Re: Starbuck's calsss action lawsuit.
- View SourceWhile California law is said to expressly allow tip-pooling,
there are two differing interpretations of what tip pooling
actually is. The correct interpretation is that tip pooling
is an employee's constitutional right to share his property
with other workers of his choosing. The incorrect
interpretation of tip pooling is that is the business's
right to share the consumer's tip with workers who the state
of California is authorized to determine are entitled to the
consumer's tip. Now, I don't think anyone would disagree with
me that it is, and should be, the right of the consumer to
determine who should receive his tip, not the state of
California's right nore any state's right.
Who ever is behind the deceptive conclusion that California
state law expressly allows employer mandated tip pooling is
either clearly mistaken or is blatantly lying, for while
state law may allow voluntary tip pooling, allowing employer
mandated tip pooling would not only deprive consumers of
their liberty to determine for themselves who should receive
their tip, it would also abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of California.
By incorrectly interpreting section 351 of California's labor
code as allowing employers to mandate that the consumers tip
will be shared among a group of workers, California is
forcing it's courts to determine for the consumer who should
receive his tip and, in doing so, are depriving the citizens
of the state of California their constitutional right to
determine such matters for themselves.
In the meantime employers are getting away with stealing tips
from the workers who actually receive tips from consumers.
I believe California is aiding and abetting business owners
in the theft of billions of dollars in tips individual workers
have received from the public by interpreting their laws as
laws which allow employers to take the tips consumers have
bestowed on individual workers so that they may be shared with
the workers who the state of California fraudulently deems are
legally entitled to the consumer's tip.
Only the consumer has a right to determine who is legally
entitled to the tip he presents. As such, California has no
authority to determine who may share in the consumer's tip,
and as such, California law cannot expressly allow employers
to mandate that tips must be pooled, for such would
necessitate California violating the privileges and
immunities of citizens of California by depriving the citizens
of California of their constitutional right to determine for
themselves how their money is spent.
Dunahoo v. Huber, 185 Iowa 753 (1919) (statute violates the
state privileges & immunities clause because there was no
reasonable grounds for allowing employers to accept tips and
prohibitting employees from accepting tips when "engaged in
like services".") Ex Parte Farb, 178 Cal. 592 (1918) (statute
violates the due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution
and the freedom of contract provision of the California
constitution). Anti-tipping statutes were repealed in
Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee in 1925,
1926, 1922, and 1925, respectively.
It should also stand to reason that laws which deem the
consumer's tip to be property of a group of workers would
be laws which violate the state privileges & immunities
clause because there is no reasonable grounds for allowing
a group of workers to accept tips and prohibitting
individual employees from accepting tips when "engaged in