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

[Yurt]

It took a woman to recognize the error the company made in firing this pregnant woman and expecting her to pay back what was stolen. And conservatives don't think women deserve the same pay for the same work......


Popeye's CEO Cheryl Bachelder wasted no time addressing the controversy that erupted yesterday when news went viral that an employee at one of their franchises was fired after she refused to pay back cash stolen in a robbery at gunpoint.
Popeye s makes job offer to pregnant worker who was robbed and then fired

cite you lying shit

Are you that stupid? Click on "refused to pay back cash stolen in a robbery at gunpoint".........geez.....you need to be spoonfed....you must be really dense.

my good lord you are retarded. what does that have to do with same pay for same work? how is supposedly refusing not to return the money equate with not getting the same pay for the same work?

explain

 

[Anathema]

[Nobody's perfect.

In probably 3 years of combined retail experience I never had a drawer off by more than 9 cents. On the RARE occasions it was off at all it was always in my employers FAVOR not their detriment.

 

[Pogo]

She had repeatedly failed to follow a proven business policy that was put in place decades ago specifically to deter robberies;

If that was the case, then the company is a fault for not demoting her...

And had the company done so you and the loony leftist brigade would have had the same hissy fit you are having now. I can see the headline: "Pregnant Manager Demoted! Eat The Rich!"

Yet another speculation fallacy. Some of us just never learn.

 

[Pogo]

It might be logical if that's what happened. But she was offered a choice-- pay back the 400 some other guy stole, or lose your job.

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

**** you, where did i say they were right for what they did? i've already said they messed up you little liar. i was asking for proof that she was fired for not giving back the money, you quoted the article in a snide manner, while IGNORING the part of the article that said she wasn't fired for that.

all you've done is prove you're an idiot.

Sure doesn't take much for this one to melt down duzzit?

 

[Anathema]

What the hell is a conversation store? You mean you actually buy your conversations?

Convenience store. Damn auto correct doesn't like how quickly I type. I don't buy conversations. I was given all of them for free by my parents 20+ years ago.

 

[Pogo]

if I owned a conversation store

What the hell is a conversation store? You mean you actually buy your conversations?

Considering his posts I'd say he's definitely due a refund.

 

[EverCurious]

She probably /was/ warned about her not emptying the cash registers - do you really think corporate knew about it because it wasn't in her records? They'd likely already given her chances to fix her failure to follow the policy, most businesses do because it's cheaper to write up an existing employee than to train a new one. However, they were robbed and it came out that she was again failing to follow the procedure. So basically she wasn't demoted before hand because they were giving her another chance, she blew it off and the shit they'd been warning her about happened.

Either way though they were stupid to think that this wouldn't harm their reputation, but maybe the manager at the franchise didn't think she'd bring it up to the media. That one manager is a bit of a ******* ass, no doubt. But the reality is that working, especially as a manager, is not as "fun" as you guys like to think. Regardless she's been offered her job back because corporate went "holy shit you idiot" and set the franchise straight on the PR disaster. I bet the manager who fired her has been given a serious talking to, if not been fired outright for his stupidity.


All well and good, media/social pressure has helped her get her job back plus a payoff. Problem is, she's likely to /not/ follow the company policy just as much as she hadn't before. I understand that you folks want to think that's no big deal, but policy is /not/ just about money for the company, the vast majority of these policies have a safety component. The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Pregnant restaurant manager fired after armed robbery

"By the back of my shirt, he pulled me up and he pushed me to the front," she said. "He told me to give him everything out of my safe."
“I told them I'm not paying nothing. I just had a gun to me. I'm not paying the money.”
But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
After the robbery, Holcomb claimed that one of her managers gave her a choice: Pay the money back or be fired. Less than 36 hours later, she was fired.
"I don't think it's right because now I'm struggling for my family," she said. "What I had to do (was) keep my life."

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.

Holcomb said that Tuesday was busy: The restaurant offers a two-piece chicken meal for $1.19, and she moved money into the safe as fast as she could.
"They got what they got because that's what we made within one hour," she said


A manager often has to keep business flowing during a busy period rather than stopping to move cash



.

A manger has to do his job and if that job is bleeding the registers then that has to be done too.

I see no problem with her getting canned

 

[Pogo]

She probably /was/ warned about her not emptying the cash registers - do you really think corporate knew about it because it wasn't in her records? They'd likely already given her chances to fix her failure to follow the policy, most businesses do because it's cheaper to write up an existing employee than to train a new one. However, they were robbed and it came out that she was again failing to follow the procedure. So basically she wasn't demoted before hand because they were giving her another chance, she blew it off and the shit they'd been warning her about happened.

OR -- they made that up to try to cover their PR asses. Frankly between her version and the company's, the latter is the one that has more challenges with the smell test. In either case I wouldn't assume that history is true just because Popeye's says it is.

Btw what post is this responding to? I don't see a quote.

Either way though they were stupid to think that this wouldn't harm their reputation, but maybe the manager at the franchise didn't think she'd bring it up to the media. That one manager is a bit of a ******* ass, no doubt. But the reality is that working, especially as a manager, is not as "fun" as you guys like to think. Regardless she's been offered her job back because corporate when holy shit you idiot and set the franchise straight on the PR disaster. I bet the manager who fired her has been given a serious talking to, if not been fired outright for his stupidity.

I agree.

All well and good, media/social pressure has helped her get her job back plus a payoff. Problem is, she's likely to /not/ follow the company policy just as much as she hadn't before. I understand that you folks want to think that's no big deal, but policy is /not/ just about money for the company, the vast majority of these policies have a safety component. The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

Again, I wouldn't assume that history is true. If it were it would presumably have been addressed before; if it did exist and wasn't addressed, that indicates it just wasn't an issue for them. They can't play it both ways. Or if it was a growing problem that was at the point of "one more time and that's it", this even was hardly the time to do it.

 

[Yurt]

what proof do you have of that?

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

**** you, where did i say they were right for what they did? i've already said they messed up you little liar. i was asking for proof that she was fired for not giving back the money, you quoted the article in a snide manner, while IGNORING the part of the article that said she wasn't fired for that.

all you've done is prove you're an idiot.

Sure doesn't take much for this one to melt down duzzit?

your idea of a meltdown is hilarious. poor pogo...desperately seeking attention in all the wrong places...

 

[EverCurious]

She probably /was/ warned about her not emptying the cash registers - do you really think corporate knew about it because it wasn't in her records? They'd likely already given her chances to fix her failure to follow the policy, most businesses do because it's cheaper to write up an existing employee than to train a new one. However, they were robbed and it came out that she was again failing to follow the procedure. So basically she wasn't demoted before hand because they were giving her another chance, she blew it off and the shit they'd been warning her about happened.

OR -- they made that up to try to cover their PR asses. Frankly between her version and the company's, the latter is the one that has more challenges with the smell test. In either case I wouldn't assume that history is true just because Popeye's says it is.

Btw what post is this responding to? I don't see a quote.

Either way though they were stupid to think that this wouldn't harm their reputation, but maybe the manager at the franchise didn't think she'd bring it up to the media. That one manager is a bit of a ******* ass, no doubt. But the reality is that working, especially as a manager, is not as "fun" as you guys like to think. Regardless she's been offered her job back because corporate when holy shit you idiot and set the franchise straight on the PR disaster. I bet the manager who fired her has been given a serious talking to, if not been fired outright for his stupidity.

I agree.

All well and good, media/social pressure has helped her get her job back plus a payoff. Problem is, she's likely to /not/ follow the company policy just as much as she hadn't before. I understand that you folks want to think that's no big deal, but policy is /not/ just about money for the company, the vast majority of these policies have a safety component. The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

Again, I wouldn't assume that history is true. If it were it would presumably have been addressed before; if it did exist and wasn't addressed, that indicates it just wasn't an issue for them. They can't play it both ways. Or if it was a growing problem that was at the point of "one more time and that's it", this even was hardly the time to do it.

I guarantee you they had it on record because firing a pregnant woman at ANY time, much less after she just got held at gun point, is a very, very "dangerous" thing for a company to do, trust me, I've seen a LOT of lawsuits... I also already said they were stupid to fire her then. That wasn't what I was trying to get at...

Funny you say "play it both ways" when social outrage does it all the time... They're backing this woman who the company claims had repeatedly failed to follow policy (ya'll just say "well they're lying") but lets flip it to something social outrage was against here like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill hmm? So jack ass captain failed to follow some policies (short version is he put the ship on autopilot knowing the ******* radar was broken then left it to the 3rd mate to deal with it while he got trashed) Social outrage raked EXXON over the coals for /not/ following company policy.

The problem with social outrage is that it's not 'stable' it will ***** if you don't follow policy when it suits them, and if you DO follow policy if it suits them. Now you guys will use examples like this shift manager to say that corporations are assholes in requiring you to follow policies, but you'll maintain that it's the corporations fault that captain asshat on the Exxon Valdez failed to follow policies. Social "outrage" just does whatever with no care about the consequences or after effects.

Social outrage goes "yay we saved that poor woman" then moves on with their /own/ lives, now these franchise owners are stuck with a manager who doesn't do her job. (Even if you want to argue that they "lied" about her having done it previously, it's clear she didn't do it that night.) Exxon Valdez's radar happened to break while away from a repair shop /that/ time, had it NOT been broken the oil spill would not have happened, had this woman done her job then Popeye's wouldn't be out as much. Its the same principle, but social media only see's the dollar signs involved and never makes the connection of responsibility.

 

[Pogo]

She probably /was/ warned about her not emptying the cash registers - do you really think corporate knew about it because it wasn't in her records? They'd likely already given her chances to fix her failure to follow the policy, most businesses do because it's cheaper to write up an existing employee than to train a new one. However, they were robbed and it came out that she was again failing to follow the procedure. So basically she wasn't demoted before hand because they were giving her another chance, she blew it off and the shit they'd been warning her about happened.

OR -- they made that up to try to cover their PR asses. Frankly between her version and the company's, the latter is the one that has more challenges with the smell test. In either case I wouldn't assume that history is true just because Popeye's says it is.

Btw what post is this responding to? I don't see a quote.

Either way though they were stupid to think that this wouldn't harm their reputation, but maybe the manager at the franchise didn't think she'd bring it up to the media. That one manager is a bit of a ******* ass, no doubt. But the reality is that working, especially as a manager, is not as "fun" as you guys like to think. Regardless she's been offered her job back because corporate when holy shit you idiot and set the franchise straight on the PR disaster. I bet the manager who fired her has been given a serious talking to, if not been fired outright for his stupidity.

I agree.

All well and good, media/social pressure has helped her get her job back plus a payoff. Problem is, she's likely to /not/ follow the company policy just as much as she hadn't before. I understand that you folks want to think that's no big deal, but policy is /not/ just about money for the company, the vast majority of these policies have a safety component. The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

Again, I wouldn't assume that history is true. If it were it would presumably have been addressed before; if it did exist and wasn't addressed, that indicates it just wasn't an issue for them. They can't play it both ways. Or if it was a growing problem that was at the point of "one more time and that's it", this even was hardly the time to do it.

I guarantee you they had it on record because firing a pregnant woman at ANY time, much less after she just got held at gun point, is a very, very "dangerous" thing for a company to do, trust me, I've seen a LOT of lawsuits... I also already said they were stupid to fire her then. That wasn't what I was trying to get at...

Funny you say "play it both ways" when social outrage does it all the time... They're backing this woman who the company claims had repeatedly failed to follow policy (ya'll just say "well they're lying") but lets flip it to something social outrage was against here like the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill hmm? So jack ass captain failed to follow some policies (short version is he put the ship on autopilot knowing the ******* radar was broken then left it to the 3rd mate to deal with it while he got trashed) Social outrage raked EXXON over the coals for /not/ following company policy.

The problem with social outrage is that it's not 'stable' it will ***** if you don't follow policy when it suits them, and if you DO follow policy if it suits them. Now you guys will use examples like this shift manager to say that corporations are assholes in requiring you to follow policies, but you'll maintain that it's the corporations fault that captain asshat on the Exxon Valdez failed to follow policies. Social "outrage" just does whatever with no care about the consequences or after effects.

Social outrage goes "yay we saved that poor woman" then moves on with their /own/ lives, now these franchise owners are stuck with a manager who doesn't do her job. (Even if you want to argue that they "lied" about her having done it previously, it's clear she didn't do it that night.) Exxon Valdez's radar happened to break while away from a repair shop /that/ time, had it NOT been broken the oil spill would not have happened, had this woman done her job then Popeye's wouldn't be out as much. Its the same principle, but social media only see's the dollar signs involved and never makes the connection of responsibility.

I can't speak for "social outrage". None of us can as that's a collective.

Actually it's still not clear "she didn't do it that night". It's kind of facile to claim after the fact that a shift manager "kept too much money in the drawer" after losing four hundred bucks; I mean, who among us having $400 stolen would not have preferred less be stolen? And if the place was running 4 to 6 registers that combined for "nearly $400" that raises a question as to what a realistic threshold is, particularly since they were vague and didn't specify what that it is (which further impacts the smell test and implies an explanation made up on the spur of the moment). I just don't find that particular corporate statement particularly credible for all these reasons in combination.

We have a "she said/they said" with no proof either way. But of the two hers is more credible considering how the company reacted.

 

[Pogo]

It's in the article........didn't you even bother to read it?

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

**** you, where did i say they were right for what they did? i've already said they messed up you little liar. i was asking for proof that she was fired for not giving back the money, you quoted the article in a snide manner, while IGNORING the part of the article that said she wasn't fired for that.

all you've done is prove you're an idiot.

Sure doesn't take much for this one to melt down duzzit?

your idea of a meltdown is hilarious. poor pogo...desperately seeking attention in all the wrong places...

I ain't the one beating up girls, am I?

 

[Yurt]

so was the statement she wasn't fired for that....did you bother to read it?

idiot

Yeah.....heartless like you they decided to wait until she was robbed at gun point to finally decide she wasn't doing her job....you must be another one of those "compassionate conservatives," moron.

**** you, where did i say they were right for what they did? i've already said they messed up you little liar. i was asking for proof that she was fired for not giving back the money, you quoted the article in a snide manner, while IGNORING the part of the article that said she wasn't fired for that.

all you've done is prove you're an idiot.

Sure doesn't take much for this one to melt down duzzit?

your idea of a meltdown is hilarious. poor pogo...desperately seeking attention in all the wrong places...

I ain't the one beating up girls, am I?

how would i know who you beat up? and what girl did i beat up? you're insane.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why doesn't Popeye hire a full time security guard? It is not her job to protect the money.

How many people want to eat a meal with a security guard mulling around them?

 

[danielpalos]

She probably /was/ warned about her not emptying the cash registers - do you really think corporate knew about it because it wasn't in her records? They'd likely already given her chances to fix her failure to follow the policy, most businesses do because it's cheaper to write up an existing employee than to train a new one. However, they were robbed and it came out that she was again failing to follow the procedure. So basically she wasn't demoted before hand because they were giving her another chance, she blew it off and the shit they'd been warning her about happened.

Either way though they were stupid to think that this wouldn't harm their reputation, but maybe the manager at the franchise didn't think she'd bring it up to the media. That one manager is a bit of a ******* ass, no doubt. But the reality is that working, especially as a manager, is not as "fun" as you guys like to think. Regardless she's been offered her job back because corporate went "holy shit you idiot" and set the franchise straight on the PR disaster. I bet the manager who fired her has been given a serious talking to, if not been fired outright for his stupidity.


All well and good, media/social pressure has helped her get her job back plus a payoff. Problem is, she's likely to /not/ follow the company policy just as much as she hadn't before. I understand that you folks want to think that's no big deal, but policy is /not/ just about money for the company, the vast majority of these policies have a safety component. The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

This sounds more like a personnel management problem; why were there not more personnel assigned to work to meet any Standard fixed by higher management.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[Nobody's perfect.

In probably 3 years of combined retail experience I never had a drawer off by more than 9 cents. On the RARE occasions it was off at all it was always in my employers FAVOR not their detriment.

Were you constantly making change like at a fast food restaurant or convenience store?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The end result is that she is /not/ management material but now the "outrage" has kept her in the position. That's not a good situation for ANYONE. But oh well.

A shift manager is hardly considered "management."

 

[JOSweetHeart]

And next week, they will be robbed again because we know this woman doesn't dump the extra cash like she is supposed to.

Just because she didn't do it one time doesn't mean that she didn't do it all the time. You used to suck your thumb at one point in your life, didn't you? Well do you still such your thumb now? You used to wear diapers at one point in your life, didn't you? Well do you still wear diapers now? You used to cry for your mama at night every two hours at one point in your life, didn't you? Well do you see cry for your mama at night every two hours?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Just keep this in mind. A person can't be fired at all period for any reason if they are dead.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I've said it before, and I will say it again. the owner of the franchise was perfectly willing to forget about her "safety violation", if she was prepared to fork over $400. He is a real stickler for safety rules...if the price is right.