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

[EverCurious]

So, in light of the 6 officers now being charged for murder and facing prison time in Baltimore because they failed to follow the JUST INSTATED policy of buckling up suspects in the van - can we revisit how Popeye's was in the wrong to fire this woman for repeatedly not following company policy?

First you have to prove that she wasn't following company policy. Just because the manager, who we have not deduced is rather dumb, said so, doesn't mean it's true.

That doesn't seem to be the case in police vs unarmed criminal cases, but it's pretty easy so what the hell; the company said flat out that she repeatedly didn't follow the policy. Or are you arguing they lied about her not following policy? You don't see that as a bit far fetched? Like the manager's are sitting around going "That ***** lost us $400 so lets can her ass!" Give me a break.

However, that wasn't really the point of my statement. The point of my statement relates to my previous discussion about policies, and why it's not "unfair" to fire someone for failing to follow a company policy; and especially someone who is supposed to be setting an example for other employees.

I'm also having a bit of a struggle to understand how so many can want to punish the franchise owners for firing this girl for repeatedly failing to follow company policy, but then flip it and want to punish police officers for failing to follow a policy which had just gone into effect 9 days beforehand. This simply doesn't make sense to me so I'd some opinions with which to rectify that "missing bit" in my comprehension, (if it's even possible for me to understand... To be completely honest at the moment it very much seems to me that a lot of folks have zero respect for policy, unless it suits their purpose - of suing the company, of getting an officer put in jail, etc. I'd rather think I'm wrong about that though...)

 

[Pogo]

So, in light of the 6 officers now being charged for murder and facing prison time in Baltimore because they failed to follow the JUST INSTATED policy of buckling up suspects in the van - can we revisit how Popeye's was in the wrong to fire this woman for repeatedly not following company policy?

First you have to prove that she wasn't following company policy. Just because the manager, who we have not deduced is rather dumb, said so, doesn't mean it's true.

That doesn't seem to be the case in police vs unarmed criminal cases, but it's pretty easy so what the hell; the company said flat out that she repeatedly didn't follow the policy. Or are you arguing they lied about her not following policy? You don't see that as a bit far fetched? Like the manager's are sitting around going "That ***** lost us $400 so lets can her ass!" Give me a break.

However, that wasn't really the point of my statement. The point of my statement relates to my previous discussion about policies, and why it's not "unfair" to fire someone for failing to follow a company policy; and especially someone who is supposed to be setting an example for other employees.

I'm also having a bit of a struggle to understand how so many can want to punish the franchise owners for firing this girl for repeatedly failing to follow company policy, but then flip it and want to punish police officers for failing to follow a policy which had just gone into effect 9 days beforehand. This simply doesn't make sense to me so I'd some opinions with which to rectify that "missing bit" in my comprehension, (if it's even possible for me to understand... To be completely honest at the moment it very much seems to me that a lot of folks have zero respect for policy, unless it suits their purpose - of suing the company, of getting an officer put in jail, etc. I'd rather think I'm wrong about that though...)

You keep forgetting a crucial part -- that being, they offered to sell her continued employment. If she actually had this history and was a problem to the company, (a) why would they offer to ignore it for a price, and (b) why did Corporate come out and publicly apologize and acknowledge it was handled stupidly? That sort of undermines the whole story.

And you seem to be mixing two different topics after that -- I don't know what the "police policy" thing is all about but diga me this -- if a policy goes into effect, is it not in effect when it starts? Nine days later, ninety days later, or nine minutes later, it's still the policy, is it not? When does compliance begin? Ten days? Thirty? A year?

 

[Esmeralda]

I've been backpacking in the Rockies during thunderstorms and never really worried about getting hit by lightning

You seem to worry about it all the time

No, I don't worry about it, but I don't stand under a tree with a lightning rod in my hand during a thunderstorm.

There's a difference between being prudent and being foolish, and you have proven which one you are. Hope your luck holds out.

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

The probability of getting robbed if you work at a convenience is very likely. It is not likely that it will never happen. It is more likely than not that it will happen.

 

[Esmeralda]

So, in light of the 6 officers now being charged for murder and facing prison time in Baltimore because they failed to follow the JUST INSTATED policy of buckling up suspects in the van - can we revisit how Popeye's was in the wrong to fire this woman for repeatedly not following company policy?

First you have to prove that she wasn't following company policy. Just because the manager, who we have not deduced is rather dumb, said so, doesn't mean it's true.

That doesn't seem to be the case in police vs unarmed criminal cases, but it's pretty easy so what the hell; the company said flat out that she repeatedly didn't follow the policy. Or are you arguing they lied about her not following policy? You don't see that as a bit far fetched? Like the manager's are sitting around going "That ***** lost us $400 so lets can her ass!" Give me a break.

However, that wasn't really the point of my statement. The point of my statement relates to my previous discussion about policies, and why it's not "unfair" to fire someone for failing to follow a company policy; and especially someone who is supposed to be setting an example for other employees.

I'm also having a bit of a struggle to understand how so many can want to punish the franchise owners for firing this girl for repeatedly failing to follow company policy, but then flip it and want to punish police officers for failing to follow a policy which had just gone into effect 9 days beforehand. This simply doesn't make sense to me so I'd some opinions with which to rectify that "missing bit" in my comprehension, (if it's even possible for me to understand... To be completely honest at the moment it very much seems to me that a lot of folks have zero respect for policy, unless it suits their purpose - of suing the company, of getting an officer put in jail, etc. I'd rather think I'm wrong about that though...)

Because you don't fire someone who has been, while in your employ, held at gunpoint and forced to give over money. It is not her fault the store was robbed. She didn't instigate the robbery. She didn't invite the robber to rob her. Her life was put at risk. You don't fire an employee whose life has been at risk while in your employ. Period.

 

[EverCurious]

You keep forgetting a crucial part -- that being, they offered to sell her continued employment. If she actually had this history and was a problem to the company, (a) why would they offer to ignore it for a price, and (b) why did Corporate come out and publicly apologize and acknowledge it was handled stupidly? That sort of undermines the whole story.

And you seem to be mixing two different topics after that -- I don't know what the "police policy" thing is all about but diga me this -- if a policy goes into effect, is it not in effect when it starts? Nine days later, ninety days later, or nine minutes later, it's still the policy, is it not? When does compliance begin? Ten days? Thirty? A year?

So you haven't read anything about the Baltimore police Gray incident? Go look up the Baltimore riot posts and shit, it's all over the news and there's at least 10 threads on this site alone... If you really can't see the similarity between the prosecutor in that incident throwing out murder charges to appease the rioter and Popeye's corporate hiring this girl back to stop the bad publicity then I'm not sure what to say... I see a hell of a lot of PR reaction in both.

The "pay back" thing, if it even actually happened (remember corporate said they knew nothing about it,) appears to stem from another policy that requires employees to be financially responsible for any shortages in their till. Nearly every bar I've been around has a policy that bartenders and waitresses are responsible for shortages in the till at the end of the night - some would give a "bank" to the waitress bartender that has to be paid back at the end of the night + whatever drinks they sold (a very un-gangly system pre-computers, but much easier these days.) I've personally never worked with fast food so I can't speak from personal experience, but the reporters were saying that fast food joints have that policy - I do personally know that bars, a lot of small business, and smaller grocery stores (Safeway and Fred Meyer's did not, but they fire people if their tills are off more than once or twice,) have similar policies in place to deter employee theft.

I am mixing two incidents, but not two topics - I don't understand how the "following policies" argument isn't being applied "fairly" between the two incidents. It was argued in this thread that the moving cash from the registers policy was not a big deal and should be some-how "excused" from having to do it because she "just hadn't had time." On the flip side the seat belt policy had only been in effect for 9 days so it is not unreasonable that they hadn't gotten into the swing of doing it, especially if, as was implied, it was sent out in an email that not all officers had read, it was also implied that it wasn't safe for them to buckle him up because he was "irate" and combative (aka it wasn't safe for the officers.)

Finally, no I think policies should go into effect as soon as they are instated and all the employees are made aware of it. In my book, it's on the superiors to ensure that all employees are made aware of policy changes, and said changes go into effect immediately - breaking policy is grounds for firing, her and the police officers. However, that's not really the disconnect I'm having between the two instances. My issue is that if we're going to be "reasonable" that this woman was "too busy" to move the cash from the registers so it's not a big deal, then it's also "reasonable" to say that the officers not following a 9 day old policy they may or may not have known about isn't a big deal either. (I mean kids don't buckle up on the school bus, mailmen and delivery drivers don't have to buckle up, etc. etc.)

Because you don't fire someone who has been, while in your employ, held at gunpoint and forced to give over money. It is not her fault the store was robbed. She didn't instigate the robbery. She didn't invite the robber to rob her. Her life was put at risk. You don't fire an employee whose life has been at risk while in your employ. Period.

Does this apply to anyone who puts their life at risk at work; like firemen, fishermen, loggers, and construction workers? (Some of the most fatal jobs in the US.) Or does it only apply to those who face a gun; like convenience store employees, fast food workers, and police officers?

 

[Esmeralda]

You keep forgetting a crucial part -- that being, they offered to sell her continued employment. If she actually had this history and was a problem to the company, (a) why would they offer to ignore it for a price, and (b) why did Corporate come out and publicly apologize and acknowledge it was handled stupidly? That sort of undermines the whole story.

And you seem to be mixing two different topics after that -- I don't know what the "police policy" thing is all about but diga me this -- if a policy goes into effect, is it not in effect when it starts? Nine days later, ninety days later, or nine minutes later, it's still the policy, is it not? When does compliance begin? Ten days? Thirty? A year?

So you haven't read anything about the Baltimore police Gray incident? Go look up the Baltimore riot posts and shit, it's all over the news and there's at least 10 threads on this site alone... If you really can't see the similarity between the prosecutor in that incident throwing out murder charges to appease the rioter and Popeye's corporate hiring this girl back to stop the bad publicity then I'm not sure what to say... I see a hell of a lot of PR reaction in both.

The "pay back" thing, if it even actually happened (remember corporate said they knew nothing about it,) appears to stem from another policy that requires employees to be financially responsible for any shortages in their till. Nearly every bar I've been around has a policy that bartenders and waitresses are responsible for shortages in the till at the end of the night - some would give a "bank" to the waitress bartender that has to be paid back at the end of the night + whatever drinks they sold (a very un-gangly system pre-computers, but much easier these days.) I've personally never worked with fast food so I can't speak from personal experience, but the reporters were saying that fast food joints have that policy - I do personally know that bars, a lot of small business, and smaller grocery stores (Safeway and Fred Meyer's did not, but they fire people if their tills are off more than once or twice,) have similar policies in place to deter employee theft.

I am mixing two incidents, but not two topics - I don't understand how the "following policies" argument isn't being applied "fairly" between the two incidents. It was argued in this thread that the moving cash from the registers policy was not a big deal and should be some-how "excused" from having to do it because she "just hadn't had time." On the flip side the seat belt policy had only been in effect for 9 days so it is not unreasonable that they hadn't gotten into the swing of doing it, especially if, as was implied, it was sent out in an email that not all officers had read, it was also implied that it wasn't safe for them to buckle him up because he was "irate" and combative (aka it wasn't safe for the officers.)

Finally, no I think policies should go into effect as soon as they are instated and all the employees are made aware of it. In my book, it's on the superiors to ensure that all employees are made aware of policy changes, and said changes go into effect immediately - breaking policy is grounds for firing, her and the police officers. However, that's not really the disconnect I'm having between the two instances. My issue is that if we're going to be "reasonable" that this woman was "too busy" to move the cash from the registers so it's not a big deal, then it's also "reasonable" to say that the officers not following a 9 day old policy they may or may not have known about isn't a big deal either. (I mean kids don't buckle up on the school bus, mailmen and delivery drivers don't have to buckle up, etc. etc.)

Because you don't fire someone who has been, while in your employ, held at gunpoint and forced to give over money. It is not her fault the store was robbed. She didn't instigate the robbery. She didn't invite the robber to rob her. Her life was put at risk. You don't fire an employee whose life has been at risk while in your employ. Period.

Does this apply to anyone who puts their life at risk at work; like firemen, fishermen, loggers, and construction workers? (Some of the most fatal jobs in the US.) Or does it only apply to those who face a gun; like convenience store employees, fast food workers, and police officers?

I would say it essentially applies to everyone. I am familiar with loggers. If a logger, who is experienced and knows better, purposely and foolishly does something stupid and against safety rules, and gets hurt, the employer may give the guy a warning. He is not likely to fire him. The employee in the convenience store example did not do anything to cause an accident or to put her life at risk. The robber has no way of knowing how much cash is in the till. She did not do anything to cause the robbery. Fisherman, fireman, policemen, construction works also work in hazardous environments. If one literally causes an accident and/or injury and death by purposely not following safety rules, they usually don't get fired. After recovery, if they recover, they go back to work and are put on notice that if they do it again, they will be fired. Employers just don't up and fire people who face life threatening situations. If they get injured or face a life threatening situation beyond their control, most certainly an employer should not fire them. The convenience store clerk did not cause the robbery. End of. There is no way on earth the robber would know in advance how much is in the till.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I never said that a person is as likely to get struck by lightning as they are of getting robbed while working at a convenience store.....I don't even know the statistics on it, so when you accuse me of comparing the two you are envisioning things in your mind that were not put there by me. Pay attention, so you don't misinterpret what I've been saying. I don't worry about lightning, but I am aware of the dangers and do not put myself in harm's way purposefully. I have never been in a financial situation where I had to work as a server, but I know that everyone that does is in a job more likely to experience a robbery, than I was in my professional position. So, you can't deny that such positions are more risky, even though some may never experience such.

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

Your previous posts sounded like you didn't believe either one was risky, and your nonchalance attitude could be interpreted as reckless and daring, but I'm glad that you admit to exercising common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Please quote my post where I said that, because, like I said, I don't even know the statistics to even compare it. I just know that your chances of getting struck by lightning during a thunderstorm are greater if you don't exercise prudence. I don't know that there is much you can do when working as a server other than checking out the frequency in that particular restaurant or area of the restaurant, and deciding whether or not it is worth the risk.

And you are right, the chances of getting hit by lightning are small, even smaller if you use prudence and common sense, and getting robbed as a server will never happen to me as a server, as I don't see myself ever doing that. Although, some robbers have put the customers at risk, too.

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

Thank you for repeating back to me what I've been saying, although I didn't use your exact words....but getting back to the topic of the OP....

this young pregnant person did take a job that is in the probability of getting robbed, for whatever reason, she went ahead and took the job and now she has experienced a robbery. The manager was wrong for firing her, for whatever reason, especially right after the incidence of robbery, and most assuredly for asking her to pay back what was stolen. She has filed a lawsuit, and I hope this serves as an example for other managers out there....be careful of what you say and do.....it could come back to haunt you.

It was I who posted the "800 times more likely" comparison. As noted, "paying attention" doesn't seem to be his forte.

I dunno Mertex, you and I must look a lot alike...

Apparently he's too busy dreaming up ways to defend his lame position that he doesn't even bother to see who he is responding to!

All you idiots sound the same after a while

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I never said that a person is as likely to get struck by lightning as they are of getting robbed while working at a convenience store.....I don't even know the statistics on it, so when you accuse me of comparing the two you are envisioning things in your mind that were not put there by me. Pay attention, so you don't misinterpret what I've been saying. I don't worry about lightning, but I am aware of the dangers and do not put myself in harm's way purposefully. I have never been in a financial situation where I had to work as a server, but I know that everyone that does is in a job more likely to experience a robbery, than I was in my professional position. So, you can't deny that such positions are more risky, even though some may never experience such.

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

Your previous posts sounded like you didn't believe either one was risky, and your nonchalance attitude could be interpreted as reckless and daring, but I'm glad that you admit to exercising common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Please quote my post where I said that, because, like I said, I don't even know the statistics to even compare it. I just know that your chances of getting struck by lightning during a thunderstorm are greater if you don't exercise prudence. I don't know that there is much you can do when working as a server other than checking out the frequency in that particular restaurant or area of the restaurant, and deciding whether or not it is worth the risk.

And you are right, the chances of getting hit by lightning are small, even smaller if you use prudence and common sense, and getting robbed as a server will never happen to me as a server, as I don't see myself ever doing that. Although, some robbers have put the customers at risk, too.

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

Thank you for repeating back to me what I've been saying, although I didn't use your exact words....but getting back to the topic of the OP....
this young pregnant person did take a job that is in the probability of getting robbed, for whatever reason, she went ahead and took the job and now she has experienced a robbery. The manager was wrong for firing her, for whatever reason, especially right after the incidence of robbery, and most assuredly for asking her to pay back what was stolen. She has filed a lawsuit, and I hope this serves as an example for other managers out there....be careful of what you say and do.....it could come back to haunt you.

Working fast food isn't risky.

Okay, genius, the facts are wrong and you are right...........bwahahahaha.......
now, apparently you will show us with links that you are right.

Such thinking doesn't come naturally to an industry that spends more than $2 billion a year promoting itself as fun and friendly. But there are signs that just by coming to work, fast food's late-hour workers might be putting their lives at risk.
Late shift proves deadly to more fast-food workers - ABC News

Fast food restaurants are easy targets for robbers, and the restaurants employees and customers are at risk of injury.
Fast Food Employees Have Increased Risk Of Robbery Injury

A parallel between fast food chains and convenience stores is obvious. Often referred to as "stop and robs" the convenience store industry continues to be an exceedingly "high risk" target for criminal opportunity.
Fast food businesses higher security risk for violent crime and theft



"There's no room for violence under the Golden Arches." But in the annals of American crime, the fast-food-chain assault has become as iconic as the postal-worker shooting spree.
Fast-food crime Why is there so much violent crime at fast-food restaurants

The media onslaught following the Wendy's robbery and multiple homicides once again brought national attention to the risk of workplace violence at fast-food and late night convenience store operations.
Armed Robbery Homicide Wendy s fast food restaurant security consultant Chris McGoey armed robbery fast food security expert


The fast-food industry has known since the 1970s that armed robbery risk is greatest during the opening and closing routine.
Armed Robbery Homicide Burger King fast-food restaurant security security consultant Chris McGoey armed robbery fast food security expert

LOUISVILLE, Ky. —Louisville Metro Police Department officers are searching for the culprits in the metro's fifth armed fast-food robbery in less than a month.
Police investigate 5th armed fast-food restaurant robbery this month Local News - WLKY Home

You do realize that some of those links are nothing but advertisements for security firms don't you?

Of course they are going to say that their services are needed.

Now tell me genius what percentage of armed robberies happen at fast food establishments?
We already know that only 6% of robberies happen at convenience stores.

So IOW if you work at a convenience store you have a 94% chance of not being robbed.

Not a risky job

If we follow your logic then we could call getting out of bed in the morning a death defying act of risking your life.

It must be tough to be so afraid all the time

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I never said that a person is as likely to get struck by lightning as they are of getting robbed while working at a convenience store.....I don't even know the statistics on it, so when you accuse me of comparing the two you are envisioning things in your mind that were not put there by me. Pay attention, so you don't misinterpret what I've been saying. I don't worry about lightning, but I am aware of the dangers and do not put myself in harm's way purposefully. I have never been in a financial situation where I had to work as a server, but I know that everyone that does is in a job more likely to experience a robbery, than I was in my professional position. So, you can't deny that such positions are more risky, even though some may never experience such.

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

Your previous posts sounded like you didn't believe either one was risky, and your nonchalance attitude could be interpreted as reckless and daring, but I'm glad that you admit to exercising common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Please quote my post where I said that, because, like I said, I don't even know the statistics to even compare it. I just know that your chances of getting struck by lightning during a thunderstorm are greater if you don't exercise prudence. I don't know that there is much you can do when working as a server other than checking out the frequency in that particular restaurant or area of the restaurant, and deciding whether or not it is worth the risk.

And you are right, the chances of getting hit by lightning are small, even smaller if you use prudence and common sense, and getting robbed as a server will never happen to me as a server, as I don't see myself ever doing that. Although, some robbers have put the customers at risk, too.

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

Thank you for repeating back to me what I've been saying, although I didn't use your exact words....but getting back to the topic of the OP....
this young pregnant person did take a job that is in the probability of getting robbed, for whatever reason, she went ahead and took the job and now she has experienced a robbery. The manager was wrong for firing her, for whatever reason, especially right after the incidence of robbery, and most assuredly for asking her to pay back what was stolen. She has filed a lawsuit, and I hope this serves as an example for other managers out there....be careful of what you say and do.....it could come back to haunt you.

Working fast food isn't risky.

Not particularly, no. Handling large amounts of cash however, is.

Not if it's done right.

for example bleeding the registers

I worked at places where whenever there was more than 50 bucks in the register we had to tell the manager so he could bleed the register and drop the cash in the floor safe to which he did not have the combination

 

[Skull Pilot]

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

When the guy walked in with a mask and a gun, her probability of getting robbed was close to 100%

She risked her life over a $10 an hour job and was fired over $400

For that, she will get millions out of Popeyes

She didn't risk her life.

If she was driving to the bank as part of her job and a drunk driver hit her car would she have been "risking her life"?

She just happened to be there when the place got robbed.

Her life was at risk

Because of her job, her life was put in jeopardy for it The robber was not robbing at random

You're talking to a raging idiot who thinks someone who has a gun stuck in her face isn't having her life put at risk. There's some levels of stupid you just can't argue with.

Funny how you don't know the difference between risking your life and being the victim of a crime.

RW said that by merely working there she was "risking her life"

Not true she was the victim of a random and rare crime that is all

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've been backpacking in the Rockies during thunderstorms and never really worried about getting hit by lightning

You seem to worry about it all the time

No, I don't worry about it, but I don't stand under a tree with a lightning rod in my hand during a thunderstorm.

There's a difference between being prudent and being foolish, and you have proven which one you are. Hope your luck holds out.

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

The probability of getting robbed if you work at a convenience is very likely. It is not likely that it will never happen. It is more likely than not that it will happen.

You posted a link that said only 6% of all robberies happen at a convenience store. Which means 94% of all people who work in a convenience store will never be robbed.

IOW it is very likely you will never be robbed and a rare occasion that you will

 

[rightwinger]

So now Popeyes is on the ropes because of an idiot owner Butthurt over $400

Popeyes will settle for an undisclosed amount and no disclosure

 

[Mertex]

So, in light of the 6 officers now being charged for murder and facing prison time in Baltimore because they failed to follow the JUST INSTATED policy of buckling up suspects in the van - can we revisit how Popeye's was in the wrong to fire this woman for repeatedly not following company policy?

First you have to prove that she wasn't following company policy. Just because the manager, who we have not deduced is rather dumb, said so, doesn't mean it's true.

That doesn't seem to be the case in police vs unarmed criminal cases, but it's pretty easy so what the hell; the company said flat out that she repeatedly didn't follow the policy. Or are you arguing they lied about her not following policy? You don't see that as a bit far fetched? Like the manager's are sitting around going "That ***** lost us $400 so lets can her ass!" Give me a break.

The company didn't say that, it was the manager. There has not been anything to prove that it is true. And yes, the higher up exec apologized and tried to make up for it, if the manager had been telling the truth, and they were sure it would result in their being right, they wouldn't have apologized and offered her $2k. You're not very astute.

However, that wasn't really the point of my statement. The point of my statement relates to my previous discussion about policies, and why it's not "unfair" to fire someone for failing to follow a company policy; and especially someone who is supposed to be setting an example for other employees.

It is fair to fire someone for not doing their job....I never said it wasn't, but if she had not been doing her job don't you think it would have been more plausible for them to fire her before the robbery took place? To wait until someone holds a gun to her face and scares the shit out of her and then add insult to injury by asking her to pay the $400 is not good management in my book.

I'm also having a bit of a struggle to understand how so many can want to punish the franchise owners for firing this girl for repeatedly failing to follow company policy, but then flip it and want to punish police officers for failing to follow a policy which had just gone into effect 9 days beforehand. This simply doesn't make sense to me so I'd some opinions with which to rectify that "missing bit" in my comprehension, (if it's even possible for me to understand... To be completely honest at the moment it very much seems to me that a lot of folks have zero respect for policy, unless it suits their purpose - of suing the company, of getting an officer put in jail, etc. I'd rather think I'm wrong about that though...)

You must be really dense. I'm not wanting to punish the franchise owner for firing this girl for repeatedly failing to follow company policy, if indeed that is even true. Pay attention, I'm not going to repeat it. I'm wanting to punish the franchise owner for being such a jackass and waiting until someone is scared shitless with a gun pointed at their face and then adding insult to injury by asking them to make up for the money that was taken or be fired. You seem to have a disconnect, here. Why would you think that if the employee has failed at her job he didn't fire her sooner? The jerk is lying, it is plain for most of us to see, and now, he is going to lose even more. As it should be.

 

[Mertex]

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I never said that a person is as likely to get struck by lightning as they are of getting robbed while working at a convenience store.....I don't even know the statistics on it, so when you accuse me of comparing the two you are envisioning things in your mind that were not put there by me. Pay attention, so you don't misinterpret what I've been saying. I don't worry about lightning, but I am aware of the dangers and do not put myself in harm's way purposefully. I have never been in a financial situation where I had to work as a server, but I know that everyone that does is in a job more likely to experience a robbery, than I was in my professional position. So, you can't deny that such positions are more risky, even though some may never experience such.

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

Your previous posts sounded like you didn't believe either one was risky, and your nonchalance attitude could be interpreted as reckless and daring, but I'm glad that you admit to exercising common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Please quote my post where I said that, because, like I said, I don't even know the statistics to even compare it. I just know that your chances of getting struck by lightning during a thunderstorm are greater if you don't exercise prudence. I don't know that there is much you can do when working as a server other than checking out the frequency in that particular restaurant or area of the restaurant, and deciding whether or not it is worth the risk.

And you are right, the chances of getting hit by lightning are small, even smaller if you use prudence and common sense, and getting robbed as a server will never happen to me as a server, as I don't see myself ever doing that. Although, some robbers have put the customers at risk, too.

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

Thank you for repeating back to me what I've been saying, although I didn't use your exact words....but getting back to the topic of the OP....

this young pregnant person did take a job that is in the probability of getting robbed, for whatever reason, she went ahead and took the job and now she has experienced a robbery. The manager was wrong for firing her, for whatever reason, especially right after the incidence of robbery, and most assuredly for asking her to pay back what was stolen. She has filed a lawsuit, and I hope this serves as an example for other managers out there....be careful of what you say and do.....it could come back to haunt you.

It was I who posted the "800 times more likely" comparison. As noted, "paying attention" doesn't seem to be his forte.

I dunno Mertex, you and I must look a lot alike...

Apparently he's too busy dreaming up ways to defend his lame position that he doesn't even bother to see who he is responding to!

All you idiots sound the same after a while

Bwahaha....you can't defend your ignorant position......nice deflection.

 

[Mertex]

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I never said that a person is as likely to get struck by lightning as they are of getting robbed while working at a convenience store.....I don't even know the statistics on it, so when you accuse me of comparing the two you are envisioning things in your mind that were not put there by me. Pay attention, so you don't misinterpret what I've been saying. I don't worry about lightning, but I am aware of the dangers and do not put myself in harm's way purposefully. I have never been in a financial situation where I had to work as a server, but I know that everyone that does is in a job more likely to experience a robbery, than I was in my professional position. So, you can't deny that such positions are more risky, even though some may never experience such.

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

Your previous posts sounded like you didn't believe either one was risky, and your nonchalance attitude could be interpreted as reckless and daring, but I'm glad that you admit to exercising common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Please quote my post where I said that, because, like I said, I don't even know the statistics to even compare it. I just know that your chances of getting struck by lightning during a thunderstorm are greater if you don't exercise prudence. I don't know that there is much you can do when working as a server other than checking out the frequency in that particular restaurant or area of the restaurant, and deciding whether or not it is worth the risk.

And you are right, the chances of getting hit by lightning are small, even smaller if you use prudence and common sense, and getting robbed as a server will never happen to me as a server, as I don't see myself ever doing that. Although, some robbers have put the customers at risk, too.

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

Thank you for repeating back to me what I've been saying, although I didn't use your exact words....but getting back to the topic of the OP....
this young pregnant person did take a job that is in the probability of getting robbed, for whatever reason, she went ahead and took the job and now she has experienced a robbery. The manager was wrong for firing her, for whatever reason, especially right after the incidence of robbery, and most assuredly for asking her to pay back what was stolen. She has filed a lawsuit, and I hope this serves as an example for other managers out there....be careful of what you say and do.....it could come back to haunt you.

Working fast food isn't risky.

Okay, genius, the facts are wrong and you are right...........bwahahahaha.......
now, apparently you will show us with links that you are right.

Such thinking doesn't come naturally to an industry that spends more than $2 billion a year promoting itself as fun and friendly. But there are signs that just by coming to work, fast food's late-hour workers might be putting their lives at risk.
Late shift proves deadly to more fast-food workers - ABC News

Fast food restaurants are easy targets for robbers, and the restaurants employees and customers are at risk of injury.
Fast Food Employees Have Increased Risk Of Robbery Injury

A parallel between fast food chains and convenience stores is obvious. Often referred to as "stop and robs" the convenience store industry continues to be an exceedingly "high risk" target for criminal opportunity.
Fast food businesses higher security risk for violent crime and theft



"There's no room for violence under the Golden Arches." But in the annals of American crime, the fast-food-chain assault has become as iconic as the postal-worker shooting spree.
Fast-food crime Why is there so much violent crime at fast-food restaurants

The media onslaught following the Wendy's robbery and multiple homicides once again brought national attention to the risk of workplace violence at fast-food and late night convenience store operations.
Armed Robbery Homicide Wendy s fast food restaurant security consultant Chris McGoey armed robbery fast food security expert


The fast-food industry has known since the 1970s that armed robbery risk is greatest during the opening and closing routine.
Armed Robbery Homicide Burger King fast-food restaurant security security consultant Chris McGoey armed robbery fast food security expert

LOUISVILLE, Ky. —Louisville Metro Police Department officers are searching for the culprits in the metro's fifth armed fast-food robbery in less than a month.
Police investigate 5th armed fast-food restaurant robbery this month Local News - WLKY Home

You do realize that some of those links are nothing but advertisements for security firms don't you?

Of course they are going to say that their services are needed.

Now tell me genius what percentage of armed robberies happen at fast food establishments?
We already know that only 6% of robberies happen at convenience stores.

So IOW if you work at a convenience store you have a 94% chance of not being robbed.

Not a risky job

If we follow your logic then we could call getting out of bed in the morning a death defying act of risking your life.

It must be tough to be so afraid all the time

Yeah, yeah, you've already proven that you're the genius here..........bwahahaha.....

 

[Mertex]

Not true she was the victim of a random and rare crime that is all

You are really dense.....fast food robberies are not rare at all......you're delusional.

 

[Pogo]

You keep forgetting a crucial part -- that being, they offered to sell her continued employment. If she actually had this history and was a problem to the company, (a) why would they offer to ignore it for a price, and (b) why did Corporate come out and publicly apologize and acknowledge it was handled stupidly? That sort of undermines the whole story.

And you seem to be mixing two different topics after that -- I don't know what the "police policy" thing is all about but diga me this -- if a policy goes into effect, is it not in effect when it starts? Nine days later, ninety days later, or nine minutes later, it's still the policy, is it not? When does compliance begin? Ten days? Thirty? A year?

So you haven't read anything about the Baltimore police Gray incident? Go look up the Baltimore riot posts and shit, it's all over the news and there's at least 10 threads on this site alone... If you really can't see the similarity between the prosecutor in that incident throwing out murder charges to appease the rioter and Popeye's corporate hiring this girl back to stop the bad publicity then I'm not sure what to say... I see a hell of a lot of PR reaction in both.

The "pay back" thing, if it even actually happened (remember corporate said they knew nothing about it,) appears to stem from another policy that requires employees to be financially responsible for any shortages in their till. Nearly every bar I've been around has a policy that bartenders and waitresses are responsible for shortages in the till at the end of the night - some would give a "bank" to the waitress bartender that has to be paid back at the end of the night + whatever drinks they sold (a very un-gangly system pre-computers, but much easier these days.) I've personally never worked with fast food so I can't speak from personal experience, but the reporters were saying that fast food joints have that policy - I do personally know that bars, a lot of small business, and smaller grocery stores (Safeway and Fred Meyer's did not, but they fire people if their tills are off more than once or twice,) have similar policies in place to deter employee theft.

Being responsible for what's in your register is common, yes, and reasonable. I've worked under those conditions myself.

But that's not what this is about. Again you're leaving out a crucial element -- the $400 she was asked to "pay back" went down a known hole, and that was the robber, who got away with "nearly $400". Everybody knows where that money went. She didn't take it (therefore she cannot pay it "back"), so it amounts to being held responsible for being the victim of a robbery. Where's that at? Now if no robbery incident happened and her registers came up $400 short at the end, that's a whole different ball game. Can you see a bank teller being offered a choice of paying back the $20k they were forced to hand over at gunpoint, or losing their job?

And secondly, Corporate did acknowledge the firing was wrong and publicly apologized -- if the position was that she was negligent with the cash flow, why would that be wrong? And if it was not that, then it was them offering to sell her back her own job. Those are the only two circumstances we've been served, and only the latter appears unsavory.

I am mixing two incidents, but not two topics - I don't understand how the "following policies" argument isn't being applied "fairly" between the two incidents. It was argued in this thread that the moving cash from the registers policy was not a big deal and should be some-how "excused" from having to do it because she "just hadn't had time." On the flip side the seat belt policy had only been in effect for 9 days so it is not unreasonable that they hadn't gotten into the swing of doing it, especially if, as was implied, it was sent out in an email that not all officers had read, it was also implied that it wasn't safe for them to buckle him up because he was "irate" and combative (aka it wasn't safe for the officers.)

Finally, no I think policies should go into effect as soon as they are instated and all the employees are made aware of it. In my book, it's on the superiors to ensure that all employees are made aware of policy changes, and said changes go into effect immediately - breaking policy is grounds for firing, her and the police officers. However, that's not really the disconnect I'm having between the two instances. My issue is that if we're going to be "reasonable" that this woman was "too busy" to move the cash from the registers so it's not a big deal, then it's also "reasonable" to say that the officers not following a 9 day old policy they may or may not have known about isn't a big deal either. (I mean kids don't buckle up on the school bus, mailmen and delivery drivers don't have to buckle up, etc. etc.)

You are mixing two unrelated topics, yes, and I do know about that policy thing but it's got no basis for comparison here. Policy is policy; if it went into effect an hour ago then its in effect now. To stretch the comparison, it's not a violation of policy to be so busy with business that one hasn't had time to execute the policy lately -- and of course that's a relative term that we haven't had defined -- are they saying she did have time to cash-drop but failed to? We don't know, nor do we know how many registers make up $400 or whether that's reasonable for that number of registers.

The police had no such time constraints; the prisoner was already restrained. Whether their motives were negligent or intentional (see "nickel ride") would have to be determined in a Court of Law.

Finally I sense you're committing a double speculation fallacy here. First presuming that the basis for Baltimore's DA filing charges on the police was done to placate the masses rather than on evidence; and then, assuming the first to be a fact, comparing the Popeye's corporate apology to be the same thing as the first speculation.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

you left out this part:

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.

Never worked in fast food, huh?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

To be fair she was fired for having too much money in the register, against store policy. Its a stupid policy to fire someone over, but she isn't being fired for being robbed and giving up the cash, its not putting it into the safe quick enough.

according to Popeye's. According to her it was for not paying 400 bucks.

 

[Pogo]

No, I don't worry about it, but I don't stand under a tree with a lightning rod in my hand during a thunderstorm.

There's a difference between being prudent and being foolish, and you have proven which one you are. Hope your luck holds out.

Statistics and probability tells me I'm going to be just fine.

But you go ahead and worry about all the shit that may possibly in the near or perhaps distant future if it makes you feel better

You are having a disconnect. Using prudence and worrying are two different things. I don't live worrying about anything, but I know how to use common sense.

Seems to me you are just saying that because you want to appear superior........while practically bragging that you don't use common sense.....

It's your life...you can live it anyway you want.....but don't accuse me of living a life of worry just because you're not able to comprehend what I'm saying.

When you start comparing the likelihood of getting robbed at work to the likelihood of getting struck by lightning you are worrying enough to calculate the odds aren't you?

I don't worry about these things because I do exercise common sense.

You see a chance of getting robbed at work as 800 times more likely than getting struck by lightning. The fact is you can do everything right and STILL get robbed or hit by lightning. The probability though is neither will happen

Possibility and probability are 2 entirely different things.

The probability of getting robbed if you work at a convenience is very likely. It is not likely that it will never happen. It is more likely than not that it will happen.

You posted a link that said only 6% of all robberies happen at a convenience store. Which means 94% of all people who work in a convenience store will never be robbed.

Um... no, that's not what that means at all. That means that if you're going to be robbed, the chances it will happen in a convenience store is 6%.

I suck at math but even I know that.