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

[Pogo]

Yeah we get it. Money is more important to you than human lives and viable fetuses.
Fucked up values dood.

This doesn't even make sense. Using the safe and keeping cash available at a minimum SAVES lives.

Ironic phrasing since the above is like saying "guns save lives". This robbery didn't happen because the amount of cash in the till crossed a certain threshold. It happened because A FUCKING THUG CAME IN WITH A GUN TO ROB THE PLACE. You seem blissfully oblivious to this plain fact and bent on blaming the victim. The only thing the amount of money in the register determines is how much he got away with. Had there been only $40 he would have had to get away with that, but the company you genuflect to wouldn't have had a pretext, would they? Then where would you be in your relentless quest to blame the victim?

Explain how this has anything to do with lives and babies OTHER THAN less cash in the registers and locked in the drop safe reduces the risk of robbery and the therefore the risk to employees.

Stop emoting and start thinking.

Just did. How much cash is in the register DOES NOT reduce the risk of robbery; it reduces how much he can get away with. Nobody on the outside KNOWS how much is in the register. Crime happens because A CRIMINAL COMMITS IT. Not because "she was asking for it".

 

[Esmeralda]

She is a liability? Why, because she didn't die? Because she didn't take a bullet for the company's $400? She has a bad attitude because she didn't take a bullet for $400? Seriously, you people are sick, very, very sick. You'll say anything in order to disagree with liberals, no matter how absurd it is.

Because she has repeatedly failed to follow company policy and the public through their emotional PR backlash have reinforced and rewarded her behavior. In the real world policies are in place for important reasons, and very often relate to employee and customer safety - Case in point, they have a policy of moving money from the registers to the vault to discourage robberies, like the one that occurred.

Also I don't submit to any specific political party (note my sig) so your final comment has no bearing on anything; other than you trying to pin a label on me and by extension spew hatred on some political group.


It never ceases to amaze me, every off-hand comment is read in the most vile way possible, and of course, always knowing all that underlies it. Of course you fly off the handle and think I'm sick, because you "presume" to know me and how I "feel." I should know better though, I mean you hyper-emotional types can't be bothered to make anything but the assumption that best fits your latest "outrage" - and I, being a more logical type, tend to forget that your kind couldn't possibly perceive the concept that my feeling bad that she was robbed at gunpoint goes without saying.

A bit ironic isn't it? I'm sick because you presume I don't care, when all the while it is your dismal assumptions (and an apparent despise of a "possible" political foe) that prevents you from envisioning my actual sympathy. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint, but I cannot help but feel bad for whatever biological oddity causes your type's outlooks on people and life in general to be so depressingly terrible. :/

LOL And you say I'm over the top emotional....too funny; in fact, hilarious. You're nuts. And it shows. In NEON lights.

 

[Pogo]

If she had done it several times, then they are to blame for leaving her as manager. If they are lying that she had done it several times, then they are souless bastards who think $400 is worth more than a person's life.

Pogo tried to make this same assertion, but I'm not seeing what springboard you are using to make this leap.

Are you saying that had she done her job and made her money drops she would have been killed?

Cuz that makes no sense...it seems like just a strawman thrown out there out of desperation.

Explain how her life was more at risk had she done her job before the robber ever arrived.

Why don't you go ahead and explain how the amount of money that turns out to be in the drawer somehow at a certain point retroactively incites a good guy with a gun to turn bad and rob the place? What does he have, crystal balls to see the future?

 

[Pogo]

That's bullshit. She explained that they had a rush of people and the $400 was made in a matter of a short period.....she didn't have time to put it in the safe. Besides, $400 is peanuts for a company like that....they should be ashamed of themselves for having such a policy...it should be outlawed.

You make the time...that's WHY they have the policy.

Drop safes and limiting available cash SAVES LIVES, why would anyone want to outlaw it?

It doesn't save lives -- it saves MONEY. Call it what it is and be honest for once. We already know you think four hundred bucks to a national fast food chain is more important than an ordinary person making income for her family.

 

[Pogo]

If she had done it several times, then they are to blame for leaving her as manager. If they are lying that she had done it several times, then they are souless bastards who think $400 is worth more than a person's life.

Pogo tried to make this same assertion, but I'm not seeing what springboard you are using to make this leap.

Are you saying that had she done her job and made her money drops she would have been killed?

I didn't say that. I'm saying that if she wasn't doing her job as they claim, then they should have fired her or demoted her....they didn't, so I'm inclined to not believe that she had done it before. Also, if she had made the money drops, you can't guarantee that the robber wouldn't have come in anyway and traumatized her. She didn't open the safe, she risked her life because the robber may have thought she was holding out. The company should be glad that all he got was $400, thanks to her not being able to open the safe and instead of punishing her, reward her.

Cuz that makes no sense...it seems like just a strawman thrown out there out of desperation.

The company showed no empathy toward one of their employees who suffered a seriously traumatic incident, all they lost was $400, they were wrong for treating her the way they did.

Explain how her life was more at risk had she done her job before the robber ever arrived.

I already did, but if you didn't bother to read the whole article.....and I also explained it above....she didn't open the safe, so she risked her life because the robber might have thought she was playing dumb and could have shot her to death. The robber had no way of knowing whether she made the drops or not.

All well said -- and if this story about a history of leaving too much cash in the drawer were true, then (a) why did they first give her a choice of replacing the stolen money to KEEP that job in spite of this alleged history, and (b) how is it the company apologized, offered her the job back along two thousand bucks back pay?

Which by the way is five times the amount taken by the thief, the guy nobody seems concerned about while they run around shooting the wounded.

 

[westwall]

These are the type of corporations that we're supposed to trust to regulate themselves, be fair to employees, pay them a decent wage and do the right thing? Now the company is claiming that she wasn't supposed to leave that much money in the registers, but she explains why....unbelievable.

Thank goodness she couldn't open the safe.

Is this fair?



A former Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen employee said she was fired after a store robbery because she refused to reimburse the franchise for the stolen cash. Marissa Holcomb (who is pregnant with her fourth child) was at work on 31 March 2015 at a Popeye’s in Channelview, Texas when the incident in question occurred.

CCTV footage of the robbery shows that Holcomb was forced to the floor and ordered to open the safe. She refused to do so, but the thief managed to steal around $400 from the register at Popeye’s before he fled. Holcomb said that her employment was quickly terminated by Popeye’s after she refused to reimburse the franchise for the stolen cash:

Marissa claimed that after the robbery, one of her managers gave her a choice to either pay the money back or get fired.



“I don’t think it’s right because now I’m struggling for my family because what I had to do to keep my life[.]”



Less than 36 hours after the robbery, Marissa was fired.


Pregnant Popeye s Worker Fired After Robbery

So, you're going to paint an entire corporation as evil, because one manager is an imbecile. Is that correct?

It's an illustration to make a point. Where are your secondary levels of comprehension?

Oh dear, sure you want to go there? It's an illustration based on a false premise. Where are your PRIMARY levels of comprehension?

 

[Pogo]

Oh come on, managers everywhere end up doing this, how much extra cash was it? Sounds like an excuse by the capitalist pig.

I was the manager of one of these. Thieves knew we emptied the cash often.

Sorry dude. Good managers do that. The less cash easily available, the less risk.

Doesn't answer my question regarding how much it was. Isn't it convenient when they finally decided to fire her? Come on..

Could be thousands, don't know their policy.

If true, not following THAT policy should lead to dismissal. Today thieves watch for those kind of openings.

Sorry dude.

Oh, so you can guarantee that if she had made the drops, that the robber wouldn't have come in and robbed them?

If that is the case, then why did they ask her to reimburse the whole amount? If she had made the drop, how much would there have been in the registers to be stolen? The thief took $400....surely they were allowed to keep some money and she would only be responsible for the amount over what was supposed to be there.

But, in any case, being robbed like that, and the robber only taking $400 because she didn't open the safe, the company should be rewarding her. That company is in the wrong.

Where did it say they asked for the whole amount? I didn't read that.

I read "Holcomb claimed after the robbery one of her managers gave her an ultimatum: Pay the money back or lose her job."

That doesn't necessarily mean the whole amount...it could just as easily mean the amount above what should have been in the registers.

You've hit the bottom of the desperation barrel with this parse.

 

[Pogo]

Maybe the robbers KNEW in advance she was not dumping the money and that is why they targeted that store. Who knows..

Apparently not, since the cash drawer was his last resort -- he asked for the safe first.

Some of us here are ascribing way more intellectual forethought activity to a common thief than he deserves. Especially the guy who's been trying to tell us if the hidden cash in the drawer is below a certain amount, the thief somehow psychically channels this information in his crystal balls and decides to move on and not jack the place after all.

Doesn't work that way. A thug comes in, draws a gun, and takes whatever he can get, however he can get it. It's not like they're sitting in a room with flip charts and powerpoints planning out freaking Ocean's Twelve. It's a fast food joint, not a bank.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If she had done it several times, then they are to blame for leaving her as manager. If they are lying that she had done it several times, then they are souless bastards who think $400 is worth more than a person's life.

Pogo tried to make this same assertion, but I'm not seeing what springboard you are using to make this leap.

Are you saying that had she done her job and made her money drops she would have been killed?

I didn't say that. I'm saying that if she wasn't doing her job as they claim, then they should have fired her or demoted her....they didn't, so I'm inclined to not believe that she had done it before. Also, if she had made the money drops, you can't guarantee that the robber wouldn't have come in anyway and traumatized her. She didn't open the safe, she risked her life because the robber may have thought she was holding out. The company should be glad that all he got was $400, thanks to her not being able to open the safe and instead of punishing her, reward her.

Cuz that makes no sense...it seems like just a strawman thrown out there out of desperation.

The company showed no empathy toward one of their employees who suffered a seriously traumatic incident, all they lost was $400, they were wrong for treating her the way they did.

Explain how her life was more at risk had she done her job before the robber ever arrived.

I already did, but if you didn't bother to read the whole article.....and I also explained it above....she didn't open the safe, so she risked her life because the robber might have thought she was playing dumb and could have shot her to death. The robber had no way of knowing whether she made the drops or not.

All well said -- and if this story about a history of leaving too much cash in the drawer were true, then (a) why did they first give her a choice of replacing the stolen money to KEEP that job in spite of this alleged history, and (b) how is it the company apologized, offered her the job back along two thousand bucks back pay?

Which by the way is five times the amount taken by the thief, the guy nobody seems concerned about while they run around shooting the wounded.

how is it the company apologized, offered her the job back along two thousand bucks back pay?

The manager was a dumbass to fire her.
I heard it way back in post #2.

 

[Pogo]

I worked at a store similar to a 7-11 and no clerk OR manager could get in that safe. It was dumped every time it got over 100 bucks into the safe. Someone else came every morning to collect it..NOT the manager. And most in that bad neighborhood knew no more than 100 was in there at any given time. Even clerks dumped their registers...50's and 100 dollar bills never went in the till. They were shoved in a slot in the floor.

I think that is the part Popeye's there is responsible for in this situation... They /should/ have an easy to access system, like you describe, to drop excess cash near the registers, rather than having a system that requires actually moving the cash around the building.

Maybe they do....but she just wasn't doing it.

Oh I agree, but I'm just saying as a resolution on behalf of the company to prevent the issue from being an issue in the future. They're saying it was a repeated offense for her not to move the cash from the registers, so it would behoove them to make it easier to get the cash out of the registers.

It would, but all it would do for effect is minimize the amount that could be stolen, which is why the policy's there in the first place. It doesn't stop a thug from coming in with a gun to try to rob the place, regardless what the amount turns out to be. Let's face it, armed robbery's a risky gig. It could pay off big, it could be peanuts. Sometimes you're lucky to get away with nothing, just to get away.

 

[Pogo]

How is this the responsibility of either the poster, Mertex, or the poor woman who faced a robber knowing her baby was at risk?

WTH is wrong with you people?

Mertex is somehow equating this to a corporation.

Do you really think a corporate staff would want this kind of publicity over 400 bucks ?

Oh they definitely do not, which is why they apparently called the franchise owners and "convinced" them to not only try to rehire said manager, but give her $2k in back pay. Then put out a public message to the media claiming they completely disagree with the franchises actions in this case.

If she accepts the offer, I'd suspect she'll be fired or demoted within 6-8 months; she's a liability and her poor attitude regarding following company policy has now in a sense been rewarded so she isn't very likely to rectify her mistakes. 6-8 months from now she won't have sympathy points in her favor to drive media sales so we'll never hear about it heh

How do you know that poor attitude toward company policy ----- even exists?
Consider the source.

 

[Pogo]

She is a liability? Why, because she didn't die? Because she didn't take a bullet for the company's $400? She has a bad attitude because she didn't take a bullet for $400? Seriously, you people are sick, very, very sick. You'll say anything in order to disagree with liberals, no matter how absurd it is.

Because she has repeatedly failed to follow company policy and the public through their emotional PR backlash have reinforced and rewarded her behavior. In the real world policies are in place for important reasons, and very often relate to employee and customer safety - Case in point, they have a policy of moving money from the registers to the vault to discourage robberies, like the one that occurred.

Also I don't submit to any specific political party (note my sig) so your final comment has no bearing on anything; other than you trying to pin a label on me and by extension spew hatred on some political group.


It never ceases to amaze me, every off-hand comment is read in the most vile way possible, and of course, always knowing all that underlies it. Of course you fly off the handle and think I'm sick, because you "presume" to know me and how I "feel." I should know better though, I mean you hyper-emotional types can't be bothered to make anything but the assumption that best fits your latest "outrage" - and I, being a more logical type, tend to forget that your kind couldn't possibly perceive the concept that my feeling bad that she was robbed at gunpoint goes without saying.

A bit ironic isn't it? I'm sick because you presume I don't care, when all the while it is your dismal assumptions (and an apparent despise of a "possible" political foe) that prevents you from envisioning my actual sympathy. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint, but I cannot help but feel bad for whatever biological oddity causes your type's outlooks on people and life in general to be so depressingly terrible. :/

While you're primping yourself in that mirror of logic and reason, consider your opening point here:
"a policy of moving money from the registers to the vault to discourage robberies, like the one that occurred"

--except it doesn't. A theif by definition neither knows the company policy nor knows how much is in there right now -- nor does he know whether he can get into the safe, or how much he can score directly from personnel and customers present when he comes in. The amount of cash in the drawer, which nobody on the outside can see, is hardly the only fruit there for him to pick.

So this logic that the policy of moving cash to a safe "discourages robberies" doesn't fly. What it does is minimize monetary loss.

 

[Esmeralda]

The bottom line for this thread--it's really simple: if this thread had been posted by a RWr, the RWrs would be going on and on about how the robbery was a result of liberal policies and essentially, somehow, inevitably Obama's fault, how there should be more guns around so citizens could fight crime like this, etc.

The RWrs would be supporting the woman who got fired with probably essentially the same argument the left is using now. The RW doesn't really care about the logic of this thing: they will argue any side they choose, as long as they can make it look like it's their side and the problem here is somehow totally the fault of liberalism and Obama.

You guys can pretend to argue the 'logic' or 'reason' of the $400 dollars, if it should have been there or not, or the store policy about putting cash in the safe when it rose over a certain amount.

The real fact is that the Right is only arguing here because a liberal posted the thread.

So, have fun, I'm outta here. The Right has just made this a ridiculous thread. They will say anything as long as it is against the left.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah we get it. Money is more important to you than human lives and viable fetuses.
Fucked up values dood.

This doesn't even make sense. Using the safe and keeping cash available at a minimum SAVES lives.

Ironic phrasing since the above is like saying "guns save lives". This robbery didn't happen because the amount of cash in the till crossed a certain threshold. It happened because A FUCKING THUG CAME IN WITH A GUN TO ROB THE PLACE. You seem blissfully oblivious to this plain fact and bent on blaming the victim. The only thing the amount of money in the register determines is how much he got away with. Had there been only $40 he would have had to get away with that, but the company you genuflect to wouldn't have had a pretext, would they? Then where would you be in your relentless quest to blame the victim?

Explain how this has anything to do with lives and babies OTHER THAN less cash in the registers and locked in the drop safe reduces the risk of robbery and the therefore the risk to employees.

Stop emoting and start thinking.

Just did. How much cash is in the register DOES NOT reduce the risk of robbery; it reduces how much he can get away with. Nobody on the outside KNOWS how much is in the register. Crime happens because A CRIMINAL COMMITS IT. Not because "she was asking for it".

You've obviously never heard of........

Risk vs Reward.

You know diddly.

 

[Pop23]

The bottom line for this thread--it's really simple: if this thread had been posted by a RWr, the RWrs would be going on and on about how the robbery was a result of liberal policies and essentially, somehow, inevitably Obama's fault, how there should be more guns around so citizens could fight crime like this, etc.

The RWrs would be supporting the woman who got fired with probably essentially the same argument the left is using now. The RW doesn't really care about the logic of this thing: they will argue any side they choose, as long as they can make it look like it's their side and the problem here is somehow totally the fault of liberalism and Obama.

You guys can pretend to argue the 'logic' or 'reason' of the $400 dollars, if it should have been there or not, or the store policy about putting cash in the safe when it rose over a certain amount.

The real fact is that the Right is only arguing here because a liberal posted the thread.

So, have fun, I'm outta here. The Right has just made this a ridiculous thread. They will say anything as long as it is against the left.

Oh, the irony

 

[Pop23]

By keeping too much cash in the register SHE put HER employees at risk.

Sorry dude

Oh come on, managers everywhere end up doing this, how much extra cash was it? Sounds like an excuse by the capitalist pig.

I was the manager of one of these. Thieves knew we emptied the cash often.

Sorry dude. Good managers do that. The less cash easily available, the less risk.

Doesn't answer my question regarding how much it was. Isn't it convenient when they finally decided to fire her? Come on..

Could be thousands, don't know their policy.

If true, not following THAT policy should lead to dismissal. Today thieves watch for those kind of openings.

Sorry dude.

Oh, so you can guarantee that if she had made the drops, that the robber wouldn't have come in and robbed them?

If that is the case, then why did they ask her to reimburse the whole amount? If she had made the drop, how much would there have been in the registers to be stolen? The thief took $400....surely they were allowed to keep some money and she would only be responsible for the amount over what was supposed to be there.

But, in any case, being robbed like that, and the robber only taking $400 because she didn't open the safe, the company should be rewarding her. That company is in the wrong.

You make no sense.

If she made the drop, per policy, she would not be fired nor asked to reimburse.

BTW, the reimbursement request was stoopid. Firing was enough.

 

[JFK_USA]

It's simple: Righties have lost all sense of humanity.

You're assuming the right had any humanity to begin with.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's simple: Righties have lost all sense of humanity.

You're assuming the right had any humanity to begin with.

Oh, I think that at one time in the past, real conservatives had a lot of humanity in them.
But this generation of "Conservatives" is just not the generation of William F. Buckley or Barry Goldwater.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How is this the responsibility of either the poster, Mertex, or the poor woman who faced a robber knowing her baby was at risk?

WTH is wrong with you people?

Mertex is somehow equating this to a corporation.

Do you really think a corporate staff would want this kind of publicity over 400 bucks ?

Oh they definitely do not, which is why they apparently called the franchise owners and "convinced" them to not only try to rehire said manager, but give her $2k in back pay. Then put out a public message to the media claiming they completely disagree with the franchises actions in this case.

If she accepts the offer, I'd suspect she'll be fired or demoted within 6-8 months; she's a liability and her poor attitude regarding following company policy has now in a sense been rewarded so she isn't very likely to rectify her mistakes. 6-8 months from now she won't have sympathy points in her favor to drive media sales so we'll never hear about it heh

She is a liability? Why, because she didn't die? Because she didn't take a bullet for the company's $400? She has a bad attitude because she didn't take a bullet for $400? Seriously, you people are sick, very, very sick. You'll say anything in order to disagree with liberals, no matter how absurd it is.

Yepp.

 

[Vandalshandle]

i stopped going to Popeye's in 2005, when I lived in New Orleans and my local franchise owner arbitrarily stopped honoring discount coupons that he had distributed simply because he was one of the first fast food places in our neighborhood to reopen after Katrina. It was his way of saying, "You need me more than I need you". That being the case, I assumed that he felt the same way once all of his competition had reopened, and I never entered the place again. I did exactly the same thing to a price gouging gas station who raised his prices almost 100% the morning before the hurricane hit. I also fired Verizon when they refused to let me out of my cell phone contract, in spite of the fact that Katrina blew their towers down.