April 7th hearing

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
G money		#31	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/15/08 01:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There is only one other point I would like to bring up about the Supreme Court hearing. I am sick and tired of people suggesting that there is no reason to suppose that the last person in a service line in an establishment serving the customer is the only one entitled to share in the customer's bounty. If it is unreasonable to suppose that the last person in the line of service is the only entitled to share in the customer's bounty, then who will ultimately decide who is entitled to the customer's bounty? Who could realistically assertain who is entitled to each and every customer's bounty? You see, only the customer truly knows who is entitled to his tip. Only the customer should be determining who is entitled to his bounty. These people that argue that there is no reason to believe that the last person in the line of service should be the only one entitled to the customer's bounty are clearly desregarding the fact that if someone else where to decide who is entitled to the customer's bounty, they would be infringing on the customer's right to determine, for himself, who is entitled to his bounty. The act of presenting a tip to an individual of the customer's choosing should be enough to substantiate that the last person in the line of service, should be entitled to the tips he or she has been presented. If customers want others to also be entitled to their bounty, they have every right and ability to present tips to all those whom they might want to give tips to. However, if the customer's tip is errantly regarded as that which all employee in the line of service are entitled to, customers are stripped of their ability and right to determine, for themselves, who should be entitled to their tip. If the customers tip is errantly regarded as that which all employee in the line of service are entitled to who will determine which employees are in that line of service? There is only one way to interpet "who is entitled to the customer's bounty" and that is to interpret tips so that all those who are personally pressented a tip are viewed as entitled to the tips they personally received from the customer. To suggest that others should be entitled to the customer's tip is clearly an infringement on the property rights of the customer. Customers must be afforded their right to spend their money however they choose. Such rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. To suggest that others should be entitled to the customer's tip is to do so without any evidence what-so-ever to support such a claim. Last Edited By: G money 04/15/08 01:25. Edited 1 times.
G money	Here is a good reason.	#32	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/15/08 02:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Maybe those who think that it's unreasonable to suppose that the last person in a service line in an establishment serving the customer is the only one entitled to share in the customer's bounty should read Minnesota's reasons for supposing such. Obviously there are very good reasons for supposing such. MINNEAPOLIS, MN, Mar 27, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- On March 27, 2008, a former employee of Starbucks Coffee Company filed a class action lawsuit in Minnesota State Court in Washington County. The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks violated Minnesota Statute Section 177.24 by establishing an illegal tip pool that denied employees of the full amount of gratuities that Starbucks' patrons intended for the employees to receive. The statute states that any gratuities received by an employee are the sole property of the employee. Plaintiff's attorney E. Michelle Drake explained, "The lawsuit alleges that Starbucks required employees to share tips with one another. Minnesota law forbids employers from telling employees how to share their tip money and says that any decisions about sharing tips are up to the employees, not the company. One of the reasons the law exists is to prevent companies like Starbucks from using one employee's tips to subsidize another employee's wages. How can anyone say it is unreasonable? When will the lies end? Last Edited By: G money 04/15/08 02:11. Edited 1 times.
G money	Here's another state that realizes that any benefit is illegal	#33	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/15/08 06:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Speaking of Starbucks, now comes another big, embarrassing dispute for the coffee chain. A former barista filed a lawsuit on Thursday in United States District Court in Manhattan, accusing Starbucks of cheating thousands of baristas in New York State by giving a share of their tips to shift supervisors. Lawyers for the barista, Jeana Barenboim, of Brooklyn, point to a state law that says no employer or agent of an employer can accept, directly or indirectly, part of an employee's tips. Why is it that only Nevada thinks employees should have to first prove that their employer is directly benefitting from an employer mandated tip pool before such practices would be considered unlawful? Clearly there are other states, where people do not think it matters whether employers are directly benefitting from the tips customers's present or indirectly benefitting from the tips customer's present. NRS 608.160 like many other laws around our country were intended to prevent employers from taking their employee's tips for the benefit of the employer. Directly benefitting, indirectly benefitting, why does it matter? Taking is taking.
wynnaccount		#34	[-]
Member Posts: 402 (04/15/08 07:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	FIVE (5) POSTS IN A ROW BY GMONEY AND NOT ONE OF THEM STATES SOMETHING NEW. WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SPAMMING?
G money	More testimony from the appeal.	#35	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/16/08 12:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Justice Cherry "what about the issue of the direct benefit versus the indirect benefit to Wynn LLC?" Mr. Kramer, Justice Cherry there are always benefits to an employer for having a tipped employee. It allows an employer to reduce it's payroll costs. It allows the employee to be subsidized by the patrons. But what does the employer do with those subsidized costs? Puts it into fixtures, puts it into better food, puts it into a mountain, a volcano, a waterfall. The employer always gets a benefit, but an indirect benefit as opposed to a direct benefit. If the employers was taking money from the tip pool and putting it into it's own pocket that would be prohibtted by Moen, by Alford and by 6...RS 681....608.....100...and 60. You can't do that. You cannot take the money out of the tip pool. That's not what was done. Every tip pool takes money from one employee and distributes it among other employees. So, the swing shift is your best shift. That's where all the money is. That's where a lot of the gaming money goes. That's where a lot of the tip money goes. But when you divide the tip among the employees on day and grave, you're taking money, literally, from that particular employee and redistributing it to the other employees. It's OK. Who is it OK with? Customers? Employees? While there may always be a benefit to an employer for having tipped employees due to the fact that it allows employers to reduce it's payroll costs, the question that remains is, should we just sit back and let employers benefit themselves even more to the tips customers present their workers? By allowing employers to mandate tip pooling, employers not only derive a benefit from having their tipped employee's wages subsidized by customer tips, they derive additional benefits from being able to determine who will receive a share of the customer's tip. Each worker an employer is able to include in the sharing of the customer's tip is a worker whom the employer is able to derive indirect benefits from. I do not think Mr. Kramer has a firm understanding of NRS 608.160 for the intent of the law was to prevent employers from taking tips for the benefit of the employer. Clearly, NRS 608.160 was not intended to prevent an employer from benefiting from having tipped employees, however. it certainly WAS intended to prevent employers from deriving a benefit from the taking of tips from his employees. Mr. Kramer has admitted that when employers are allowed to mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment, employers are allowed to take tips from particular employees so that others may receive a share of their tips. Mr. Kramer has also admitted that when an employee receives tips, it benefits the employer because customers are, in effect, subsidizing the employer's staffing costs which subsequently saves the employer money which he may use for his own purposes. While I understand that employers do not seem to be prohibitted from deriving a benefit from having tipped employees, I believe that employers not only should be prohibitted from taking tips so that they can derive such benefits, I also beleive that the intent of NRS 608.160 was specifically designed to limit such benefits. While employers deriving benefits from customer's tipping their employees may be unpreventable, deriving benefits from the taking of tips so that employers can derive even greater benefits is preventable. Many states have clarified that tip pooling must be strictly voluntary and uncoerced. Nevada, on the other hand has interpretted it's laws in a manner that allows employers to force their workers into pooling tips where employers may derive greater admitted benefits While Mr. Kramer suggests that employers benefitting themselves to the customers tip is OK and that his attempts to increase those benefits to the employer should not be scrutinized, I believe our laws did not intend to open up the gates to employers benefitting themselves to the tips customers are presenting their employees. If we can limit the benefits employers are deriving from the tips customers are intending their employees, I believe that it would be not only in the best interest of the employee but also in the best interest of the public. I am hopeful that the Nevada Supreme court agrees. The fate of millions of tipped employees is in their hands. The fate of the consumer's tip is in their hands. I just wish I could figure out how the fate of the customer's tip got into the Supreme Courts hand's. As I recall, NRS 608.160 states clearly that it is unlawful for ANYONE to take all or any part ot the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees. Was the word "anyone" unintended or was the word "his" unintended? Last Edited By: G money 04/16/08 05:13. Edited 3 times.
G money	Was Judge Thompson protecting the workers?	#36	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/23/08 01:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	In 1975 Judge Thompson interpreted NRS 608.160 Mr Kramer went on to state, In his discussion of the case he clearly parses out the language of 608.160. I am going to skip a portion of that quotation. What I read to you now is the exact quotation from the case. He's parsed it out and he says, quote "This is a reasonable interpretation in the light of commonly known tipping practices in the state of Nevada", "There is no reason to suppose that the last person in a service line is the only one entitled to share in the customer's bounty". So where is this language of 608.160 which Judge Thompson was allegedly parsing out? I see nothing in 608.160 that states what Mr. Kramer has suggested is parsed out in the language of NRS 608.160. How can a law determine who is, or isn't, entitled to a tip freely given by a customer? To suggest that state laws address who each and every tip is intended for is deceptive and totally ridiculous. There is absolutely no language parsed out in NRS 608.160 which would suggest that a tip should not be regarded as the property of the person to whom it is bestowed upon. Judge Thompson obviously was adding his own language to a Nevada statute without any substantiating evidence to back up his assertion. While customers could have been brought in to testify either in support or dissent of Judge Thompson's suggestion that there is no reason to suppose that the last person in a service line is the only one entitled to share in the customer's bounty, Judge Thompson simply took it upon himself to testify on behalf of every customer. The truth of the matter is, Judge Thompson ignored the language of NRS 608.160 and instead, made up his own law. His law suggests that an employee who is presented a tip should not be able to claim such property as his own. While NRS 608.160 clearly states that it is unlawful for any person to take all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees, Judge Thompson's ruling has effectively stripped such employees of their ability to claim the tips which have been bestowed upon them. Instead, employers will decide who should or shouldn't be entitled to the customer's bounty. While Judge Thompson suggested that all those working in a line of service should be entitled to a share of the customer's bounty, he took absolutely no steps to insure that all those in the line of service receive their share of the customer's bounty. It is quite evident that Judge Thompson had no sincere or legitimate concerns for those working in the line of service. He did not rule that all those working in a line of service must be included in the sharing of the customer's bounty. If Judge Thompson was truly concerned about those in the line of service receiving their rightful share of the tips, he would have ruled that tips must be pooled, not that employers may pool tips. One of the consequenses of Judge Thompson's ruling is that employers will now control the customer's tip. Those who are in the line of service, which Judge Thompson pretended to sympathize with, have absolutely no say over whether or not they receive a share of the pooled tips the judge suggested they are entitled to. After this ruling, only employers may decide whether or not an employee is entitled to a share of the customer's tip. Clearly Judge Thompson's suggested concern or those who work in the line of service was disingenuous for not one worker after this ruling is able to include themself in a tip pool. While his ruling suggested that it was concerned with insuring that those who work in the line of service receive their share of the tips, he claims they are entitled to, the application of his ruling ingores such employees and focuses directly on an allowance that employers may control the customer's tip. If an employer wants to include certain workers in the sharing of the customer's bounty, he may do so. If an employer doesn't want particular employees sharing in the customer's bounty he may exclude them at his discretion. Was this a ruling that genuinely sought to protect those working in the line of service? No it wasn't. It's clear to me that Judge Thompson had no concerns for the workers who work in a line of service. His ruling was directly aimed at providing employers with a ruling that would allow employers to ignore a state law that clearly explains that it is unlawful for any person to take all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees. One other point I would like to bring up about the Moen ruling is that while Judge Thompson, himself, suggested that a reasonable iterpretation of NRS 608.160 part 2 would be that Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent such employees from entering into an agreement with their employer or other employees to divide such tips or gratuities among the employees, Judge Thompson is clearly rewriting the law. Is it really reasonable for a judge to rewrite our laws? Is it really reasonable for a Judge to arbitrarily add language to a law so that it substantiates his ruling? And where are these agreements employees have apparantly entered into with their employer? According to Judge Herndon, the dealers at Wynns didn't have a contract. According to the Nevada Supreme court employers don't have to give employees a contract for Nevada is right to work state. While Judge Thompson suggested that employers should be able to enter into this agreement to divide tips among workers, Nevada continues to act as if there is no agreement when employers mandate tip pooling. How can a ruling that relied on an alleged agreement between employers and their employees now be used to substantiate that there is no agreement in place and as such employers may modify their non-existent agreement at any time? Last Edited By: G money 04/23/08 01:57. Edited 4 times.
G money	Two important issues at stake in this case.	#37	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/27/08 12:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	There are two issues which seem to be at the heart of this case. The first concerns the meaning of the word "take" as used in NRS 608.160 which states that it is unlawful for any person to "take" all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees. After doing some research on the word "take", I came across another Nevada Statute that seems to define the word "take". NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theft. 1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, he knowingly: (a) Controls any property of another person with the intent to deprive that person of the property. (b) Converts, makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or placed in his possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use. (c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person of the property or services. As used in this paragraph, "material misrepresentation" means the use of any pretense, or the making of any promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact which is fraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act. (d) Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another person under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates that property to his own use or that of another person without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner. (e) Controls property of another person knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen. (f) Obtains services or parts, products or other items related to such services which he knows are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation or diverts the services of another person to his own benefit or that of another person without lawful authority to do so. (g) Takes, destroys, conceals or disposes of property in which another person has a security interest, with intent to defraud that person. (h) Commits any act that is declared to be theft by a specific statute. (i) Draws or passes a check, and in exchange obtains property or services, if he knows that the check will not be paid when presented. (j) Obtains gasoline or other fuel or automotive products which are available only for compensation without paying or agreeing to pay compensation. 2. A person who commits an act that is prohibited by subsection 1 which involves the repair of a vehicle has not committed Clearly the act of taking with intent to defraud is an act which constitutes THEFT. Please also note that THEFT is defined as an act that "controls any property of another person with the intent to deprive that person of the property", or an act that "converts, makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization controls any property of another person, or uses the services or property of another person entrusted to him or placed in his possession for a limited, authorized period of determined or prescribed duration or for a limited use." Clearly , when NRS explains that it is unlawful for any person to "take" all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees, it is explaining that it is unlawful for any person to controls any property of another person with the intent to deprive that person of the property. Clearly, when NRS explains that it is unlawful for any person to "take" all or any part of the tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees, it is explaining that it is unlawful for any person to make an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or without authorization to control any property of another person. The second issue which this case seems to address is whether or not there is a private right of action. Again I have found two Nevada Statutes that seem to clarify this issue. NRS 612.190 "Wages" defined. 1. "Wages" means: (a) All remuneration paid for personal services, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration payable in any medium other than cash; and (b) Income from tips reported by an employee to his employer pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6053(a). For the purposes of determining income from tips: NRS 607.175 Assignment and consolidation of claims for wages or commissions. The Labor Commissioner or other designated agent of employees may take assignments of wage or commission claims and bring a single action against any one employer on any number of such assigned claims. I believe the court's suggestion that in order for an employee to bring a claim against his employer for unlawfully taking his tips, the employee must first prove that his employer is directly benefitting from the employer mandated tip pooling is inaccurate. Nevada statutes suggest that the word "take" as used in NRS 608.160 is synonomous with theft when the intent is to defraud. Theft is defined as the contolling of another's property with the intent to deprive the person his propery. Theft is further defined as an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, or unauthorized control of any property of another person, or use of such property. In summation, it is my belief that employers who mandate tip pooling as a condition of employment are indeed taking the tips bestowed upon their employees for as Steve Wynn's lawyers have admitted in court Mr. Wynn was both taking the tips bestowed upon his employees and using such money to reduce his staffing costs which, in turn, resulted in revenues which Mr. Wynn was able to use for his own personal interests, such as purchasing fixtures, building volcanos, mountains and waterfalls for his business. As to the question of whether or not the plaintiffs have a private right of action, I believe NRS 612.190, in conjunction with NRS 607.175 clearly substantiates that the plaintiffs do have a private right of action due to the fact that tips are included as wages under NRS 612.190 and NRS 607.175 subatantiates that a desgnated agent of employees may take assignments of wage or commission claims and bring a single action against any one employer on any number of such assigned claims. Last Edited By: G money 04/29/08 11:17. Edited 1 times.
Geffen Izlude	I agree	#38	[-]
Member Posts: 1747 (04/27/08 12:39) Mod Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I agree with your interpretation of the statutes G Money. I hope the Nevada supreme court does as well. If they agree and rule that Wynn Las Vegas IS liable for monetary damamges, that going to be one big pay day for the Wynn Dealers. It will also me a big pay day for they team leaders because I seriously doubt that they will have to go back to their original compensation. the only difference is that their raise wouldn't come from the dealers toke pool. Talk about a jackpot.
G money	Sorry for the repost	#39	[-]
Member Posts: 979 (04/29/08 11:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry for reposting this quote from a highly regarded employment practice attorney but it illistrates a point pertinent to the Wynn case, that being, whether or not employee's have a private right of action concerning wage claims. "This is not just a California issue; the entire tipping industry might soon be affected. As tip pooling lawsuits continue to grow in number across the country and employers subsequently have to shell out millions of dollars, the practice could become a thing of the past," said Paul DeCamp, former Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division and current co-chair of Jackson Lewis' Wage and Hour Practice Group. Clearly, Mr. DeCamp, former Admimistrator of the U.S. Department of Labor realizes, that employees have a private right of action concerning wage claims. Why else would he suggest that employers will have to shell our millions of dollars? Last Edited By: G money 04/29/08 11:18. Edited 1 times.
starbucks	I hope	#40	[-]
Member Posts: 200 (05/04/08 07:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I hope the supreme court realizes that when an employee is paid minimum wage, they are entitled to tips, whereas when an employee is paid a good salary, whether said salary is delineated as hourly (a facade at best) .... then they should not share the same. It is quite simple really! Last Edited By: starbucks 06/10/08 08:49. Edited 1 times.

Yuku free message boards

April 7th hearing

Quick Reply