Tutta Bella vs. the Disgruntled and Anonymous

In an article entitled Tutta Bella vs. the Disgruntled and Anonymous it was stated by you that:







We wondered if the practice was legal, and so we were emailed this link to the Department of Labor, which didn't definitively answer the question. "This is the same information the DOL provided me when I asked them about tip pooling regulations," the source stated. "It seems that there is no concrete language regarding tip pools, or in other words, it appears open to interpretation." We later consulted a respected food and wine critic with about thirty years experience covering this beat for a local newspaper, but all he could do for us was confirm that the practice isn't standard.







You see, the question is;







Is tip pooling something that is open to interpretation.







There are two schools of thought on tip pooling.







Tip pooling is a means for business to distribute the customers tip to workers who deserve the customer's tip.







Tip pooling is the constitutional right of an employee to voluntarily give part of his tips to other workers.







You see, federal laws state that nothing is to prohibit the pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. The questions that remain unanswered are why must tip pooling be allowed and what actually is tip pooling.







While I have explained the two schools of thought on what tip pooling is, the question of why tip pooling must be allowed leaves only one school of thought on the question of what is tip pooling.







Is there any reason employers should be allowed to share the customer's tip with other workers?







There can be no reason for allowing businesses to share the customer's tip with workers for it is the customers constitutional right to determine for himself who should be the recipient of his tip. If businesses are errantly allowed to distribute the customer's tip to workers who the business feels deserves part of the customer's tip, the customer would be deprived his liberty to determine for himself who should be the recipient of his tip. Our constitution states that no law shall be passed which deprives any person of life, liberty or property. You see, there can be no argument that federal laws should be interpreted in a manner which allows business to control who receives the customer's tip for such a law would violate the 14th amendment of our constitution. If there actually was some law which was to be interpreted as a law giving employers a right to share the customer's tip with workers, it would be a law that was unconstitutional. Federal laws, in particular the one you have provided a link for in your article, state that tips are the sole property of the tipped employee. If there actually exists a law which provides that businesses can share the customers tip with workers who deserve the customer's tip, such a law would deprive customers of their liberty to determine for themselves who should be the recipient of their tip and at the same time such a law would deprive the tipped employee of his property, his tip.







You see, when one properly interprets tip pooling as the constitutional right of an employee to voluntarily share his tips with other workers, there becomes a logical explanation as to why there are no regulations concerning tip pooling. When tips are viewed correctly as the sole property of the tipped employee and not errantly as group property to be shared among those who deserve them, it becomes apparent that no regulations can exist as to who may share in the customer's tip. Since tips are defined as the sole property of the tipped employee, it would be up to the tipped employee to decide who he might share his tips with for tips are his property to use however he chooses. There could be no regulations concerning tip pooling when tip pooling is clearly understood as the constitutional right of an employee to exercise his liberty.







Because so many states have sided with business owners on this issue, there now has become an obvious problem with their school of thought. If business have been allowed to share the customer's tip with workers who deserve the customer's tip, which workers may be included in the employer mandated tip pool? You see, by errantly agreeing with businesses that tip pooling is the right of an employer to share the customer's tip with workers who deserve a share of the customer's tip, there has now evolved the question of who are these workers that deserve the customer's tip. While it should be up to the customer to determine who should be the receipient and deserving of his tip, the responsibility and right of determining who should be the recipient of the customer's tip has now errantly been transferred from the customer to labor agencies, judges and law makers.







There is only one correct school of thought on tip pooling and that is that it is the right of a tipped employee to voluntarily share his tips with other workers. There can be no question as to who can be included in a tip pool for that issue is an issue solely up to the worker who is sharing his tips. Lawmakers, labor agencies and judges have no authority to determine who can share in the customer's tip for it is the sole property of the tipped employee. This issue is not open to interpetation, for while our laws may be somewhat vague on defining tip pooling and explaining why it must be allowed, our constitution is quite clear on this matter. Customers' must be afforded their liberty to determine who will be the recipient of their tip, Employees, likewise, must be afforded their right to exersise their liberty and cannot be deprived of what federal laws have defined as their sole property, their tip. Employers who mandate that tips must be pooled are unconstitutionally infringing on the personal freedoms of the American consumer and are depriving workers of their property, their tip. There is no question on this matter.







The reason there still exists a debate over tip pooling is quite obvious when one understands what the prevelent interpetation actually allows. The majority of states who are allowing employers to mandate tip pooling are actually allowing business to utilize the customers' tip for the business's personal interests. Business know that if they can share the customer's tip with more workers they can reduce the wages paid these workers and thus benfit from customers tipping their employees. Business have even went so far as lobbying the federal government for the ability to pay tipped workers wages below the national minimum wage. Businesses have successfully set up a situtation where the customers' tip can be utitlized by the business to save itself money. The customer's tip is now being distributed to as many workers as state lawmakers and judges will allow, so that business owners will not have to pay their workers minimum wage. When business are allowed to pay workers wages below the minimum wage requirements of this country, the savings become direct profits for the business. Business are turning the customers tip, which is clearly not intended for the finacial benefit of the business owner, into financial profits for the business owner all because people like you continue to believe that tip pooling is open for interpretation.







Tip pooling is not open for interpretation. It is the workers constitutional right to spend his money however he chooses just as it is the customer's constitutional right to spend his money however he chooses. Those that refuse to accept such undebatable logic, are only looking to steal what customers present workers in the service industry.

"We hire all new servers with this understanding. For the record, the salaried manager and kitchen manager do not share in the tip pool. Hourly floor supervisors share in the tip pool when they are working the floor"

A functional use of tense avoids answering the question of whether managers at the full-service Wallingford location have shared in the tip pool; Mr. Fugere only states that this is not current practice.

I second that...their pizza is still very good. I went to Tutta Bella's Wallingford location and the service seemed much better and much much less confused than when I first went there in late December (2 weeks after they opened).

FWIW on staff turnover: Had the same server both times.

matt doesn't work at tutta bella so at worst he's channeling someone else's job frustrations.

The pizza, I'm happy to report, is still good. It appears they're still working some kinks out of their system, though.

so is their pizza still good? i mean, i try not to support restaurants that cheat their employees, being that my parents owned a restaurant for more than two decades and they valued the relationships they had with their staff as much as those with their employees, but im not working at tutta bella, just eating there. and thanks for taking out the frustrations of your job on a blog instead of my food.