Popeyes manager fired for refusing to pay back $400 taken in armed robbery

[Pogo]

Hey you, I hadn't seen you there.

On the cash drawer though, one thing that keeps getting lost is this -- from the OP article:

But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
​

"Were the registers" -- plural.

If as some have suggested here the max allowed in a given drawer is $200, it only takes two registers to make "nearly $400". And in a fast food jernt with a promo going on, we can be sure there was more than one register operating.

... Hey there, my apologies (kind of) ... I was just being a smart-ass.
It happens sometimes ... But why am I telling you ... I think you lettered in that sport.

That kind of idle flattery will get you everywhere.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

So what are you saying -- the robbery didn't happen?

Or that he has X-ray vision and can see inside the cash drawer? Because if it's the latter he could prolly make way more money legitimately.

And /I/ am the one who's lost?

No, I am saying that it is not some stupid useless business policy she shouldn't be fired over like you are trying to argue, it is based on decades of research, analysis, and is a proven deterrent to robberies.

We do indeed have a misunderstanding because that's not what I'm arguing at all. Dropping the cash seems perfectly reasonable to me, matter o' fact I think if there's any threat of crime in the area they oughta have an ATM-like cash machine like we get at the grocery, that way nobody touches it.

What I'm arguing against is this idea that having that policy and exercising it somehow deters robberies. Clearly it didn't deter this one, nor could it because there's no way for the thug to know in advance whether there's a lot of money in there, a little, or none at all. If he had known that he would have gone for the register drawers first instead of farting around trying to get into the safe.

The shift manager was not fired over $400 nor the robbery, but rather because of the WIDER PICTURE. She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies; which are /mostly/ dangerous to employees and customers (because the business gets the money back through insurance; unless the insurance has a rider that /requires/ that cash be moved from the registers to the vaults.)

-- or so they claim, after it became a news story. Still, the lingering question there is -- if she had this history -- why wasn't she fired, disciplined or demoted before now?

Further, how many registers did they have in operation? "Nearly $400" out of four registers would average 100 each. We keep hearing the threshold is about $200.

Thus, it is not heartless nor cruel for a business to insist that their managers follow that particular policy as one of their primary duties, and if a manager is failing to follow policies, it is not "wrong" for the company to fire them because of it.

Again, that part isn't in question here. What's in question, all the way back to the very thread title, is their demanding she pay back $400 that some thug stole as a condition of keeping her job.

 

[Gracie]

Fast food joints have one clerk at one register and there are usually 4 to 6 registers...counting the Drive Through. And each clerk is responsible for their drawer. No sharing. No double clerking in one register.

When I worked at the hardware store, for example, we were relieved of duty at the end of our shift 15 minutes before clocking out. It gave each shift of clerks time to take their register drawer to the back office, tally the money, compare with receipts, etc. New folks coming in to work had their own drawer of starting $200 bucks, which was kept locked up by the manager prepared prior to their arriving to work.

So if it were a large McD's, there are about 6 registers. Taco Bell has one. At least here in this town. They give their order, pay, get the receipt and call number, step out of line and wait for that number to be called. ONE register. Easier to maintain. We don't have a popeyes here (love their rice and beans) so I figure in bigger cities, Taco Bell has a different method.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

So what are you saying -- the robbery didn't happen?

Or that he has X-ray vision and can see inside the cash drawer? Because if it's the latter he could prolly make way more money legitimately.

And /I/ am the one who's lost?

No, I am saying that it is not some stupid useless business policy she shouldn't be fired over like you are trying to argue, it is based on decades of research, analysis, and is a proven deterrent to robberies.

We do indeed have a misunderstanding because that's not what I'm arguing at all. Dropping the cash seems perfectly reasonable to me, matter o' fact I think if there's any threat of crime in the area they oughta have an ATM-like cash machine like we get at the grocery, that way nobody touches it.

What I'm arguing against is this idea that having that policy and exercising it somehow deters robberies. Clearly it didn't deter this one, nor could it because there's no way for the thug to know in advance whether there's a lot of money in there, a little, or none at all. If he had known that he would have gone for the register drawers first instead of farting around trying to get into the safe.

I provided ample evidence that it does indeed deter robberies, I even went so far as to provide actual robber's saying flat out that it deters them from robbing places. It's not my fault you can't be "bothered" to read them...

The shift manager was not fired over $400 nor the robbery, but rather because of the WIDER PICTURE. She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies; which are /mostly/ dangerous to employees and customers (because the business gets the money back through insurance; unless the insurance has a rider that /requires/ that cash be moved from the registers to the vaults.)

-- or so they claim, after it became a news story. Still, the lingering question there is -- if she had this history -- why wasn't she fired, disciplined or demoted before now?

Further, how many registers did they have in operation? "Nearly $400" out of four registers would average 100 each. We keep hearing the threshold is about $200.

I suspect she /was/ spoken to about not following the policy prior to the incident, and I bet she told them she would work on it.

As far as I can extrapolate from security video camera footage there are two registers in that particular store. (I made a post about that in the other thread on this)

In any event, we have no idea what their threshold is, it's not disclosed in the reports, but we can be pretty sure it /is/ less than $400.

Actually, the most common amount I see posted is $50, if we use that figure the robber should have only gotten away with $100 from the two registers.

EDIT Ah forgot drive through register, so maybe 3 registers total.

Thus, it is not heartless nor cruel for a business to insist that their managers follow that particular policy as one of their primary duties, and if a manager is failing to follow policies, it is not "wrong" for the company to fire them because of it.

Again, that part isn't in question here. What's in question, all the way back to the very thread title, is their demanding she pay back $400 that some thug stole as a condition of keeping her job.

So you're willing to automatically take her word that they demanded she pay back the $400, even though the spokesman for the company stated they had not heard that. Yet, you will not take the spokesman's word that the shift manager had a history of not following company policy and leaving to much money in the registers. I see.

In any event, the reporters of this case actually pointed out that many companies had a policy that employees are responsible for shortages in the registers, which /might/ be why she was asked to pay something back, if /that/ part even happened at all.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry you're getting lost in all that work, and no I'm not about to navigate all that.

Bottom line, I don't think a common thug hitting a Popeye's is crafting his profession on "studies". I think it's an impulsive thing. "Me have gun, need money, umgawa", that's it.

Your "thinking" is proven to be incorrect by the robbers who actually commit the crimes. Have fun.

So what are you saying -- the robbery didn't happen?

Or that he has X-ray vision and can see inside the cash drawer? Because if it's the latter he could prolly make way more money legitimately.

And /I/ am the one who's lost?

No, I am saying that it is not some stupid useless business policy she shouldn't be fired over like you are trying to argue, it is based on decades of research, analysis, and is a proven deterrent to robberies.

We do indeed have a misunderstanding because that's not what I'm arguing at all. Dropping the cash seems perfectly reasonable to me, matter o' fact I think if there's any threat of crime in the area they oughta have an ATM-like cash machine like we get at the grocery, that way nobody touches it.

What I'm arguing against is this idea that having that policy and exercising it somehow deters robberies. Clearly it didn't deter this one, nor could it because there's no way for the thug to know in advance whether there's a lot of money in there, a little, or none at all. If he had known that he would have gone for the register drawers first instead of farting around trying to get into the safe.

I provided ample evidence that it does indeed deter robberies, I even went so far as to provide actual robber's saying flat out that it deters them from robbing places. It's not my fault you can't be "bothered" to read them...

The shift manager was not fired over $400 nor the robbery, but rather because of the WIDER PICTURE. She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies; which are /mostly/ dangerous to employees and customers (because the business gets the money back through insurance; unless the insurance has a rider that /requires/ that cash be moved from the registers to the vaults.)

-- or so they claim, after it became a news story. Still, the lingering question there is -- if she had this history -- why wasn't she fired, disciplined or demoted before now?

Further, how many registers did they have in operation? "Nearly $400" out of four registers would average 100 each. We keep hearing the threshold is about $200.

I suspect she /was/ spoken to about not following the policy prior to the incident, and I bet she told them she would work on it.

As far as I can extrapolate from security video camera footage there are two registers in that particular store. (I made a post about that in the other thread on this)

There's another thread?

In any event, we have no idea what their threshold is, it's not disclosed in the reports, but we can be pretty sure it /is/ less than $400.

Actually, the most common amount I see posted is $50, if we use that figure the robber should have only gotten away with $100 from the two registers.

What I've seen posted (solely) is 200. That requires only two registers within those guidelines to make 400. It's guesswork, but if 200 is accurate and there were at least 2 registers, she wasn't even negligent in that policy, that's the point. If there are 4 to 6 registers per Gracie's observation above -- even less so.

Thus, it is not heartless nor cruel for a business to insist that their managers follow that particular policy as one of their primary duties, and if a manager is failing to follow policies, it is not "wrong" for the company to fire them because of it.

Again, that part isn't in question here. What's in question, all the way back to the very thread title, is their demanding she pay back $400 that some thug stole as a condition of keeping her job.

So you're willing to automatically take her word that they demanded she pay back the $400, even though the spokesman for the company stated they had not heard that. Yet, you will not take the spokesman's word that the shift manager had a history of not following company policy and leaving to much money in the registers. I see.

Wha?
I've seen nothing indicating "they had not heard that". What I did see is Corporate acknowledging that the local management fucked up (I'm paraphrasing). And no, I won't automatically take the word of a party that stands to gain from making a certain statement that they're telling the truth. But I do note that they backed up on it big time.

 

[Pop23]

Where did I say that?

Good god, rocket science again?

So you're on a flight of fancy that has nothing to do with this story? Which is it?

Prozac kickin in our what?

I guess I stumped you, huh?

Lol, just for giggles I'll give you a simple assignment. K?

Sit outside a fast food joint. Park near the drivethru window and listen as the employee tells the customer how much is owed. Watch for method of payment.

Now the part that will be difficult for you......

ADD

Look through the window and estimate the number of customers......

For you I'll allow you to use a calculator for the next part.....

MULTIPLY

now, get your head out of that Prozac fog and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

You have no evidence any of this happened. You forgot all about surveillance cameras, didn't you? You're flight of theory has nothing to do with this story, so stuff it.

Did I say it happened.

Go back and read

 

[Pop23]

Where did I say that?

Good god, rocket science again?

So you're on a flight of fancy that has nothing to do with this story? Which is it?

Prozac kickin in our what?

I guess I stumped you, huh?

Lol, just for giggles I'll give you a simple assignment. K?

Sit outside a fast food joint. Park near the drivethru window and listen as the employee tells the customer how much is owed. Watch for method of payment.

Now the part that will be difficult for you......

ADD

Look through the window and estimate the number of customers......

For you I'll allow you to use a calculator for the next part.....

MULTIPLY

now, get your head out of that Prozac fog and THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, armed robbery of a fast food joint is not an impulsive act of thuggery but a complex mathematical formula involving painstaking research, a Texas Instruments calculator, and no doubt the Googles. I'm sure there's by now a smartphone app that can look into a cash drawer and spit out a number. It's like playing the stock market.

No, robbers are stupid.

You're kinda naive ain't cha.

Robbers often strike where there's no cash.

 

[Pop23]

But now they are offering her 2k and giving her the job back? Why give her 2k????
She broke policy and was fired. They pussed out and should have stayed firm.

I suspect bad press

 

[ORION83]

Perhaps if people boycott all Popeyes restaurants, they'll yank the franchise from under the pathetic fascists.

I don't eat there because I hate how EVERYTHING is spicy..now even better reason to NOT eat there ever again...oh and this is capitalism for ya!

 

[EverCurious]

There's another thread?

Yes, though it looks like they merged it now. Was titled "Employee asked to reimburse Company what thief stole at gunpoint" Yesterday at 3:31PM

What I've seen posted (solely) is 200. That requires only two registers within those guidelines to make 400. It's guesswork, but if 200 is accurate and there were at least 2 registers, she wasn't even negligent in that policy, that's the point. If there are 4 to 6 registers per Gracie's observation above -- even less so.

"I" specifically have cited local examples of $40. Someone stated $200 because that was the amount the company /they/ were working for had as a policy. That is not universal nor does it assume all businesses go off that standard, there is no universally set amount because it is based on how much money that very specific establishment wants/needs to have on hand. I've had companies who operate with thousands in the registers before drops were made, I've had some that said $20, I've had some that did $500. It's up to the business. We /only/ know that it is apparently less than the $400 the robber got away with.

Regarding the number of registers, we have no idea if he hit /all/ the registers or not, it's not mentioned in the report how /many/ he stole from... If we go with my logical assessment (with the post merge it's now post #34) and presume that the place had 3 registers (two on the counter, one drive at through) AND we /guess/ that he emptied ALL registers then $400 would be $133 per register. OR we can /guess/ that he only got one, or two register(s,) perhaps because he'd wasted too much time trying to get her to open the safe, in which case there was $400 in the one register, or $200 in two registers. And??

Our personal opinion on how much should be allowed to sit in the registers is irrelevant. The amount is set by the company and the managers are responsible for ensuring they get dropped at whatever that amount is.

Wha?
I've seen nothing indicating "they had not heard that". What I did see is Corporate acknowledging that the local management fucked up (I'm paraphrasing). And no, I won't automatically take the word of a party that stands to gain from making a certain statement that they're telling the truth. But I do note that they backed up on it big time.

...it's in the article we've been discussing on post #1 (What article are you discussing? Other thread maybe?)

"However, a spokesman in the company's human resources department said Holcomb was fired because she didn't follow company policy, leaving too much money in the cash register. And this wasn't her first offense.

That spokesman, who refused to be identified, also said that if she were given the option to pay money back, the company knew nothing about it."

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Nothing like getting paid for being a bad manager.

Because she did what the robber told her to do, she is the reason why no one was shot including any customers who were there when the hold up took place. To me, that makes her an awesome manager because she put the safety of her customers not mention the safety of herself and her unborn baby first and if there are people out there who think that no one in the picture was worth the defense, then may the Lord have a special plan in mind for their own butts!

God bless you and every person who was threatened always!!!

Holly

 

[Vandalshandle]

Boiled down, it appears that the owner of Popeye's was perfectly happy to forget about the employee's failure to follow his policy and her actions that some would claim encouraged the robber to endanger lives, as long as she was willing to cough up $400.

Now, if the robber had shot her, one wonders if he would have been a little more lenient and only demanded that the employee pay him $200.

 

[initforme]

If I were her I would have opened the safe and said "take it" as it is not worth ones life to protect some money. Let the owner work the store by himself.

 

[Yurt]

popeye's did screw up

Popeye s Backtracks After Firing Pregnant Manager Robbed at Gunpoint - Yahoo News

for some reason i can't copy/paste text from teh site

 

[Gracie]

And next week, they will be robbed again because we know this woman doesn't dump the extra cash like she is supposed to.
And furthermore...what does her being pregnant have to do with anything? Using the sympathy card? Yes.

 

[Pogo]

popeye's did screw up

Popeye s Backtracks After Firing Pregnant Manager Robbed at Gunpoint - Yahoo News

for some reason i can't copy/paste text from teh site

That's OK I did that yesterday, post 30.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And next week, they will be robbed again because we know this woman doesn't dump the extra cash like she is supposed to.
And furthermore...what does her being pregnant have to do with anything? Using the sympathy card? Yes.

Why, of course! Robbers love to rob high profile stores under nationwide media spotlights for having just been robbed, with the video of the robber coming and going, which has now gone viral!

 

[initforme]

Why doesn't Popeye hire a full time security guard? It is not her job to protect the money. It also sounds like they are severely understaffed. This is why they are a piss poor place to work for and working there should be avoided.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why doesn't Popeye hire a full time security guard? It is not her job to protect the money. It also sounds like they are severely understaffed. This is why they are a piss poor place to work for and working there should be avoided.

I strongly suspect that the other employees there are asking themselves this same question. Personally, I don't much care to be in a situation where someone is threatening to kill me, only to have the boss come in and fire me. It seems to reflect a certain amount of ingratitude on the employer's part, considering the risk to their lives that they are taking on his behalf..

 

[SAYIT]

Perhaps if people boycott all Popeyes restaurants, they'll yank the franchise from under the pathetic fascists.

And that is what passes for "thoughtful" American socialist reasoning these days. If they aren't destroying everything around them they just aren't happy.