If you recognized men who had recently stolen from you, would you demand prepayment?

[HKI]

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 they 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.

I have now said in several posts that such a specific policy would not, and almost certainly does not, exist. I have been very clear on that. This fact completely negates your bolded claim above. In fact, that was the entire point of my originally reply to you on it. To criticize your demand that it must exist, for the actual general policy to apply.

You then ignored the rest of what I posted in your second paragraph. Yes, she subjectively "knew." How can we use different terms to describe that? Corporate had the opinion of its employee to rely on. In your scenario, however, that wouldn't be all they had, as the culprit would still be there, objectively doing the dining-and-dashing. Again, extremely different things.

Maybe I'm being too complicated. Put yourself in a suit, sitting in David Wallace's chair at corporate. Dwight Schrute calls you and makes a claim about a customer. Do you (a) immediately and convincingly choose to believe his subjective belief or do you (b) question whether he is, in fact, correct about his claim about the customer? If (b), then (c) is the logical next step, considering the cost/benefit to doing X (here, requiring up-front payment).

This scenario is, again, extremely different from that same Dwight Schrute call to you, but then him saying, "the customer is here doing the bad thing right now, in front of me, verifiable by Michael Scott and Jim and Pam." Do you, then, trust that information as it is actively ongoing, as opposed to a subjective belief of accuracy?

I don't think I can lay that out in any better way. If that doesn't work, its either you or me. I'll take the blame.

 

[HKI]

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.

Except that you wouldn't receive your food the vast majority of the time.

Subway is the most likely example I can think of for fast food, as your sub is often sat right on the counter where you pay. So you could (1) snatch and grab, after being on camera, or (2) give a declined credit card, after being on camera, that could be investigated for credit card fraud, or theft, or a few other crimes.

 

[MplsHawk]

f that doesn't work, its either you or me. I'll take the blame.

Okay.



I kid. I really don't care enough to debate it further is my issue. Sorry. You seem (to me) to say they have a rigid policy. You seem (to me) to say it is broadly stated without specifics. You seem to argue the opposite. Too complicated for an issue that neither of us likely really care that much about. I don't like the idea of throwing my employees under the bus in knee-jerk reactions without knowing the facts first. That is why this doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't mean I don't understand what Chipotle upper management was thinking when they did it. That is about all I plan to say on the matter.

 

[Franisdaman]

Feel free to open a chain of stores that celebrates profiling it's clientele (right or wrong) and see how profitable you can become catering to your "quiet majority". I won't hold my breath.

There is no profiling in this case. She recognized him as a prior thief, simple as that.

 

[HKI]

Okay.



I kid. I really don't care enough to debate it further is my issue. Sorry. You seem (to me) to say they have a rigid policy. You seem (to me) to say it is broadly stated without specifics. You seem to argue the opposite. Too complicated for an issue that neither of us likely really care that much about. I don't like the idea of throwing my employees under the bus in knee-jerk reactions without knowing the facts first. That is why this doesn't sit well with me. It doesn't mean I don't understand what Chipotle upper management was thinking when they did it. That is about all I plan to say on the matter.

Let's track the facts:

Employee demanded pre-payment.
Social Media ensued.
Chipotle fired employee for demanding pre-payment, because that isn't in line with their policy.

Clearly there is a policy, hell there is a statement from Chipotle on this page claiming that it was against policy.

There is no post of mine claiming your absurd "can't demand prepayment from known dine-and-dashers" policy existed. My entire point of my replies to you was showing that your demand that it would have to exist is silly.

You have now responded that "it seems to you" as if that somehow means something, which I guess it does in 2018, where what you subjectively think outweighs whether I did or did not claim what "seems to you" I did.

IMO, whether you agree with the employee or corporate, or neither is entirely beside your point, which was that they either had a very specific, silly policy that only applied to this very scenario, or they must not have a policy that applies at all.

Good night, been fun.

 

[Franisdaman]

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.

What we learned is the guy who posted the video may never be hired by anyone moving forward. Any potential employer will Google his name and see the story and know he is a thief. Who would hire this piece of crap?

 

[MplsHawk]

Let's track the facts:

Employee demanded pre-payment.
Social Media ensued.
Chipotle fired employee for demanding pre-payment, because that isn't in line with their policy.

Clearly there is a policy, hell there is a statement from Chipotle on this page claiming that it was against policy.

There is no post of mine claiming your absurd "can't demand prepayment from known dine-and-dashers" policy existed. My entire point of my replies to you was showing that your demand that it would have to exist is silly.

You have now responded that "it seems to you" as if that somehow means something, which I guess it does in 2018, where what you subjectively think outweighs whether I did or did not claim what "seems to you" I did.

IMO, whether you agree with the employee or corporate, or neither is entirely beside your point, which was that they either had a very specific, silly policy that only applied to this very scenario, or they must not have a policy that applies at all.

Good night, been fun.

Not that fun really. You like to argue, I get it.

I posted (not directed to you):

"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."

You responded:

"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."

I think your post speaks for itself on what I have claimed you asserted. You apparently disagree. I'll let anyone who cares come to their own conclusion.