|
Management's
Toke Policy
Is there a hidden agenda?
By
LeOgreensing
It is surprising how many dealers have little or no knowledge of
the laws that protect their tips. Federal and state labor laws do
provide some protection for an employees tips however,
understanding what these laws actually do in the way of protecting
an employees tips is a question that seems only answerable through
our courts. Our courts have only answered in riddles, making the
intent of these laws something of a task that is only for them to
decipher. Tips are part of a work agreement offered to dealers in
exchange for acceptance of a job paying a very low salary.
In several court cases it was decided that since forcing dealers
to pool their tips does not benefit an employer that the labor law
protecting those tips did not prohibit an employer from imposing
forced tip pooling on it's employees . And so dealers it seems
have come to accept the decision by the courts to allow employers
to force them to pool their tips. I feel there was a slight
problem for the courts however.
Labor law states that it is unlawful for any person to take all or
part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees. How
can you not be TAKING part of their tips if you are forcing them
into giving part of them to others. I believe this problem is why
in several court decisions they stated that the evident purpose
and proper interpretation of the statute is that it was enacted to
prevent the taking of tips by an employer for the benefit of the
employer.
If no benefit to the employer can be shown from the forced tip
pooling then it would not constitute "Taking". Further
support to this decision was part two of this same labor law which
stated that nothing contained in this section shall be construed
to prevent such employees from entering into an agreement to
divide such tips or gratuities among themselves. I am sure that
someone must have argued that this supported a tip pooling option
for employers.
What I wonder is what happened to the interpretation of among
themselves? Was it interpreted to only mean that the tips where to
be divided among employees? Was it over looked that this could
mean that the decision to pool their tips was to be made among the
employees themselves? It was however decided by the courts that it
meant only that the tips would be divided among whoever themselves
meant. This I believe was a mistake. Now who defines who
themselves are.
It seems to have been given over to the employers along with any
protection that the labor laws were supposed to provide us with.
The interpretation of "benefit" has become the vehicle
to fight off any complaints of employees unsatisfied with the lack
of protection afforded by the labor laws. I have been told and
have experienced a truth that many dealers do not realize. When
tips are not pooled dealers make more in tips simply due to the
motivation that reaping of ones own harvest offers them.
This is understood by most other tip earners exhibited by the fact
that most tip earners who can, choose to keep their own tips.
Casinos have a conflict of interest with the receiving of tips by
employees, especially those employees who are claiming 100 percent
of their tips as income for tax purposes. The more in tips that
dealers make the more in social security matching funds the
employer must pay out. If a tip earner makes 100 dollars in tips
they will have around 7 dollars withheld out of their paycheck to
go towards their social security. That amount must be matched by
their employer.
Do you think your employer would use tip pooling as a means to
lower your tip income so they can reduce their expenditures? Do
you think your employer would use tip pooling to reduce your tip
income to keep down the salaries of your supervisors? If you made
more in tips would your employer have to spend more on the
salaries of hosts, floormen, pit managers, shift managers, and
casino executives? I think it's time we all learned a little more
about our rights as tax paying citizens of the United States of
America.
(Back
to Index)
|
