Yuku free message boards

For those of you willing to hear the truth. The truth is, no one should be entitled to a tip unless a customer is willing to give you a tip. There are many people who would love to earn additional tip income. Are they all entitled to tips? If tips are errantly regarded as the property of all those who have similar job descriptions, the customer will be deprived his right to determine, for himself, who should be entitled to his tips. The effectiveness of our laws will be hindered by constantly differing interpretations concerning whose job descriptions are similar.

In the case of table games dealers, while their job title may be the same, it is the casino's who have defined them all as dealers. Obviously, only cards can actually be dealt. Dice are not dealt. Roulette balls are not dealt. A big six wheel is not dealt. It's simply a term the casinos have given to certain workers. If the casino's had wanted, they could have called their keno writers, keno dealers. If the casinos would had wanted they could have called their sports book writers sports book dealers. If the casinos had wanted they could have called their slot supervisors, slot dealers. The word dealer has been used only as a titled not as a job description.

Those that suggest that those who have similar job descriptions should be entitled to any other worker's tips with a similar job description are basically saying that the casino should decide who is entitiled to each and every customer's tip. The reason they like this take on the issue is because most of those in favor of such an idea are receiving less in tips than most their co-workers. They think that it benefits them when their employer is allowed to take tips from other workers. What they don't seem to realized is that such an interpretation allows employers to also take their tips.

One other problem with defining tips as that which all employees with similar job description are entitled to is that tips then become the property of the courts. The courts will have to determine who has similar job descriptions to then substantiate who can or can't be included in the sharing of the customer's tip. The problem with such a scenario is, the courts have no authority to infringe on the rights of the consumer and determine, for them, who is entitled to their tip.

The only way to view tips is that the person being presented tips is entitled to the tips he has been presented. This interpretation not only prevents employers from taking advantage of the loophole created by ambiguity, it provides consumers with an ability to determine, for themselves, who should be entitled to their tip. Only when tips are properly viewed as the property of those whom the customer chooses to tip do customers retain their liberty to determine, for themselves, who should be entitled to their tip.