| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 79080 | 2007-05-07 11:26:00 | Boycott Dunedin Subway | Greg (193) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 548073 | 2007-05-08 10:29:00 | Firing that employee was way over the top but they do have strict rules on providing friends and family with free or discounted food and drink - it is prohibited. Good point and most shops have the same rule. If the owner lets staff share/give drinks/food/whatever to family and friends, they risk getting ripped off. I have clients who lost over $10,000 from staff selling stuff to mates and relatives for false till entries. Eg. packet chips .50c instead of $2.50. The only way they caught them was by analysing CCTV coverage against till receipts and it took weeks of work to find. Having said that, I wonder if the employer overreacted in this particular case - sounds a bit over the top. It'll be interesting to see if the police charge her because that would suggest there is more than meets the eye. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 548074 | 2007-05-08 11:08:00 | Would you be in business Winston if the police were always right? From the original link "She has been charged with stealing the drinks, valued at $4, and will appear in court later this month." I guess it will hinge on whether as Foxy says the Subway conditions do have those conditions. The first cup doen't seem as clearcut as the second. Do your clients now have any sort of system for measuring stock v's cash flow or are they still stuck in front of the tv? |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 548075 | 2007-05-08 19:55:00 | Keep in mind that the employee didn't actually steal anything. She gave away some stock that perhaps she shouldn't have, but she was an employee with certain rights, and probably she overstepped those rights. Is that a case for dismissal? Heck no! A warning would have been more in order. The $4.00 issue is also of concern... the cost to the franchisee was maybe 20 cents - correct me if I'm wrong. Other fast food franchises give away unlimited soft drinks to their staff and patrons - why should anyone imagine that a cup and a half should cost $4.00? The case is blatant - either the manager/franchisee had an issue with the employee that isn't disclosed (perhaps she objected to his inappropriate amorous advances!), or he has some other issue with her, otherwise undisclosed. (why did it take two weeks of investigating to discover her misdemeanour?). Hmm. |
Greg (193) | ||
| 548076 | 2007-05-08 22:59:00 | Keep in mind that the employee didn't actually steal anything . She gave away some stock that perhaps she shouldn't have, but she was an employee with certain rights, and probably she overstepped those rights . Is that a case for dismissal? Heck no! A warning would have been more in order . The $4 . 00 issue is also of concern . . . the cost to the franchisee was maybe 20 cents - correct me if I'm wrong . Other fast food franchises give away unlimited soft drinks to their staff and patrons - why should anyone imagine that a cup and a half should cost $4 . 00? The case is blatant - either the manager/franchisee had an issue with the employee that isn't disclosed (perhaps she objected to his inappropriate amorous advances!), or he has some other issue with her, otherwise undisclosed . (why did it take two weeks of investigating to discover her misdemeanour?) . Hmm . When my daughter was the manager of a very large theater chain (and I can tell you about the mark-up for goods there!), she always made sure that the "talent" had the rules written and promulgated to them . Sharing a soft drink with a relative is a gray area . . but again the theater (or Subway) is there to make a profit . The actual cost of the drink is less than the paper cup in which it is sold . . . the syrup and CO2 is minimal, and the actual water used is astronomically small . . . but it's the idea that it was purloined that made it worse . A REAL manager should have taken the employee aside later on and offered the option to pay for the drink . . . it's just kindness . Loyalty is what the world lacks . . from either side of the employment fence . You can't have talent scared to make decisions, good or bad, accidental or intentional, . . . if they're scared, they miss opportunities to make customers out of people . . . and they don't even care if they do or not . If you let an employee save a little face, then you get a much more devoted employee later on . Bad manager! |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 548077 | 2007-05-09 02:11:00 | Would you be in business Winston if the police were always right? From the original link "She has been charged with stealing the drinks, valued at $4, and will appear in court later this month . " Well said, the police make mistakes . But I can tell you they are very very reluctant to be drawn into disputes where they are "used" . One aspect of my work is listening to disgruntled clients who have made complaints to the police only to be told it "is a civil matter" or there is "insufficent evidence" . The police refuse to act on complaints every day . Do your clients now have any sort of system for measuring stock v's cash flow or are they still stuck in front of the tv? Yes - that is how they picked up there was a problem - declining till receipts against normal stock turnover . As I recall, there were three employees all individually stealing . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 548078 | 2007-05-09 12:01:00 | $4 for the drink is fair, as that drink can no longer be sold. ie lost profit, which is the whole issue behind theft i'm with foxy, there must be something else behind this. if the employer wants to make a point all they have to do is publicly (infront of other employees) tell her she was caught on film and needs to explain, pay up or get out. then everyone else would know that the boss isn't kidding, and by allowing the girl to explain the boss is showing they're still a perfectly reasonable human being. i know my employment contract thing says they can film me, and check my vehicles/personal effects on site is search of stolen property, and if they catch me stealing stuff they can warn/dismiss me. i didn't disagree as i won't be stealing anything, so have no reason to be concerned. point being if she signed the paper they are perfectly within the law here. |
motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 548079 | 2007-05-09 12:06:00 | oh, and i don't eat at subway anyway. $4 drinks are among the reasons, along with not being allowed both teriyaki chicken AND meatballs in one sub, and their not being as good as burgerfuel, burger wisconsin, wendy's or even burger king. hell they even lose to mcdonalds for those little morsels called cheeseburgers | motorbyclist (188) | ||
| 548080 | 2007-05-09 13:06:00 | Well someone who previously described you as an idiot may be right. Besides, Subway don't charge $4 for their drinks... the costs referred to are for two drinks. Can't you read English? |
Greg (193) | ||
| 548081 | 2007-05-09 16:42:00 | I didn't flinch on the $4 part...just thought it might be the NZ/US exchange rate right now. What I find kinda funny is like here in the US, Subway asks you what sized drink you want...and charges you accordingly...then the put the dispenser in the dining area so you can free-refill as much as you like. Now..if I get a small drink and refill it several times or a large drink and never refill it....see the stupidity here? |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 548082 | 2007-05-09 20:28:00 | I've never eaten at a Subway, I hate squashy bread rolls. | pctek (84) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||