[US] Popeye's Store Fires Pregent woman over Arm robbery!

[Doctor Amadeus]

From what I understand she had control over the money on hand, so she lost them money which possibly isn't recoverable from their insurance. It's often a sackable offence to not follow store policy regarding cash.

They should have fired her before, firing her after is revenge.

[Khaza-R]

From what I understand she had control over the money on hand, so she lost them money which possibly isn't recoverable from their insurance. It's often a sackable offence to not follow store policy regarding cash.

People are missing the fact that she wasn't fired for not adhering to their policy.

She was supposedly fired for refusing to repay Popeyes for the amount of the stolen cash (~$400). Which is many states, is unlawful for employer to do so.

[Kalis]

People are missing the fact that she wasn't fired for not adhering to their policy.

She was supposedly fired for refusing to repay Popeyes for the amount of the stolen cash (~$400). Which is many states, is unlawful for employer to do so.

I don't know state law, I'm going from an insurance point of view. That money may not be recoverable due to being over the insurance policy cash limit and the company want reimbursement for her screw up. Why should the company lose out due to her actions?

[Wildtree]

She was supposedly fired for refusing to repay Popeyes for the amount of the stolen cash

it might not be that big of a deal, well probably the brand owner thinks otherwise, but Popeye's did not ask her for anything.
Popeye's is one of those franchises that do sell the rights to operate under their name to local businesses.
Which is the case here too as I understand... It's essentially a sub contractor business owner, operating under the Popeye's brand name.

$400.00 is actually not a lot of money in the register... Definitely not excessively too much..

Now I can totally see how that local franchise owner got some significant pressure from Popeye's main head quarter.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know state law, I'm going from an insurance point of view. That money may not be recoverable due to being over the insurance policy cash limit and the company want reimbursement for her screw up. Why should the company lose out due to her actions?

Protective labor law.....
Even in the US with very shitty workers protective laws, you cannot take your employee in regress, until you can prove the intent to damage.
Carelessness wouldn't be subject to intent.

[Ayla]

I don't know state law, I'm going from an insurance point of view. That money may not be recoverable due to being over the insurance policy cash limit and the company want reimbursement for her screw up. Why should the company lose out due to her actions?

Sadly this is a too common belief. I said it before, and I will say it again. Pretty soon we all will need to pay for our own insurance for everything. Drop something at work and it breaks? Better hope you have insurance.

Why should companies pay for your mistake?

[Kalis]

Sadly this is a too common belief. I said it before, and I will say it again. Pretty soon we all will need to pay for our own insurance for everything. Drop something at work and it breaks? Better hope you have insurance.

Why should companies pay for your mistake?

Why should companies pay for your mistake when they have set out policies to follow? They don't make these sorts of policies because they are bored, there is usually a good reason behind them, often involving liability coverage.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't know state law, I'm going from an insurance point of view. That money may not be recoverable due to being over the insurance policy cash limit and the company want reimbursement for her screw up. Why should the company lose out due to her actions?

Well insurance or not by the way that is a shitty insurance policy probably likely to see litigation, but they fired her after the fact. The company knew she didn't follow policy then. Firing her after the fact doesn't sole the problem it's instead punishing this manager for something they were themselves obligated for. It shouldn't have even been a write up. It's even pretty low they would try to make this even try to put this on her to cover their own asses.

As an insurance company that should be more important that they badly try to fix the problem after the fact. They should be sued.

[Kalis]

Protective labor law.....
Even in the US with very shitty workers protective laws, you cannot take your employee in regress, until you can prove the intent to damage.
Carelessness wouldn't be subject to intent.

I doubt in the UK you could ask for recompense, however you could sack them. US labour laws are a world unto themselves.

[Beery Swine]

Oh my GAWD, a lousy 4 c-notes? Dafuq? This shit is ridongkulous.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Sadly this is a too common belief. I said it before, and I will say it again. Pretty soon we all will need to pay for our own insurance for everything. Drop something at work and it breaks? Better hope you have insurance.

Why should companies pay for your mistake?

This wasn't a mistake this was an unforeseen circumstances compounded by the facts. The chief responsibility lay at those mostly in charge of policy. The time was to fire her before not after.

[Kalis]

Well insurance or not by the way that is a shitty insurance policy probably likely to see litigation...

Cash limits are incredibly common, in fact they are pretty much standard practice.

As an insurance company that should be more important that they badly try to fix the problem after the fact. They should be sued.

The insurance company isn't interested, they just won't pay out.

[Ayla]

This wasn't a mistake this was an unforeseen circumstances compounded by the facts. The chief responsibility lay at those mostly in charge of policy. The time was to fire her before not after.

At chevron, the policy is to have no more than $60 in the register. How often do you think that's followed? Especially when I have to carry loonies, toonies and so on? Why should I follow a policy that doesnt even allow me to give my customers change by the end of the day?

[Wildtree]

US labour laws are a world unto themselves.

I'm totally convinced that they are only a feelgood notion..
Labor laws? Yeah. look.. we got those....
The entirety of them pretty much fits on two print out paper sheets..
in a nutshell they could very much streamline them down to one or two sentences...
You have the right to shut the fuck up, and do as I (your company) say.
very very few pro-worker laws really. But that liability stuff is for a change decently covered.
You really have to cause the damage on purpose to be reliable as employee.

[Khaza-R]

I don't know state law, I'm going from an insurance point of view. That money may not be recoverable due to being over the insurance policy cash limit and the company want reimbursement for her screw up. Why should the company lose out due to her actions?

They could certainly try but will undoubtedly find no success. US courts generally uphold that employers are not entitled to seek compensation from an employee for mere error, incompetence or negligence.

There are exceptions of course, but I highly doubt this story is one of them.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Cash limits are incredibly common, in fact they are pretty much standard practice.



The insurance company isn't interested, they just won't pay out.

If it's a shitty insurance company not paying means loss of business and loss of opportunity to raise premiums. As for the cas on hand that was the business obligation to deal with. There is no possible way she could have known they would be robbed unless she was in on it.

Shit the business didn't or they would have fired her. They took a chance she took a chance. The obligation and power lay with them the owners.

- - - Updated - - -

At chevron, the policy is to have no more than $60 in the register. How often do you think that's followed? Especially when I have to carry loonies, toonies and so on? Why should I follow a policy that doesnt even allow me to give my customers change by the end of the day?

I agree which is why I side with her in this manner and say she should sue the shut out of them. This was a pretty brasin thing to try even for a corporation.


You can't get into an accident by not following the law and then afterwards fix a problem you got I citation for that caused the accident and get out of what happened.

And you can't fire an employee doing something you knew she was doing to get out of taking a loss either after taking a hit.

[Kalis]

I'm totally convinced that they are only a feelgood notion..
Labor laws? Yeah. look.. we got those....
The entirety of them pretty much fits on two print out paper sheets..
in a nutshell they could very much streamline them down to one or two sentences...
You have the right to shut the fuck up, and do as I (your company) say.
very very few pro-worker laws really. But that liability stuff is for a change decently covered.
You really have to cause the damage on purpose to be reliable as employee.

Lots of policies have specific exclusions for US employees, the liabilities involved are a nightmare to deal with.

If it's a shitty insurance company not paying means loss of business and loss of opportunity to raise premiums. As for the cas on hand that was the business obligation to deal with. There is no possible way she could have known they would be robbed unless she was in on it.

Shit the business didn't or they would have fired her. They took a chance she took a chance. The obligation and power lay with them the owners.

Why would it be a shitty insurance company just because they have cash limits?

It's not about her knowing they would be robbed, it's about her not following guidelines set out, which exposed the company to more liability than should have been the case. Personally I think it's a bit petty, but shit happens, do your job properly and you won't have this type of thing crap.

[Tradewind]

So much acceptance of mediocrity.

"she shouldn't be responsible cuz keeping the cash that low is hard"...fuckin really?

[Kalis]

So much acceptance of mediocrity.

"she shouldn't be responsible cuz keeping the cash that low is hard"...fuckin really?

I wouldn't class her as mediocre, you can be mediocre at your job and still manage to follow simple rules.

[Tradewind]

I wouldn't class her as mediocre, you can be mediocre at your job and still manage to follow simple rules.

I was trying to be nice!

[IIamaKing]

No for being fired unfairly for circumstances she had no control. It be like taking away their food license because someone died from being allergic to something Popeyes cooked. But if that's something you support so be it.

I think firing this woman was pretty shitty thus news.

Im curious, who stopped her from doing her safe drops prior to the robbery, some one must have for it to have been out of her control.