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 
Ethical / Un Ethical. The right thing to do. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Turn the other cheek. THEY BOTH WERE WRONG. How ever the behavior of the pastor especially bothers me. A man of the cloth, the symbol of God and all things ethical and right, certainly steered way from the path on this one. If I was a member of his church, I would have to denounce my member ship.
Woman of the cloth, but yes, she was far worse.
Pingback: Crisis? What crisis?
If the Pastor only gives God 10% I think she is a really bad pastor and should give up her job to someone more dedicated.
I didn’t even know God worked at Applebee’s.
“wasn’t free to do as an Applebee’s employee what she might choose to do as a private individual” Her employee handbook did not prohibit the action, so yes, she was free to do so.
“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” Actually, Applebee’s wasn’t villified at all–100% of the comments I’ve read are about the so-called pastor–until they fired the employee.
Customers AREN’T always right and Applebees should have stuck up for it’s employee’s right to free speech–they would have got a lot more customers for doing so. Secondly, they could have done something other than fire her, such as admonish and warn, and that would have satisfied the public–who didn’t care.
“even though her anger was certainly justified” She didn’t post for vengeance or anger–she thought it was amusing.
Lark, “Her employee handbook did not prohibit the action, so yes, she was free to do so,” this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Many outrageous things could be done to a customer by an employee that wouldn’t be specifically addressed. But never mind—as it happens there is plenty in the handbook that allows Applebee’s to fire the waitress, and as she is charged with reading and knowing her own handbook, she cannot complain. First there is this:
The policies and procedures contained in this policy manual constitute guidelines only. They should not be construed as a guarantee of employment for any specific period of time, any specific type of work or any specific term. You have the right to terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice.
J.S. Ventures, Inc. has this same right and may terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice. Your employment with J.S. Ventures, Inc. is commonly referred to as employment-at-will. A supervisor or manager at
J.S. Ventures, Inc. has no authority whatsoever to make any contrary representation to you.
Employee policy manuals cannot anticipate every circumstance or question about guidelines. As J.S. Ventures, Inc. moves forward, the need to change these guidelines may arise. J.S. Ventures, Inc. reserves the right to revise, supplement or rescind any guideline or portion of the policy manual from time to time as it deems appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion. Employees will, of course, be notified of such changes to the policy manual as they occur.
The provisions in this policy manual supersede all existing guidelines and practices. They may be amended or modified in writing by authorized management personnel at any time, with or without prior notice….
This means anyone can be fired for anything.
But the hand book also included this.., allowing dismissal for
…Any…conduct detrimental to the best interest of the employer
Then there are guidelines regarding electronic communications:
◆ … Use your good judgment. Just like in the physical world, when communicating electronically exercise good judgment as to how you react to what is said by others and what you are saying to other people. Be professional.
◆ Protect J.S. Ventures, Inc.’s good name and yours, by being mindful of what you say and do.
◆ Protect the privacy of others. Do not disclose confidential information of J.S. Ventures, Inc or personal information of any person including employees using electronic communications, unless such disclosure is for business purposes, authorized by J.S. Ventures, Inc. and specific to your job responsibilities.
◆ Know the rules for electronic communications. Violation of Federal, State, Local laws, this policy or any other policy related to employee behavior while using any form of electronic communications including but not limited to: blogging, micro-blogging, social networking system such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, Instant Messaging (IM), the internet/intranet and email systems will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
◆ Employees, including management employees, are not permitted to use any form of electronic communications to conduct Company business outside of scheduled work hours, without approval in advance from the Director of Operations. The Director of Operations approving such work must ensure the employee is paid as may be required by the applicable wage & hour law for any time-spent working outside regularly scheduled work hours.
◆ Employees are personally responsible for the content they publish on any form of electronic communication. If you are sending a communication that pertains to J.S. Ventures, Inc, its employees, your job, or anything else related to J.S. Ventures, Inc., that is not part of your assigned job duties and not within the course and scope of your job, you must make it clear that you are speaking for yourself and not on behalf of J.S. Ventures, Inc.
◆ If anyone identifies themselves as an employee of J.S. Ventures, Inc. in a posting or other electronic communication and you are not performing your assigned job duties or responding as an authorized representative of J.S. Ventures, Inc, you must do the following:
For written communications, pertaining to J.S. Ventures, Inc, Applebee’s, or any affiliated company or Applebee’s franchisee include this disclaimer: “The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of [your name]. Content published here is not approved by J.S. Ventures, Inc. or Applebee’s before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of J.S. Ventures, Inc. or Applebee’s.”
Her conduct already violates the manual, big time. But that;s not all: here are teh rules regarding social media:
” When posting information online, however, an employee must comply with the following requirements to prevent harm to others:
◆ Employees may not speak on behalf of J.S. Ventures, Inc.
◆ When expressing personal opinions, employees shall not represent himself/herself as a spokesperson for J.S. Ventures, Inc. If an employee chooses to publish a blog or post online related to the employee’s work or subjects associated with J.S. Ventures, Inc. employees must make it clear that the statements are not being made on behalf of J.S. Ventures, Inc. It is best to include a disclaimer such as: “The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of J.S. Ventures, Inc.”
◆ Employees should speak respectfully about J.S. Ventures, Inc. and its current and potential employees, clients, customers, affiliates, and competitors. Do not engage in name calling or behavior that will reflect negatively on J.S. Ventures, Inc.’s reputation or make a J.S. Ventures, Inc. employee feel fearful, intimidated, embarrassed or harassed in the workplace.
◆ Employees should write knowledgeably, accurately, and use appropriate professionalism. Despite disclaimers, an employee’s Web interaction can result in members of the public forming opinions about J.S. Ventures, Inc. and its employees, clients, customers, and affiliates.
◆ Employees should never post any false information or rumors about J.S. Ventures, Inc., J.S. Ventures, Inc. employees, or J.S. Ventures, Inc. customers, suppliers, agents or competitors.
◆ Employees must honor the privacy rights of J.S. Ventures, Inc and its’ employees by seeking permission before writing about or displaying internal J.S. Ventures, Inc. 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 J.S. Ventures, Inc., J.S. Ventures, Inc’s employees or J.S. Ventures, Inc’s customers, suppliers, agents or competitors, without first obtaining written approval from the Vice President of Operations.
◆ Employees must not disclose, distribute, forward, share, or provide access to
J.S. Ventures, Inc. confidential information or trade secrets. This shall include, but not be limited to, client lists, client health information, employee lists or personal information (home addresses, unlisted telephone numbers, social security numbers, pay rates, etc.), and rates or costs for services or products.
The same principles and guidelines found in the J.S. Ventures, Inc.’s policies apply to employees’ social media activities. Any conduct that adversely affects the employee’s performance, the performance of fellow employees, or otherwise adversely affects customers, suppliers, agents or J.S. Ventures, Inc.’s legitimate business interests, may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
They have her dead to rights. Also, this is all they need…
All employees are subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment for conduct while making use of any form of electronic communication, where that conduct:
◆ Is an unlawful act as defined by Federal, State or local laws.
◆ Divulges trade secrets, confidential, proprietary or privileged information regarding the Company, its current or former employees, vendors, or customers.
◆ Is trademark infringement
◆ Contains offensive comments based on race, sex, or any other category protected by law or posting/transmitting this type of content.
◆ Is unauthorized use of Company logos, name or brand information.
◆ Violates our Company values or any Company policy.
Applebee’s was still wrong to fire her over something so ridiculous!!!! This fake pastor should be ashamed of herself becasue of herself. Being called out just let the rest of the world know how nasty she is! I am done with Applebee’s! I will miss my Oriental Chicken Salad, but I can make it myself!
Well, good…another silly comment blaming Applebee’s for firing a reckless employee who embarrasses her employer and undermines its customer trust. I wouldn’t hire you either, since your judgment is apparently as flawed as hers.
It’s good to get the other side of the story (and there very often is one). If the pastor did leave a cash tip, it appears she still retains responsibility for demanding Welch’s firing — which deprived a mother and children of a small livelihood. Welch, while perhaps not privy to knowing about the cash tip since she did not wait on the table, herself (the same as most of the rest of readers) still is responsible for her own rash actions in response to the affront she witnessed.
I’d take this a step further and add another responsible party to this situation. Applebee’s (along with every other restaurant in the US) which expects patrons to directly pay their employees’ wages instead of paying living wages (and benefits) themselves. Businesses often treat service staff more closely to a servant staff, expecting a high level of customer service and loyalty to a company which doesn’t even partially reciprocate. While the company may be legally in the “right” (after all, who influences the laws to a greater degree — corporations or people?), they fall well short of basic moral obligations to their work force which they get away with because their employees are generally not represented by a bargaining unit or when labor laws and regulations are being written. While Applebee’s should be due basic respect and loyalty by their employees, the fact that most would not willingly work for them if not for the current economic conditions leaves many employees walking a fine line between necessity and disgust. I suggest that Appelbee’s own labor practices, which “legal” contributed significantly to both the pastor’s and Ms. Welch’s understandable ire in this particular situation and should not be left out of this equation.
And finally, I think those of us who are outraged about what went on in this case and no doubt many similar cases every day are part of the “problem” if we continue to condone the underlying causes.
After all, what’s Wright is only Wright and as long as we let the “big guys” continue to Welch the “little guys”, we’ll all continue to be Welched. Wright?
Wright.
I love you.
Regardless of whether or not a cash tip was left, to go to the bother of writing such a nasty thing on a receipt is just outrageous!
OOOO..nasty comment on bill! By all means, make her an international pariah and embarrass your employer to do it! What’s the matter with you?
It wasn’t nasty—how was it nasty? It was pompous and dumb, not “nasty.”
All of your comments concerning the proprietary nature of the check, and the web-shaming (no matter how deserved) are logical, and according to the books; correct. However, I would argue that if any major celebrity were to go into the Applebee’s, they would no doubt have pictures taken from an adjacent booth, or iphone videos from across the room that are untraceable. Likewise, if the celebrity were to write on the bill “Thanks Chelsea! The service was wonderful, see you the next time we’re in St. Louis- Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie,” you’d be sure as hell that check would be scanned and sent to all her friends (aka. Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc). The only difference is that this was a negative comment, but this woman was (albeit minor league) a local celebrity. She is a public figure who weekly instructs her congregation how to behave “morally and ethically.” She is propogating the notion that as “christian” she is entitled to have slaves, without compensation, bring her food, and fill her cup, and so then will her parishioners think. What kind of example is she setting for the children at the table with her? Also, as a public figure, regardless of domain, she has to understand that nothing that she does or says is exempt from public scrutiny. As for Applebee’s, while I understand their rock/hard place position, I say shame. The waiter who received the check had nothing to do with the publicizing of it, other than allowing a picture to be taken by a fellow waiter to commiserate on the despicable nature of some restaurant patrons. If the waiter would have mistakingly dropped the signed receipt, and a random customer had found it and posted it, would Applebee’s have hunted down the random customer who found it, who had absolutely NO responsibility or loyalty to either Applebee’s or the pastor? I think Chelsea was absolutely right in showing the world what type of human this “pastor” is, and while she took one for the team, the rest of us servers appreciate the attention that the importance of Tipping in the United States is receiving due to her sacrifice.
These are all fun hypos, but they don’t address the actual situation. I think you’re wrong, by the way. An employee who posted photos of a celebrity without explicit permission would be in trouble. A personal note or autograph? Clearly not.
An employee directly relating to the celebs? Agreed. My point is that why should this girl who had no contact with or possibly even saw the pastor, be punished for an anonymous post (not naming the waiter who DID serve the table). There was no contact information, nor payment information, the only thing was the signature. If I were chelsea, I would have sharpied the signature (definitely leaving “pastor”). This is what servers deal with on a daily basis, and because of the confidentiality of the check, there is no accountability, leaving servers often paid less than minimum wage (especially in large chain restaurants). I think that this was a public service.
By the way, there were no pictures attached to the receipt, just a personal note and an autograph.
That’s just it. She didn’t take any measures to secure anonymity of the customer (which ultimately led to exposure of her employer) before discussing this example of selfish behavior in the name of God. Then, the measures she did take involved using a privately held document with still personal information of financial transaction; regardless of the size of the sum involved, financial transactions are personal and private.
While the waitress was clearly in the wrong, Applebee’s was _NOT_ exposed as the restaurant in which the affront took place in the original post of Reddit. It was only after people recognized the signature and told this so-called pastor about it, did it get attention and it was the kind of attention that Applebee’s did _NOT_ need for exposing themselves.
Then you have the double standard by Applebee’s who, if the information is correct (and it is accompanied by a photo of the reciept), violated its own policy by publicly placing a complimentary receipt on its own web site. And when this story went viral, pulled it down, hiding their own violation of their own policies.
Regardless, Applebee’s PR meltdown has done irreparable damage, which will result (right or wrong) in lost business, if not having to close stores. The biggest losers are their employees, whether of the company, its parent, or its franchises.
This could have been handled better and the company could have recognized (in more than words), the value of its employees, and while given the waitress a stern warning, did not need to go so far as to fire her.
You’re spinning, Old Timer, like everyone else who makes this invalid argument. Applebee’s was exposed as a direct result of the waitress’s actions. She was responsible. This is exactly why what she did is prohibited by any fair reading of the employment policies.
How, exactly, can Applebee’s violate their own employment policies, which require acts involving publicity to be approved by Applebee’s? That isn’t even spin, that’s hilarious. There’s no double standard, because the standards for management and employees are always different and appropriately so. What kind of old timer are you?
“Regardless, Applebee’s PR meltdown has done irreparable damage, which will result (right or wrong) in lost business, if not having to close stores. The biggest losers are their employees, whether of the company, its parent, or its franchises” Which is not the fault of Applebee’s at all, but the ethically muddled boycotters who don’t think bad employees should have any accountability. The waitress was and is 100% at fault. In Applebee’s case, you are blaming the victim…and not very effectively or persuasively
I agree with you, if the post were to have put this “pastor” in a positive light, I guarantee she would never have gone back to compain!
Well, yeah. Point?
It’s hilarious that this self-proclaimed “ethicist” has an advertisement for Applebee’s as the background to this “article” while demonizing the waitress who spoke out against rudeness.
The same thing keeps getting repeated: the waitress was out of line for trying to “represent” Applebee’s when she, in fact, made efforts NOT to include Applebee’s in any way when her original post was made. Way to spin.
Integrity? Won’t find any here.
Talk about deceptive. 1) how does having an Applebees menu as backdrop to a story about the restaurant constitute an ad? It doesn’t. 2) What’s ironic about it? You’re absurd. 3) She posted an Applebee’s bill. That’s hardly making efforts not to include Applebees. “At a restaurant where I work, a pastor stifed my colleague writing,…” THAT’s keeping Applebee’s out of it. No spin.
Who’s “demonizing the waitress who spoke out against rudeness.” Demonizing? I said she deserved to be fired. I wrote:
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.
How is that “demonizing”? And she didn’t “speak out”… she plastered a customer’s signature all over the web via Reddit.
Insulting, unfair, dishonest and jerky comment, plus you rang the stupid and gratuitous “self-proclaimed” bell, which is specifically note in the comment guidelines. I make my living as an ethicist, you clod—I’m not “self-proclaimed,” that’s what I do. Bye!
Wow! Nice ethical response there, Jackie baby!!!!!
And by the way, every picture I have seen doesn’t show the name of the restaurant? Am I missing one that does?
Nothing unethical about calling a false, insulting performance by a jerk exactly what it is. If you come on my site and impugn my integrity with complete nonsense like that, I will call you out. There was no excuse for that post. I am not obligated to be the passive punching bag of trolls.
She did not mention it was Applebee’s, the name of the business is not identified until she was fired. Your whole ethical stand point is invalid, there was nothing negative done to Applebee’s until they fired her. In fact here is a quote from an interview with Amanda Crum “All throughout the comment thread on the Reddit post, I withheld any identifying information,” Chelsea said. “I had already started receiving messages containing Facebook profile links and blogs and websites, asking me to confirm the identity of the customer. I refused to confirm any of them, and all of them were incorrect. I worked with the website moderators to remove any personal information. I wanted to protect the identity of both my fellow server and the customer. I had no intention of starting a witch hunt or hurting anyone — I just wanted to share a picture I found interesting.” Your whole understanding of the situation is incorrect and I believe you owe a lot of people on this blog that have left comments a big apology. You have been rude and arrogant in many of your replies.
I have been appropriately, if in some cases too enthusiastically harsh in diagnosing the character flaws of a few who came into my blog to insult my profession and credentials without cause, to repeat really bad arguments in a doctrinaire fashion, and to engage in conduct guests here may not engage in. You do not get this, apparently. I do not throw unruly guests who throw up on my furniture out of my house politely. Yes, it would be exemplary if I did, but I don’t. And in the Comment Guidelines, there is a warning to this effect.
Your comment, for example, is critical and mistaken, but it is reasonable and measured. That’s fine. That’s all I ask. You don’t have to agree with me, and you can even thrash me, but I don’t accept belittling, condescension, putting words in my mouth, or insults, at least until I know youy well enough to assume good will.
You write, “She did not mention it was Applebee’s, the name of the business is not identified until she was fired. Your whole ethical stand point is invalid, there was nothing negative done to Applebee’s until they fired her.” This statement, while typical of a lot of the comments here, is just flat out wrong. It isn’t an “opinion,” it is a first a misstatement of the event, and second, misunderstanding of it.
She put a document from an Applebee’s transaction, with the handwriting a charges to an Applebee’s customer, on the internet. To say she didn’t “mention” it was Applebee’s is like saying that posting an embarrassing photo of your boss with uncomplimentary comments is OK if you don’t say who he is. If you put enough up that people can figure out who he is, or what the restaurant was and who the customer was—AND THEY DID—then your statement is, in fact, wrong. She may not have intended to identify the place or the cutsomer, but the best and only way to ensure that would be not to post anything. Applebee’s was harmed, because its policies and statements of responsibilities say what it regards as harm, and what Chelsea did was prohibited. She was responsible for the customer being embarrassed, and since the customer was embarrassed by an Applebee’s employee because of what took place at an Aplebee’s, this refects badly on the company–HARMS IT. You are arguing, in effect, that it was Applebee’s fault it got bad publicity because it followed its policies and fired a waitress for creating a situation that risked bad publicity. That makes no sense. It is circular reasoning. This isn’t an attack, now. Lots of people fall into that trap sometimes, including me, but in this case, your analysis doesn’t work.
I hate to say it, but you sound like you work for Applebee’s, its parent, or one of its franchises. Yes, the waitress was wrong, but the original waitress (who got the note) was wronged by the customer. That evidently means nothing to you. Or does it? Is what happened all beside the point in your attempt to justify what the franchise did?
Yes, Applebee’s had the right to fire the waitress. But they also have a certain unstated obligation to their employees, who are their first and foremost representatives. Many businesses in the world (not just the United States) seem to not understand that their employees and how they are treated is what counts the most. A happy employee will show that happiness, not by demand, as is often the case, but by their own free choice, in the way they treat deserving customers.
Now you are dropping down to defending your own position by attacking those who attack you. As I said, I hate to say it, but your blatant posting of Applebee’s menu (which IS advertising (unpaid or otherwise) and defense of an undefensible action on their part, accompanied by a PR meltdown of almost epic proportions, makes you sound like nothing more than an Applebee’s employee.
I hate to say THIS but read the comment policies. I really hate it when my objective analysis is accused of being biased according to who I end up deciding is in the right. I have eaten at Applebee’s exactly three times in my life, don’t own stock, and other than the fact that I object to it any time that people criticize a business for acting like a business and penalize a business for requiring employees to act like responsible employees.
You are deluded in too many ways to correct here. The criticism of the Applebee’s menu backdrop, which is NOT advertising any more than Andy Warhol’s Campbel’s Soup painting was a soup ad, is per se stupid, and a cheap shot. I didn’t “blatantly” post the Applebee’s menu, I posted it segmented as a graphic. It will not sell one baked bean. Your argument is desperate and foolish.
And calling a completely reasonable employee action “indefensible” is just plain mischaracterization. I own a business—I have also spoken to my local Tex Mex restaurant owner, a friend, about this too. He said that he might not fire someone who did this, especially if he were a good employee, but he would be suspended, put on probation, and would be in big trouble. He also said that he wouldn’t criticize any restaurant that DID fire someone who set out to embarrass a customer. You may disagree with the action, but it is certainly defensible.
You are just one of those people that no matter what the evidence is never going to admit they are wrong. You are grossly wrong on every point of your argument. The women being exposed is her own fault, she should not have penned such a nasty comment if she didn’t want to be embarrassed. The fact that some website like snopes or whatever ID her is irrelevant, what if another customer would have seen that check and taken a picture and posted it? If you don’t want people to know you are a nasty person, don’t write nasty notes. Also just because you have a policy does not mean you have to follow it, similar to when a cop lets someone off of a speeding ticket. There was no bad publicity until Applebee’s fired this women, there Facebook page is filled with nothing but people upset and outraged that they fired this girl. So your argument about this waitress casting Applebee’s in a bad light is there own doing. If they didn’t side with a nasty and rude customer over there employee pretty much no harm would have come of this. Prior to them firing this employee the only person mad was 1 customer, who clearly doesn’t need to be the patron of any business with her attitude.
Joanna, this is a clinical ode to proud ignorance. Your entire discourse is devoid of any comprehension of ethical principles whatsoever. It is a catalogue of awful reasoning, rationalizations, and weak thought. It isn’t worth my time to help you, and is a waste of anyone’s time to read what you have to say. You pollute what is supposed to be an informed discussion, and worst of all, are self-righteous about it. Sad, but not welcome either.
I blame the so-called “pastor.” A person who claims to serve God should know the basics about treating another human being, hence, she should have known that her conduct was reprehensible.
Blame is not the issue. Who acted correctly and ethically under the circumstances as they developed, and who did not?
What, pray , are the credentials of those bleating ‘self-proclaimed’?
Unbelievable. So many people unable to communicate an opinion without letting emotion take over and hurling insults.
As someone that claims to to be a professional, your response to many people leaving comments here is very unprofessional. The way that you write you response to something you disagree with is childish and condescending, you patronize them and are just generally rude. As someone that is trying to speak about ethics you seem to be in no place to throw stones. Applebee’s did not have to fire this girl, and it certainly only shows them in a negative light to people that have some askew idea of that is wrong. By the out cry that you can read not only on this page but many others most people didn’t even give a second thought about how the customer was being treated, more how the server was treated. So your argument that she damaged the companies image is wrong, if nothing else it improved it. Most people that work at places like this live pay check to pay check on the minimal amount of money that make working, stiffing people on tips after reading the menu and understanding that a 18% gratuity would be added you are obligated to tip. It states it very clearly on the menu. Obviously someone writes an ethics is going to be on a high horse but as someone that claims to be professional. stop acting like a spoiled child.
1. “By the out cry that you can read not only on this page but many others most people didn’t even give a second thought about how the customer was being treated, more how the server was treated.”
Let me get this straight—the fact that people commenting here miss the point means that there is no point? Good Lord.
2.”So your argument that she damaged the companies image is wrong, if nothing else it improved it.” How did she improve the company’s image, pray tell, by ridiculing a customer on line?
3.” Most people that work at places like this live pay check to pay check on the minimal amount of money that make working, stiffing people on tips after reading the menu and understanding that a 18% gratuity would be added you are obligated to tip.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say. You and others here cannot grasp basic ethical concepts. The fact that someone does something cheap or obnoxious to you does not justify your breaking the rules and mistreating them.Repeating flawed, play-ground ethics logic–“she hit me first!” over and over again and not listening to the response doesn’t make your mistaken analysis any more right. I’m really sorry you can’t understand.
4.“It states it very clearly on the menu.” And who has denied that she should have paid the tip? Not me. Read, read, read. Did you read the summary I prepared? Did you read the thread? The post? I said she should have paid BUT SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO PAY! Got that? Difference between SHOULD” and “MUST”? No? Can’t help you.
5.“Obviously someone writes an ethics is going to be on a high horse but as someone that claims to be professional. stop acting like a spoiled child.”
Uh-Huh. I write this blog to assist people in understanding how to work out right and wrong in a complex situation. I take the time to respond to theories, rationalizations, misstatements of the law, and the rest so people don’t get confused by readers like you, who really don’t want to learn, or who are incapable of it.
You really think that any and every opinion is equally valid, regardless of logic, foundation, basis, or fact. You are so used to dropping uninformed opinions into cyberspace that you bristle and scream “Personal attack!” when I speak the truth and call it the weak and biased reasoning that it is. I’m sorry you’re wrong and can’t distinguish between “should” and “must.” That’s sad. I’m sorry “Johnny” couldn’t read a dictionary, and kept repeating absurd theories while insisting I was misusing a word he didn’t comprehend. His theory was total trash, as some theories are. I’m sorry he didn’t like hearing that, but it had to be said. And when a reader attacks me for supposedly writing the exact opposite of what I actually wrote, and impugns my integrity while doing it, I’m so sorry, but she has to be told that itis intolerable, and that she is deranged.
The basic disagreement here is that you seem to think just because you pick some emotional interpretation out of the air, it is “unethical”, as if you had a clue what that is, for me to say directly that the position is sloppy, based on mistakes and misconceptions, and not worth the time it takes to read it. Well, it would be unethical for me not to state that, because sloppy thinking like yours infects society at every level and makes life messy, expensive and harder than it has to be. The only way to try to fix the problem is to call it what it is. And I know you can’t understand that, either.
The fact that you feel the need to make a blog about ethics to “help” other people tells me all I need to know about what kind of elitist person you are. Like us peons need saving from our selves. You not only feel the need to tell people how wrong they are and how right you are but you do it in such a condescending way it is almost comical. It is you and your ilk that infect society with your own perverted sense of ethics. It is people like you that make life messy and expensive because of your litigious habits.
A typical response of the large segment of the population that goes through life doing wrongful things while thinking there are good, and electing crooks and liars because they belong to the right party. Schools used to teach ethics; they don’t. Those who know the topic, many of them a lot more scholarly and experienced than I am, largely refuse to speak out in public for fear of attitudes like yours, the ethically ignorant proclaiming that they have nothing to learn, and anyone who tries to enlighten them is “sanctimonious.” Gallup’s annual poll show that about 97% of Americans think they are the most ethical person they know. What does that tell you? Probably nothing.
Even your comment is riddled with confusion, because you have no organized way of determining right from wrong. (What does ethics have to do with being “litigious,” for example? Insisting that mediating ethics disputes shouldn’t be done using emotion and bias is warped to you, because that’s the only way you know how to do it—badly.) It’s hard. You think it’s easy. That’s the problem.
I’m libertarian, and I would venture to guess you are Democrat or liberal (which is a social disease). I vote for the person that will reign in the government and its spending habits, while protecting my freedom’s and the freedom to keep the government out of my life. Not that it is any business of yours. Polls are stupid, how many people did they poll 200, 10, 1500 people? It isn’t that you are trying to enlighten people (though feeling the need to do that is elitist) it is the manner in which you do it. You talk down to most of the people that have posted a comment here and that is arrogant and rude. Also, being litigious does have something to do with how ethical you are, taking people to court because you can does not mean you are right, or in some perceived ethical right. You are on such a high ground you feel it is the need to correct and maybe even at times punish (taking people to court because you can) them, to show us peons what it is to be ethical.
You are not the standard bearer of ethics, just because you say it is unethical does not make it so. By your arguments though it is clear you feel you are the only one hear that can be right, and the only one who has ethics.
That is manifestly untrue, as anyone who visits here regularly will attest. I welcome other opinions, and sometimes change or even reverse mine. I never claimed to be the standard bearer of ethics, as you call it, never. Nonetheless, I am qualified to flag a terrible opinion or analysis as being one, and should.
If this person takes the time to write a snarky remark about giving God %10 so she’s not going to give you %18, there is no way she left a cash tip when she paid for the meal with a credit card. She is simply claiming that in an effort to save face. Anyone who believes she paid for the meal with a credit card, made a point about not tipping, then left a cash tip is extremely naive.
I don’t think that’s common sense at all. Either fact pattern is plausible.
But her not leaving a tip after she said the waiter didnt deserve it is way more plausible… and leaving the tip does not help the pastors moral character, but if she is lying about it speaks volumes and volumes and volumes
This is not a matter of privacy. The nasty note was given to the server not the restaurant which makes it perfectly acceptable to share. By Applebee’s logic if a customer threatened a server on a receipt they could be fired for notifying others about it.
No, Brenda. The misuse was in appropriating the document and sharing the proprietary information on it. The waitress couldn’t take the slip—it to belonged to the company and the customer. It was not hers to send over the internet.
Who cares its just a piece of paper, its not grand larseny hence why she is not in jail.
Outing this sanctimonious jerk of a pastor, is much more important. How many people did this waitress save in the future from being belittled by doing this. How much power did this villain lose to influence and ridicule others with her one action. She saved a lot of people from future ridicule/embarrassment by unrightfully using that little piece of paper. Lets not forget the pastor wasnt an average joe, she had a pulpit to influence a lot of people.
I might point out to some that there is a difference between determining whether an unethical action has occurred and determining how much one is likely to be excused for the action “under the circumstances.” While those circumstances will weigh differently based on one’s own values, those “mitigating factors” should not be utilized in determining whether an unethical action occurred in the first place.
Thus, while most agree that both the pastor and the server who leaked the pastor’s name in connection with her posting online both took unethical actions, the weight of public outrage is directed toward the pastor who was obviously not following the tenets of the faith which she is expected to model. On the other hand, a young woman is more easily excused for not thinking through the consequences of her actions which she says she took because she thought it funny. (And besides, she’s underpaid in the first place and has a right to be ticked-off when she or another of her coworkers get stiffed and insulted at the same time…)
It seems there is less agreement on whether or not Applebee’s actions were ethical. It certainly appears their decision was legal and to some people, taking a legal action must always be ethical. However laws change on a regular basis so using this premise it would follow that what is ethical today could well be unethical next month (and vice versa). Such a premise seems not strident enough for determining situational ethics, in general — but especially in situations where the laws and case law vary by state at present and thus are subject to the “whim” of the particular state in which the action occurred. I’d be interested in hearing what factors you think would be relevant in addition to simple legality in analyzing the ethics of Applebee’s actions.
From a strictly public relations perspective, it appears clear that Applebee’s overreacted to their own detriment. But, their actions are things which are still within their power to change. As a former HR manager, I would not have counseled such strident action in a situation which was already receiving much negative public attention for the organization and would like create more negative than positive responses. If, in fact, the employee was an otherwise good employee that showed aptitude for the position, I would certainly have recommended corrective action and public notification that disciplinary action had been taken and why (protection of privacy of customers). That advice would have held regardless of the state in which it occurred; however, in some states, it would actually be mandatory to take “progressive discipline” starting at the lowest level indicated based on previous performance and disciplinary actions which may have occurred. That advice would have been based upon a combination of ethics, law, and public relations considerations. But this discussion is supposedly limited to ethics and it’s important to know where one topic ends and the next begins. So, what are the strictly ethical considerations which should be used in evaluating Applebee’s actions?
Thanks, Linda, for a very thoughtful, stimulating post. I had been waiting for an HR person to weigh in.
1. How low-paid the waitress may be shouldn’t factor into the ethical judgment of her conduct. This natural bias has infected the entire discussion. There are not two sets of ethical Rules, one for the well-off and a lesser one—or a stricter one!—for waitresses. Sympathy and empathy are fine. I wrote that I sympathized with her. That’s not the same thing, or shouldn’t be, as excusing her.
2. As an aside, everyone is assuming that the pastor’s church, and it is her own church, has tenets that she violated. There is no evidence of that. Plenty of supposedly Christian Churches believe in behaving horribly, such as the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.
3. “On the other hand, a young woman is more easily excused for not thinking through the consequences of her actions which she says she took because she thought it funny.” No, she’s not. Humiliating someone else is always funny to the person not humiliated. “It’s funny” isn’t a countervailing consideration when evaluating conduct that affects others adversely. And she obviously didn’t think it was funny–she was annoyed and angered by it. She may have hoped that pastor saw the post, and got the message that she thought the pastor acted like an ass.
4. Applebee’s conduct is ethical. Period. It’s responsible. It’s justifiable. It happens to be legal, though the evaluation has nothing to do with the law. If there were no laws at all, Applebee’s would be right to fire the woman: A) She violated the terms of her employment in multiple ways. What she did was covered in her employee handbook, which is very reasonable. B) She embarrassed the company, on a grand scale. This was an internal matter that should not have been made public. She made it public. C) She took negative action against a customer. If a waitress called up a previous customer and told her she was a cheapskate, she would be fired. If she screamed at her in the restaurant, she would be fired. What she actually did was worse. TRue, it didn’t have to be—moral luck is involved. She didn’t anticipate that people would recognize the pastor’s handwriting, but they did, and she should have known that was a risk.
5. I’m interested that you say a lesser punishment would have been fairer, and a respect your professional judgment. But Applebees sells friendliness and trust. It’s all through their advertising and corporate materials. For this kind of a family restaurant, a national example of a waitress taking a vengeful action against a customer is horrific. They need to show that for them, this is intolerable, and that they won’t allow someone who would do this, even once, to spoil the Applebee’s experience.
6. Public relations is a non-ethical consideration. Just because a particular action may be more popular doesn’t mean it is the right one, but it may make it the most practical one.
7. The waitress’s subsequent comments prove to me that she had to go. She isn’t contrite, she has bad-mouthed the restaurant, she has talked to the press, and she has said that the company manual didn’t forbid what she did and the way she did it, which is either a lie, or shows that she never read it, or that she can’t understand it. She’a poor employee, and untrustworthy. If the restaurant takes her back, they will be sending the message that this is someone worth bending their policies to keep. Bad message.
Again, great comment. I wish there were more like this one. I hope you hang around—an HR expert comes in handy a lot here.
Ethics, like morals, and the “truth” are subjective to the individual and the society in which they exist. What may be ethical in Japan may not be ethical in Turkey. What may be ethical in the United States may not be ethical in the United Kingdom. I read an article published in Britain about what happened and the general flavor of the comments was that the restaurant industry in the United States was unethical because of the way it paid its employees.
So, whether or not Applebee’s was ethical in its actions, whether the waitress acted ethically, is a matter of opinion — in your case, yours, and it should be noted that many of us do not share your view.
However, that does not take away from the fact that the customer and the waitress acted badly and neither should have done what was done. Now the real question is whether Applebee’s acted in the best interest of the corporation, its management, its shareholders (through a parent company), and its employees. If the PR meltdown on facebook is any indication, then I don’t think they did. In my opinion, and it is my opinion, they acted as rashly as the waitress did, without thinking through the consequences of their actions.
The use of the ethics argument also fails to have merit when Applebee’s posted a complimentary receipt themselves, exposing the customer’s name to the public. This was also clearly against their stated policy and the photo of that receipt is now making its way around the net.
So much for ethics on Applebee’s part. The argument, while having merit if they had not posted such a receipt, no longer works.
I stopped reading after the first fatuous sentence, which does explain your previous comments, but also disqualifies you for intelligent debate on this blog. You are confusing “culture” with ethics. Read the definitions which guide the discussion here. You don’t come here and change the terms of the discussion and the debate, especially with ill-informed nonsense. Morality, for example,is NEVER subjective—it is a set of behavioral norms determined by an authority. Saying truth is subjective is a dodge. Perception is subjective, truth is not.
If you want to challenge the validity of the blog mission, go somewhere else to do it. Right now, you have three troll strikes against you—you have one more chance to be constructive.
My thoughts/responses to particular points you make:
“5. I’m interested that you say a lesser punishment would have been fairer, and a respect your professional judgment. But Applebees sells friendliness and trust. It’s all through their advertising and corporate materials. For this kind of a family restaurant, a national example of a waitress taking a vengeful action against a customer is horrific. They need to show that for them, this is intolerable, and that they won’t allow someone who would do this, even once, to spoil the Applebee’s experience.”
As mentioned earlier, my recommendation would be based on my assessment of labor law in the state (in this case Mo), ethics, and PR. Since Applebee’s is a national chain appealing mainly to working middle class individuals and families and considering the public outcry that had already erupted apparently favoring the actions of the server over that of the pastor, I would have recommended actions which would resonate most strongly with those consumers as long as they were also both ethical and legal. While the firing was certainly legally and ethically justified in these circumstances, it evidently did not resonate positively with a large segment of Applebee’s potential or actual clientele. Part of the public outcry over the situation initiated by the pastor and promoted for public scrutiny by the server was fueled by Applebee’s decision to fire the server rather than the option to take less harsh yet appropriate disciplinary action(s). While there are certainly “revenge” motives at play in abundance in the public opinions expressed over this situation, revenge against the server’s actions do not appear to be foremost in the minds of Applebee’s customers. While there certainly are legal and ethical justifications for the hardest-line approach, people relating positively to such a viewpoint would not be in the majority of Applebee’s actual customer base. And while other servers and restaurant employees would no doubt cheer the server’s actions in great numbers and thus support praising rather than disciplining the server, they are also not a significant part of Appelbee’s customer base.
“6. Public relations is a non-ethical consideration. Just because a particular action may be more popular doesn’t mean it is the right one, but it may make it the most practical one.”
Absolutely — PR is not an ethical consideration — it is a strictly business consideration and valid to be considered in the overall decision-making process, especially in cases such as this that have high public exposure and at a time when the public is cranky (at best) about jobs and the economy and with a large segment also expressing disapproval over perceptions of religious hypocrisy and corporate greed.
“7. The waitress’s subsequent comments prove to me that she had to go. She isn’t contrite, she has bad-mouthed the restaurant, she has talked to the press, and she has said that the company manual didn’t forbid what she did and the way she did it, which is either a lie, or shows that she never read it, or that she can’t understand it. She’a poor employee, and untrustworthy. If the restaurant takes her back, they will be sending the message that this is someone worth bending their policies to keep. Bad message.”
I agree at this point in the conflict that there is not much (if any) benefit to Applebee’s in rehiring the server. The actions subsequent to the initial publicizing of the pastor’s note are telling. Neither the pastor nor the server appear in the least contrite for their actions. While the pastor has apologized for being “caught”, her apology is to her church (which was obviously called for from her church and congregation’s standpoints) but not to the server or to Applebee’s even though her original action initiated the situation and then her considered decision to demand the dismissal of the server as well as other employees only served to further inflame public opinion. The server hasn’t apologized to anyone (as far as I’ve seen at this point in time). Applebee’s has already publicly confirmed their decision to terminate the server. All sides appear entrenched in their positions at this point and without significant further action from outside power-wielders, there appears nothing further for any party to gain or lose at this point. So, I agree that the server could no longer be viewed as a potential asset to Applebee’s at this point in time. Earlier in the process, this could have been the case. All the issues you mention with the server’s attitude, understanding of company policies, etc are true but could have been remedied (they are traits found in great abundance in younger, lower paid, and less highly educated workers). And while there may be a disproportionate number of “over qualified” workers in the service industry at present due to our current economic environment, these more highly educated and experienced individuals are even more likely to take offense at situations such as these and retaliate in some ways against either or both the customers or the employer. The largest positive difference being that they may be better able to think through the possible consequences of their actions and take steps to protect themselves and, thus, the company from negative publicity (e.g., by ensuring the anonymity of the customer and, thus, the employer, in this particular situation). Earlier in the conflict, firm yet less strident actions on the part of Applebee’s could have served their overall purposes with a more favorable outcome in the arena of public opinion — which, of course, is very important to Applebee’s bottom line.
Thanks for the discussion. While my perspectives (and not just as an HR professional) are informed by more factors in addition to ethical considerations, I am quite interested in ensuring those remain an important part of the process.
Upon review, at this point in time I wish to apologize profusely for using the phrase “at this point in time” ad nauseam.
I just assumed you used to be in the Nixon administration!
Hahaha! Good one!
My comments:
5. This is consequentialism. The decision is bad because its not popular. We just had an election in which one party spent much of the time vilifying businesses—that’s the bias here. You can’t make every decision on polls, and no competent business allows an employee who feels she has a right to take vigilante action aginst customers to stay on staff. A lot of the misguided critics of Applebee’s agree with her. Well, there’s no legitimate argument: she’s wrong, and they are wrong. And an employer should not do the wrong thing because it may be more popular.
6. We agree. I’m not discussing PR. The post was about who was right. Applebee’s took no action that violated any ethics values or principles. and was, in fact, one of the victims here.
7. I think a decision to try to keep her could be defended, and might have worked. It’s hindsight to say it was the best course, now that teh episode has blown up. My guess is that nothing lasting happens to Applebee’s and the incident will be forgotten quickly.
Jack, A clarification —
You said: “5. This is consequentialism. The decision is bad because its not popular. We just had an election in which one party spent much of the time vilifying businesses—that’s the bias here. You can’t make every decision on polls, and no competent business allows an employee who feels she has a right to take vigilante action aginst customers to stay on staff. A lot of the misguided critics of Applebee’s agree with her. Well, there’s no legitimate argument: she’s wrong, and they are wrong. And an employer should not do the wrong thing because it may be more popular.”
I did not mean to infer the “decision is bad because its not popular” in an ethical sense. I stipulated that the decision appeared to be both ethical and legal with regard to ethical considerations and MO employment law (providing that it did not break any unknown published personnel policies). I said I, as a personnel manager, would have recommended a less strident approach (than outright termination) to company management at the stage of their earliest considerations for PR purposes, provided the employee had an otherwise good employment record. Adopting a more “middle-ground” approach could have set up more of a win-win situation for the company. And yes, competent businesses often take less than the “nuclear approach” to employee discipline for PR and other reasons — even though they may have the legal and ethical right to do so. Competent businesses realize how much both good and bad PR is worth to their bottom lines and reasonably take that into consideration in their decision-making processes. Even governmental entities consider PR ramifications of their decisions, although to a much lesser extent since they are not generally expected to make a profit for their owners and shareholders,
Thanks again for the intriguing discussion.
This is correct. We are not saying the waitress didnt doanything wrong and acted optimally. But saying in the totality of everything she wasnt so wrong as to deserve a firing and Jack doesnt explore all her right and overstates her wrong. Her goal wasnt to embarrass the crap out of the pastor. She probably didnt even care if the pastor saw it. To her it was “can you believe what this jerk wrote”. Her not liking her company after she got fired says nothing about her, she is bitter at this point. She did a lot of right with her wrongs, so from an ethical standpoint it all depends on your hierarchy of preferences on what actions is important to you or what actions are not a big deal. I.E is stealing more unethical or bullying. She “stole” to combat embarrassment/belittling/bullying. Her combatting bullying wasnt to mass web shame it, that was an accident.
To Jack he is placing the most value from applebees standpoint that the company respecting customer privacy even in unique situations is above all else. But the company only cares about this because that thinking and way of operation is best for the company IN MOST CASES. They do not care about your privacy because applebees are ethicist, only that if you feel safe and secure with your privacy there is more chance you will dine in an applebees in the future, Jack it is a numbers game from applebees standpoint. You cant argue that an entity(applebees) did something ethical or unethical, when their purpose is the ethics behind something to begin with. They messed up big time. Not only that, this was easy to call. In this case, given how much of a villain the pastor is and because of that how much of a hero the waitress is that they should have never fired the waitress. Because to protect that notion of privacy they violated something deeper to the public which is the root of this issue. To not let jerks go around their whole lives and get away with that shit.
Once, you take out applebees from this equation it becomes easier to diagnose (although still complicated). Was the waitress’s actions completely ethical, completely unethical or somewhere in between.
I contend that there is no way you can say it was completely unethical. Its simple. She was just trying to show a few people on Redditt how shameless some people can be. She did not try to mass web shame anyone. Being careless is not any kind of ethical crime, shit happens. Now if applebees fired her on grounds of carelessness and that they are not sure if she can accurately take order, remember customer names, she’s to dumb to work at applebee’s, it would be a completely different case.
I also contend that this person might have needed a massive web shaming, if she is as horrible of a person as I would assume her to be and the fact that she probably has considerable influence on other people’s lives then, ruining one jerks life to save others might be worth it.
From a business standpoint applebees screwed up.
From an ethical standpoint to only view this from the perspective of customer privacy is a narrow look of a much bigger picture and therefore appleebees screwed up from this standpoint as well. They dont need to value customer privacy above all else. They do not need to fire someone that stood up for her fellow employee against being bullied, whether it put them in a difficult predicament or not. Its during those difficult situations that you can judge someone best. Gotta watch superbowl now, go Ravens.
Can you imagine what this waitress dealt with? Picture it – St. Louis… A group large enough to demand an auto tip and one of them is a black self-entitled power tripping minister? A total bill if $34 and Pastor Bell decides to call Applebee’s to not only get the waitress fired but her manager?
Since I’m not a “pastor” I would be calling her church and demanding she be let go for not following Jesus’s teachings of turning the other cheek. For bringing shame and negative press to their ministry her higher up (is that deacon or bishop?) should be fired.
Then I’d be calling Applebee’s and putting pressure on them letting them know that as a consumer I’m not going to sponsor them for caving in and firing a waitress for what she did and until she has her job back I will never go back to their establishment.
This whole scene is crazy – all because one self entitled pastor was on a power trip and oil don’t practice what she preached!
And for her apology… REALLY? Is that what this church calls an “apology? Is that what Jesus deems an apology I’m sorry because I got caught… That’s pathetic you know who you sound like? A felon…
And on that note Alois Bell you might need to rethink some your actions if with no one else – with your maker. You at least owe the server a REAL APOLOGY
Well, as you said, since you aren’t a pastor, then call her church. And since you are a consumer, then call Applebee’s and put pressure on them. or do you only rant about action to take?
Just another poster who feels revenge is ok.
As we have found, there are many of them.
If someone goes around calling everyone derrogotary terms and all other sorts of foul stuff that are not illegal but are reprehensible what would you do about it. Wouldnt combatting it be revenge or standing up for oneself. What would you do about. I mean you write online blogs about this kind of stuff, are you taking revenge are you web shaming? Her goal wasnt national attention, just like your goal isnt national attention, its just to point out something you feel is ridiculous. In a bubble, you have more chance of web shaming than this girl did, you have more of a following/influence. Come on, in her head she was just writing an ethical blog. She just did it with a picture not words. Stop calling it revenge.
David, please. With each successive comment you get further and further from ethical coherence and rational analysis. You are ignoring the actual relationships and duties involved, and not reading or understanding the guidance I am trying to provide. You are relying on rationalizations and using terrible analogies that prove my point–if this is how “we”–the public you say agrees with you is making its decisions, then it would be insane and irresponsible for Applebee’s to give it any weight whatsoever.
Now, do you want to learn where you are mistaken and going awry, or do you just want to spew out uninformed and flawed opinions? It it’s the former, I’m willing to help. If not, I’m ignoring you. Your choice.
I’ll use this post—not your most badly reasoned, but close—as an example.
1. “If someone goes around calling everyone derrogotary terms and all other sorts of foul stuff that are not illegal but are reprehensible what would you do about it.”
If it was any of my business, I’d confront him and tell him to stop it. If it was a customer of my employer and he was abusing another employee, I’d inform the employer. If was not an employee, then I would refrain from doing anything. That is how an employee handles that situation, ethically. But that isn’t what happened here at all, so I have no idea why you think the question is relevant. The pastor did not write anything reprehensible about th server.
“I mean you write online blogs about this kind of stuff, are you taking revenge are you web shaming?”
“Neither. It is commentary on publicized events and incidents and issues. I never, never, write about an event that has not been made public by publication elsewhere or media coverage, and never will. Occasionally I will change names, genders, places and times to use a private event for an exploration of an ethical issue. Moreover, I am the head of my company—I have my employers explicit and knowing permission for everything I write. I never violate company policy. That you could even make this comparison proves how wanting your analytical skills are. Do you want to improve them, or just keep writing foolishness?”
“Stop calling it revenge.”
It was retaliatory, as your initial question suggests. She was angry, and striking back at someone she felt had mistreated a colleague. That makes it personal, and vengeful. I’m calling it what it is. You describe it as revenge, but want to avoid the label.
I just wanted to point out something I have seen you type multiple times that is incorrect, about the legality of the 18% and how she doesn’t have to pay it because it is a “gift”, according to the IRS it is in fact a service charge by the restaurant and not a tip, regardless of how they label it, and you do have to pay it.
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2012-26_IRB/ar07.html
Nope. Wrong.
Please stop spreading this falsehood. Your link does not support you. The IRS treats tips as income to the server, and I never said they did not. However, it is a gift from the patron’s point of view. The IRS ruling only says that you have to pay taxes on tips—there is no law ( that I have been able to find—some jurisdiction might have one) that says you have to pay tips, or that restaurants have the right to dictate tips. Admittedly there is so much confusion that even lawyers disagree. I would argue that a service charge is a charge and must be paid if the diner has notice of it. It is different from a tip (Applebee’s listed a “TIP”.) . On room service bills there is a service charge, which is part of the cost of the meal, AND a space for a tip—they are NOT the same. On the other hand, several lawyers I have consulted say that a restaurant may not force you to pay either a service charge or a tip.
Hello, Jack,
Long time reader, first time poster….I must say you have really stirred the pot on this one; however, “facts” are not being truly represented in some cases and the main one being (I am unsure if another user previously pointed this out or not) that the receipt that was disclosed publicly is NOT, I repeat, is NOT the property of Applebees, it is the property of whoever handles the payment processing for Applebees. For this fact alone, Ms. Welch will likely receive a decent settlement from Applebees for wrongful termination (however, she may be counter-sued by that same payment processing agent). The waitress involved is actually a digital co-signer of this contract between Ms. Bell and Applebees and any disclosure of said contract must follow the guidelines of the payment processing agent and any applicable local/state/federal laws. The interesting issue here is that since Ms. Welch released a ‘redacted version’ of the contract in question (payment information has been omitted), it may in fact qualify for protection under already existing laws governing the ‘public domain’
Be that as it may, all parties involved acted inappropriately:
1. Ms Bell, who should be removed from her pulpit, for no other reason than for ONLY GIVING 10% TO GOD in writing – I hope the peeps in her congregation remember this 10% number, next time that collection plate is passed around…
2. Applebees for not using a system of progressive discipline which will likely find them in a court in the not so distant future…the manager who let the waitress go will likely be subjected to the same fate as this Applebees location patron numbers continue to dwindle…questions of Ms. Welch’s fate should have been addressed by corporate management with the words “no comment due to our ongoing internal investigation” with Ms. Welch being suspended…
3. Ms. Welch for being unethical and naive to think that her internet posting could not result in what happened. One person and one action will likely cost Applebees millions, Ms. Bell may end up homeless once again, and Ms. Welch will at least for 15 internet minutes, bring upon herself the tag as ‘ultimate whistleblower’ which will likely throw caution towards any future employers…..
Thanks for finally writing, Chris—what took so long? A few reactions:
1. Your description of the transaction is bizarre, and the tax lawyer and the Justice Department lawyer I just ran it by, asking, “Is this as bad as I think it is?” said, “Yes.” The receipt data is Applebee’s proprietary material, and the cutomer’s, and anyone else who has to keep records of the transaction. To say that a document Applebee’s imprints with its name,gives to its employees to handle, stores and records isn’t its property makes no sense at all. It just is. In any event, it does NOT belong in any way shape or form to Ms. Welch, and that’s what matters. She is misusing private proprietary information, so matter whose it is.
2. “The waitress involved is actually a digital co-signer of this contract between Ms. Bell and Applebees”—just completely untrue.The waitress is an employee and agent of Applebee’s, and has no personal obligations regarding the contract at all—she is definitely not “a party” to any contract. I’d love to know where you got such an idea. Again, it doesn’t matter—THIS waitress wasn’t involved in the transaction with the pastor at all.
3. Business records stolen by employees do not qualify for Fair Use, and by no means are “in the public domain.” This is another bizarre theory.
4. Welch has no recourse. She is an employee at will, and can be fired, legally and at any time. She was fired for just cause. A company has no obligation to have “progressive discipline,” though their handbook clearly shows they do.
Thanks for writing. But someone is giving you seriously broken legal advice.
Jack, You state: ” A company has no obligation to have “progressive discipline,” though their handbook clearly shows they do.” While I agree a Missouri company has no legal requirement to have a “progressive discipline” policy, I did not see any portions of the handbook posted which clearly shows that Applebee’s has a progressive discipline policy (as it seems to me you stated). Use of the term: “up to and including termination” does not infer a progressive discipline policy by itself. If there are other parts of the policy not printed above which refer to a specific policy of progressive discipline, then Applebee’s may well have broken such policy by terminating Ms. Welch without previous warning actions. (I’d need to see the specific policy and know more details of Ms. Welch’s employment history in order to opine on that ) Even in employment at-will states such as Missouri, a written employment policy will serve as an employment contract and subject the employer to those employment contract provisions (unless they have a previous history of not holding employees in similar circumstances to such provisions in the past).
Maybe progressive discipline is a term of art that I haven’t encountered before The handbook outlines a progressive series of discipline measures, from warnings, to suspensions, to termination. Does “progressive discipline” mean something more than that?
Yes, that would appear to encompass an effective “progressive discipline” policy. I missed those in what was posted in this discussion — I’ll go back and look again. Thanks!
Looking online, the most recent personnel policy manual I find for JS Ventures/Applebee’s is dated January 1, 2005. Revised 08/11. That manual only sets out progressive discipline policies in specific and limited instances (see below). Since none of these instances appear to cover the situation at hand, I would posit that Applebee’s is NOT required to follow progressive discipline in this particular instance. However, that does not mean that they may not voluntarily choose to (and benefit by) do(ing) so.
My advice, from an HR manager’s perspective, would remain as previously stated and would be based on PR as well as legal and ethical considerations. I realize that you are limiting your discussion to ethical issues; however, HR managers can not limit their professional advice to corporate managers by so limiting their rationale. We must include a broader range of factors into the ultimate decisions in order to come up with the “best” answers among several possibilities. Too often, what is left out or factor too scantily in the mix are the ethical considerations — thus, why I was recently drawn to this forum..
I would urge management to: Take immediate and firm disciplinary action against the employee for a serious breach of company policy and inform the public that appropriate action has been taken to assure such customer privacy breaches will not happen in the future. The disciplinary action I would recommend would include an unpaid suspension for at least 2 weeks during which time the employee would be required to carefully review the co’s personnel policies followed by return to work under the terms of a corrective performance evaluation outline specific standards to be met for continued employment, with reevaluation after a periods of 3 and 6 mos. If the employee was receiving any type of longevity base pay in excess of what a new hire received, I would also recommend a reduction in base pay at least for the period while the employee was under corrective performance review.
Applebee’s policies which include progressive discipline provisions::
GUEST CHECKS/DEBIT CARDS/CREDIT CARDS
Guest checks, debit cards and credit cards are accepted for only the amount of purchase plus any gratuity.
Closing out the wrong ticket to a guest’s credit card (if non-fixable) or giving the guest back the wrong credit card may result in disciplinary action as follows:
♦ First Offense will result in a written warning.
♦ Second Offense will result in a second written warning.
♦ Third Offense will result in termination of employment.
Depending on the severity of the conduct, any violation of this policy may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
If a guest leaves without paying for the food and/or beverages they were served, the employee assigned to that table will face disciplinary action. This rarely happens. If you are paying attention to your tables, it should not happen at all. If a guest does leave without paying, disciplinary action may be taken as follows:
♦ First Offense will result in a written warning.
♦ Second Offense will result in a second written warning.
♦ Third Offense will result in termination of employment.
Depending on the severity of the conduct, any violation of this policy may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. At no time can an employee pay for a “walk out” to avoid any stage of the disciplinary action.
Forging a guest’s signature on a credit card receipt, changing a check amount or a credit card receipt amount in any way is completely unacceptable. If a guest’s signature is forged or a check amount or credit card receipt amount is changed in any way, it will result in immediate termination and prosecution.
MISHANDLING OF MONEY
At the beginning of each shift a bar drawer is issued to the bartender(s) with $250.00 and
a carside drawer is issued to the carside server(s) with $100.00. You are responsible for
that drawer and all the funds that are accumulated during your shift. If there is more
than one person scheduled for that shift, you are jointly responsible for the cash drawer.
If the cash drawer is over or short by $3.00 or more within a six-month period, disciplinary
action will be taken as follows:
♦ First Offense will result in a written warning.
♦ Second Offense will result in a second written warning.
♦ Third Offense will result in termination of employment.
Depending on the severity of the conduct, any violation of this policy may lead to
disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
Thanks again!
I think your advice would be excellent. I hope you hang around—HR considerations come up here frequently, and you know your stuff. Thanks for enlightening us.
Yes, but doesn’t the concept of progressive discipline somehow incorporate the idea that some actions are severe enough to initiate disciplinary action further along the ‘progressive steps’?
Theoretically, yes. But the onus is on the employer to prove a valid exception exists and there is little administrative or legal case law that provides guidance to employers about such situations. Therefore, most attorneys will counsel employers to follow a progressive discipline policy to the letter if there is one.
Such as from the excerpt above, the last action deserving discipline:
Ending a shift with a discrepancy of $3.00 or more.
3rd offense is a firing.
What if 1st offense was a discrepancy of $75??
No proof of theft…
I am not an attorney and more likely to condone taking somewhat more risky actions than many attorney’s would advise (because they’re being asked for professional legal advice and don’t want to go out on a limb if they don’t have case law to back up the more risky actions). My personal opinion is that attorneys tend to be very risk adverse if they don’t feel they have a very strong case. In your example, the only clearly ethical action would be to follow written policy and issue a “first written warning.” If the employer still wishes to fire the employee, what might make the action less risky is whether the $75 discrepancy is out of a total of $500 or $5000 (or whatever numbers are actually applicable to a shift at the restaurant during that time/day). If the total shift was only $500, a $75 discrepancy is obviously a BIG DEAL and might justify taking the risk of firing the employee outright for a first offence. Since the potential liability to the employer of an unjust termination is significantly higher than $75, regardless of the shift total, I doubt it would be worth the risk. I’ll side with the coward attorneys. on that one.
“What may be ethical in Japan may not be ethical in Turkey. What may be ethical in the United States may not be ethical in the United Kingdom. I read an article published in Britain about what happened and the general
flavor of the comments was that the restaurant industry in the United States was unethical because of the way it paid its employees.
So, whether or not Applebee’s was ethical in its actions, whether the waitress acted ethically, is a matter of opinion ”
I can tell you for a fact that in Japan it’s unethical to put personal information,or company documents in the internet, and it’s wrong to lie, cheat, steal and kill. These things are not dependent on culture. Britain has a different restaurant system, as does Japan (no tipping, but a 10-15% service charge automatically included in the bill) but the opinions of a person from Britain or Japan on America’s restaurant culture are just that, they don’t make our system more or less ethical by having been expressed. If your ethics and morals are dependent on external cues and change with the opinions of those around you,or what the media tells you this week, you have no ethics.
‘then you have neither’. Mistype, sorry.
That was one of my least favorite comments out of the many really bad comments that came in on this issue.
And your last sentence is exactly right.
Predictably, a FB petition is up, calling for Chelsea to be given her job back and for everyone to ‘leave her alone’. I really hate it when charities and businesses give in to these ill-informed media/social media campaigns (Planned Parenthood, the Komen Foundation) because it’s nothing more than blackmail and mob rule.
While you (and businesses) may really hate it, in a country where money talks loudest and corporations have been given equal standing with people, those without great amounts of expendable income hate having their voices drowned or never even considered by decision-makers passing the laws governing us. So, they mobilize their voices in ways that have proven effective for those who are “cash poor” and still wish seats at the table. Don’t forget, those with lots of money spend time and money to motivate these same folks to help fulfill their agendas (e.g., NRA as a prime example right now).
The operative word is “responsible.” I’ve debated enough with the kind of people who created the Facebook page to know they band together without bothering to give 10 minute’s serious, objective thought to what the issues are. Corporations, schools and governments harm the culture and the future when they don’t have the integrity or courage to stand up to boycotts and other threats. Your argument sounds a lot like “Everybody does it” crossed with “they started it!” I doesn’t matter whether a corporation is being irresponsible or a Facebook page—they need to be confronted, not surrendered to. The reason the NRA or any group can by support with bumper stickers, ads and soundbites is that too many people can’t reason, think, or keep emotion and ignorance out of their decision-making. That’s the real problem, not powerlessness. If you won’t take the time to think, learn and pay attention, you should have as little power as possible.
I agree that FB and other social media do not foster intelligent and thoughtful discussion of the issues. And that does much harm to us now and in the future. Most of the pages I’ve seen that involve social and political topics don’t even try to engender reasoned discussion but rather adherence to extreme positions (you’re either with us or against us and definitely don’t ask us questions about what we’re promoting or vilifying or point out inconsistencies in our “arguments”). Unfortunately, neither do most news organizations, political parties, public schools, or local, state, and national governmental bodies. Those who do what they can to foster such discussion are often branded as elitist snobs, as you may have noticed. That said, it does not mean that these people do not have a right to their voices — or that those voices are not deliberately encouraged and exploited by others. I agree people need to learn basic and advanced reasoning skills; however, that is not a requirement for opening one’s mouth in public, voting, or broadcasting the evening news. The point is people without a lot of money put together polished presentations (e.g., to employ lobbyists, hire PR firms, take out ads on tv or other media, or have their own “news” programs) have found an relatively affordable way to mobilize and make their voices heard. They sometimes may more closely resemble an angry mob, and it is definitely not optimal, but it is quite often effective and so I expect it will only increase. Whether or not we like or approve of it. In fact, I see many who voice disapproval and use it because it is more important to win “the fight” than to uphold their own particular values in some situations.
Personally, I have enjoyed blowing off steam and unloading frustrations to my friends on FB on a number of occasions. I also get the “love ’em or leave ’em” responses when I ask questions, endeavor to correct “facts”, or simply posit a different point of view at other times. Many people tend to be “sheeple” regardless of social or political persuasion. I try not to let that stop me from taking part in some discussions because I don’t think things will change for the better if we just talk with those with whom we agree or are really comfortable talking with.
No disagreement at all. But rights are not justifications. It is necessary to discourage thought-free exercises of policy pressure by continuing to point out that there is something more productive, fairer,and wise—objective analysis. The single most infuriating attitude I encounter here is the indignant belief that all opinions are equally valid, and to assert otherwise is, as you say, arrogant and elitist. The second most infuriating is the practice of deciding what position one likes, and then using every warped fact and rationalization imaginable to “support it”—and assuming that everyone else does the same thing.
‘ So, they mobilize their voices in ways that have proven effective for those who are “cash poor” and still wish seats at the table. ‘
If only it were as noble…I have no objection to that. What I do object to is the lack of a factual perspective of most (if not all) FB campaigns. Rarely are the facts correct, and rarely are they reasoned. I don’t want to start a debate on a different issue here, but say for instance a foundation makes a donation yearly to a worthy cause, but then 5 years down the road they decide to support something else. It’s their money, but FB starts to boil with posts about how cruel they are, how they should be boycotted etc etc, and the foundation backs down and supports Charity A when they really want to donate to Charity B . They are being ordered to donate to a different cause from the one they wanted to donate to. That is blackmail. I do not think they should knuckle under, I do not think the general public has the right to try and destroy them on social media for decisions about where to spend their own money. Shaming and blackmail are wrong.