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

[JOSweetHeart]

Even if the extra money had been put where it was supposed to be, there still would have been money for the robber to run off with. Would she have had to fork it over from her own pocket then too?

God bless you and her always!!!

Holly

P.S. I wonder if business there will get better because of how safe she kept the customers who were there or will business there take a nosedive because she was fired?

 

[Anathema]

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

Most of it was fast food. About 4 months were at a car parts store.

 

[Pop23]

I'm curious how we know the loss.

I know that the story says she was to reimburse the store $400, but in my area anyway, the police don't give out that information and neither does the press. It's normally reported as "an undisclosed amount".

They say they do it so that potential robbers aren't going to be encouraged.

 

[BullKurtz]

If the media spent more time trying to get the perp caught and less on her sob story, everybody would be better off.

 

[Pogo]

I'm curious how we know the loss.

I know that the story says she was to reimburse the store $400, but in my area anyway, the police don't give out that information and neither does the press. It's normally reported as "an undisclosed amount".

They say they do it so that potential robbers aren't going to be encouraged.

I think that came from the lady herself, dinnit?

 

[Pogo]

If the media spent more time trying to get the perp caught and less on her sob story, everybody would be better off.

That's true -- this entire thread has been trying to blame or defend the victim. A few even suggested she caused the robbery. Which is, as a thought process, bizarre.

 

[BullKurtz]

That's true -- this entire thread has been trying to blame or defend the victim. A few even suggested she caused the robbery. Which is, as a thought process, bizarre.

I suggested she may have had a hand in it because it often happens that way. No retailer expects their employees to resist so It's an easy score as long as no cop or hero wanders into the middle of it. I had a bartender/waitress scheme in my club charging for regular shots and giving long-pours for better tips. I hired a PI to watch them for a night and sure enough he had them red-handed....she got fired, he got his sticky fingers slammed in the register.....a caught thief is usually a model employee.

 

[Mertex]

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.

fuck you, where did i say they were right for what they did?

No, fuck you.......you're making excuses for the company. You really have no proof that she had done it before, other than the manager's word and we know he's an ass like you.

it is more logical that she was fired to repeatedly breaking the rules than being fired for not giving the $400 back.

That's what the manager is claiming, but the teen said they told her she either paid the $400 or be fired. And what an opportune time for the manager to fire her.....after she was robbed at gun point. Anyone with a brain and some semblance of a heart would find that offensive. Thank you for showing your ass.

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.

It was both.......idiot. Not all reports mentioned all of the facts. Most people with a brain would have researched it before assuming anything from just one article. But, alas, you don't have a brain, so that explains why you're an idiot.

 

[Mertex]

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

Why are you changing the subject idiot.....having trouble with your clicker?

And, if you can't figure out that because a woman was the one that was able to figure out that the company was in the wrong, it's no wonder you are a part of the party that doesn't think women deserve the same as men for the same work. Have someone explain it to you, I'm not wasting my time with a moron like you.

 

[Mertex]

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 fucking 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.

A smart company would have demoted her long before it came to the fact that they got robbed. To wait until that time was not only heartless but idiotic, because as you say, once the word got out, most people with a heart are going to find it offensive and that Popeye's is going to pay the price. I think the only reason they offered her $2k and her job back is to keep her from suing them, but if she does, it would be a good lesson for that company and others, who think they can treat employees like they weren't human.

 

[Mertex]

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

Let me guess? You're a conservative and you have no empathy for people, right?

 

[Pop23]

I'm curious how we know the loss.

I know that the story says she was to reimburse the store $400, but in my area anyway, the police don't give out that information and neither does the press. It's normally reported as "an undisclosed amount".

They say they do it so that potential robbers aren't going to be encouraged.

I think that came from the lady herself, dinnit?

So $400 was the total, or was that the amount over that violated the policy?

I'm asking because, if only 2 tills were open at the counter and another was open in the drive thru, then that is not a lot per till. Even if you don't count the drive through, $200 per till is not a lot per till. The more the open tills, the less per till.

Something's just not adding up. Plus they had just gotten through a rush period?

I dunno, something's just not adding up.

 

[Mertex]

So jack ass captain failed to follow some policies (short version is he put the ship on autopilot knowing the fucking 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.

Wow! comparing a jackass captain who causes the death of many animals, cost billions to repair and destroyed the environment to a pregnant teen, who explains why she didn't immediately put the money in the safe, and cost the company only $400 due to a robber at gun point is amazing. Your compassion compass is way off.


The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill—which fouled the waters of Prince William Sound, coated more than a thousand miles of pristine coastline, and killed hundreds of thousands of birds, fish and animals—has become a symbol of human-caused environmental disasters. Many years after the accident, and despite billions of dollars spent on cleanup efforts, crude oil can still be found under the rocks and sand on the beaches of southwest Alaska, and the effects of the spill are still apparent in the lasting damage done to many native species.

1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Profile

 

[Mertex]

If the media spent more time trying to get the perp caught and less on her sob story, everybody would be better off.

Bwahahaha, genius here thinks the media is responsible for catching the perp.......you can't make this shit up.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm curious how we know the loss.

I know that the story says she was to reimburse the store $400, but in my area anyway, the police don't give out that information and neither does the press. It's normally reported as "an undisclosed amount".

They say they do it so that potential robbers aren't going to be encouraged.

I think that came from the lady herself, dinnit?

So $400 was the total, or was that the amount over that violated the policy?

I'm asking because, if only 2 tills were open at the counter and another was open in the drive thru, then that is not a lot per till. Even if you don't count the drive through, $200 per till is not a lot per till. The more the open tills, the less per till.

Something's just not adding up. Plus they had just gotten through a rush period?

I dunno, something's just not adding up.

$400 is not a lot in a fast food business

I can see if she had a days receipts in the till, but if $400 represents her being 20 minutes late in making a transfer, I don't see how it can result in firing

Especially, if she risked her life for $10 an hour

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They should fire Popeye for not coming to the rescue.

 

[SAYIT]

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...

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

Again, I wouldn't assume that history is true...

And yet another speculation fallacy. As one who is quick to throw stones, you should consider moving out of your glass house.

 

[SAYIT]

If the media spent more time trying to get the perp caught and less on her sob story, everybody would be better off.

That's true -- this entire thread has been trying to blame or defend the victim. A few even suggested she caused the robbery. Which is, as a thought process, bizarre.

Really? You think inside jobs are unusual? I believe you are bizarre.

 

[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

Why are you changing the subject idiot.....having trouble with your clicker?

And, if you can't figure out that because a woman was the one that was able to figure out that the company was in the wrong, it's no wonder you are a part of the party that doesn't think women deserve the same as men for the same work. Have someone explain it to you, I'm not wasting my time with a moron like you.

what? you're the one who brought up unequal pay, not me.

and of course, you now realize what a retarded liar you are for bringing up, all you can do is claim....well, if you can't figure it out....you're too ashamed to explain why you even mentioned in the first place.

idiot

 

[Pop23]

I'm curious how we know the loss.

I know that the story says she was to reimburse the store $400, but in my area anyway, the police don't give out that information and neither does the press. It's normally reported as "an undisclosed amount".

They say they do it so that potential robbers aren't going to be encouraged.

I think that came from the lady herself, dinnit?

So $400 was the total, or was that the amount over that violated the policy?

I'm asking because, if only 2 tills were open at the counter and another was open in the drive thru, then that is not a lot per till. Even if you don't count the drive through, $200 per till is not a lot per till. The more the open tills, the less per till.

Something's just not adding up. Plus they had just gotten through a rush period?

I dunno, something's just not adding up.

$400 is not a lot in a fast food business

I can see if she had a days receipts in the till, but if $400 represents her being 20 minutes late in making a transfer, I don't see how it can result in firing

Especially, if she risked her life for $10 an hour

Agreed, but, what I'm trying to ask is:

Was $400 the amount the robber got, or was $400 the amount over the amount allowed prior to dropping cash. Say the maximum allowed is $600, but the robber got $1000, then the $400 is only the part that violated the terms of employment. And, $400 total, after a rush is diddly squat for fast food.

It just doesn't add up.

Either way, the reimbursement request is wacko.