Fired for not stealing!

[simplyfiredstories]

it was the end of the night and i had just finished cleaning the store and counting down the register money inside it. gave it to my boss to confirm and everything. they came out about 20 minutes later asking me a bunch of questions about $100 missing and immediately blaming me for stealing it. so low and behold, they fired me instantly. i felt so bad i went back to the register to double and triple check everything. and guess what?! i found the $100 bill stuck b/t the drawer and the circuitry..

i gave it right to them and told them where it was.
they still let me go that nite after i found it.

[brianm]

Is there anything else to this story? Were they all just out to get you?

[LanShark]

Were they with you when you "found" the $100 bill? If not, they may believe that you pretended to find it simply to get out of being fired. It may be just me, but if I fired an employee for stealing money from a register (which I have) I would not let them near the register, especially alone. having been a manager at a fast food restaraunt, whenever a drawer came up short, my first step was looking inside the outer drawer to see if this exact thing happened...it never did.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by LanShark

Were they with you when you "found" the $100 bill? If not, they may believe that you pretended to find it simply to get out of being fired. It may be just me, but if I fired an employee for stealing money from a register (which I have) I would not let them near the register, especially alone. having been a manager at a fast food restaraunt, whenever a drawer came up short, my first step was looking inside the outer drawer to see if this exact thing happened...it never did.

I agree. Definitely not cool for them to finger you for little or no reason and fire you for it, but you shouldn't have found the $100 bill on your own like that. After all, they already thought you stole, so why would they believe you found it where you said you did? They'd likely assume you just stole it from somewhere else to try to cover your butt, or that you did steal it but were returning it and claiming to have found it to try to keep from being fired. You should have brought them with you to look at it, then expressed your extreme anger when you found it. Heck, I myself may have done that, then quit telling them to go to Hell.

[rae_moonstar]

i found myself in a similar position once. my drawer came up $80 short one night. but two other people had worked my register that day, one of them being an assistant manager who had a reputation for "sticky fingers". they never did find the missing money, but the store manager told me not to worry about it. i guess i had been there long enough that he trusted me.

[Rumrunner]

They definately handled this badly. They should have looked at the register themself to find any errant bills that might have gotten stuck inside the equipment. Also, rather than fire you they should have done something to let you prove that you didn't have 100 bucks from the register on you, such as turn your pockets out, check your wallet and/or purse or bookbag. If they had allowed that and didn't find the missing money, then they should have warned you for a 'sloppy drawer' and kept an eye on you to insure that you were not stealing or doing your cashier duties badly.

Personally, I'd have installed a camera over the drawer secretly and let you incriminate yourself (or prove yourself innocent).

[Kane]

Originally Posted by Rumrunner

They definately handled this badly. They should have looked at the register themself to find any errant bills that might have gotten stuck inside the equipment. Also, rather than fire you they should have done something to let you prove that you didn't have 100 bucks from the register on you, such as turn your pockets out, check your wallet and/or purse or bookbag. If they had allowed that and didn't find the missing money, then they should have warned you for a 'sloppy drawer' and kept an eye on you to insure that you were not stealing or doing your cashier duties badly.

Personally, I'd have installed a camera over the drawer secretly and let you incriminate yourself (or prove yourself innocent).

Exactly. You're a smart guy, Rum. It's really not fair to accuse and innocent person like that without giving them any chance. I have such dead-set morals, I can't even begin to imagine how enraged I'd be if this were to happen to me. There'd probably be a few managers taking a trip to the emergency room, and eating through a tube for a few months. They really should have at least investigated. What kind of morons ditch a good employee based on an assumption with no evidence at all? They obviously don't value their employees. If they did, they'd want to try to prove what happened and give you a chance to either prove your innocence or prove you were a criminal. Just be glad you are away from such ungrateful losers.

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by Kane

Exactly. You're a smart guy, Rum. It's really not fair to accuse and innocent person like that without giving them any chance. I have such dead-set morals, I can't even begin to imagine how enraged I'd be if this were to happen to me. There'd probably be a few managers taking a trip to the emergency room, and eating through a tube for a few months. They really should have at least investigated. What kind of morons ditch a good employee based on an assumption with no evidence at all? They obviously don't value their employees. If they did, they'd want to try to prove what happened and give you a chance to either prove your innocence or prove you were a criminal. Just be glad you are away from such ungrateful losers.

except you both miss one thing they could say yeah he/she didn't have it on him/her but prove that he/she didnt give it to a friend. I am sorry but he/she should have made the boss go look. But a boss that doesnt trust an employee isnt worth working for. I have plenty of experience as a manager to know that you need to take all possibilities at hand before accusing someone of stealing. And if the boss was positive that he/she stole why wasn't the police called?

[Kane]

Originally Posted by jdogg169

except you both miss one thing they could say yeah he/she didn't have it on him/her but prove that he/she didnt give it to a friend. I am sorry but he/she should have made the boss go look. But a boss that doesnt trust an employee isnt worth working for. I have plenty of experience as a manager to know that you need to take all possibilities at hand before accusing someone of stealing. And if the boss was positive that he/she stole why wasn't the police called?

No, I don't think either of us missed that possibility. That sort of us doesn't have anything to do with the point. It doesn't matter that their is the possibility that the author maybe stole it, or maybe stole it and gave it to a friend. What matters is that they had no proof that the author did it, yet just automatically assumed and fired them for it. That's not fair to just assume. The burden should be to try to prove it DID happen, and prevent it from ever being able to happen again (video camera over the registers, maybe). I mean, in the justice system, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Look, I'm not saying the shouldn't have suspected the original poster. Of course they should have. You never know who could be a bad person. Sometimes the person you least expect to do something bad is the one doing it. I'm just saying it was very unfair to just assume. Let's put it this way, if the author DID steal, chances are they were probably going to eventually do it again. So, all they had to do was set up a security camera faced at the register and the employee would be caught red handed next time it happened. Or, in this case, it would prove that the employee actually didn't do anything.

That said, I think we all agree that the author shouldn't have just gone to look for the lost $100 on their own. How was the company to know they didn't steal it and just claim to have "found it" to cover their butt? The author should have had the managers come with him. Should have said something like "I didn't steal anything. Did anybody bother to check the register? Maybe it got stuck in the machine."

[JackFaire]

For example my sister. Slightly different she did take the money. Well anyway my brother insisted on checking my wallet so we did. A few minutes later my sister "found" the money. The only reason we knew for a fact that she had stolen it she found it in my wallet that we had just checked thoroughly. Since then I have seen other people back out of scams by finding money. I don't blame the manager for not believing the person really found the money. It can be really hard to believe someone's innocence. There is no guarantee the person will ever steal money again especially now that they know someone is watching.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by JackFaire

There is no guarantee the person will ever steal money again especially now that they know someone is watching.

True. Then again, if that were the case, that would solve the problem. Obviously, once the money initially went missing, if it had been stolen, chances are they might never get it back. So, just assuming it was a robbery, once it happened, their main goal should be to make sure it never happens again. However, in the interest of catching the guilty party, maybe the could have put the cameras up without even telling any employees that the money went missing. Then, the person wouldn't get the impression that they were being watched, and might think they can get away with it by just making it seem the money just somehow got misplaced. For that matter, even if they did try to investigate, there is still a good chance the guilty party WOULD steal again if they didn't know the camera was there.

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by Kane

No, I don't think either of us missed that possibility. That sort of us doesn't have anything to do with the point. It doesn't matter that their is the possibility that the author maybe stole it, or maybe stole it and gave it to a friend. What matters is that they had no proof that the author did it, yet just automatically assumed and fired them for it. That's not fair to just assume. The burden should be to try to prove it DID happen, and prevent it from ever being able to happen again (video camera over the registers, maybe). I mean, in the justice system, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Look, I'm not saying the shouldn't have suspected the original poster. Of course they should have. You never know who could be a bad person. Sometimes the person you least expect to do something bad is the one doing it. I'm just saying it was very unfair to just assume. Let's put it this way, if the author DID steal, chances are they were probably going to eventually do it again. So, all they had to do was set up a security camera faced at the register and the employee would be caught red handed next time it happened. Or, in this case, it would prove that the employee actually didn't do anything.

That said, I think we all agree that the author shouldn't have just gone to look for the lost $100 on their own. How was the company to know they didn't steal it and just claim to have "found it" to cover their butt? The author should have had the managers come with him. Should have said something like "I didn't steal anything. Did anybody bother to check the register? Maybe it got stuck in the machine."

Ok I think we are all agreeing on this I think I may have been a little harsh on what I said but I was using that to point out another reason why the manager may have a reason to think he stole it if he didn't have the money on him. And the camera the second time may not work, I knew someone who stole money from the register and after the company put in a camera on the registers never did it again. So second time may not happen. But another question why would the person take just $100 why not more?

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by Kane

True. Then again, if that were the case, that would solve the problem. Obviously, once the money initially went missing, if it had been stolen, chances are they might never get it back. So, just assuming it was a robbery, once it happened, their main goal should be to make sure it never happens again. However, in the interest of catching the guilty party, maybe the could have put the cameras up without even telling any employees that the money went missing. Then, the person wouldn't get the impression that they were being watched, and might think they can get away with it by just making it seem the money just somehow got misplaced. For that matter, even if they did try to investigate, there is still a good chance the guilty party WOULD steal again if they didn't know the camera was there.

Ok good point but the security cameras are easily spottable and even if they arent out in the open most everyone knows the place well enough will see the difference. Also they cant put the cameras on without letting the employees know the cameras are there (if they are not visable).

[Reshie]

Originally Posted by jdogg169

But another question why would the person take just $100 why not more?

That would be dependant on what the person thinks they can get away with. People who work around money will be more likely to steal small amounts in the hopes that it wont be noticed, or if it is,that the managment will deem it not worth thier while to investigate it.

some guy who worked in a bank quite some time ago made himself rich by skimming the 1/2 cents worth of interest off peoples accounts. The bank did try to reclaim the money. I dont know what happened with that though
Since the bank absorbed back that bit of the interest anyway I dont know if it was precisely illegal because he wasnt taking any of the interest that was actually paid to the customers, therefore was not making unauthorised transactions on client accounts.
It is illegal now though. At least it is in Oz. Its now considered stealing from the bank (I think it should be the bank stealing from you!). Do you know how much banks make in raking back the 1/2 cents on interest payments and foreign exchange transactions?!!

[LanShark]

Originally Posted by Rumrunner

They definately handled this badly. They should have looked at the register themself to find any errant bills that might have gotten stuck inside the equipment. Also, rather than fire you they should have done something to let you prove that you didn't have 100 bucks from the register on you, such as turn your pockets out, check your wallet and/or purse or bookbag. If they had allowed that and didn't find the missing money, then they should have warned you for a 'sloppy drawer' and kept an eye on you to insure that you were not stealing or doing your cashier duties badly.

Personally, I'd have installed a camera over the drawer secretly and let you incriminate yourself (or prove yourself innocent).

Having been in the business before, I agree with your thoughts, but unfortunately you can't do this. You're not really allowed to "search" an employee in this situation. If you have them turn out their pockets or whatever, you are pretty much saying "hey, if I don't find it, you're free and clear" but there are many places they could hide the money, and if turning out their pockets doesn't show the money, you may have to keep them on. As far as giving them a mulligan on this and keeping an eye on them... typically policy is you don't count shortages under a certain amount, say $2.00, as short. Any other amount is a shortage. Then, if you have say 3 shortages with a certain time period, you're let go. However, there is usually an upper limit on that. So, if the shortage amount exceeds say $20.00, you can be terminated immediately.

[LanShark]

Originally Posted by Kane

Exactly. You're a smart guy, Rum. It's really not fair to accuse and innocent person like that without giving them any chance. I have such dead-set morals, I can't even begin to imagine how enraged I'd be if this were to happen to me. There'd probably be a few managers taking a trip to the emergency room, and eating through a tube for a few months. They really should have at least investigated. What kind of morons ditch a good employee based on an assumption with no evidence at all? They obviously don't value their employees. If they did, they'd want to try to prove what happened and give you a chance to either prove your innocence or prove you were a criminal. Just be glad you are away from such ungrateful losers.

Disagree with you on this. It is perfectly fair to accuse or fire an employee whose drawer is $100 short. Sure, they should have looked in the drawer housing first, and I have my doubts about what actually happened here, but if an employee's cash drawer is $100 short, what is the manager supposed to think? I've been in the Mgrs position before, and while most people are honest, you get an unusal amount of dishonest people in these circumstances.

As far as your reaction...violence is NEVER justified in this instance. If you were wrongly accused and fired, hit them where it hurts, hire a lawyer. If it was you, you would turn a situation where you were innocent into one where you would be going to jail, unless I was your manager, then you'd be going to the hospital, THEN jail.

[Rumrunner]

Originally Posted by LanShark

Having been in the business before, I agree with your thoughts, but unfortunately you can't do this. You're not really allowed to "search" an employee in this situation. If you have them turn out their pockets or whatever, you are pretty much saying "hey, if I don't find it, you're free and clear" but there are many places they could hide the money, and if turning out their pockets doesn't show the money, you may have to keep them on. As far as giving them a mulligan on this and keeping an eye on them... typically policy is you don't count shortages under a certain amount, say $2.00, as short. Any other amount is a shortage. Then, if you have say 3 shortages with a certain time period, you're let go. However, there is usually an upper limit on that. So, if the shortage amount exceeds say $20.00, you can be terminated immediately.

Certainly you have to have rules in place that make cashiers responsible for their cash drawers. However, in the original story it wasn't clear if this was her cash drawer, or this was a general cash drawer being used by multiple cashiers (which is usually the case when there is only one cash drawer, which I got the impression this was). When multiple people can access the drawer, you can't very well make ONE person solely responsible for shortages. I can't see this firing as being justified as they had no direct evidence (or at least, didn't show the OP any direct evidence) that he/she stole the money.

So, if I thought they had stole it, I would have asked about the shortage (perhaps it was a bad ring up, and they forgot to mark the tape) and if I couldn't resolve the issue I'd install cameras to watch the register (this is perfectly legal, it is only illegal if there is an 'expectation of privacy', such as in a bathroom. The cash register is hardly a spot where you would have any sort of 'expectation of privacy' and you can freely survey that area electronically.

[itsdave92570]

Originally Posted by Rumrunner

So, if I thought they had stole it, I would have asked about the shortage (perhaps it was a bad ring up, and they forgot to mark the tape) and if I couldn't resolve the issue I'd install cameras to watch the register (this is perfectly legal, it is only illegal if there is an 'expectation of privacy', such as in a bathroom. The cash register is hardly a spot where you would have any sort of 'expectation of privacy' and you can freely survey that area electronically.

Hate to break this to you, and I am serious, but out here in Riverside, that 'expectation of privacy' was shot down. There was a trucking company that actually got caught with hidden camera's in the bathroom, facing directly at the doorless stalls! The reason that they won the lawsuit, and 2 appeals was due to them finding a trucker doing coke via those cameras, it was deamed a "public safety" necessity. Being a trucker i watched it closely, at least until it was won in favor of the company 3 times. I really dont know where it went from there.

The company itself ended up publicly taking them out of that restroom, at least once. They had too high a turn over and to hard to hire new drivers. But, i personally doubt they stayed down, or for very long. I do know the never put the doors on the stalls.

[Rumrunner]

The expectation of privacy is alive and well here in South Carolina, several lawsuits have been won here because the cameras were in an area that should have been 'private'.

As an interesting note, the court decided that a person's cubicle was not an area where 'expectation of privacy' applied, as it had no door on it to begin with. I am wondering if the lack of doors on the stalls was a similar concept (you were 'doing your business' where anyone walking by could see anyway, so a camera was just an unseen observer...). I bet that was it, no door on stall, it's not a 'privacy' sort of place.

I didn't even know they put doors on stalls until I went to college, the elementary and high school I went to all had stalls with no doors...

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by LanShark

Having been in the business before, I agree with your thoughts, but unfortunately you can't do this. You're not really allowed to "search" an employee in this situation. If you have them turn out their pockets or whatever, you are pretty much saying "hey, if I don't find it, you're free and clear" but there are many places they could hide the money, and if turning out their pockets doesn't show the money, you may have to keep them on. As far as giving them a mulligan on this and keeping an eye on them... typically policy is you don't count shortages under a certain amount, say $2.00, as short. Any other amount is a shortage. Then, if you have say 3 shortages with a certain time period, you're let go. However, there is usually an upper limit on that. So, if the shortage amount exceeds say $20.00, you can be terminated immediately.

A place I used to work for had a 5% difference as long as it was within 5% it was fine over that is a write up and over $50 was immediate termination pending immediate managers discression.

[JackFaire]

Originally Posted by jdogg169

Ok good point but the security cameras are easily spottable and even if they arent out in the open most everyone knows the place well enough will see the difference. Also they cant put the cameras on without letting the employees know the cameras are there (if they are not visable).

Ah there is one place a camera could see everything and not only be not spottable but not hidden either. If this employee commonly uses this drawer they likely walk right to it clock in and start working. If you put the camera over their head pointing down they aren't necessarily going to see it. Hidden even better. People rarely look up.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by LanShark

Disagree with you on this. It is perfectly fair to accuse or fire an employee whose drawer is $100 short. Sure, they should have looked in the drawer housing first, and I have my doubts about what actually happened here, but if an employee's cash drawer is $100 short, what is the manager supposed to think? I've been in the Mgrs position before, and while most people are honest, you get an unusal amount of dishonest people in these circumstances.

As far as your reaction...violence is NEVER justified in this instance. If you were wrongly accused and fired, hit them where it hurts, hire a lawyer. If it was you, you would turn a situation where you were innocent into one where you would be going to jail, unless I was your manager, then you'd be going to the hospital, THEN jail.

LOL! Sorry to laugh, but you obviously misinterpreted my actual point. Back to that later, though.

Why don't you put yourself in the author's shoes then? You get accused of stealing and get tossed out on your @$$ for something that isn't your fault at all after being a solid, good employee and you mean to tell me you'd just shrug and say "Eh, that's business." I don't think so.

For the record, I wouldn't ACTUALLY hit anybody, unless I HAD to. I just kind of speak graphically, you know. If somebody's mad, they typically say something like "I'll kick your butt." I'd say "I'll rip your arm off and feed it to you." (Also, to prevent another hilarious misinterpretation, I wouldn't typically actually say something like that to anybody either, but more so just say that kind of thing when I am talking about something or somebody that makes me mad.) Anybody who knows me well enough knows that is just the way I am. I might feel the need to scream at them, but I know violence is not really justified, so save it. I would NEVER ACTUALLY resort to violence unless I HAD to. If you were my manager, though, sounds like you'd be the one going to the hospital. Okay, but seriously, now, let's get back to discussing the topic. Just making a point here. Let's think before we comment, folks, because I'm sure not going to walk on egg shells with what I say because somebody might misinterpret. No offense meant to anybody, since this could otherwise be another such case of misinterpretation.

Mainly, though, my point is when I say something like "If it were me, that guy would wind up in the hospital" that is just my manner of speaking. Nobody would even get hurt, other than maybe his ears after I got through giving the punk a piece of my mind.

[Rumrunner]

Originally Posted by jdogg169

Ok good point but the security cameras are easily spottable and even if they arent out in the open most everyone knows the place well enough will see the difference. Also they cant put the cameras on without letting the employees know the cameras are there (if they are not visable).

Not true, any business can install hidden cameras as long as they do not violate an 'expectation of privacy' (in other words, in a place where people would normally expect privacy, such as in a bathroom). For instance, you can install an 'nanny cam' in your living room to observe the actions of your babysitter while you are away from home without telling the babysitter the camera is there. You can install hidden (or visible) cameras in stores to help spot shoplifters with no visibile markings on the camera to indicate it is there. And of course, you can install a hidden camera to watch your cash register without the employee being aware the camera is there. Telling of the camera's existence negates the reason for having the camera in the first place. As long as the area being watched is a 'public' area that would not normally be considered a place where privacy would be the norm, then you have the right to survey your property as you see fit. This is how criminals are caught, and you'd have a long stretch to find a way to shoehorn this type of activity into a civil rights violation. It certainly isn't a violation of your civil rights for your employer to keep an eye on you, and if you are honest, it is actually for YOUR protection as the employer would have evidence that you did NOT steal any missing money.

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by JackFaire

Ah there is one place a camera could see everything and not only be not spottable but not hidden either. If this employee commonly uses this drawer they likely walk right to it clock in and start working. If you put the camera over their head pointing down they aren't necessarily going to see it. Hidden even better. People rarely look up.

Ah good point but Everyone I work with in the past and present all notice cameras even the one on the ceilings. Also companies have to notify employees about such cameras and if the employee has a problem with it they dont work there.

[jdogg169]

Originally Posted by Kane

LOL! Sorry to laugh, but you obviously misinterpreted my actual point. Back to that later, though.

Why don't you put yourself in the author's shoes then? You get accused of stealing and get tossed out on your @$$ for something that isn't your fault at all after being a solid, good employee and you mean to tell me you'd just shrug and say "Eh, that's business." I don't think so.

For the record, I wouldn't ACTUALLY hit anybody, unless I HAD to. I just kind of speak graphically, you know. If somebody's mad, they typically say something like "I'll kick your butt." I'd say "I'll rip your arm off and feed it to you." (Also, to prevent another hilarious misinterpretation, I wouldn't typically actually say something like that to anybody either, but more so just say that kind of thing when I am talking about something or somebody that makes me mad.) Anybody who knows me well enough knows that is just the way I am. I might feel the need to scream at them, but I know violence is not really justified, so save it. I would NEVER ACTUALLY resort to violence unless I HAD to. If you were my manager, though, sounds like you'd be the one going to the hospital. Okay, but seriously, now, let's get back to discussing the topic. Just making a point here. Let's think before we comment, folks, because I'm sure not going to walk on egg shells with what I say because somebody might misinterpret. No offense meant to anybody, since this could otherwise be another such case of misinterpretation.

Mainly, though, my point is when I say something like "If it were me, that guy would wind up in the hospital" that is just my manner of speaking. Nobody would even get hurt, other than maybe his ears after I got through giving the punk a piece of my mind.

It is business the manager has the descretion to fire someone if there is evidence that the person stole. And like said on here several times he could have just stated that he found it there to try to keep from being fired. I have fired people for less than a hundred dollars.

[LanShark]

Originally Posted by Kane

LOL! Sorry to laugh, but you obviously misinterpreted my actual point. Back to that later, though.

Why don't you put yourself in the author's shoes then? You get accused of stealing and get tossed out on your @$$ for something that isn't your fault at all after being a solid, good employee and you mean to tell me you'd just shrug and say "Eh, that's business." I don't think so.

For the record, I wouldn't ACTUALLY hit anybody, unless I HAD to. I just kind of speak graphically, you know. If somebody's mad, they typically say something like "I'll kick your butt." I'd say "I'll rip your arm off and feed it to you." (Also, to prevent another hilarious misinterpretation, I wouldn't typically actually say something like that to anybody either, but more so just say that kind of thing when I am talking about something or somebody that makes me mad.) Anybody who knows me well enough knows that is just the way I am. I might feel the need to scream at them, but I know violence is not really justified, so save it. I would NEVER ACTUALLY resort to violence unless I HAD to. If you were my manager, though, sounds like you'd be the one going to the hospital. Okay, but seriously, now, let's get back to discussing the topic. Just making a point here. Let's think before we comment, folks, because I'm sure not going to walk on egg shells with what I say because somebody might misinterpret. No offense meant to anybody, since this could otherwise be another such case of misinterpretation.

Mainly, though, my point is when I say something like "If it were me, that guy would wind up in the hospital" that is just my manner of speaking. Nobody would even get hurt, other than maybe his ears after I got through giving the punk a piece of my mind.

First, I do get your point, and had I been the employee, which I have been as far as working a register, things would have gone down differently. First, when I was a cashier, if I was responsible for the drawer, no one, I'll repeat NO ONE was allowed to touch the register except me. That included managers. If they needed to do a cash pull or something, I pulled the money, counted it and had them recount it in front of me. That being said, if my drawer was $100 short, I would have immediately asked them to check the register for the chance that the bill was stuck somewhere. Having been a manager and having drawers come up significantly short, I always checked for this situation and in 5 years not once did the cash show up there. Not saying it couldn't, just never did in my experience.

As for your comments about violence, I was hoping you was saying them just as expressions. My comment was actually meant as humourous, but unfortunately text doesn't give one the ability to convey that. Let's agree that if it was us, we'd BOTH be going to the hospital, how's that? Take care, I always enjoy your posts, even when I don't agree with you.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by LanShark

First, I do get your point, and had I been the employee, which I have been as far as working a register, things would have gone down differently. First, when I was a cashier, if I was responsible for the drawer, no one, I'll repeat NO ONE was allowed to touch the register except me. That included managers. If they needed to do a cash pull or something, I pulled the money, counted it and had them recount it in front of me. That being said, if my drawer was $100 short, I would have immediately asked them to check the register for the chance that the bill was stuck somewhere. Having been a manager and having drawers come up significantly short, I always checked for this situation and in 5 years not once did the cash show up there. Not saying it couldn't, just never did in my experience.

Yeah, I agree. First off, good idea that you wouldn't let anybody else touch your register. I can personally attest, though, to the fact that it isn't always possible to do that. I worked in a department store once, and they had everybody at the one register use the same till while I was there. Seems like a bad idea to me, but that was how they did it at the time. In other words, say they open at 8:00 AM. Some guy works on the register from 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM. Some lady works 12:00 PM - 4:00 PM. I work from 4:00 PM - 10:00 PM, all three of us at the same register. They'd have us all using the same till. Dumb, I know, but that was how they did it.

Also, I agree 100% with you that they should have had the managers check the register themselves, or at least have them come with them. I'm surprised that you never had any money get stuck in the machine, though. I would imagine (don't really know from experience) that it happens all the time.

Originally Posted by LanShark

As for your comments about violence, I was hoping you was saying them just as expressions. My comment was actually meant as humourous, but unfortunately text doesn't give one the ability to convey that. Let's agree that if it was us, we'd BOTH be going to the hospital, how's that? Take care, I always enjoy your posts, even when I don't agree with you.

I know, man. That's why mine were in jest as well. You've always been cool, as far as I am concerned. I just to had to mess with you because you and I are both very alike, at least in one way. We both have a sort of manner of speaking that sometimes gets misunderstood for being something it is not. I've seen people who don't know any better getting mad at you for your posts when you never meant any harm. It is a little bit annoying. You know what I mean? We shouldn't have to walk on egg shells with what we say because other people will misunderstand them.

You've been around here long enough to know me a little better, though LanShark. Of course you should have known I would never actually resort to violence in such a situation (The REAL Kane may, but I'm not quite that crazy... yet ). I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd definitely be PIIIIIIISSSSED off, and it would definitely be on my mind. But, it just isn't called for. Heck, the worthless @$$hole wouldn't be worth going to jail for.

Originally Posted by jdogg169

It is business the manager has the descretion to fire someone if there is evidence that the person stole. And like said on here several times he could have just stated that he found it there to try to keep from being fired. I have fired people for less than a hundred dollars.

Well, what you are forgetting is there wasn't really any evidence, other than that it happened at that person's register. I guess I can see how that is evidence enough for a company, but I still think it is wrong to just fire somebody on the spot for that without giving the person a chance to prove themselves, especially if they have otherwise been a good employee.

[LanShark]

Originally Posted by Kane

Well, what you are forgetting is there wasn't really any evidence, other than that it happened at that person's register. I guess I can see how that is evidence enough for a company, but I still think it is wrong to just fire somebody on the spot for that without giving the person a chance to prove themselves, especially if they have otherwise been a good employee.

If that person is responsible for the register, that's really ALL the evidence that is needed. In the situation that you mentioned, at a department store where everyone shares the drawer, they may handle things differently. In the case where the drawer is one persons responsibility, it's exactly that, THEIR responsibility.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by LanShark

If that person is responsible for the register, that's really ALL the evidence that is needed. In the situation that you mentioned, at a department store where everyone shares the drawer, they may handle things differently. In the case where the drawer is one persons responsibility, it's exactly that, THEIR responsibility.

I know what you mean. I do kind of agree. If the money actually WERE missing, and not just stuck in the machine, I might say that they should give the person the benefit of the doubt the first time that it could just be human error.... but the problem with that is that $100 is quite an error. It seems way too fishy that the till could possibly be off by that much without some foul play involved.

[Rumrunner]

Originally Posted by Kane

It seems way too fishy that the till could possibly be off by that much without some foul play involved.

I'm calling PETA and complaining about your blatant animal abuse...