• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant Popeyes worker fired after armed robbery (1 Viewer)

Blemonds said:
Get back to me when you read the link, especially where it says this wasn't her first offense
Click to expand...

I read it already.

Again, when you understand the nature of progressive corrective action, get back to me.

It is quite obvious that you do not.
 
Top Cat said:
Pregnant Popeyes worker fired after armed robbery

Gotta wonder if the $400 was worth the publicity? I like their chicken, but mercy me, not the brightest move on their part.
Click to expand...

I hope she can sue (even though I am not a fan of lawsuits) for unfair dismissal. And if this was not sanctioned by Popeyes I hope they rehire her and fire the manager for bringing their company into disrepute.
 
Peter King said:
I hope she can sue (even though I am not a fan of lawsuits) for unfair dismissal. And if this was not sanctioned by Popeyes I hope they rehire her and fire the manager for bringing their company into disrepute.
Click to expand...
Hard for her to sue if she's been offered reinstatement with back pay
 
SMTA said:
I read it already.

Again, when you understand the nature of progressive corrective action, get back to me.

It is quite obvious that you do not.
Click to expand...
Seemed progressive to me. Noting again that her incompetence cost the store money
 
Blemonds said:
Hard for her to sue if she's been offered reinstatement with back pay
Click to expand...

Even better, no need to employ more sleazy lawyers who just want to leech money from the system into their own pockets (no, not a big fan of ambulance chasing or baseless lawsuits filing lawyers).
 
Blemonds said:
Seemed progressive to me. Noting again that her incompetence cost the store money
Click to expand...

No the armed robber cost the store money. If he hadn't robbed the store, no story.
 
Top Cat said:
No the armed robber cost the store money. If he hadn't robbed the store, no story.
Click to expand...
If the shift manager had done a s instructed, the robber would have gotten less money, thus the balance is partially the fault of the manager. No reason not to hold her accountable
 
Blemonds said:
If the shift manager had done a s instructed, the robber would have gotten less money, thus the balance is partially the fault of the manager. No reason not to hold her accountable
Click to expand...

That is grounds to fire her fine. But to ask her to pay the money back is beyond idiotic. It send a clear message that they in the future she should "protect" the money when robbed.
 
Top Cat said:
That is grounds to fire her fine. But to ask her to pay the money back is beyond idiotic. It send a clear message that they in the future she should "protect" the money when robbed.
Click to expand...
It was her duty to protect the money by removing it from the cash drawer, leaving only a specified amount. She failed to do that. Basically, she got a choice, make up for her incompetence or get fired. that seems fair to me
 
Blemonds said:
She repeatedly violated the store policy which cost the store to lose money. An argument could be made that she should only have to pay the difference between what she was supposed to have in the drawer and the $400
Click to expand...

whatever. she shouldn't have to pay the store back for a loss I don't know any store that does that, and it appear from the corporate side of things they have put the manager of the store in their place and are giving her the job back or they are talking to her about it.

I would think the store should be more concerned with the fact nothing is wrong with her or the baby vs a few hundred dollars.
that is where their main concern should be.
 
Top Cat said:
That is grounds to fire her fine. But to ask her to pay the money back is beyond idiotic. It send a clear message that they in the future she should "protect" the money when robbed.
Click to expand...
I agree. She shouldnt be forced to pay for the loss but she deserves the boot for constantly violating company policy that led to a bigger loss.

But after reading the article the store is denying her claim that they were forcing her to pay for the loss so its possible she made that part up to gain sympathy.
 
Blemonds said:
It was her duty to protect the money by removing it from the cash drawer, leaving only a specified amount. She failed to do that. Basically, she got a choice, make up for her incompetence or get fired. that seems fair to me
Click to expand...

Like I said.
 
PoS said:
I agree. She shouldnt be forced to pay for the loss but she deserves the boot for constantly violating company policy that led to a bigger loss.

But after reading the article the store is denying her claim that they were forcing her to pay for the loss so its possible she made that part up to gain sympathy.
Click to expand...
She's probably not pregnant either.
 
SMTA said:
I read it already.

Again, when you understand the nature of progressive corrective action, get back to me.

It is quite obvious that you do not.
Click to expand...
She violated policy before and was not fired.

She violated the policy again and got fired.

How is this not a progression?
 
When I was going to college I worked at Taco Bell. We were told if a robbery were to ever happen to "not be a hero", hide in certain areas, and let them do what they wanted to the establishment be it stealing or whatever. I think this will be something resolved with her getting severance.
 
SMTA said:
Well, well - looks like the company had admitted their error, and offered her job back to her.

Heh, heh!

Popeyes attempting to rectify pregnant manager's firing
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't believe they admitted anything. They were getting bad publicity for firing a pregnant woman. While she shouldn't have had to have paid back the money, her firing was just, because she violated company policy on more than one occasion, and this time, it jumped up and bit her.

The termination was just and should have stood.
 
Superfly said:
Meh, I don't believe they admitted anything. They were getting bad publicity for firing a pregnant woman. While she shouldn't have had to have paid back the money, her firing was just, because she violated company policy on more than one occasion, and this time, it jumped up and bit her.

The termination was just and should have stood.
Click to expand...

That depends, Fly.

In my business experience, there were always steps we had to go through prior to termination.

Generally verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, and finally termination.

The bad ones usually flew through the steps quickly, and were exited from the company.

Just because someone had been addressed about an issue before did not indicate grounds for termination did not indicate that they were worthless morons in need of firing.

In this case, I have a friend who has several CFA franchises in OH - his understanding was that there had been prior issues with this franchise owner being very overbearing with associates, and corporate had been working with him to improve his leadership skills, along with his managers.
 
Superfly said:
Yes but as a shift manager, it's her job to protect the company's interests, and in not making the required cash drops, she was not protecting the company's interests.

She shouldn't have to pay reparations, no. That's dumb. But I fully believe her termination should stand, as this is not the only time that she has failed to follow company policy - a policy that clearly minimizes the damage to the company's bottom line in the event of a robbery.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with her being fired, but expecting her to pay it back is absurd.

Really, if she did pay it back, she shouldn't be fired. There was no harm done to the company.
 
SMTA said:
That depends, Fly.

In my business experience, there were always steps we had to go through prior to termination.

Generally verbal warning, written warning, final written warning, and finally termination.

The bad ones usually flew through the steps quickly, and were exited from the company.

Just because someone had been addressed about an issue before did not indicate grounds for termination did not indicate that they were worthless morons in need of firing.

In this case, I have a friend who has several CFA franchises in OH - his understanding was that there had been prior issues with this franchise owner being very overbearing with associates, and corporate had been working with him to improve his leadership skills, along with his managers.
Click to expand...

I understand this, but I also had several stores in upstate New York, and while we had protocol for proper termination, certain things were grounds for immediate dismissal, and being lax with company funds was one of them.

As far as leadership skills and managers, this really has nothing to do with it. She was warned previously (who knows which level of warning she was on?) and failed to follow through on the very thing she was warned about. That has nothing to do with who her manager was - only that she failed to follow through on what she'd already been warned about at least once.
 
radcen said:
I'm fine with her being fired, but expecting her to pay it back is absurd.

Really, if she did pay it back, she shouldn't be fired. There was no harm done to the company.
Click to expand...

I agree with your first sentence. She shouldn't be expected to pay it back.

The second one, I disagree with. She is showing a pattern of carelessness with company funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom