you could just shake that "forced tip pooling is the best way" mentality the casinos have brainwashed dealers into believing you might just be able to understand what I am saying.

The bottom line is, no one except the the individual who received the tip should be deciding who can share in his tip. If customers don't want an individual worker to decide who should share in his tips, then the customer can either refuse to tip or divide the tip up himself. When employers are allowed to mandate tip pooling, the customer is denied all rights to determine who should receive his tip. When tip are protected as the property of the individual who received the tip, employer mandated tip pooling becomes an unlawful practice and customers retain their right to determine, for themselves, who should recieve their tip. When employers are allowed to mandate tip pooling, someone other than the individual who received the tip or the customer who presented the tip will decide who will share in the tip.

My point is, tips should be protected as the property of either the indivual to whom the customer has chosen to tip or as the property of those the employee who received the tip has chosen to share his tips with. Only these two people should have any say over who is to be protected by laws which state that it is unlawful for anyone to take all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees.

The law is not and cannot be stating that tips must be regarded as the property of all employees. The law has no authority to determine who tips are bestowed upon. Likewise, judges have no authority to determine, for customers, who their tips are bestowed upon. A ruling that employers may mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment is a ruling that employers may determine who will receive the customer's tip.

You see, not all worker who receive tips are required to pool their tips. Those who are required to pool tips are being requied to give part of the tips they have received to others who likewise have been required to pool tips. The employees who are being required to pool tips are being catagorized by employers as employees whom tips are bestowed upon even though that right should fall on the customers who present such tips . Clearly employer mandated tip pooling is an allowance that employers, rather than customers may decide who receives the customer's tip. Giving employers control over the customers tips is nothing more than allowing business owners to steal the customer's tip.

At the heart of this tip pooling issue is a much bigger issue. That issue is unbridled corruption in our government.