That was the claim in the video that Chipotle was trying to avoid. You said that your silent majority would be down with it.
If you recognized men who had recently stolen from you, would you demand prepayment?
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
There was no profiling in this case, good lord. I can only speak to my opinion, but personally this story would not sway my decision to eat at chipotle or not. I don’t eat there because they suck.
Nope. I get that you're going to attempt to twist my words more than a CNN reporter in a press conference with Trump, but that's not what I said.
I said that the silent majority will support Chipotle for telling a known shoplifter that he had to pay in advance. Whether he is white, black, brown, or yellow. Whether he is a she that thinks she is a he, etc.
Yeah, if they're there they'll agree. But they all won't be there. That's the point. The guys loaded their video onto social media and made Chipotle look bad. That's what they're trying to avoid by losing the $12. Instead everyone learns about the story thru social media or the news picking up the social media story and only hears the one side of the story except in rare cases like this. Had the idiot not left up all his boasts about stealing before the girl would be out of a job and Chipotle would have a ton of bad press. How you think you can win this game is beyond me. Fight every petty theft and then spend thousands on PR campaigns? I hope you're independently wealthy.
If Chipotle loses too much money they'll change the policy about handing out the food before purchase for everyone, but until then they'll tell their staff to treat everyone the same - because it's the smart business choice.
Correct, but isn't it Chipotle's choice on which way to go? I'm not saying Chipotle's stance is right or wrong, I'm just pointing out that a lot of companies make cost/benefit decisions around loss events that involve taking a passive stand. A lot of bank robbers are actually unarmed and tellers could probably often resist and not cost the bank money, but the bank instructs tellers to simply comply and send an alert when they're able because they don't want anyone getting hurt. Convenience store clerks are taught to open the register and back off if a situation gets dangerous. These decisions are made all the time.
This is true. I worked as a teller a lifetime ago when I was fresh out of college. Didn't matter if they had a gun, pretended they had a gun, or had nothing at all. If they said it was a robbery we were to give them everything we had and only trip the alarm after they left.
Sadly, this is the world we live in. Some people will pull the race card to get their 15 minutes or a potential pay day. Not everything is about race. Sometimes it's just about a shitty person doing something shitty and it doesn't matter if you are white, black, pink, blue or green.
Dining and dashing must be a thing now
Last winter I was at a Subway sitting at a pub table near the exit.
6 young African American (Somali) men all ordered footlongs. They got to the end where one guy was gonna pay for the entire order. All 6 sandwiches got passed out to the 6 guys while the payment was being done. The card was denied. The guy tried again. Card was denied. At that moment, they all made a run for the door. 2 went one way, 2 went the other, the other 2 way another way. One employee ran after them but they were too fast. They got away with over $50 in food.
You aren't worth the time, you've made that clear. But even if one were to accept your premise, it would still be publicly funded loss prevention. I don't know how you'd claim otherwise. You could claim its warranted, but not that it isn't an accurate description.
This seems to be happening a lot at places where they make your food first and then you pay.
These "customers" must think "well, you already have the food made, just give it to me!"
Can you imagine making 5 burritos/burrito bowls and then at the end only one person has money/a credit card and the credit card declines? And then they come in a few days later and want you to go through the whole process again?
With extra meat and quac, a burrito bowl is over $12 (after tax) last time I had one; times 5 people is $60 of food. And they are wasting employees' time making their food and are holding the line up because their one and only credit card is declining.
I wonder if we will start to see more places (even at sit down places) where you order (or sit down), pay, and then the food is prepared and given to you.
I think this is a point many people are overlooking. They aren't wasting the employee's time, as the employee is paid to do exactly what they are doing. And, according to Chipotle (who may be changing their tune, of course), the employee was paid to make the food first. Their time isn't being wasted, it is being appropriated for the very job corporate is paying them for.
I'm actually delighted to see that some posters' personal principles outweigh their obedience to their employers subjectively-misguided rules.
No, just to you, after you presented plenty of evidence for me to treat you this way in other threads today.
Read my other posts of other people disagreeing with me, as I have no problem with it.
You, specifically, aren't worth it, because you clearly don't read the posts, nor your own questions before posing them. Think about your question you just posed, you should be able to answer it easily yourself.
If I were a business owner and an employee refused service to someone who had previously not paid, I'd have no problem with them not serving the customer.
But then you have to make the decisions about what toppings, extras, and / or condiments you want before walking through the line! That's gotta be diner suppression somehow.
The fact that there are NUMEROUS posters that disagree with you should be a pretty clear sign about the moral decay our society is undergoing. I mean, there are plenty of posters here who will go out of their way to let rules slide so nobody could ever accuse them of racism. It is disgusting.
That would be challenging at Chipotle to have the register at the beginning of the line because of just what you say--several price varying options/decision to be made. They could do it though.
I think the way the manager handled it was just fine and I kind of doubt that Chipotle actually has a policy which prohibits a manager from making a particular repeat offender pay first. If they do have such a policy, and if they do want to stick to it, then I would definitely stop letting these idiots have the food for free when their card gets declined. If they grab the food and run I would prosecute them. Perhaps Chipotle needs security cameras near the door to catch mugshots of these asshats.
Double standards and race seem to be one of the only things that gets you fired up on here. Were you wrongfully accused or something like that?
You do understand that people aren't disagreeing with him, right? People are disagreeing with you, when you essentially demand an employee go against the will of the employer.
That probably isn't their "specific" policy, but only because you make it so specific. Their policy, most likely, is simply, "we don't require up front payment, so don't require it." The only reason to try to weasel in such a specific one is to claim a win here. You hit the nail on the head with the last part, they aren't required to give them their food.
No. Well, I mean, many posters here accuse me of that all of the time, but I don't consider that to be any sort of accusation that requires any attention.
Rusty's Dad put it best earlier in this thread. Not sure what else there is to say. I believe that having equivalent expectations for everybody's behavior is the true method for demonstrating that we're color blind. I point out over and over that the left is institutionally-racist, which "you" are.
Oh bother Christopher Robin. You have not once "pointed out I was wrong."
You did, however, claim your sister to be a lawyer. So you got that going for you.
So it's more of a "gotcha" or a politically motivated attack against the left? I was merely curious, as most political topics you seem to take a less aggressive approach, hedge your comments that you could be wrong, welcome disagreement, acknowledge there could be more to something, etc.
This topic just seems to get the all caps treatment, it's disgusting, the fault of the left. Just a little more of the IAFBnBB style of posting.
Heres an interesting article that discusses:
* The viral drama reveals a common conundrum in the retail and restaurant industries: How should employees react if they suspect a customer is trying to steal something?
* It is a question that gets more complicated as companies attempt to address a long history of racial profiling.
* Dining and dashing and shoplifting are a massive problem for the industry, with shrink — or loss of inventory related to theft, shoplifting, error, or fraud — adding up to an estimated $46.8 billion in losses across the US in 2017, according to the National Retail Federation.
* Companies have long grappled with the fact that confronting suspected shoplifters and dine-and-dashers may create more problems than it is worth.
* Retailers including Victoria's Secret, Walmart, and Macy's all have policies that discourage employees from directly engaging with suspected shoplifters. These policies are meant to maintain employee safety as well as to prevent racial profiling of customers.
* But they often mean employees see people they suspect of shoplifting allowed to carry on uninterrupted.
And the Chipolte manager? Well, she was offered her job back.
"Based on our review, we have offered our manager her job back," Chipotle said in a statement to Business Insider."While our normal protocol was not followed serving these customers, we publicly apologize to our manager for being put in this position. We will work to continue to ensure that we support a respectful workplace for our employees and our customers alike."
Link to story: https://www.businessinsider.com/chipotle-dine-and-dash-drama-2018-11
* The viral drama reveals a common conundrum in the retail and restaurant industries: How should employees react if they suspect a customer is trying to steal something?
* It is a question that gets more complicated as companies attempt to address a long history of racial profiling.
* Dining and dashing and shoplifting are a massive problem for the industry, with shrink — or loss of inventory related to theft, shoplifting, error, or fraud — adding up to an estimated $46.8 billion in losses across the US in 2017, according to the National Retail Federation.
* Companies have long grappled with the fact that confronting suspected shoplifters and dine-and-dashers may create more problems than it is worth.
* Retailers including Victoria's Secret, Walmart, and Macy's all have policies that discourage employees from directly engaging with suspected shoplifters. These policies are meant to maintain employee safety as well as to prevent racial profiling of customers.
* But they often mean employees see people they suspect of shoplifting allowed to carry on uninterrupted.
And the Chipolte manager? Well, she was offered her job back.
"Based on our review, we have offered our manager her job back," Chipotle said in a statement to Business Insider."While our normal protocol was not followed serving these customers, we publicly apologize to our manager for being put in this position. We will work to continue to ensure that we support a respectful workplace for our employees and our customers alike."
Link to story: https://www.businessinsider.com/chipotle-dine-and-dash-drama-2018-11
Last edited:
there are only certain toppings that are extra:
* bacon
* quac
* xtra cheese
you simply ask if they want that at the time of order
That’s how Which Wich does it. You fill out everything before hand, take it to the cashier, pay and wait for you’re sub.
I'm not weaseling in anything, and I don't give a crap about "winning". Apparently, you do. Good for you. As long as we are on the subject of weaseling though, it seems more like weaseling to argue, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that a company has an established policy on something like this that is so inflexible as to not allow a store manager to refuse to make food for a known habitual offender/thief. That would be an absurd policy and absent some evidence of that strict of a policy, I think it highly unlikely that one exists. It is more likely that Chipotle screwed up.
If that strict of a policy existed, these clowns could go through the line and have a ton of food prepared, be denied their food after being unable to pay, walk straight to the back of the line and repeat the absurdity all day long over and over.
But it was their policy, according to them. Isn't that what the entire OP was about? Chipotle firing their manager for demanding the up-front payment of a specific customer? Doesn't that prove the very policy you are seemingly claiming didn't exist?
Your second post just immediately dissolved in to absurdity. That somehow a person repeatedly moving from one side of the counter to the other is analogous to a customer walking in that day and placing an order. If you are demanding that be the comparative situation, it appears your demands are so far beyond discussing differing ideas from your own.
This isn't as complicated as you are demanding, which was the point of my weaseling. You want to demand that the policy specifically dissallows refusing known-dine-and-dashers, as opposed to the far more rationale and commonplace policy that so many of these posts in this thread are actually discussing: a policy not to demand pre-payment before ordering food.
That is a rationale, and obvious policy of theirs to anybody who has ever been there. It would be strange if that wasn't their policy and it just turned out that every franchise was blatantly violating it with every order.
Following that, there is an enormous difference between a corporate memo of, "we don't want employee's subjectively deciding who they believe may or may not dine-and-dash" vs. "we don't want employee's who objectively and concurrently watch a person refuse to pay simultaneously while ordering a new order while simultaneously refusing to pay, etc."
Because, logically, in the first scenario, corporate and even in-store management can't immediately verify the subjective determination of the employee. Corporate and especially in-store management can immediately verify the objective determination that the person is still there and continuing to refuse to pay, but is also back in line ordering more.
I trust that you will consider this, and that I haven't just wasted my time actually responding to your scenario.
It is what Chipotle said was their policy in a press release. That doesn't mean that it was a written policy. It sounds like a PR statement, not a policy. Probably why they are trying to hire the manager back.
Frankly, the idea that their policy manual specifically states that payment can't be demanded before food is prepared is kind of a stretch anyway. I stated "I think the way the manager handled it was just fine and I kind of doubt that Chipotle actually has a policy which prohibits a manager from making a particular repeat offender pay first." You whined about them not having that policy only because I made it too specific. Which is it? Do they have an inflexible but broadly written policy "we don't require up front payment, so don't require it"? If so, then my hypothetical isn't absurd at all. What would grant the manager the right to not make them food the second time though the line after just having prepared them food? Remember, the policy is "we don't require up front payment, so don't require it".
In reality, I highly doubt that they have a written policy that tightly governs this exact situation. You pay after the food is made at Chipotle because that is how they have their store set up. Absent Chipotle actually demonstrating that they have a policy/procedure covering the situation, I think they screwed up firing the manager because they were trying to control the PR nightmare they thought might unfold.
I think it is pretty clear their policy is to not require pre-payment. If you choose to believe otherwise, fine.
Of course they don't have specific, written policies on profiling suspected dine-and-dashers, which was my original point. I don't know why you need to be so specific in order to force the point.
Your hypothetical was absurd facially, logically, and even when trying to make a point. But if that is what you want to go with, carry on.
Believing a customer may have dine-and-dashed previously =/= watching a customer refuse to pay and get back in line.
It isn't absurd at all under your scenario where the company has a rigid policy of not requiring payment prior to food preparation. You just don't like to face the fact that such a rigid policy that you believe exists, that can't be too specific according to you, would create the possibility of exactly the hypothetical I stated. It is absurd only because of the fact that such a broad but rigid policy would itself be absurd.
She didn't believe these customers had a history of non-payment, she KNEW it to be true. She had even given them free food two days prior to this incident. This wasn't profiling, this was first hand knowledge of these exact individuals. That is what you don't want to get.
Yes. Order a ton of food and then make sure you give them a credit card that declines and you will get everything for free.
