The Combatants!
- Alois Bell, a pastor at Truth in the World Deliverance Ministries Church. Uncharitable, vengeful, arrogant and cheap, she complained about an autotip of 18% added to her Applebee’s check that was triggered by the size of her group. The bill was small, but the group was large. Crossing out the tip amount and replacing it with nada, she scrawled, insufferably, on the bill, “I give 10% to God, why do you get 18?”, thus stiffing the waiter whom the party later said had rendered impeccable service. She also scrawled “pastor” by the bill amount, thus presuming a clergy discount that didn’t (and shouldn’t) exist. After a waitress colleague of the un-tipped waiter posted the bill on Reddit to inspire some well-earned web-shaming, Bell complained to Applebee’s management, successfully getting the waitress fired.
Verdict: Contemptible jerk. She abused her position to claim a discount that she wasn’t entitled to, and punished an innocent server by withholding a fair tip. [This may not be so; see UPDATE at the end] Then she set out to take vengeance on the young woman for exposing her despicable conduct. So much for showing the other cheek. Bell’s conduct was as far from the teachings of Christianity as one can get, at least at an Applebee’s.
- Chelsea Welch, the now ex-Applebee’s waitress. She posted the obnoxious bill and scrawled comments online, whereupon the pastor was identified by her handwriting, and perhaps her jerkish personality.
Verdict: Unethical conduct, though provoked. Her colleague was wronged by the cheap pastor, but she forgot she wasn’t free to do as an Applebee’s employee what she might choose to do as a private individual. Applebee’s can’t have its customers worrying about whether real or perceived slights to restaurant staff will land them on various websites to be mocked and vilified. Her actions were irresponsible and a violation of her duties as an employee, even though her anger was certainly justified. And her method of retribution was excessive and unethical too.
Clearly, the pastor is the villain here, although Applebee’s had no choice other than to fire Welch. What she did can’t be condoned or tolerated. Bell, however, is a disgrace. She told has been quoted as saying, “My heart is really broken, I’ve brought embarrassment to my church and ministry,” and that has been termed “an apology” by the site that broke the story, “The Smoking Gun.” That’s not an apology; she’s regretting the consequences of her actions. She owes a real apology to the original waiter (we don’t know his name) and to Welch, whom she vindictively got fired from her job. Welch, in that case, though she might choke on it, would owe an apology to Bell, who should be able to behave like an ass in Applebees without being made into a web-super villain by a waitress. Welch also ought to apologize to Applebee’s. In fact, there is a lot of repair work needed here:
…If I were Welch, I’d apologize to Applebee’s now, and Bell if she ever showed any genuine contrition in the matter. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
…If I were Bell, I’d apologize to Welch for getting her fired, and personally ask Applebee’s to give Welch another chance—and pay the original waiter at least the 18% tip he was owed in the first place. [ See UPDATE below]
...I were Applebee’s, I’d ban Bell from the restaurant for life. But I wouldn’t re-hire Welch. I would also spell out in my employees manual why web-shaming customers is a no-no. And it may owe Bell about 7 bucks.
…If I were in charge of the Truth in the World Deliverance Ministries Church, I’d consider getting rid of Bell and find someone who actually practices what she preaches.
And if I were The Smoking Gun, I’d look up what “apology” means.
UPDATE: Now it appears that the pastor left a tip in cash, and only complained about it on the slip. And that Applebee’s charged her credit card with the tip anyway, meaning that it owes her money. If true, this makes Bell far less of a villain, and also makes her complaint to the restaurant more justifiable. It also makes Welch’s conduct look reckless and unfair, further justifying her dismissal.
__________________________________
Pointer: Lianne Best
Sources: The Smoking Gun 1,Yahoo! 1, Yahoo 2
Graphic: The Smoking Gun 2,
Ethics Alarms 
You’re always going to have those who served before and going haywire over this and there will be others who believe Applebee’s were right to fire her for privacy concerns. I don’t think it’s an issue people should argue with one another about. Those who are upset, do something about it. Those who are satisfied with the outcome, just let it be.
It’s an ethics blog. The issue isn’t “who is upset” or why. This issue is, what is the right thing to do. I explained that in the post. Wanting to have a hissy fit and get away with it has nothing to do with ethics.
When people come on an ethics blog and applaud unethical behavior, they will be contended with.
Mr Marshall, please allow me to respectfully disagree with you over this issue. I personnally beleive that people should be worried about getting call out when they do something liKe Ms Bell did. Public humiliation have long served humanity as a method of keeping bad behavior in check. And know I don’t think that businesses should ban employees from doing what Ms Welch did or they (the businesses) just become enablers for bad behavior. If you don’t want to be make to look stupid, don’t act stupid. As to you concern about “customers worrying about whether real or perceived slights to restaurant staff will land them on various websites to be mocked and vilified”. I do not beleive that that would be a really big issue. Sure the ‘real slights’ may land people in hot water, (as they deserve) but the ‘preceived slights’ will not get the attention, we the public are generally smart enought to distingush between the two.
V/R Tim Logan
I’ve written about this a lot. None of us should want to live in a society where every mistake we make is at risk to be preserved forever online, warping the opinions that others form of us for the rest of our lives. In Europe, it is called “the right to be forgotten.” The Golden Rule applies, not that Pastor Bell would recognize it. This is a perfect example of the kind of minor lapse–it’s 7 lousy bucks!—that the elephant gun of public shaming should not be used against.
I agree… It was a lapse in judgement (however, shouldn’t we hold our spiritual leaders/teachers to a higher standard? After all, she was the one that claimed to be a Pastor!). But, no one should be continually judged for a mistake.
However, was it really just a lapse in judgement? With her follow up complaint over her “humiliation” after being outted for her bad behavior, she continues her “lapse in judgment.” I think we’re seeing the true nature of her personality, and not just a “lapse in judgement.” Once would be a mistake. Twice is a sign of who they truly are.
If she were truly remorseful, and provided a sincere apology (rather than just one for getting caught), she would have provided true guidance (as a Pastor’s role should) on how we can all learn from this, and how to avoid the same mistake she made to the wait staff.
Just my two cents.
Worth more than two cents…but look: you can’t justify what Chelsae did by what the pastor showed about her character AFTER she was web-shamed. the incident just as easily could have been an uncharacteristic outburst because her dog had died and she was over-due in her rent and had just been hit with a bogus parking ticket, was lashing out, acted like a jerk and felt terrible about it afterwards.
‘ If the menu states partys over a certain number of people will have 18% gratuity added to the check and you choose to order, you have now made an oral agreement between the place of business and yourself. She broke
the law by crossing off the gratuity and not paying it.’
She didn’t break any laws, but in any event, the correct thing was for management to step up, or the server him/herself, and point out the written policy.Not to publicly shame the customer. Show the customer that the 18% tip was not on the whim of the server, but company policy.
Doa, you might improve your reading comprehension.
“In this case, calling out the leader of a religious organization was in the best interest of society. It was the right thing to do. ”
Why not explain the company policy in person? Give them the chance to realize their error? They might have been grateful. Public shaming was not called for, and is rude and aggressive. Why resort to the most volatile, rudest option first?
I would disagree. This was a blatant act of rudeness on the part of Alois Bell. If she didn’t want to be called out, she shouldn’t have behaved so badly. If you are a public figure, you should expect to be held accountable just as publicly. The story states that this Applebees was a usual stop after services, so I would imagine Ms. Bell was familiar with the policies.
Wrong, and I’ve knocked down this flawed analysis repeatedly above.
Jack Marshall, have you ever worked in the food service industry or do you just have a shitload of stock in Applebees? I once had a very wealthy lawyer stiff me on a $300 check because he claimed I was pushing his guest to pad the bill. I was informative and attentative in my service. How would you like it if part of your job ‘acceptance’ was to allow people to demean you? If I was on the internet back then I would have done the same thing.
And you would have been fired, and deserved it. Do you think you had a right the tell that lawyer he was an asshole? He was, you know. Would you fire a waiter for that? If you can’t or won’t think, I’m not going to waste time explaining it to you.
And the pastor’s not didn’t demean Chelsea, not that actual server would have been justified in shaming an Applebee’s customer either.
I would have rather have punched the asshole in the mouth and quit, but I needed the job
Actually, I went one better at revenge. He worked as legal council for the town that my lodge is at. The mayor is also a member. I let the mayor know what the lawyer was talking about with the councilman that was the lawyer’s guest at his table. Let’s put it this way, he doesn’t work for the town anymore.
Yes, that was absolutely unethical in every way. 1) it’s raw vengeance. 2) A waiter is also obligated to keep the confidences of diners at their table. You should have been fired for that, too. It’s no better than spitting in his food before you serve him. Based on this exchange, I’m sue you do that, too.
“Jack Marshall, have you ever worked in the food service industry or do you just have a shitload of stock in Applebees?”
Saying that a waitress getting fired is justified helps Applebee’s stock how?
Jack clearly said the pastor was in the wrong.
“I once had a very wealthy lawyer stiff me on a $300 check ”
Now that’s probably illegal, what did you do about it?
Oh, she probably set him on fire after he left the restaurant, and the owner of the establishment thought it was great.
Crella, you are never obligated to tip legally. The obligation is ethical only.
I’m amazed how many people on this thread seem to thing “gratuity”, which literally means “gift,” is mandatory. It’s not, by definition and tradition. Nowhere, no how, never, ever, ever. It’s not mandatory even if the menus says it is.
He stiffed me on the tip. Read the above reply for what I did.
This editorial is a crock of shit, customers can not be allowed to act in any manner they want without any negative impact. Someone of this women’s status as an employee of a church should know better. This girl (waitress) did very little wrong, and it makes me sick that the companies are so spineless. Treating bad customers like spoiled children is only making the problem worse for everyone.
What a nice, reasoned, balanced and…well, no, in fact it’s not. Applebee’s would have been acting correctly by banning the pastor, telling her she was wrong, or doing nothing until she returned to the restaurant, or giving the server the 7 bucks he had coming to him. The waitress had no right to act unilaterally on the restaurant’s behalf. There is no other side: she was wrong.
From all your replies Jack “Asshat” Marshall you sound like a self-righteous douche that has clearly been handed most anything he wanted to him on a silver plate. You sound like someone that has never had to work customer service and deal with the insane amount of bullshit the majority of today’s public put these people through, and if it were not bad enough for the little guy in these places the companies are spineless and treat there employees almost just as bad. I found this blog looking for the church Alois Bell works at to let them know what I think and came across this stinking, steaming, pile of written diarrhea.
Yes, dear Allen, I’m putting up your last (as in final) comment like the Tudors hung the stinking corpses of those they beheaded as a warning: this is what an individual reasons like when they don’t know ethics from a walnut. Maybe you and that ranting Yale law student in the previous post can hook up. Your comment is wrong, emotionally driven and ethics-free, and you can take the time to read why in my comments, or not.
There is no evidence that Applebees did anything wrong to its employees, and Chelsea would be fired for this is almost any establishment in the country.
Being that the lawyer was unethicly talking about ways of undermining the city as well as the mayor, it was a just dessert given to the asshole by revealing it to the mayor. How’s that grab ya for ethical karma?
You are not the designated agent of karma. If you had revealed the conversation as a whistleblower for the good of the city (and accepted being fired as the result), you would have been ethically defensible. You just violated your duty to get even. Wrong.
Technically ‘karma’ happens as a form of passive justice of nature.
So your behavior wasn’t karma. It was revenge.
Your profession obligates you to keep quiet on the conversations of your customers. Who would want to eat at a restaurant knowing the waiters and waitresses may violate your privacy because they disagree with your view on something, anything, or because they feel you didn’t tip them properly?
Does the phrase “47%” spring to mind here?
No?
I think tipped someone 47% once. They were a damn good waiter.
Kudo’s, Jack. Your points are right on. What people fail to realize is that just because you have social media, and a voice, it doesn’t mean you have the right to use that voice to shame other people, even if the other person truly deserves it. This is especially true when you work for someone else.
Why don’t you have a right to shame people?
Civil society doesn’t miraculously happen. It is maintained through active, measured, and reasoned censures from people acting with humility.
However, that doesn’t justify using unethical or illegal means to accomplish that.
The stiffed waiter or his voluntary advocate in this scenario would have been completely ok discussing this on the Internet without theft of the bill or necessarily identifying the customer.
I’d drive right down to her workplace…and embarrass her…and get her fired…who does she think she is…waiters don’t get paid much as it is….and they really do work hard to make you happy. She should be ashamed and offer up a REAL APOLOGY. I could give a F less if her “heart is broken” Oh well, when you woke up this morning you still had a job lady!
Sorry. Unethical.
I agree with Henry. Some actions require to fight fire with fire. Just like Jack marshall did with Doa. Calling someone lazy, rude and crypto moron is also shaming them and probably not the most P.C. way of handling the situation, but Jack didnt care about “possibly” losing his fan base because thats what he felt was necessary in the situation and in the long run probably is better for his blog to defend himself and not let anyone bully him with false accusations. The waitress also did something similar. She did something in and of itself wrong, to right a bigger injustice. In other words her one action was both right and wrong, and the right outweighs the wrong.
Wrong – shaming publicly someone that with a single action shows what kind of person they are. (Also realize she didnt actually mean for her to be identified, so she didnt really try to shame her, just out the incident in general)
Right – Defend her coworker who was wronged. Stand up to being belittled and in my opinion bullied and freeing people from this pastors control by showing a glimpse of who she really is.
Applebees should have seen that this was an unusual circumstance where it actually does not shame their name. They should have backed the little guy, who was being demeaned. Just go read any comments section, or if you want take a poll. A little common sense that we are in a modern world, with new philosophies. Posting and public shaming is becoming more and more how we deal with situations as we are getting more and more connected, I mean you (Jack) just did it. Situations as grotesque as what the waiter endured makes the good outweigh the bad of the waitress did in this particular case. The public isnt stupid. People know that just because this waitress posted this picture, that does not start a snowball effect that would mean that they are not safe at Applebees anymore.The public backlashing at applebees is evidence that they should have backed up their employee from a business standpoint (as well as other standpoints) Blanket statements should not be made about how to treat cases, you should evaluate everything on a case by case basis. Jack, eating sloppy is not cause to be humiliated in public. But this kind of self righteous indignation should be or at least should not be a firable offense because it supossedly makes applebees look bad, IT DOESNT, only simple logic makes you come to that conclusion. The waitress knows this, the public knows this…Appleebees didnt and thats why they are in a bigger predicament by firing the waitress then by doing nothing.
Good post. Here’s the problem:
1. Web-shaming to stop a serial wrongdoer, or to make a societal statement about conduct, can be ethical IF it is judicious, if the shamer is open about his or her participation, and if no other parties are injured.
2. This doesn’t qualify. Applebee’s, the employer, was injured. The waitress had no right to do that.
3. Nor does she have a right to use proprietary documents not belonging to her to do it.
4. This is not “fire with fire.” The waiter was stiffed 7 bucks, and the real offense was the idiotic comment. Web-shaming is vastly excessive for this kind of offense.
5. The public IS stupid, or a substantial portion of them. Yesterday a poll came out saying that over a quarter of Americans think God intervenes in sporting events.
6. But I wouldn’t trust Applebee’s if I thought it approved of waitresses posting my meal bill.
There is no way to shame the pastor without the participation and approval of the restaurant.
Numbers refer to your points.
2. I don’t believe applebees was injured by the waitress’s conduct. In fact they could have ridden the hero train with the waitress. I mean, saying the employer was injured, I assume you mean by public perception. So in this sense the public matters whether stupid or not.
5. That was the whole reason I brought up the public to begin with. Not saying that public opinion supports my arguemnet directly. But talking from a business percpective, what happens in the public eye is what matters and since the public didnt like what applebeess did (no hard proof, but once again just look into the comments of most blogs, take a poll, etc.)from a business perspective that means they made a mistake firing this woman. Stupidity in this case doesnt matter only the hard numbers.
4. I wasnt clear, but my fire with fire has nothing to do with the 7 bucks. Its the comment the pastor made and belittling and just her being a villain as you pointed out.
3. “Stealing” a receipt in my opinion is a very little wrong. What she did with that receipt (showing it on Reddit) in and of itself is far more wrong. I never said she didnt do anything wrong. I just think that its far more complex than that and saying that she deserves being fired is not an easy gauge.
6. I wouldnt eaither if it didnt have that comment written on it.
(2) goes much deeper than just being an opportunity to for Applebee’s to appear ‘heroic’. Which they may have, at the cost of something sacred.
The sanctity of Contracts and verbal Contracts and verbal Agreements are one of the primary foundations of our civilization and civil society. Part of this system is the belief that the formal interactions between private parties (customer and restaurant in this case) will remain private. The bill represents this. Whether or not the customer chose to write a reason for not paying a tip does not give a subordinate of the restaurant authority to violate the Contract (unintentionally on behalf of the restaurant, but selfishly on behalf of her coworker).
So Applebee’s could have played this as a “let’s defend the little guy”, while telling every other customer (who 95% of the time happen to also be ‘little guys’) that “hey, we hold our interactions with you cheaply enough to publicize behavior we find contemptuous, so much so that we endorse violating your privacy (a breach of contract) in order to appeal to a small percentage of people represented by the vindictive-waitstaff lobby.”
Its not the waitstaff lobby thats up in arms about this, its the working joe AKA majority of the population. The sanctity of contracts from appleebees standpoint only matters to their reputation and bottom dollar, not for sanctity sake. Im saying that because the key point was whether or not this hurt applebees. Who The little guy is changes every time sometimes its the customer, sometimes the waiter and so on. Applebees does not need to endorse violating privacy, they just needed to not do anything. I truly believe that would have been better for their bottom dollar. Even better, A simple “at applebees although we dont condone the employees actions, and will take measurements to not let this happen again, however we will also not tolerate customers to treat our employees in this manner” would have reinsured the public they are not actively trying to violate their privacy and also given some support and backbone to boost their workers morale.The employee acted on her own behalf and given the complexity of the situations should suffer her own public consequences.
Also, the pastor would have written that note on any piece of paper that was by her. The fact that it was applebees receipt was just a matter of thats what was by her. Do you think this equation changes if it was on a regular piece of paper? I believe pondering that can give a lot of insight
Precisely why invoking “the little guy” is a waste of time. The “little guy” is who you need him to be.
“The little guy” is the vast body of customers (who would be hurt indirectly if Applebee’s advocated the violation of a private contract).
“The little guy” is the waiter in question.
In the grand hierarchy of things, the restaurant manager is also “the little guy”.
Hell, if the pastor is a new start out pastor with her, apparantly only 15 member congregation, she can loosely qualify as “the little guy”.
The little guy as I meant it is whoever is being taken advantage of, in this case the waiter
But David, if that is the case, you’re advocating that every time a waiter is given an unfair tip, the Restaurant should support web-shaming. But the missing tip wasn’t why Chelsea posted the bill—it was what was written on it, and that didn’t “take advantage of anyone.” That was just someone being a jerk..
I’m not choosing my words properly. I guess I meant taken advantage of from an emotional standpoint, not monetarily. Just like a bully takes advantage of the weakness of a person they are picking on. Money, in my opinion is not the issue in this case, cheapness and 7 dollars should never factor in, the pastor could have given her $100 tip for all I care. It’s only thinking of what kind of person can write a note like that, and what that says about an individual and also how demeaning that is to the waiter. Thats what I mean by the little guy, the one thats being picked on. Once again I want to state, I do not care about the unfair tip money is not the main underlying issue here and to keep bringing it up only detracts from what we should be talking about.
Well, that’s a mighty loose definition of “taken advantage of”—in fact, I don’t think that term is applicable at all. What was the advantage? What was the loss? If you don’t count the money, we have an arrogant and stupid comment not even directed at the waiter, but the restaurant. It wasn’t a personal insult, and except for the lost 7 bucks, what was there in the note that a waiter couldn’t and shouldn’t shrug off by saying, “What a jerk! Well, it takes all kinds…” and forget it? How was the server “picked on”? How is it demeaning? What is objectionable of the note is that it is presumptuous, arrogant and stupid. A dumb objection isn’t a complaint. She didn’t impugn the waiter, did she? She didn’t say anything uncomplimentary, did she, except perhaps to suggest that the server wasn’t on the same level as God. The mandatory tip amount was determined by the restaurant, the comment was directed at that, not the server. So what is it, exactly, that you think it is we should be talking about?
The equation very well could change if the snide comment was on a blank piece of paper. Then the interaction would be outside of injuring Applebee’s. Depending on how the web-shaming occurred, assuming it was proportional and reasoned and no other wrongs occurred. It may not be a problem.
Been pondering why this particular situation has so inflamed public outcry over the matter, when similar types of situations have occurred countless times before. And why a “simple” study of the ethical questions impacting this situation has been so heated. And, I’ve concluded that it’s because this is the “one” — “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. (Similar to Sandy Hook’s position in the gun violence debate.) The reason why this situation does not lend itself to a “simple” discussion of the ethical issues surrounding this particular series of events is because it has come to represent all the previous situations people have been pissed off about and never said anything about — at least in public.
A very large part of the US citizenry has been negatively impacted by both large and small “attacks” on their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — especially over the past decade. People have been exposed to the hypocritical actions of organized religions. They have been involved in or watched their family and friends lose their jobs to downsizing, outsourcing, and structured bankruptcies. They’ve watched the companies and their managers make millions or billions while the employees are left with nothing — not even their pensions. They’ve watched the megachurches and large corporations wallow in incomprehensible wealth without paying taxes while they, themselves, pay larger amounts to local, state and federal governments on their paltry incomes. They’ve participated in the bail-out of Wall St. giants mightily responsible for the crash of the economy while none of those fat-cats were prosecuted or went to jail — while many lost their homes or lost huge chunks of equity in their largest asset. And, they’ve watched their elected representatives from local to national side with those that have over their own interests time after time after time.
They’re just plain pissed off about so many things — so many simple slights — so many major injustices. Lots of folks don’t have really meaningful way of expressing that frustration. The elections are over and while a lot of those folks are glad that “at least Romney wasn’t elected, because it could get worse”, they’re really not holding their collective breaths for their lives to change for the better anytime soon.
So, this one example of hypocrisy, web posting, and firing of a low wage earner went viral and has somehow, subliminally come to represent a lot more than what actually went down in St. Louis a few days ago. And the reason Jack can’t keep folks on topic is because the topic they’re really trying to address is much larger than this particular instance. And Jack, if you can manage to do that — address the entirety of the issues people are really pissed off about — I’ll nominate you for the next Nobel Peace Prize and you definitely will have deserved it.
“Crella, you are never obligated to tip legally. The obligation is ethical only.”
I’m sorry, I misunderstood ‘he stiffed me’ as ‘he didn’t pay the check’ not that the tip was omitted. My error, I should have paid more attention.
If he didn’t pay the check, you would be right. That’s theft.
So if a customer doesn’t pay the check for the goods received then that’s theft, but not paying the staff for their services is not theft.
That makes the whole tipping system sound very unethical to me, as it would be legal for customers to not leave tips all day and the staff would then get way below minimum wage.
That’s right! Restaurants should pay a fair wage assuming no tips at all, and tips, if any, should be based on exemplary service. It’s a terrible system, allowing establishments to underpay and employees to hide income from the IRS.
I’m so glad I live in a country where tips are not expected. It seems the only times I give a tip these days is like last Tuesday when I go to the pub on quiz night and leave what’s left over from the previous week’s winnings as a tip.
I was in Mongolia and tried to tip a poor cabby who saved my life by rescuing me from the cold, and he was furious. It is considered an insult.
Come to New Zealand some time where it is not normal to tip unless possibly at some of the top hotels where international travellers may have spread the practice.
But if you need your life saved by a volunteer organisation, e.g. Surf Life Saving NZ or Land Search and Rescue, then I am sure any donation would be welcome as they are mostly reliant on donations.
Allen, how does lowering yourself to their level do any good? You end up being just as bad, not a really great distinction…’I can be just a big a turd as they were’. Not really anything to be proud about. And yes I did own a restaurant about 12 years ago, and yes I got weird crap from customers, but once they walked away I forgot all about them. They were in my place only 30 minutes or so, they have to live with their ugly hearts the rest of their lives. They are the losers. Lowering myself to that level would sully my heart and mind, and what’s the use?
Don’t expect a reply from ol’ Allen. He’s been banned for a series of nasty comments that never made it here.
Severely punishing the party who reacts badly to poor treatment is way out of line!!
Firing the waitress was a big mistake by Applebees and an overreach of punishment. They should have required a public apology by the waitress and allowed her to keep her job. UNLESS they are conducting monthly employee seminars and training orientation that talks about dealing with this kind of issue. When someone abuses and insults your low payed employees and they make an error in judgement in responding it should not be grounds for immediate dismissal. Not surprising that Applebees is engaged in an existing lawsuit over low server wages . Clearly they view their employees as completely disposable and of little value. EXACTLY the way this asinine and reprehensible Pastor did. I see that IHOP owns Applebees. Unless this Employee is given an opportunity to apologize and be rehired I will certainly neber again spend a dime in any IHOP or Applebees and I have been a somewhat regular customer of each in the past.
She’s not being punished for “reacting badly.” Stop spinning. She took unilateral negative action against her employer’s customer without notice or authorization. This is always, always, a firing offense.
Unilateral negative action against her employer’s customer without notice or authorization is not always a firing offense. In fact, if it is more speech than action, it is specifically protected speech in many case. Applebee’s policy, if narrowly tailored, define the duties of their employees. If not narrowly tailored, and specific about the protection of customer information, it is likely not enforceable under recent NLRB decisions (ignoring for the moment that all recent NLRB decisions are subject to overturn on grounds several members were recently found to have not been appointed in a valid way).
As an example where employee speech is specifically protected, there is no right on the part of the employer to terminate an employee for picketing in a labor dispute and publicly shaming customers who cross picket lines.
In the social media space, much has been written recently about where the lines are drawn.
NYTimes Jan 21, 2013
” In a ruling last September, the board also rejected as
overly broad Costco’s blanket prohibition against employees’
posting things that “damage the company” or “any person’s
reputation.” Costco declined to comment.
Denise M. Keyser, a labor lawyer who advises many companies,
said employers should adopt social media policies that are
specific rather than impose across-the-board prohibitions.
Do not just tell workers not to post confidential information,
Ms. Keyser said. Instead, tell them not to disclose, for example,
trade secrets, product introduction dates or private health
details.”
I am not declaring the action of publicizing a customer’s information ethical, however, it also cannot be declared to be so egregious that the only acceptable action on the part of the employer is termination.
If Applebee’s has had no previous incident with this employee, has not issued clear social media policy that describes actions that would include this employee’s conduct, and has not include policy language states that termination is the only outcome if the policy is violated, they are on shaky ground. There are many scenarios consistent with the published facts where Applebee’s would have had options other than termination. They may not even have grounds for termination for cause.
The ethics of this situation have been a race to the bottom and reflect poorly on all parties. The weakest of the parties has received the most blunt impact with a loss of her job. People are standing up to defend the sanction as out of proportion with the offense precisely because, the more powerful entities have suffered no tangible loss and their actions have done more harm to their own reputations than the publicized receipt ever could have.
Matt! It is not a free speech issue! You should know better! The First Amendment doesn’t apply to Applebee’s!
The Costco case just isn’t on point. For one thing, it relates to labor laws, and the right to strike and picket. Posting information relating to a customer intending to humiliate said customer while using the name of the company will get you fired. teh vagueness of Costco’s use of “confidential” is not relevant.
So what if she’s “the weakest” of the parties? So discipline should be according to financial status? What kind of warped justice is THAT?
It is a collision of freedom of speech and employer rights. It is a highly unsettled space in ethics and law. The labor code does apply because it limits the employers rights to control off duty speech.
In law, the weakness of parties is not relevant in most cases (freedom of speech is an exception where relative power does matter).
In ethics, many systems do take into account the relative power of participants. In particular, ethical systems based on Judeo-Christian writings often include it as a factor in assessing appropriate sanctions.
Again – both the pastor and the former employee have conducted themselves poorly.
Applebee’s took the most extreme sanction possible, firing and employ and discussing that firing on a public forum. As a result, Applebee’s harmed its reputation.
Applebee’s policy, which they printed, states:
“Employees must honor the privacy rights of
APPLEBEE’s and its employees by seeking
permission before writing about or displaying
internal APPLEBEE’S happenings that might
be considered to be a breach of privacy and
confidentiality. This shall include, but not be
limited to, posting of photographs, video, or
audio of APPLEBEE’S employees or its
customers, suppliers, agents or competitors,
without first obtaining written approval from
the Vice President of Operations. The policy
goes on to specify: Employees who violate
this policy will be subject to disciplinary action,
up to and including termination of employment.”
In their own policy they offer options other than firing. The employee posted a receipt that she believed did not identify Applebee’s or the pastor. It showed a nasty note. The original included an illegible signature and a vendor number which is traceable, but her actions were not taken as a representative of Applebee’s. Once the receipt was linked to an individual, the person who posted it to a rarely red atheist blog
The Applebee’s policy likely is not enforceable in this case, but assume that it is.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, Applebee’s has created a PR nightmare for themselves first by increasing awareness of their employee’s initial breach and then in making a heavy handed decision to publicly fire a minimum wage employee who many sympathize with when they easily could have, within the boundaries of their own policy, placed a negative review in the employee’s file, counseled her on the aspects of her conduct that are not acceptable, or suspended her. None of these actions would have produced sympathy for the employee or redirected anger toward the customer to Applebee’s management.
They created a million dollar problem for themselves by taking the harshest possible action.
Wrong. She created the problem by dragging her employer into this muck. I wouldn’t hire her for anything.
By the way, there is much more of the handbook in one of my answers—the longest one. She was caught dead.
She created the $500 problem.
She is likely not a person I would hire.
Applebee’s response made it a $1,000,000 problem.
Nope. She put her employer in a no-win situation. Either announce that from now on, servers will be allowed to ridicule patrons for any slight, real or imagined, of be pummeled by people who don’t comprehend business ethics, employee ethics, or accountability. They still picked the right side.
That is a false dichotomy.
They did not need to indicate to the general public that the individual was fired. It is a breech of their duty to maintain adverse personnel action confidentiality as an employer. This duty is partially based in law, partially in ethics, and partially in fear of litigation.
Their business need is for their employees to know that the individual was disciplined so future actions like those she took are prevented and for their customers to know Applebee’s will protect their privacy.
They had options between do nothing and fire her. They cannot be justified in making public statements that she has been terminated since both business objectives could have been met while doing less permanent damage to their employee.
Their only ethical public statement is something to the effect of, “We are saddened by the embarrassment one of our employees caused to our patron. Her actions are not supported or condoned by Applebee’s. The incident is being handled as an internal personnel matter. We greatly value our customers and the tireless efforts our employees take to serve them, even in sometimes difficult situations.”
Even once the rumor is in the public domain, it is not the employer’s place to confirm it. It is exceedingly rare that a firing, even of a CEO, is reported as such in a press release or on a company controlled website.
1. That’s not what happened. The waitress told the press she was fired, and an Applebee’s spokesperson only confirmed that she “no longer was employed.”
This is what Applebee’s company controlled Facebook page says right now. They are publicly airing there personnel action.
https://www.facebook.com/applebees
Applebee’s
9 hours ago.
We appreciate the chance to explain our franchisee’s action in this unfortunate situation.
Please let us assure you that Applebee’s and every one of our franchisees values our hard working team members and the amazing job they do serving our guests. We recognize the extraordinary effort required and the tremendous contribution they make, and appreciate your recognition and support of our colleagues.
At the same time, as we know you will agree, the guests who visit Applebee’s — people like you — expect and deserve to be treated with professionalism and care in everything we do. That is a universal standard in the hospitality business. That includes respecting and protecting the privacy of every guest, which is why our franchisees who own and operate Applebee’s have strict policies to protect personal information — even guest’s names.
With that in mind, here is what happened in St. Louis:
– A guest questioned the tip automatically attached to her large party’s bill by writing: “I give God 10%. Why do you get 18?” on the check.
– A different server, who did not even wait on the group, photographed the receipt, posted the photo online and commented about the incident.
– The guest subsequently heard from friends who identified her from the posting, where her name is clearly visible, and the restaurant was notified. There was no further communication with the guest.
– The team member was asked about posting the receipt and admitted she was responsible.
– When she was hired, the team member was provided the franchisee’s employee hand book which includes their social media policy and states:
“Employees must honor the privacy rights of APPLEBEE’s and its employees by seeking permission before writing about or displaying internal APPLEBEE’S happenings that might be
considered to be a breach of privacy and confidentiality. This shall include, but not be limited to, posting of photographs, video, or audio of APPLEBEE’S employees or its customers,
suppliers, agents or competitors, without first obtaining written approval from the Vice President of Operations. The policy goes on to specify: Employees who violate this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
– As a result of her admission to violating a clear company policy intended to safeguard guests, the team member is no longer employed by the franchisee.
Our franchisees are committed to acting in the best interests of guests and team members. This is a regrettable situation and we wish it had never happened. However, the disregard for an important policy left the franchisee no choice but to take the action they did.
We hope this provides you with some additional insight. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to explain the facts involved.
As they should, at this point, with people organizing unjust boycotts and ignoring their responsibility as employers and service providers.
A second more succinct post was posted 4 hours later and is more appropriate to the situation.
Applebee’s
4 hours ago.
As a company that relies on literally hundreds of thousands of incredibly hard working Team Members, we can assure you that we and our franchisees value and support them and their efforts. However this unfortunate situation has nothing to do with work. The Team Member involved did not wait on the guest or party. Regrettably, and without the restaurant’s knowledge, she took it upon herself to take a Guest’s receipt, with the name clearly visible, and posted it online with her own commentary. That is a clear violation of our Guest’s privacy and against the franchisee’s company policy that the Team Member was provided when hired. We simply cannot accept behavior that compromises the safety and privacy our Guests have every right to expect and deserve. Please note that we are also not excusing the Guest’s behavior in this matter and the unacceptable comment she wrote on the receipt, which is offensive to us and all our hard working team members. To be clear, the 18% gratuity added to large party tickets was paid by the Guest’s party. This is a regrettable situation, and we wish it had never happened. we hope this provides you with some additional insight. Thanks again for the chance to explain.
This is consistent with our discussion, and my analysis.
I like this response. I do believe applebees response is why they are in the predicament, not the original incident. As I said before applebees could have garnered a lot of good will from their current employees as well as future potential employees by taking a different route. I am pretty sure they are regretting their decision and if thats true (cant prove this) what better proves that firing the waitress was not right in any sense of the phrase.
I don’t think she should have put the receipt on the internet that was wrong. But if they posted that an 18% gratuity was included on parties above a certain size then they should have called the police on her for not paying it. Personally I think its time to get rid of the option of tipping. The restaurants should include a “commission ” in the cost of each item to go to the server. If people have a problem with that don’t eat in restaurants.
We covered that, Bill. It’s never illegal not to pay a tip, any tip, “mandatory” or not. It’s been litigated.
Ok . I didnt see that, sorry but im not reading through 170 comments when most of them are by angry asshats, then what about including it in the price of the meal?
A slight divergence here on the topic of tips and tipping. As you have noted, tips are a gift and thus not something that has to be paid. My ethics comment is on how unethical it is for the IRS to tax tips. The IRS regs say that gifts are only taxable it they are for $10,000 or more, yet they say that tips are not “gifts”, but part of the waiter’s salary. So Mr Marshall, are tips a gift and thus not an obgligation or are they part of this persons salary and maybe they should be manditory, or is the government just messing things up for its own purposes?
on yea, and to clarify, that is $10,000 per individual gift, not as an aggerate amount.
They are gifts that the employers unethically figure into compensation, and the IRS knows it, so it is reasonable to tax it. Also gifts over a certain level ARE taxable.
I am not so sure about the waitress’ ethical blunder. Some may find her manner of dealing with this to be inappropriate, I don’t see anything she did that was technically “wrong” as there was no violation of company policy. Unless I am failing to remember, ethics is a value judgement. and no judgement is ever going to get unilateral agreement. I believe (judgement) that she had an opportunity to show the pastor’s “flock” what kind of a petty and mean spirited person they are following. Getting the pastor fired certainly enhances the greater good. I also feel it was ethically undefensible for Applebees to fail in suporting their employee, again…..no policy violated. I also have made a value judgement and written to both the ministry and Applebees and directly expressed my feelings. We have also eliminated Applebees from our list of restaurants to visit as both a fmily and a business.
Stop making that claim about “policy.” No establishment needs to have a policy that says, “Don’t attack customers.” It is inherent in any employment contract in the service industry.
You can do what you want, but Applebee’s did nothing wrong. Your action proves the harm of the waitress’s action, as it harmed the employer by putting it in the sites of people like you, who do not comprehend the obligations and responsibilities involved. Your response is the unjust over-reaction, not the restaurant’s.
I wonder if the reaction here would be so strong if the waitress in the role of a parishioner had gone to this Pastor’s church. During the offering, she places a note saying “sorry I already give 17% to Uncle Sam, why should I give anything to you?”
Then the deacon receiving that offering published this on the Internet, followed by the pastor firing the deacon.
I wonder how many of these ardent defenders of revenge would defend our hypothetically wronged deacon?
You say applebees has responsibility. Responsible to whom? The public, we clearly think they made a mistake. Responsible to their employees, I doubt they condone the decision. Responsible to stock holders, business is taking a hit because of their decision. So if all the main groups involved are in an overall sense against their decision, didnt they fail their responsibility (especially when you consider they are a bottom dollar business, not an ethics committee). Only group that might be condoning this is management, so if thats their main responsibility and they have a everyone elso can go fuck themselves attitude then I guess they did hold up their responsibility.
Totally clueless. Welch has responsibilities in this matter—to her employer, to her employment agreement, to Applebee’s image. Applebee’s responsibility is to serve its customers and operate in a businesslike manner, which means, among other things, not running its business according to half-baked whims of a mob, your so-called public, which, if it’s thinking like you, is mistaking sympathy for fairness, and bias for reasoning. Management certainly has to take an “emotional, ignorant people who are incapable of fairly analyzing the situation and just want to root for their favorites can “go fuck themselves” attitude, because if they let the absence of logic and management sense rule, they are doomed. “WE” have decided—“you” have failed to articulate a single valid or coherent rationale for your position. Bad positions can’t prevail just because a lot of misinformed people hold them. Management is not a democracy, nor should or can it be.
You said “1. Web-shaming to stop a serial wrongdoer, or to make a societal statement about conduct, can be ethical IF it is judicious, if the shamer is open about his or her participation, and if no other parties are injured.”
Why does it have to be that black and white. Why cant you make a societal statement about conduct or stop a serial wrongdoes, if another party minorly gets injured. Just to make a point, what if the other party loses 1 cent in the transaction. I dont think you can say oh the other party was injured. I know this particular case isnt anywhere near that extreme. However, the judgement is extreme (getting fired, cant do too much more than that)
Why does the shamer have to be open about his participation, maybe they want to stop the wrongdoer without suffering backlash from ignorant people (souds a little like batman to me, im only half joking). I qualify the shamer not being open about his participation another small wrong if anything at all. In your scenario above, not thinking about this particular situation isnt stopping the wrongdoer the main goal.
The web-shaming involved illegal use of a document private between the restaurant and the customer. That pretty well undermines the effort of web-shaming.
Please see my comment above.
I want to know if you are a lawyer, you sound like one. I made my comment above without seeing this… Its more appropriate here so I repost
the pastor would have written that note on any piece of paper that was by her. The fact that it was applebees receipt was just a matter of thats what was by her. Do you think this equation changes if it was on a regular piece of paper? I believe pondering that can give a lot of insight
As I told Jack. I never said the woman didnt do anything wrong. Taking a receipt in my opinion is a small wrong. I think she had the greater good in my and she chose to break a few eggs to serve up a humble pie. And her overall good she did supercedes all the little wrongs from an ethical standpoint (of course thsi depends on how you view ethics, some people put not breaking laws above all else, some wont steal a penny to stop someone from getting bullied, others think treating people with decency and respect is most important and will break a small or big law to not let that happen)
I’m not saying this is true. But fromour brief conversation my first impression of you seems more like the former while the waitress seems more like the latter.
The greater good you are asserting was revenge. Not a good.
I do landscaping by the way. So I deal a lot with contracts, customer service and client interactions.
you say revenge I say outing wrongdoers, like outing bullying
If the motivation wasn’t revenge it would have been more thoughtful, proportionate, and reasonable.
And not inadvertently involved the waitress’s employer.
I dont see how this is true. You can want justice and not be completely thoughtful and reasonable. Not everyone goes home and ponders every action they are going to take and come back with a conclusion thats the optimal result, thats not the real world not even close. Just because she didnt take an optimal measure does not mean she was motivated by revenge. Heck, two judges, jurors can watch a same case and come to opposite conclusion, is a judge or juror motivated by revenge? Also, the incident didnt happen to her so what revenge.
So not only do you side with the Pro-Revenge Lobby you also advocate the legitimacy of knee-jerk reactions and emotional outbursts.
Interesting.
Civil behavior demands individuals curtail emotional responses and actively discipline themselves away from knee-jerk reactions.
And there is a lot that happens in the ‘real world’ that does not justify it being right behavior. That is the “Everybody Does It” rationalization.
Revenge is not limited to seeking extrajudicial recompense on your own behalf.
1. Silly quibbling. A penny isn’t substantive harm; causing a nationwide PR crisis is. How can you not see that?
2. They have to be open because taking negative action against someone without standing behind that action and accepting responsibility for it is cowardly, and encourages reckless misconduct. Same reason I don’t allow anonymous comments.
Im sorry jack, but I dont believe the waitress caused the PR crisis. I believe how applebees acted toward the situation did
“He’s been banned for a series of nasty comments that never made it here.”
Wow…I thought the one posted was bad enough. What is it with some people!?
2. It can be, but in this case I dont think it was misconduct. I dont know how reddit works, cant you tell her identity. Do you know that she didnt have an identity. If not full name, then a social name like this site. Also, if she was hiding her identity, the fact that an ignorant corporation can fire her to me is reason enough for her to act “cowardly”
In general, I do agree with your notion to stand up to your actions. If your identified its hard not to endure the consequences of your actions.
I went a little crazy on this post, sorry guys. Ive never posted before and I got to excited. I didnt realize the time, thanks for your time
It was fine. Thanks for participating. I don’t have to agree with you to be grateful for the input.
1) Letting the customer know what the 18% is for and why it is charged would not work, this is common and is generally POSTED in plain view.
2) The wait staff is responsible for payment of food. If the customer had walked out, the wait staff would have that amount deducted from their pay.
3) The pastor’s name was NOT given, just a copy of the check. That the pastor’s handwriting was recodnized in interesting but no one actually accused the pastor, by name, of anything.
4) Pastors are held to a higher standard. This happening shows her true colors.
5) Wait staff are never allowed to complain or ask about a tip. My daughter was a wait staff for several years and worked her butt off and many times got stiffed for the tip AND for the bill.
6) If Wait staff is expected to make sure to collect the money, then they become part owners. That means they have the right to speak, respectfully, to the customer to pay their bills which includes a tip.
She should not have been fired. She did not post the pastors name or church.
Wrong.
3) So what? She didn’t have the right to post someone else’s bill and the records of her employer whether her name was attacked or not.
4) Are you saying that conduct would have been less objectionable from a Non-pastor? I don’t think so. Pastors are held to higher standards as DINERS?
6) THAT is just flat out incorrect, They are agents of the company, not co-owners. There is no basis in fact, law or logic for this theory.