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

[Yurt]

It's a pretty clear cut case of her neglecting duties that are put in place specifically to mitigate the robbery that occurred. Her neglect bit the company in the ass. The harsh reality is that if one of your duties is to take cash to the vault when it hits X amount and you fail to do so, and especially if it's not your first offence, then you shouldn't be in that shift manager position. This would be an example of improper decision making on the part of the shift manager pure and simple.

When you bleeding hearts out there get over your rage at how unfair real life is, I would direct you to the security footage from the store. Specifically at time stamps 0:24, 0:40, 0:56, 1:32, and 1:59. (OR, I found less segmented clips of the security camera footage at the beginning of the video posted here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ and here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ so you can see the robbery as it actually unfolded.)

Do you know what I noticed in that camera footage besides the obvious gunman coming in through the door and jumping over the counter?

A lack of customers in line that could back up the reporter’s claim that shift manager just hadn't had time to move the cash because they were “too busy.” In fact, in the non-segmented versions of the security camera, you can even see the robber briefly checking out the place before he actually commits to the robbery, and I bet you anything he counted the number of customers inside though the massive glass windows before even entering the joint. Notice how he pauses with his somewhat gun concealed as he /walks/ through the door, it is only after eyeing up the situation that he starts running in and reveal his gun. *(Seen in my second link, immediately at the start.) Also of note, there are two people behind the counter at this time; one lays on the floor, the other one goes to the right (bottom) and out of the camera’s view *(more on this in a second)

I also noticed (0:41 of the original or 0:03 in my first link) a bunch of bins covering almost the entire left side of the counter. Admittedly, I don’t personally know this store's exact layout but judging the establishments size based on outside video from the reporter coverage, and the fact that the second employee at the front (mentioned above) throws open a door which is caught in the security camera view (at 0:02 in the second link above); it appears to me that they have 2 registers right next to each other on the left side of the counter, and the counter area on the right that is covered with condiment bins would be the spot where customers are supposed to pick up their food. Regardless of if that happens to be a pickup area or not though, logic still tells me that you don't cover the entire counter with multiple huge condiment bins like that when the store is “too busy” to uphold all your managerial responsibilities.

In fact, it actually appears to me that the counter people were in the process of restocking the condiment bins from the entire store (aka the ones over by the soda machine or under the counter, for example) cause there’s what 3 or 4 of them, and stacked on the counter like that - this is not something you do in that way when you are slammed with customers, its something you do when you have a lull in customers.

I also noted that the shift manager had stated that she was “in the back.” I’m trying to think what a /shift manager/ is doing in the back of the store that was /more/ important than her duty to move the cash from the registers to the vault and I really can’t come up with anything /pressing/ enough. The reporter's claim she was "helping customers," but there’s no customers in line so that leaves what? The drive through maybe? So was she running the drive through, instead of the two cashiers up front [I believe stocking]? A bit of an aside, though it ties into my final opinion.

Another thing I noticed is that there are no time-stamps on the security cameras, and suspiciously, I can’t find one single mention of what time this robbery took place anywhere, every report has for some reason omitted the time of the robbery and say only “that night.” I couldn’t find any police reports or 911 calls from the Harris County Sherriff’s Department though, so I’m unable to confirm my gut suspicion that this robbery actually happened near, at, or after closing, and not during some rush that might have /actually/ prevented the shift manager from moving the cash from the registers to the vault like she’s supposed to.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly in regards to the reason for her firing, in listening to this shift manager speak with the reporter I am willing to bet that she flippantly took it upon herself to "alter" the company policy to fit /her/ convenience:

The spokesman for the company states that she was fired for leaving too much cash in the register [again], but in her interview with the reporter, the shift manager argues (very specifically) that "they got what they got because that's just how much we'd made within one hour."

I have a very strong suspicion from this shift manager’s overall attitude that she decided that /she/ was only going to empty (or check on) the register's every hour, and to hell with the /actual/ policy of moving the cash to the vault when there is x amount in the register.

That might sound like a fine line distinction on the surface, but it is also a pretty clear indication of this shift manager’s overall opinion and reliability when it comes to following company policies, and thus a very valid reason to fire her from that position. That kind of "laziness" about following "inconvenient" company policies can not only very easily get a business shut down entirely (for failing to follow a silly law for example,) but can also be a threat to other employee’s /and/ customers safety, as well as a financial liability for the company itself. (For example, blowing off putting down a “wet floor” cone and a customer or employee slips and gets hurt and sues the company, or much, much worse - I’m reminded of the Exxon Valdez’s captain "blowing off" company policies, laws and regulations, costing Exxon BILLIONS for related oil spill cleanup, lawsuits, and fines.)

This would be even more case in point if the shift manager /had/ signed any kind of agreement stating that she was liable to reimburse some amount to the company for register shortages and then after the fact refusing to do so – though again the spokesman stated they had not heard anything about her being asked to pay the $400 back (so she could be lying about that, who knows)

Grain of salt though, the media isn’t exactly reliable in reporting anything, and I’ve not been able to find any non-media evidence of actual policy for moving money from the cash register to the vault, nor anything regarding an employee’s liability to reimburse the store.


Either way I think the franchise made a mistake in firing this shift manager when they did, not because it necessarily was or was not a good character call about her specifically, but because of the media backlash they are now feeling. If they were too stupid to realize this could become a PR disaster, they’re total morons.

Personally I would have demoted her, basically put her on maternity leave, then fired her after she had her kid on the premise that I had filled her position while she was gone. 99% of the negative PR fallout could have been avoided, no one would likely link the two incidents (other than the arbitrary, “Wah, I dodged a bullet for you six months ago and this is how you treat me” whining, which isn’t enough to garner too much media support) and, of course, my new/replacement shift manager would be following the policy, thus mitigating any possible future losses to robberies; which are now more likely to occur on Tuesday’s… Yeah... I’d also immediately end that $1.19 deal.

A low paid employee risked her life over $400 of stinking company money

In times like that a billion dollar corporation needs to show more concern over the welfare of their employees than a stinking $400

i'm sure it was about the other people in the restaurant, stop trolling

 

[westwall]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

How the fuck to you fullfill your managerial duties during a robbery?
What the fuck is that?
She already went way above and beyond the call of duty by not give out the code to the safe.
When a bank is robbed, does the manager have to replace the millions?

Now, put on your thinking cap...

I agree with you on this. Further it is highly illegal for the owner of the restaurant to require her to pay for the loss. It's not the corporation that's fucked, it's the asshole franchisee who, if I were her, would be suing to the moon. Whoever they are, they are pricks.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A poorly paid, pregnant shift manager risked her life over $400

She deserves a bonus

Have you ever NOT been the stupidest person in the room?

 

[Statistikhengst]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

How the fuck to you fullfill your managerial duties during a robbery?
What the fuck is that?
She already went way above and beyond the call of duty by not give out the code to the safe.
When a bank is robbed, does the manager have to replace the millions?

Now, put on your thinking cap...

I agree with you on this. Further it is highly illegal for the owner of the restaurant to require her to pay for the loss. It's not the corporation that's fucked, it's the asshole franchisee who, if I were her, would be suing to the moon. Whoever they are, they are pricks.

I've just never heard of this happening before, ever. Usually, when a business is robbed, the management first checks to make sure that the employee is ok. She was just in a major stress situation and could have lost her life. When word gets out about that company, it may find itself having a hard time getting people to want to work with it.

 

[Marxist]

She was fired for violating company policy.... it's on her.

Next....

I agree.

I fired a secretary on the spot one time for not depositing money in a timely fashion.

Don't mess with company money.

Ever

I fired a secretary on the spot one time for not depositing money in a timely fashion.

You're a real asshole then.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If it really was busy enough at the time to where she couldn't do what was supposed to be done with the money, then to me, she should sue the company.

God bless you and her always!!!

Holly

P.S. My area got its first Popeye's not too long ago and I've only been to it once. Right after I walked in and saw how expensive the food was, I walked right out empty handed and have not been back since then.

 

[rightwinger]

It's a pretty clear cut case of her neglecting duties that are put in place specifically to mitigate the robbery that occurred. Her neglect bit the company in the ass. The harsh reality is that if one of your duties is to take cash to the vault when it hits X amount and you fail to do so, and especially if it's not your first offence, then you shouldn't be in that shift manager position. This would be an example of improper decision making on the part of the shift manager pure and simple.

When you bleeding hearts out there get over your rage at how unfair real life is, I would direct you to the security footage from the store. Specifically at time stamps 0:24, 0:40, 0:56, 1:32, and 1:59. (OR, I found less segmented clips of the security camera footage at the beginning of the video posted here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ and here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ so you can see the robbery as it actually unfolded.)

Do you know what I noticed in that camera footage besides the obvious gunman coming in through the door and jumping over the counter?

A lack of customers in line that could back up the reporter’s claim that shift manager just hadn't had time to move the cash because they were “too busy.” In fact, in the non-segmented versions of the security camera, you can even see the robber briefly checking out the place before he actually commits to the robbery, and I bet you anything he counted the number of customers inside though the massive glass windows before even entering the joint. Notice how he pauses with his somewhat gun concealed as he /walks/ through the door, it is only after eyeing up the situation that he starts running in and reveal his gun. *(Seen in my second link, immediately at the start.) Also of note, there are two people behind the counter at this time; one lays on the floor, the other one goes to the right (bottom) and out of the camera’s view *(more on this in a second)

I also noticed (0:41 of the original or 0:03 in my first link) a bunch of bins covering almost the entire left side of the counter. Admittedly, I don’t personally know this store's exact layout but judging the establishments size based on outside video from the reporter coverage, and the fact that the second employee at the front (mentioned above) throws open a door which is caught in the security camera view (at 0:02 in the second link above); it appears to me that they have 2 registers right next to each other on the left side of the counter, and the counter area on the right that is covered with condiment bins would be the spot where customers are supposed to pick up their food. Regardless of if that happens to be a pickup area or not though, logic still tells me that you don't cover the entire counter with multiple huge condiment bins like that when the store is “too busy” to uphold all your managerial responsibilities.

In fact, it actually appears to me that the counter people were in the process of restocking the condiment bins from the entire store (aka the ones over by the soda machine or under the counter, for example) cause there’s what 3 or 4 of them, and stacked on the counter like that - this is not something you do in that way when you are slammed with customers, its something you do when you have a lull in customers.

I also noted that the shift manager had stated that she was “in the back.” I’m trying to think what a /shift manager/ is doing in the back of the store that was /more/ important than her duty to move the cash from the registers to the vault and I really can’t come up with anything /pressing/ enough. The reporter's claim she was "helping customers," but there’s no customers in line so that leaves what? The drive through maybe? So was she running the drive through, instead of the two cashiers up front [I believe stocking]? A bit of an aside, though it ties into my final opinion.

Another thing I noticed is that there are no time-stamps on the security cameras, and suspiciously, I can’t find one single mention of what time this robbery took place anywhere, every report has for some reason omitted the time of the robbery and say only “that night.” I couldn’t find any police reports or 911 calls from the Harris County Sherriff’s Department though, so I’m unable to confirm my gut suspicion that this robbery actually happened near, at, or after closing, and not during some rush that might have /actually/ prevented the shift manager from moving the cash from the registers to the vault like she’s supposed to.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly in regards to the reason for her firing, in listening to this shift manager speak with the reporter I am willing to bet that she flippantly took it upon herself to "alter" the company policy to fit /her/ convenience:

The spokesman for the company states that she was fired for leaving too much cash in the register [again], but in her interview with the reporter, the shift manager argues (very specifically) that "they got what they got because that's just how much we'd made within one hour."

I have a very strong suspicion from this shift manager’s overall attitude that she decided that /she/ was only going to empty (or check on) the register's every hour, and to hell with the /actual/ policy of moving the cash to the vault when there is x amount in the register.

That might sound like a fine line distinction on the surface, but it is also a pretty clear indication of this shift manager’s overall opinion and reliability when it comes to following company policies, and thus a very valid reason to fire her from that position. That kind of "laziness" about following "inconvenient" company policies can not only very easily get a business shut down entirely (for failing to follow a silly law for example,) but can also be a threat to other employee’s /and/ customers safety, as well as a financial liability for the company itself. (For example, blowing off putting down a “wet floor” cone and a customer or employee slips and gets hurt and sues the company, or much, much worse - I’m reminded of the Exxon Valdez’s captain "blowing off" company policies, laws and regulations, costing Exxon BILLIONS for related oil spill cleanup, lawsuits, and fines.)

This would be even more case in point if the shift manager /had/ signed any kind of agreement stating that she was liable to reimburse some amount to the company for register shortages and then after the fact refusing to do so – though again the spokesman stated they had not heard anything about her being asked to pay the $400 back (so she could be lying about that, who knows)

Grain of salt though, the media isn’t exactly reliable in reporting anything, and I’ve not been able to find any non-media evidence of actual policy for moving money from the cash register to the vault, nor anything regarding an employee’s liability to reimburse the store.


Either way I think the franchise made a mistake in firing this shift manager when they did, not because it necessarily was or was not a good character call about her specifically, but because of the media backlash they are now feeling. If they were too stupid to realize this could become a PR disaster, they’re total morons.

Personally I would have demoted her, basically put her on maternity leave, then fired her after she had her kid on the premise that I had filled her position while she was gone. 99% of the negative PR fallout could have been avoided, no one would likely link the two incidents (other than the arbitrary, “Wah, I dodged a bullet for you six months ago and this is how you treat me” whining, which isn’t enough to garner too much media support) and, of course, my new/replacement shift manager would be following the policy, thus mitigating any possible future losses to robberies; which are now more likely to occur on Tuesday’s… Yeah... I’d also immediately end that $1.19 deal.

A low paid employee risked her life over $400 of stinking company money

In times like that a billion dollar corporation needs to show more concern over the welfare of their employees than a stinking $400

i'm sure it was about the other people in the restaurant, stop trolling

Very true

That low paid pregnant manager kept other people in the restaurant from being killed

Popeyes is out $400

Public relations nightmare

 

[rightwinger]

A poorly paid, pregnant shift manager risked her life over $400

She deserves a bonus

Have you ever NOT been the stupidest person in the room?

Very true

Because $400 is more important than the safety of your employees and customers

 

[Avatar4321]

That sucks.

 

[Missourian]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

uh -- where do you get these ideas?
I don't see anywhere it says she was a manager -- she was fired by a manager. Regardless what her position, do you think her duties included taking a bullet to protect company profits?

There is more than one story on this...why do you suppose the OP article left it out.

"A fast food manager from Texas said she was fired after she refused to pay back money stolen during an armed robbery".

Pregnant fast food manager fired when she wouldn t reimburse money stolen in armed robbery

 

[JOSweetHeart]

That low paid pregnant manager kept other people in the restaurant from being killed.

Amen to this! The fact that she took care of any customers who were there at the time in such a way, to me, should have been taken into some serious consideration!

God bless you and them and her always!!!

Holly

 

[westwall]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

How the fuck to you fullfill your managerial duties during a robbery?
What the fuck is that?
She already went way above and beyond the call of duty by not give out the code to the safe.
When a bank is robbed, does the manager have to replace the millions?

Now, put on your thinking cap...

I agree with you on this. Further it is highly illegal for the owner of the restaurant to require her to pay for the loss. It's not the corporation that's fucked, it's the asshole franchisee who, if I were her, would be suing to the moon. Whoever they are, they are pricks.

I've just never heard of this happening before, ever. Usually, when a business is robbed, the management first checks to make sure that the employee is ok. She was just in a major stress situation and could have lost her life. When word gets out about that company, it may find itself having a hard time getting people to want to work with it.

As word of this gets out I will be shocked if corporate doesn't buy the franchise back and get rid of that owner. And the reason you've never heard of it is because it's illegal as hell. I would hazard a guess that the Labor Relations Board is going to be inspecting this asshats business practices as well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

How the fuck to you fullfill your managerial duties during a robbery?
What the fuck is that?
She already went way above and beyond the call of duty by not give out the code to the safe.
When a bank is robbed, does the manager have to replace the millions?

Now, put on your thinking cap...

I agree with you on this. Further it is highly illegal for the owner of the restaurant to require her to pay for the loss. It's not the corporation that's fucked, it's the asshole franchisee who, if I were her, would be suing to the moon. Whoever they are, they are pricks.

I've just never heard of this happening before, ever. Usually, when a business is robbed, the management first checks to make sure that the employee is ok. She was just in a major stress situation and could have lost her life. When word gets out about that company, it may find itself having a hard time getting people to want to work with it.

As word of this gets out I will be shocked if corporate doesn't buy the franchise back and get rid of that owner. And the reason you've never heard of it is because it's illegal as hell. I would hazard a guess that the Labor Relations Board is going to be inspecting this asshats business practices as well.

Quite possible. What is not in the article is how many employees were working at the time and if there was realistically enough time to keep moving money from the register to the safe.

But no matter what, Popeyes just shot itself in the foot. I can imagine a pretty big blowback happening over this.

 

[westwall]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

uh -- where do you get these ideas?
I don't see anywhere it says she was a manager -- she was fired by a manager. Regardless what her position, do you think her duties included taking a bullet to protect company profits?

There is more than one story on this...why do you suppose the OP article left it out.

"A fast food manager from Texas said she was fired after she refused to pay back money stolen during an armed robbery".

Pregnant fast food manager fired when she wouldn t reimburse money stolen in armed robbery

That's a weak assed reason to fire someone. If there truly was a rush going on they are hustling to get the food out. This franchisee is going to be in for a long ride I feel. And they deserve it.

 

[Zander]

In the wacky leftist world everyone is a victim.........

 

[Statistikhengst]

She did nothing wrong and the company should be forced to pay her an extra $400 for going through what she did.

And then she should be given the decision on whether to fire the manager.

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

uh -- where do you get these ideas?
I don't see anywhere it says she was a manager -- she was fired by a manager. Regardless what her position, do you think her duties included taking a bullet to protect company profits?

There is more than one story on this...why do you suppose the OP article left it out.

"A fast food manager from Texas said she was fired after she refused to pay back money stolen during an armed robbery".

Pregnant fast food manager fired when she wouldn t reimburse money stolen in armed robbery

And that makes a difference?

Is the manager armed?
Do she possess magic skills to avoid a possible bullet to her head?

What the fuck is wrong with you people? When did basic human decency get completely thrown overboard?

Damn...

 

[westwall]

She was a manager. She had a responsibility. She failed to fulfill her duties. It wasn't the first time. She was fired for failing to perform her managerial duties.

How the fuck to you fullfill your managerial duties during a robbery?
What the fuck is that?
She already went way above and beyond the call of duty by not give out the code to the safe.
When a bank is robbed, does the manager have to replace the millions?

Now, put on your thinking cap...

I agree with you on this. Further it is highly illegal for the owner of the restaurant to require her to pay for the loss. It's not the corporation that's fucked, it's the asshole franchisee who, if I were her, would be suing to the moon. Whoever they are, they are pricks.

I've just never heard of this happening before, ever. Usually, when a business is robbed, the management first checks to make sure that the employee is ok. She was just in a major stress situation and could have lost her life. When word gets out about that company, it may find itself having a hard time getting people to want to work with it.

As word of this gets out I will be shocked if corporate doesn't buy the franchise back and get rid of that owner. And the reason you've never heard of it is because it's illegal as hell. I would hazard a guess that the Labor Relations Board is going to be inspecting this asshats business practices as well.

Quite possible. What is not in the article is how many employees were working at the time and if there was realistically enough time to keep moving money from the register to the safe.

But no matter what, Popeyes just shot itself in the foot. I can imagine a pretty big blowback happening over this.

Not Popeye's, Z&H Foods Inc is the franchisee. They're the asshats that shot themselves in the foot.

 

[Yurt]

It's a pretty clear cut case of her neglecting duties that are put in place specifically to mitigate the robbery that occurred. Her neglect bit the company in the ass. The harsh reality is that if one of your duties is to take cash to the vault when it hits X amount and you fail to do so, and especially if it's not your first offence, then you shouldn't be in that shift manager position. This would be an example of improper decision making on the part of the shift manager pure and simple.

When you bleeding hearts out there get over your rage at how unfair real life is, I would direct you to the security footage from the store. Specifically at time stamps 0:24, 0:40, 0:56, 1:32, and 1:59. (OR, I found less segmented clips of the security camera footage at the beginning of the video posted here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ and here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ so you can see the robbery as it actually unfolded.)

Do you know what I noticed in that camera footage besides the obvious gunman coming in through the door and jumping over the counter?

A lack of customers in line that could back up the reporter’s claim that shift manager just hadn't had time to move the cash because they were “too busy.” In fact, in the non-segmented versions of the security camera, you can even see the robber briefly checking out the place before he actually commits to the robbery, and I bet you anything he counted the number of customers inside though the massive glass windows before even entering the joint. Notice how he pauses with his somewhat gun concealed as he /walks/ through the door, it is only after eyeing up the situation that he starts running in and reveal his gun. *(Seen in my second link, immediately at the start.) Also of note, there are two people behind the counter at this time; one lays on the floor, the other one goes to the right (bottom) and out of the camera’s view *(more on this in a second)

I also noticed (0:41 of the original or 0:03 in my first link) a bunch of bins covering almost the entire left side of the counter. Admittedly, I don’t personally know this store's exact layout but judging the establishments size based on outside video from the reporter coverage, and the fact that the second employee at the front (mentioned above) throws open a door which is caught in the security camera view (at 0:02 in the second link above); it appears to me that they have 2 registers right next to each other on the left side of the counter, and the counter area on the right that is covered with condiment bins would be the spot where customers are supposed to pick up their food. Regardless of if that happens to be a pickup area or not though, logic still tells me that you don't cover the entire counter with multiple huge condiment bins like that when the store is “too busy” to uphold all your managerial responsibilities.

In fact, it actually appears to me that the counter people were in the process of restocking the condiment bins from the entire store (aka the ones over by the soda machine or under the counter, for example) cause there’s what 3 or 4 of them, and stacked on the counter like that - this is not something you do in that way when you are slammed with customers, its something you do when you have a lull in customers.

I also noted that the shift manager had stated that she was “in the back.” I’m trying to think what a /shift manager/ is doing in the back of the store that was /more/ important than her duty to move the cash from the registers to the vault and I really can’t come up with anything /pressing/ enough. The reporter's claim she was "helping customers," but there’s no customers in line so that leaves what? The drive through maybe? So was she running the drive through, instead of the two cashiers up front [I believe stocking]? A bit of an aside, though it ties into my final opinion.

Another thing I noticed is that there are no time-stamps on the security cameras, and suspiciously, I can’t find one single mention of what time this robbery took place anywhere, every report has for some reason omitted the time of the robbery and say only “that night.” I couldn’t find any police reports or 911 calls from the Harris County Sherriff’s Department though, so I’m unable to confirm my gut suspicion that this robbery actually happened near, at, or after closing, and not during some rush that might have /actually/ prevented the shift manager from moving the cash from the registers to the vault like she’s supposed to.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly in regards to the reason for her firing, in listening to this shift manager speak with the reporter I am willing to bet that she flippantly took it upon herself to "alter" the company policy to fit /her/ convenience:

The spokesman for the company states that she was fired for leaving too much cash in the register [again], but in her interview with the reporter, the shift manager argues (very specifically) that "they got what they got because that's just how much we'd made within one hour."

I have a very strong suspicion from this shift manager’s overall attitude that she decided that /she/ was only going to empty (or check on) the register's every hour, and to hell with the /actual/ policy of moving the cash to the vault when there is x amount in the register.

That might sound like a fine line distinction on the surface, but it is also a pretty clear indication of this shift manager’s overall opinion and reliability when it comes to following company policies, and thus a very valid reason to fire her from that position. That kind of "laziness" about following "inconvenient" company policies can not only very easily get a business shut down entirely (for failing to follow a silly law for example,) but can also be a threat to other employee’s /and/ customers safety, as well as a financial liability for the company itself. (For example, blowing off putting down a “wet floor” cone and a customer or employee slips and gets hurt and sues the company, or much, much worse - I’m reminded of the Exxon Valdez’s captain "blowing off" company policies, laws and regulations, costing Exxon BILLIONS for related oil spill cleanup, lawsuits, and fines.)

This would be even more case in point if the shift manager /had/ signed any kind of agreement stating that she was liable to reimburse some amount to the company for register shortages and then after the fact refusing to do so – though again the spokesman stated they had not heard anything about her being asked to pay the $400 back (so she could be lying about that, who knows)

Grain of salt though, the media isn’t exactly reliable in reporting anything, and I’ve not been able to find any non-media evidence of actual policy for moving money from the cash register to the vault, nor anything regarding an employee’s liability to reimburse the store.


Either way I think the franchise made a mistake in firing this shift manager when they did, not because it necessarily was or was not a good character call about her specifically, but because of the media backlash they are now feeling. If they were too stupid to realize this could become a PR disaster, they’re total morons.

Personally I would have demoted her, basically put her on maternity leave, then fired her after she had her kid on the premise that I had filled her position while she was gone. 99% of the negative PR fallout could have been avoided, no one would likely link the two incidents (other than the arbitrary, “Wah, I dodged a bullet for you six months ago and this is how you treat me” whining, which isn’t enough to garner too much media support) and, of course, my new/replacement shift manager would be following the policy, thus mitigating any possible future losses to robberies; which are now more likely to occur on Tuesday’s… Yeah... I’d also immediately end that $1.19 deal.

A low paid employee risked her life over $400 of stinking company money

In times like that a billion dollar corporation needs to show more concern over the welfare of their employees than a stinking $400

i'm sure it was about the other people in the restaurant, stop trolling

Very true

That low paid pregnant manager kept other people in the restaurant from being killed

Popeyes is out $400

Public relations nightmare

i think you're posting without knowing all the facts. you do this quite often. she supposedly repeatedly broke the rule and i am positive there is more to this story than meets the eye. the fact you purposefully left out the restaurants response as to why she was fired only solidifies my statement that you ignore facts that don't fit your world view.

 

[Yurt]

A poorly paid, pregnant shift manager risked her life over $400

She deserves a bonus

Have you ever NOT been the stupidest person in the room?

Very true

Because $400 is more important than the safety of your employees and customers

who said that? HINT: no one. you're making shit strawman up as usual you dishonest hack.

 

[rightwinger]

It's a pretty clear cut case of her neglecting duties that are put in place specifically to mitigate the robbery that occurred. Her neglect bit the company in the ass. The harsh reality is that if one of your duties is to take cash to the vault when it hits X amount and you fail to do so, and especially if it's not your first offence, then you shouldn't be in that shift manager position. This would be an example of improper decision making on the part of the shift manager pure and simple.

When you bleeding hearts out there get over your rage at how unfair real life is, I would direct you to the security footage from the store. Specifically at time stamps 0:24, 0:40, 0:56, 1:32, and 1:59. (OR, I found less segmented clips of the security camera footage at the beginning of the video posted here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ and here http://www.khou.com/story/news/investigations/2015/04/21/pregnant-fast-food-worker-fired-after-being-robbed-at-gunpoint/26162183/ so you can see the robbery as it actually unfolded.)

Do you know what I noticed in that camera footage besides the obvious gunman coming in through the door and jumping over the counter?

A lack of customers in line that could back up the reporter’s claim that shift manager just hadn't had time to move the cash because they were “too busy.” In fact, in the non-segmented versions of the security camera, you can even see the robber briefly checking out the place before he actually commits to the robbery, and I bet you anything he counted the number of customers inside though the massive glass windows before even entering the joint. Notice how he pauses with his somewhat gun concealed as he /walks/ through the door, it is only after eyeing up the situation that he starts running in and reveal his gun. *(Seen in my second link, immediately at the start.) Also of note, there are two people behind the counter at this time; one lays on the floor, the other one goes to the right (bottom) and out of the camera’s view *(more on this in a second)

I also noticed (0:41 of the original or 0:03 in my first link) a bunch of bins covering almost the entire left side of the counter. Admittedly, I don’t personally know this store's exact layout but judging the establishments size based on outside video from the reporter coverage, and the fact that the second employee at the front (mentioned above) throws open a door which is caught in the security camera view (at 0:02 in the second link above); it appears to me that they have 2 registers right next to each other on the left side of the counter, and the counter area on the right that is covered with condiment bins would be the spot where customers are supposed to pick up their food. Regardless of if that happens to be a pickup area or not though, logic still tells me that you don't cover the entire counter with multiple huge condiment bins like that when the store is “too busy” to uphold all your managerial responsibilities.

In fact, it actually appears to me that the counter people were in the process of restocking the condiment bins from the entire store (aka the ones over by the soda machine or under the counter, for example) cause there’s what 3 or 4 of them, and stacked on the counter like that - this is not something you do in that way when you are slammed with customers, its something you do when you have a lull in customers.

I also noted that the shift manager had stated that she was “in the back.” I’m trying to think what a /shift manager/ is doing in the back of the store that was /more/ important than her duty to move the cash from the registers to the vault and I really can’t come up with anything /pressing/ enough. The reporter's claim she was "helping customers," but there’s no customers in line so that leaves what? The drive through maybe? So was she running the drive through, instead of the two cashiers up front [I believe stocking]? A bit of an aside, though it ties into my final opinion.

Another thing I noticed is that there are no time-stamps on the security cameras, and suspiciously, I can’t find one single mention of what time this robbery took place anywhere, every report has for some reason omitted the time of the robbery and say only “that night.” I couldn’t find any police reports or 911 calls from the Harris County Sherriff’s Department though, so I’m unable to confirm my gut suspicion that this robbery actually happened near, at, or after closing, and not during some rush that might have /actually/ prevented the shift manager from moving the cash from the registers to the vault like she’s supposed to.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly in regards to the reason for her firing, in listening to this shift manager speak with the reporter I am willing to bet that she flippantly took it upon herself to "alter" the company policy to fit /her/ convenience:

The spokesman for the company states that she was fired for leaving too much cash in the register [again], but in her interview with the reporter, the shift manager argues (very specifically) that "they got what they got because that's just how much we'd made within one hour."

I have a very strong suspicion from this shift manager’s overall attitude that she decided that /she/ was only going to empty (or check on) the register's every hour, and to hell with the /actual/ policy of moving the cash to the vault when there is x amount in the register.

That might sound like a fine line distinction on the surface, but it is also a pretty clear indication of this shift manager’s overall opinion and reliability when it comes to following company policies, and thus a very valid reason to fire her from that position. That kind of "laziness" about following "inconvenient" company policies can not only very easily get a business shut down entirely (for failing to follow a silly law for example,) but can also be a threat to other employee’s /and/ customers safety, as well as a financial liability for the company itself. (For example, blowing off putting down a “wet floor” cone and a customer or employee slips and gets hurt and sues the company, or much, much worse - I’m reminded of the Exxon Valdez’s captain "blowing off" company policies, laws and regulations, costing Exxon BILLIONS for related oil spill cleanup, lawsuits, and fines.)

This would be even more case in point if the shift manager /had/ signed any kind of agreement stating that she was liable to reimburse some amount to the company for register shortages and then after the fact refusing to do so – though again the spokesman stated they had not heard anything about her being asked to pay the $400 back (so she could be lying about that, who knows)

Grain of salt though, the media isn’t exactly reliable in reporting anything, and I’ve not been able to find any non-media evidence of actual policy for moving money from the cash register to the vault, nor anything regarding an employee’s liability to reimburse the store.


Either way I think the franchise made a mistake in firing this shift manager when they did, not because it necessarily was or was not a good character call about her specifically, but because of the media backlash they are now feeling. If they were too stupid to realize this could become a PR disaster, they’re total morons.

Personally I would have demoted her, basically put her on maternity leave, then fired her after she had her kid on the premise that I had filled her position while she was gone. 99% of the negative PR fallout could have been avoided, no one would likely link the two incidents (other than the arbitrary, “Wah, I dodged a bullet for you six months ago and this is how you treat me” whining, which isn’t enough to garner too much media support) and, of course, my new/replacement shift manager would be following the policy, thus mitigating any possible future losses to robberies; which are now more likely to occur on Tuesday’s… Yeah... I’d also immediately end that $1.19 deal.

A low paid employee risked her life over $400 of stinking company money

In times like that a billion dollar corporation needs to show more concern over the welfare of their employees than a stinking $400

i'm sure it was about the other people in the restaurant, stop trolling

Very true

That low paid pregnant manager kept other people in the restaurant from being killed

Popeyes is out $400

Public relations nightmare

i think you're posting without knowing all the facts. you do this quite often. she supposedly repeatedly broke the rule and i am positive there is more to this story than meets the eye. the fact you purposefully left out the restaurants response as to why she was fired only solidifies my statement that you ignore facts that don't fit your world view.

I provided the restaurants response

Mostly, they hid behind their lawyers