Replies

Mysterio wrote:
I think it's ridiculous that the employers are lowering the wages to steal part of the tip. I think it's scummy business practices. But I don't want the government doing anything about it.

You have missed the point of this thread completely. The government is the one who approved this criminal business practice in the first place. The government should be doing something about it, for it is their mess to begin with. The tip credit has included a provision which states that a business owner can reduce the wages of an employee who receives tips if and only if the employee is allowed to retain all tips. The mess started when none of those writing this legislation took the time to look up the meaning of the word "retain". "Retain" is defined as, to keep in possession or use, and yet, this bill which blatantly allows employers an ability to use their employee's tips to reduce the wages of their employees states that in order for an employer to utilize the tip credit, he must allow the tipped employee to "retain" or use his tips. You see, if those writing this bill would have taken the time to look up the meaning of the word "retain" they would have realized that this bill is illegal to begin with. This bill violates federal law when one understands what the word "retain" actually means.

You see, it is impossible for an employee to use his tips for his purposes when his employer is allowed to use them to reduce the employee's income. This legislation has acually included provisions which prohibit itself. Why would Congress pass a bill which prohibits itself? How about for money. It is a clear violation of federal law for an employer to retain any part of his employee's tips and yet there where many lobbiests willing to pledge campaign contributions to anyone who would support the tip credit bill. Since those being offered money must have known that such a law would be in violation of not only the Fair Labor Standards Act but the Constitution of the Untited States, they had to include a provision upholding the current law which stated clearly that an employer must allow the tipped employee to retain all tips. You see, our constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived property without due process of law. If the tip credit was understood clearly as a means to deprive the tipped employee of his tips, such a law would be unconstitutional. Therefore, it was necessary that congress include a provision which distorted the truth of this bill's intent, which was clearly to deprive the tipped employee of his property, his tip. By stating in the provisions of this bill that employers could only take a tip credit if and only if they allowed the tipped employee to retain all tips, the true intent of this bill, which was to circumvent the federal law which mandates that employers must allow the tipped employee to retain all tips, would be less conspicuous.

Those who wrote this bill could contend that they had no idea that this bill was actually circumventing previous federal laws and that they had included provisions specifically designed to prevent this bill from circumventing previous laws. They could disguise the true intent of this bill which was clearly to allow business owners an ability to circumvent the previous law and the constitutional rights of their employees by including a provision which appeared to prevent such violations

The tip credit bill has allowed business owners an ability to deprive the tipped employee of his property, his tips. Businesses who utilize the tip credit can reduce the wages of an employee based on the fact that he received tips. When employers are allowed to reduce the wages of an employee who receives tips, the financial benefit and use of this extra income customers have bestowed on him are deprived the tipped employee. You may have given Jane the waitress a $20 tip, but her employer, thanks to the tip credit, is now allowed to reduce her wages by $20 because you gave her a tip. Jane will not retain the use of your $20 tip because she will not actually receive it. While Jane may go home with your $20 tip, her paycheck will be shorted $20, due to the fact that our federal government doesn't understand that the tip credit they passed into legislation has allowed her employer to benefit himself to the fincial benefit of your tip. Is jane retaining her tip when she goes home with the same income she would have had you not tipped her? You see, if Jane wouldn't have received any tips during her work day, her employer would have had to have paid her the full minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. But, since you chose to give Jane a tip, her employer is now allowed to reduce her wages by an amount up to $24.16 if she receives at least that much in tips. Jane will go home with no more in her pocket than she would have had you not even tipped her. Her employer, on the other hand, will go home with an extra $20 in his pocket, for you the customer, unknowingly saved him $20 by tipping his employee. Because you tipped his employee, the employer is allowed by federal law to lower his payroll expenditures for the day and as such can benefit himself to your tip.

This federal law has deceptively allowed employers an ability to retain the financial benefits of their employee's tips and at the same time included provisions for preventing employers from retaining the financial benefits of their employee's tips simply to mislead and deceive the public into beleiving that this bill does not violate federal law and the constitution of the United States. Those who support this law will argue "but the employee is still retaining his tip? "the employer is simply being allowed to reduce the workers wages". Those who have supported this law cannot and will not explain why Jane will have to go home without the financial benefit of the tip you gave her.

This law was specifically designed to deprive Jane of the finacial benefit of your tip so that business owners could fraudulently benefit themselves to money not intended for them. To disguise such blatant criminal intent, this law was written with provisions suggesting that this law could not allow business onwers an ability to retain their employee's tips when clearly this law was enacted with the specific intent of allowing business owners an ability to retain their employee's tips.