Culinary:           Bartenders represent tens of thousands of tip earners; you'd think that the IUGE would have talked to us before launching this. You'd think wrong. Never a word from the IUGE! Instead, their initiative only represents dealers—forgetting about the tens of thousands who work in other tipped classifications.

IUGE Answer to above: We had no reason to contact the Culinary Union because we did not suspect that a union representing tip earners would make an alliance with Steve Wynn, who is confiscating his own worker’s tips.  There is no way that we can get into D. Taylor’s mind to know why in the world he would hook up with Steve Wynn in his tip grab effort.  It will be up to the Culinary Union membership to ask that question.

Culinary:         The IUGE didn't understand what they were doing when they wrote the initiative, so it is so badly written that it won't work even for them. It will upset everyone else's tip arrangements and make for years of litigation over tips. -  

IUGE Answer to above: We, our attorneys and allied public officials spent countless hours wording, defining and fine tuning the PEST initiative petition until everyone involved believed it was as near perfect as possible. We had very talented and professional input every step of the way throughout the entire process. For D. Taylor to say we didn’t understand what we were doing is to show his complete lack of knowledge of the legal system.

Culinary:          The initiative says that tips would be shared among "eligible" employees and says that these are "the actual and direct recipient of the tips or gratuities".  What about guaranteed gratui­ties, room charges, credit card charges, etc.? The initiative doesn't say who would decide what employees are "eligible"—except a court.  So that means having to get lawyers every ^    • time there is a question about who gets tips (so the lawyers will get them instead of the workers!). This wannabe law says that the "eligible" employees would decide how to split tips. It does­n't say how they will decide. Unanimous? Majority vote? Two-thirds majority? Show of hands? Secret ballot? It doesn't say who will conduct the decision - the employer, the Labor Commissioner, some self-appointed tip czar? If there is disagreement about what has been decided, once again it is the courts and the lawyers who will decide and make money!

IUGE Answer to above: The Culinary should note that NRS 608.160 is not a “wannabe law,” it is a Nevada Statute. And the change to the law that our Initiative makes is that it is unlawful for employers to take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon his employees. As far as which employees are considered eligible employees: Eligible employees includes all the categories named above, as defined in the collective bargaining agreement. He is just trying to use smoke and mirrors to confuse the union members. He is saying that it is so complicated that only he knows what to do. It is not that complicated. If the tip earners wish to share or split their tips with other employees, they are certainly free to do so.  Our initiative simply states that an employer cannot take the tips, or decide who they will go to. Tipped employees have the intelligence to decide how their tips should be split or allocated. 

Culinary:           Worst of all, it subjects Culinary and Bartenders members to all of this hassle, uncertainty and cost! There is no exemption for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements! The IUGE might have thought that's what they were doing and they promise it in their de­scription, but the only exemption for union contracts is one that allows the employer to divide up tips. Of course, Culinary and Bartenders agreements don't do that—they give the work­ers and their unions the power to decide these things, not the employer. So this law would disrupt the way we having been dealing with tips for all this time. The unions would be forced to fight the law in order to save what we have!

IUGE Answer to above: In the NRS 608.160, and in our initiative, it specifically states that collective bargaining agreements will supersede the statute in deciding the disposition of tips. In a collective bargaining agreement the employer does not have the option to divide up tips. He only may require that tips be pooled.  Other aspects of the tip pool are decided by the employees, either directly or through the controlling collective bargaining agreement. For the Culinary Union to say our initiative provides that “only the employer may divide up tips” is a lie. Most of the points raised are lies and distortions and subterfuge used to confuse the membership and demean the IUGE. What they are really doing is trying to cover up the fact that they allied themselves with Steve Wynn against our petition effort. But facts are stubborn things. Cover stories rarely work.

To clarify this item, the IUGE is providing the actual wording of the Initiative, which in two places defines the preeminence of the collective bargaining agreement over the statutory provisions as follows:           

         “Ensure that any applicable collective bargaining agreement regarding tip pooling will be permitted without interference.”

and

          “it shall be unlawful for their employer to require that particular employees receive an allocation of  those shared tips or gratuities, unless the provisions of an applicable collective bargaining agreement authorize the employer to make such a determination or requirement.”

                                          ***                                      [up]