If you’re referencing something I wrote, you are misrepresenting what I’ve said. If your comment is directed at Bruce, I suggest you make your comment there.

I think also you mean to say I’m making a fallacious argument; from a rhetorical point of view, using outliers can be powerful. Think of the welfare queen story.

As for those broad-stroke empirical studies, I’m sure they are well done. My point is, and has always been, that it’s not a panacea and can actually be bad in certain cases. My clients don’t want to be statistics. They want to know what to do in their particular case. Professionals are called on to make those judgments. We aren’t social scientists. All that matters is the one case. And if it is that outlier, we are not doing our job to supply knee-jerk advice.

All I’ve ever posted is challenges to that dogma when it applies. And I would say it applies more often where I work than in many places, because courts and juries are more employer friendly. Does your study correct for that?

I think the current state of California law and the “arbitroskepticism” shown by the Court of Appeal, along with the current forum’s dynamics (as well as that of the individual client) have to be considered before your recommend this to clients. And putting out e-mail blasts saying “contact us about drafting an arbitration clause” or “you need to have your agreement reviewed every two weeks” is ham handed marketing. You might generate some fees. You might even get to take a case to the Court of Appeal. But after the fees are paid, is your client better off?

I for one bet Circuit City wished it had some of the money it paid its lawyers to be so aggressive with each and every one of its employment policies back when it filed for bankruptcy. But, hey, it was an outlier, right? Apparently it and/or its attorneys didn’t think so; they thought they were right in the wheelhouse of normal.

At the very least, I think reasonable people can disagree, empirical studies notwithstanding.

This is new to me. I just don’t understand how a court can rely on another court ruling when the previous ruling violates the very law it has attempted to intepret.

One thing you do not do is give up. There are millions of workers out there like you. They don’t know what to do about the fact that their employer is stealing their tips and our government refuses to enforce our laws. We must speak out and speak out loud.

The messages we must get out are,

If customers want their tips shared, they have every ability to share them themselves.

Our government has no authority to determine who the customer’s private property, his tip belongs to.

Tip pooling is the right of an employee to share his tips with whom-ever he wants due to the fact that he is the only one who has been authorized to use the customer’s tip for what-ever purposes he wants.

Business owners are stealing the customer’s tip when they mandate that tips must be used to compensate other employees against the wishes of the employee whom was actaully presented the tip.

Tip jars, tip pooling, service charges and tip credits are all business practices devised to steal the customer’s tip.

As always, appreciate the mention. Thanks.

Would you be kind enough to drop me an e-mail I can reply to? There’s something I want to raise off-line.

Bruce