BAR THEFT.com
How Bartenders Steal & How We Catch Them
Home

BARTENDER THEFT: Stolen Money Laundered through Tip Jar

November 28, 2012 20:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 29th:

-xxxxxx Bar

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’10’, medium build, straight dark brown hair pulled back in a bun

                                                                      

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’0”, medium build, short dark hair

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair    )

-xxxxx Bar

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair

 

 

 

 

The agent initially sat at the indoor bar at 23:23.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing what they could to drum up business where possible, though there was about one bartender for every three to four guests.  This meant that a fair amount of conversing was happening, both among bartenders, and between bartenders and guests.

Even so, Xxxxx approached the agent immediately, extending a warm greeting and offering something to drink.

As soon as the agent placed an order, Xxxxx set about making it, using the ice scoop to prepare the drinks and using beverage napkins.  These were the practices each time a drink was made at the inside bar.  She also rang the order in immediately and correctly, which was also standard practice at the indoor bar.

The only shortcoming observed among all bartenders was a failure to attempt to upsell to a more expensive liquor.  This is an easy way of raising check totals without adding significant additional effort that all staff should be encouraged to do.

When the agent approached the outdoor bar farthest from the main entrance, Bartender 4 was not quite so quick to greet the agent, taking four minutes to do so.  Also, Bartender 4 was never seen to use a beverage napkin, and was once observed scooping ice directly into a plastic cup which is a health concern.

Also, Bartender 4 was a bit slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  For example, at 10:54, the agent’s glass was empty, but Bartender 4 didn’t offer another drink until 11:03.

Another way in which bar performance was less than ideal was the way bartenders rang in drinks.  For example, they usually rang drinks in immediately after making them.  When extremely busy, though, they even tended to leave one meta-tab open for cash orders, in which they would add each guest’s round, then input the amount of cash handed over.  This method shows a screen with very small text stating the amount of change due, and creates an excellent opportunity for padding the cost by a few dollars in order to illegally increase tips.  Agent found this alarming.

This would not have been a  huge concern but for the fact that the agent observed Bartender 4 ring in multiple “no sales” at times when he produced drinks and put cash in the drawer, including at 11:13 and 11:35.  What’s more, both the “no sale” rings were when Bartender 4 was given cash and told to keep the change. It is suspected that the drawer may be used to launder stolen money.

Also alarming, the agent never received a receipt from any bartenders the entire evening, and even though both bartenders served the agent a draft beer and a well drink, the quoted price was $11.25 inside and $11.50 outside.

                  

The agent also never observed any bartender securing a credit card in order to assure the payment of a tab without the guest offering the card first.

No bartender was ever seen to check the identification of a single guest.  This was in spite of the fact that much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.

Similarly, the  outside bar area had a group of three obviously intoxicated people, who  were slurring, red, and sweating profusely.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this is a serious source of liability to the establishment, as any damages caused to either any individual or any property by a minor who has been served in a restaurant can be considered as grounds for revoking an establishment’s liquor license.  Certainly, this development would be disastrous for ownership, but it is the agent’s opinion that it is worth mentioning this to the staff and reminding them that such a scenario would involve them losing their livelihood too.   Additionally, under New Jersey’s dram shop legislation, such a scenario would also leave the establishment and the individual employee that served a minor or intoxicated person personally liable for damages caused by that person.

Similarly, there were some small problems with correct pouring controls by Bartender 4.  On one occasion at 11:03, Bartender 4 was making a rum and Coke for a guest, and poured it with a 6-count (4 count = 1 1/2 oz).  When the guest asked what the well rum was, Bartender 4 asked “Why?  You don’t like it?”  Then said “There’s a solution to that,” as he added another 3-count of Bacardi to the drink.  This was never rung in as a comp, and when all was said and done, the guest had more than a double for the cost of a shot of well liquor.  Moreover, this is a dangerous amount of alcohol for one drink and possesses a liquor liability issue.

Similarly, at 12:10, Xxxxx told a guest that a soft drink was on her, but was never seen to ring it in as a comp.

It did not seem that Bartender 4 knew the guest, rather, this excessive pour seemed to be a result of inattention and willingness to give away product.  This is a problem that could be remedied by making sure that all bottles, even those who which have irregular  sizes and shapes, have precision metered  pour spouts for the sake of accuracy.

What’s more, a staff member (pictured) was sitting at the bar from 10:52 until after the agent left the area at 11:07.  The entire time that she was there, Bartender 4 was pouring her eight ounce pours of  red wine from Salmon Run,  which he would place on the side of the bar nearest him, so that she would have to reach over the bar to take each drink and put it back each time, as seen in the photo at left.  This made the agent think that they had some reason to hide this activity, and the fact that the agent placed the drink there without it being requested made the agent think this was something that they had done before.  Before the agent left, Bartender 4 filled her drink a total of  three times, a total of nearly five glasses of wine. The agent never observed Bartender 4 accounting for these drinks in a comp or shift-drink ticket on the

POS.

 

At one point, another staff member (pictured) was sitting with them, and was drinking a soft drink, though it was impossible to tell if anything alcoholic had been mixed in.  At one point, a third employee approached them, saying “Alex, are you checked out yet,” to which one of the two employees responded “No.”     

At 11:27, Bartender 4 was seen drinking something a bit lighter than the color of cola from a plastic pint.  He kept the drink on the service well station.  Agent suspects an alcohol drink was being consumed; however, cannot substantiate this claim.

Similarly, there was an irregularity between bartenders and servers at the service well, as at 10:31 a server walked behind the bar, an unnecessary breakdown of the bar controls, and one that bartenders should be motivated to avoid, as any blame for a problem arising from a server behind the bar would ultimately be their fault.

                                            

Additionally, all bartenders’ appearance was always professional and hygienic, with the only exception being that they were never seen washing their hands.

Food and Beverage Summary

The agent and associate started off at the indoor bar with a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and a well gin and tonic. The former was served in a stemmed, fluted Pilsener glass, and the latter in a stemmed goblet with plenty of ice and lime, but no straw or drink stirrer.  The gin and tonic was made with the appropriate proportions, and was extremely refreshing and flavorful.  The pale ale also tasted just as expected, and was poured perfectly by Xxxxx.  IT was clearly fresh and well handled.

The agent’s party left the indoors and seated themselves at the bar farthest from the main entrance.   nearest the TouchTunes machine.  The agent was waited on by Server 1, who seemed to be the only server on duty.  There, they ordered a Harpoon India Pale Ale and a rum and Diet Coke. Both drinks came in translucent plastic pints, the beer with a perfect head, and the cocktail with ample ice.  IPA also tasted very fresh and flavorful, and showed no signs of age or oxidation.  It was excellent.

The cocktail was the rum and coke described in the “Bartenders” section above.  Aside from being stronger than expected, the drink tasted strongly of artificial vanilla flavor, which was why the agent asked about the well rum offering. That was when Bartender 4 “[solved] the problem” by pouring in nearly another full serving of Bacardi.

If they are giving away alcohol to strangers, and one who happens to be a bar theft integrity spotter, management can interpolate the problem from there.

All beverages were traditionally presented in intact glassware, at the proper temperatures and with all expected flavor characteristics.  What’s more, the agent was satisfied with both the breadth of the establishment’s selection, and especially with the value that it offered.

Because of the traffic the agent encountered on the way to the evaluation, by the time the outdoor bar nearest the main entrance was was approached, it was 11:30, and they were already closing.

 

Manager Summary

·       Bar Manager : Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair, average build, yellow short-sleeved collared shirt  and black slacks (pictured at right)

·       Patio Manager: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair and goatee , average build, black short-sleeved collared shirt labeled “Xxxxx,”  and black slacks (pictured at left)

·       General Manager: Caucasian female, 5’9”, short graying brown hair, medium build, sky blue short-sleeved collared shirt and black slacks (pictured at right)

 


 

 

In general, the agent’s observations of the managers were brief and fleeting.  The first and only glimpse of the Bar manager was at 10:28.  At that time, the manager was standing beside the indoor bar, drinking a Long Trail Belgian White Ale (pictured at right).  Immediately after finishing it within two minutes, the Bar Manager stepped behind the bar, ringing something up in the POS.  This is a cause for concern, as it is a best practice not to have anyone who has been drinking behind the bar.  In a dram shop suit or identification compliance sting, this would not reflect well on the establishment.

The Patio Manager was seen several times outside, and was generally either talking to employees or just taking the scene in.  He was not present for the period in which Bartender 4 was pouring free house wine for an employee on the patio.

Finally, the General Manager was observed at 11:57 when she brought out a new cash drawer to Xxxxx, with whom she exchanged it for the older drawer.

The only major criticism of the managers was that they completely failed to address the two problems of obviously intoxicated guests being served and employees drinking at the establishment.  In fact, the Bar manager was himself drinking the only time the agent saw him.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention, but it is also worth mentioning that the agent never observed any of the managers communicating with any guests.

At 11:34, the agent returned to the indoor bar, ordering a Long Trail White Ale and a Diet Coke.  Both were served in fluted, stemmed Pilseners, and the soft drink came with ice.  Both beverages tasted pleasant and expected. Xxxxx declined to charge the agent for the soft drink

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Not ringing in drinks, Liquor Law Violations, auto up-selling

November 28, 2012 20:11 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bar 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4 with short black hair and pink highlights and multiple facial piercings wearing a blue zip up sweater and jeans.

·       Bar 2:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with short spiked brown hair and multiple tattoos on his arms wearing a cross necklace.

The agent and associate approached the bar top and were greeted with a slight delay by Bar 1.  She was surprisingly staring rather blankly off into space and didn’t seem to notice new guests had approached her bar top (see food and beverage summary for details).  She came over and asked “you didn’t need anything to drink did you?”  The agent was perplexed by her non-upselling greet as it was not inviting or good service in the agent’s opinion.

A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She brought the drinks in a timely manner and placed them on top of coasters.  She reported to the POS to start our tab.

She did not introduce herself by name in case we needed anything further.

Later in the evaluation Bar 2 came onto shift.  He greeted us with a smile and asked if we were doing ok which is good service in the agent’s opinion.  He was only observed for a short time but appeared to be friendly and attentive in the agent’s opinion.

The agent presented payment for Bar 1 to process as it appeared she was getting ready to come off her shift.  Payment was processed quickly.  She did not return it in a check presenter and an itemized receipt was not included.  She thanked us while walking away which impersonal and in genuine in the agent’s opinion.

Overall the agent was not impressed with Bar 1’s service.  She moved around the bar without any sense of urgency which made her appear to be bored, tired and unenthused to be at work which is unpleasant in the agent’s opinion.  She was not observed conversing personally with any guests and only spoke when an order was being exchanged which is impersonal and not a quality that a bartender should posses in the agent’s opinion.

She was only observed pouring one mixed drink and it was poured using a 3 count pour.  She placed the pint glass directly into the ice well when making this drink which is a Health Code violation.  Most of the drinks she served were bottled and draft beer.  Draft beer was served with ¼ inch of head and in a cold glass.  Drinks made for servers were accompanied with a ticket and no server call outs were observed.  

There was one instance where she did not report to the POS after making a beverage for a walk up guest.  At approximately 4:50PM she served a guest she personally knew by name a pint of beer and did not report to the POS.  The agent did not see this drink accounted for on any tab.

Also, at approximately 5:02PM she served a single walk up guest a large pitcher of Blue Moon which is a violation of the liquor law as the pitcher is likely 64 ounces and a single customer can only be served 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

Food and Beverage Summary

·       Host 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’6 with reddish hair in a ponytail wearing a pink sweater and jeans.

There was a host on duty upstairs when we arrived at the establishment.  She did not greet us in a friendly manner instead asked “2 of you?” without smiling or welcoming us into the establishment.  It was very unwelcoming. Server 1 was at the host stand and since we were going to be her table, she led us to our table in the dining room.  Host 1 was not seen seating any tables and appeared to have gone off duty shortly after the evaluation began so the section was not scored.

Shortly after we sat down, two guests sat themselves in the dining room at a table nearby.  The agent watched as Server 1 and Bar 1 obviously walked past this table numerous times without greeting them or even noticing they hadn’t been acknowledged by staff members.  The agent observed them looking around as they were desperately trying to get a staff member to come to the table.  Finally, approximately 15-20 minutes after they sat down, the male patron went up to the bar and asked for menus and also asked to have a server sent to the table which is unacceptable in the agent’s opinion.  Server 2 approached shortly after to greet the table.

The agent was disconcerted by the lack of organization displayed by staff.  The agent feels staff need to be diligent about watching the front door and watching for new tables to be sat if a host is not on duty.  Also, the agent feels the slow business level at the time was such that the staff members should’ve been able to notice these new guests immediately.  In fact, the agent was surprised they did not walk out.

At the table the agent ordered an iced tea.  The tea tasted fresh brewed and was served with plenty of ice.  The agent requested sweetener.  The caddie it was delivered in was grimy and only half full.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was cold and refreshing.

For an appetizer the chicken strips were ordered.  The breading was flimsy and was falling of the chicken which made a mess on the table.  The chicken was tender however neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the breading.  BBQ sauce and ranch was requested on the side.  Neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the BBQ sauce.

The agent ordered the Buffalo Chicken pizza with light chicken.  The agent was brought a pizza with tomatoes and onions on top.  At first the agent wondered if they made the mistake in ordering as neither vegetable is cared for by the agent and they would’ve been requested to be left off the pizza.  The agent then tasted the brown sauce on the pizza and realized it was the same BBQ sauce that had been served with the chicken and not enjoyed.  The agent believed the wrong pizza was brought so called over Server 1.

The agent asked Server 1 if the wing sauce was supposed to taste like BBQ sauce and if the pizza in front of the agent was the Buffalo Chicken pizza.  She stated it was the Buffalo pizza.  The agent stated they didn’t want that pizza and asked for a menu.  The agent then read the menu description of the BBQ pizza to Server 1 and stated that was obviously the pizza that had been delivered.  Server 1 then went to the POS to look at the ticket and realized she had rung in the wrong pizza.  She apologized and stated the correct pizza would be out soon.  She was genuinely apologetic and asked if the agent needed anything while waiting for the pizza which was appreciated by the agent.

The agent feels this mistake should’ve been caught at the window and the pizza should not have been delivered to the agent.  The fact that it was not realized until the menu description was read to her signifies to the agent Server 1 lacks menu knowledge.

 

The Buffalo Chicken pizza was served 19 minutes later and was definitely worth the wait - great stuff.  The cheddar and mozzarella cheese was perfectly melted and abundantly spread over the chicken.  The wing sauce had a great aroma and was spread along the bottom of the ingredients instead of a traditional red sauce.  The chicken was tender and paired well with the rest of the ingredients.  The crust was soft and had a great flavor and consistency.  The side of ranch served on the side was a cool contrast to the zipp of the wing sauce.

The BBQ Pizza was present on the check instead of the Buffalo Pizza.  The agent did not point out the mistake because the price for the two items is equivalent.  However, the agent feels the incorrect item should have been comped off and the correct item should have been accounted for due to inventory purposes.

The associate ordered the create your own pizza with Italian sausage, pepperoni, ham and bacon.  The meat was abundant and well seasoned.  The cheese was perfectly melted and the marinara had a great flavor.

The associate requested a box when the agent’s pizza was delivered and the agent asked for two boxes to be brought.  They were not delivered until 10 minutes later which is a significant delay in the agent’s opinion.

At the bar the agent ordered a Kilt Lifter draft.  The glass the beer was served in was approximately 22 ounces.  Even though the agent did not specify the size that was wanted the agent feels an upsize should be upsold as opposed to up served. Auto-upselling is a form of bartender theft in the Agent's opinion.

The beer was over flowing onto the bar top and the spill was not cleaned up by Bar 1 which is poor guest service.  The beer was delicious and refreshing.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was equally cold and refreshing as the beer served at the table.  The agent is unsure if all items were properly charges for as an itemized receipt was not provided.

·       MOD 1:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with brown hair and slightly balding wearing a sweater and jeans.

The agent is unsure if the MOD was properly identified.  This male was seen sitting at the curved bar top by the kitchen for the majority of the evaluation.  He was seen going behind the DJ booth which signified to the agent he was possibly a supervisor.  The agent feels that of he was the MOD he did a poor job of circulating through the facility.  He remained stationed at the side bar top and was not observed talking to guests.

The agent feels after the food mistake by Server 1 should’ve resulted in a table visit by the manager.


Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free Drinks, storing stolen money in the POS, making drinks with dirty glassware

November 27, 2012 23:42 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary:

There were five bartenders on duty on this Friday evening evaluation – three at the Xxxxx bar adjacent to the restaurant and two at the Xxxxx bar that serves as a xxxx by day. There were three barbacks observed simultaneously – two at the Xxxxx bar and one at the Xxxxx bar.

Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, short-cut light brown hair

  • Bartender Xxxxx: African American male, 6’3’’, glasses

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’2’’, brown hair worn straight with bangs

  • Barback 1: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, brown hair worn combed smooth

  • Barback 2: Caucasian male, 5’11, brown hair worn spiky, glasses


Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender A: Caucasian male, 5’8’, light brown hair worn slightly wavy/curly

  • Bartender B: Caucasian male, 6’0’’, dark brown or black hair

  • Barback 3: Caucasian male, 5’8’’, light brown hair worn wavy/curly



Xxxxx Bar:

The agent and my associate approached the bar and were able to slide into a standing place at the bar. Since we were standing at the bar directly in front of the Xxxxx POS, we were in clear view of bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Although Xxxxx and Xxxxx were making conversation with nearby patrons, neither demonstrated urgency to look over to help us out and take our initial order.

After we were there for approximately 3 minutes without acknowledgement, Xxxxx asked what she could get for us; the agent asked for a drink menu, which was not placed on the bar for easy access of patrons. She gave us a clipboard with the small sheets of paper with the drink menu and went back to talking to the patrons at the end of the bar and did not follow up with us. The entire experience so far was very unwelcoming.

During this time, Xxxxx had moved from the end of the bar chatting with patrons to the Xxxxx POS, where he appeared to be trying to figure out something with another patron’s tab.  After approximately 4 minutes since we had received the menu and made decisions on drinks, Xxxxx looked up from the POS and asked what he could get for us.

We placed our drink order with Xxxxx, which he took while standing at the POS – still mulling over a tab. After we placed our order, Xxxxx continued to stand at the POS and did not move to make our drinks.

After another 2 minutes, Xxxxx then returned to us and asked what we would like. We again placed our drink order, which Xxxxx then moved to make. Xxxxx, who was still at the POS nearby, was very apologetic and thanked us two different times for being so patient.

One of the patrons at the end of the Xxxxx Bar, where both Xxxxx and Xxxxx were spending their time when the agent and my associate were patiently awaiting initial service, appeared to be over served. The patron, a woman in her late 40s and possibly Latina, had bloodshot eyes, appeared to be unsteady on her feet, and was seen loudly singing and dancing at the end of the bar. She appeared to be personally known to the bartenders, which could have resulted in her over intoxication. This is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

Another one of the patrons at the end of the bar who were captivating the attention of both bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx on this very busy evening at the bar with countless patrons waiting for drinks, a White male in his mid to late 20s was seen specifically honing in on Xxxxx. As the very busy bar continued to get busier, Xxxxx exited from behind the bar and was seen standing on the lounge floor talking to this patron. Both behind and outside the bar, this patron took her focus away from the many other patrons who needed service.

This lack of urgency was observed throughout the time at the bar. The bartenders seemed oblivious or impervious to the fact that patrons were stacked up three deep waiting for drinks. Besides Xxxxx chatting with this patron outside the bar, the bartenders, bar backs and managers casually chatted with one another behind the bar, in addition to casually chatting to patrons who appeared to be regulars. There appeared to be no individualized attention given to other patrons at the bar.

Whereas the lack of urgency on the bartenders led to longer wait times for patrons needing drinks, the lack of urgency on the behalf of the bar backs led to a messy and unmaintained bar area and a shortage of clean glassware. During our time at the Xxxxx Bar, many empty glasses and bottles sat on the bar surface for the entire time that we were present – unbussed, uncleared, unclean.

Besides the empty glasses and bottles that remained on the bar for the extend of our time there, the more pressing issue from the barbacks’ lack of urgency was the lack of clean glassware. The lack of clean glassware led to a variety of problems and solutions, depending on the employee.

To create a solution for the problem, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, light red hair) came behind the bar to clean burgundy glasses that were needed at her table; this was resourceful and necessary for her service, but it also led to unneeded informal chatting between this server and the bar backs and bartenders.

To exacerbate the problem with a much larger, more concerning issue, Bartender Xxxxx took the lack of clean glasses into his own hands. Xxxxx was seen to take a dirty glass that was at the service well (placed there by the service staff from the cocktail lounge area), rinse it out with water from the gun, and make a new drink directly into this dirty glass. The agent cannot even begin to describe the hygiene and health issues with this troubling observation. Needless to say, my associate and I did not order anything else made in glassware for the rest of the evaluation.

Other than the unfortunate incidence with the curt rinsing of a dirty and used glass, Xxxxx seemed to do an adequate job behind the bar. He primarily tended to the service well, making the drinks for the dinner and cocktail crowd being serviced by the waitresses around the establishment.

In addition to making all of the drinks for the service well at the Xxxxx Bar, Xxxxx also helped out bar patrons who were patiently and impatiently waiting for drinks from Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Xxxxx helped out the agent and my associate on one occasion. He was professional, friendly, and had integrity with the recording and charging of the two drinks ordered.

Despite his apparent integrity for only making and delivering drinks that are bought and paid for, both at the service well with chit sheets and at the bar with patron tabs and cash payments, Bartender Xxxxx consistently pours a heavy drink. He was seen to pour on average an approximate five count (4 count =  1 1/2 oz) for all drinks at the service well. Some drinks were closer to a five and half or six count.

Pouring additional alcohol more than what management prescribes for increased gratuities and/or social standing is a form of bartender theft. Agent further suggests that management pour test all the bartenders to ensure uniform accuracy.

All of the bartenders at this Xxxxx Bar had some issues with integrity. Outside of Xxxxx’s heavy pour count, Xxxxx was seen not charging the full or appropriate amounts for drinks, whereas Xxxxx was seen to top off one drink with more than the fair share of alcohol, again without charging or recording on any spill/comp sheet.

Xxxxx made a drink in a champagne glass for a female patron that included brandy and a sugar cube. She served the drink and the patrons stated that there was no brandy in the drink. Xxxxx replied that there was indeed brandy (which there was a four count that the agent had observed her pour), but the patrons were insistent that they could not taste it.

Without argument, Xxxxx grabbed the bottle of brandy and poured a three count into the glass that sat on the bar in front of the patron. Xxxxx did not charge for this extra shot, or record the liquor on any spill/comp sheet.  

Other than this occasion of not charging for the additional top off, she did not appear to have other integrity issues.

Xxxxx, on the other hand, was observed engaging in some questionable behavior at the POS. At approximately 9:51 PM, Xxxxx was seen to ring out an attractive, young female patron who had just ordered a vodka and tonic. Her tab read just over $3.00, which the agent believes is not the accurate price for even well vodka at this establishment. The patron left $6.00 as a tip, which further interpolates to the agent that the bartender had charged less than the going price for her drink.

There were two other occasions that the agent was unsure about Xxxxx’s actions at the POS. On two occasions, both in which patrons paid cash, he did not appear to punch anything into the POS before he sought out change and returned it to the patron. It appeared, to both the agent and my associate, that Xxxxx put cash into the till without ringing in the drinks on these two occasions.

Agent strongly suspects that this bartender his hiding stolen money in the POS Drawer. If this is the case, the money is being laundered via transfer of money through say the tip jar (watch for an abacus system of tracking the stolen money i.e. straws, toothpicks, pennies/nickels/dimes, storing info on cell phone).  It also could be taken out at the end of the night if these bartenders are allowed to "Z" their own registers. In this case, Agent suggests management have them do blind bank drops to detect any overages and stolen money. In both scenarios, Agent suggests that management start performing mid-shift random POS drawer pulls to detect possible stolen money in the POS drawer.

There is a possibility that this happened on more than these two occasions, but the setup of the POS behind the bar does not allow for ample visibility to monitor for theft and integrity. While the agent appreciate that each individual employee must swipe his or her card to access the POS, thus providing record of individual transactions specific to each bartender, the position of the POS flat to the bar surface does not allow any visibility beyond that of the individual bartender recording the drinks. Moving the machines to the back ledge would provide a more public view of what is rung in, thus holding bartenders more accountable.

In addition to the problematic nature of the POS screens being difficult to view from any person other than the person who is ringing in the drink, the current system is also difficult to track for integrity due to the fact that bartenders apparently leave their tips in the till. There is no actual tip jar, and no tips were ever seen. While this deters bartenders from counting or displaying tips to the public, this confounds the lack of clarity of integrity when money enters the drawer without clear recording. Moreover, if they are comingling tips with $0 ring and cash deposits, management probably has a real theft issue on their hands.

The issues with the integrity related to the tabs are further exacerbated when the bartenders do not consistently provide the itemized tab statement. Xxxxx was the only bartender during our visit to give us an itemized tab; the other bartenders either provided only the credit card slip to sign (i.e., Xxxxx, Xxxxx) or took the cash and provided change with no documentation (i.e, Xxxxx, Bartender B). The itemized tab should consistently be provided to patrons.

Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx appeared appropriately dressed, yet Xxxxx did not appear as pulled together. Although he originally appeared to fit in well with the other bartenders in their full black apparel, there was some sort of white shirt or boxers clearly showing under his uniform. To add to the unprofessional nature of his appearance, Xxxxx continued to attempt to use flair quite unsuccessfully.
                                              

Xxxxx Bar:

We visited the Xxxxx Bar in the second half of the evaluation, when the patronage at the establishment had picked up substantially. Whereas we had a good locale to observe the goings on at the Xxxxx Bar in the early portion of the visit, the Xxxxx Bar proved much more difficult. There were no seats at the bar, and patrons were squeezing and pushing their way up to the bar in order to get served drinks.

Unlike the Xxxxx Bar, the Xxxxx Bar appeared to have a better balance between bar duties. Bartender A took primary responsibility for the service well, whereas Bartender B helped the patrons at the busy, standing room only bar. Although there was still a very busy crowd and an extensive wait for drinks, the clear divide seemed helpful for bar and service staff.

Despite having all of the patrons waiting at the bar area, Bartender B had no urgency or enthusiasm. The agent and my associate slowly inched our way up through the hefty crowd to the bar. Without counting in the time that it took to move up to the actual bar itself, we continued to wait for more than 10 minutes for the bartender to offer us drinks.

When my associate finally was able to get his attention, although we were standing directly at the small bar, he barely changed his affect when we posed questions about drinks available at this bar. When we tried to order a round similar to what we had just ordered at the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender B retorted that they didn’t have draft beer, as if we should have known the distinctions in offerings between bars.

As my associate turned to ask me what I wanted instead, Bartender B was gone. This was highly irritating, and if not on duty I would have left.

It took another 4 minutes to get his attention again, and my associate placed our drink order. He sought out the drinks, moved to the POS to enter the drinks, and gave the appropriate amount of cash in return to the agent.

At this point, the agent overhead a disgruntled couple who was waiting for a pen to sign their credit card tab; the pen never came from Bartender B.

In addition to Bartender B behind the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender A poured a consistently heavy pour count at an approximate six count. There were times that he was observed pouring closer to a seven count of alcohol in drinks. This is far to much alcohol and is a dram shop issue. Nevertheless, besides the heavy pour count, he seemed to consistently accompany a drink order at the service well with a chit sheet that came through the POS system.

Although Bartender A appeared to be doing a decent job of keeping up with the service requests for drinks in the well, there was one occasion when a server did not have the patience to wait for her drinks. On this occasion, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, shoulder length, straight blonde hair) came behind bar to get her own drink near service well; she appeared to pour two glasses of champagne from a bottle that was already open at the service well. Agent cannot substantiate if these were properly accounted for and therefore scores it as a theft/integrity occurrence.

Unlike the two bar backs observed in the Xxxxx Bar who moved without urgency and rush, Bar back 3 appeared to be quite attentive and helpful. He moved around quickly behind the bar and appeared to serve the bartenders quite well.

Across both of the bars, there were quite a few negative trends. The bars were overcrowded and the bartenders appeared to have no real urgency to quickly attend to the patrons in need of drinks. Bartenders appeared to be friendly and chatty to one another, yet appeared to be incredibly unhelpful and unfriendly to patrons. Many patrons, at both the Xxxxx and Xxxxx Bars, were heard to complain extensively about the wait times and poor service of the bartenders.

Agent observed first hand one group of patrons actually left without getting initial service from the Xxxxx Bar. One patron was overheard saying, "I can't wait to Yelp! about this."

Additionally, throughout the entire evaluation, there was no observation of any food sales or even offering of menus. The agent understands that bartenders need to focus on alcohol and drink sales in the bar and cocktail areas at this later time of evening on a Saturday night; however, if the establishment values this extra push for additional revenue, perhaps appetizer menus or something could be regularly placed around the bar, rather than have bartenders have another thing on their plate to serve on an already overloaded plate to serve. Liquor liability experts also suggest that food be pushed in high volume alcohol serving areas to help possibly slow down rates of intoxication.

Most importantly, there was no carding across all bartenders of a very young crowd on this Saturday evening. Without door men or a security team ensuring that only patrons of age enter the establishment, bartenders must take the initiative to card patrons who might be underage. There were a large amount of patrons who did not only appear around 21, but appeared under 21. Carding was not observed at all. This is a major dram shop liquor liability issue that needs to be rectified, considering the younger crowd that grew as the night went on.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free Drinks, Stolen Money Put Directly In Tip Jar

November 10, 2012 16:42 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary –

•    Bar 1 - xxx xxxxx, mid xx, light colored hair with xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx.

•    Bar 2 - xxxx xxxx, early 30s, xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx, xxxxx logo T-shirt.   

Both bartenders were observed greeting patrons in a reasonable amount of time. While they appeared to be friendly and sociable, especially with their friends and regulars, neither introduced themselves by name at any time during the visit. Neither were overly friendly to anyone they did not already know. As newbie customers, we felt rather alienated.

Agent would suggest management speak to these bartenders and remind them that every regular was at one time a newbie, they liked the place enough to come back because of this. When your particularly unfriendly to new guests, it short circuits this renewed clientele cycle, and revenue volumes will start to steadily decrease. Agent notes this at the beginning of the report as it was a central theme throughout the audit period

Coasters were used but not consistently and the ice scoop was not used at all by Bar 1. Agent was rather surprised that a bartender at this level of restaurant would make such a rookie move as to scoop ice in this manner. It's dangerous, it's unhygienic and is also an Health Code Violation. Bar 2 used the ice scoop occasionally but not consistently, also using the metal shaker.

Moreover, Bar 1, after scooping the ice with the metal shaker in one hand he would use his other hand to guide the ice into the glass. His hands touched the ice of every single drinking made which was rather disgusting to watch, especially after I viewed him touch his nose several times with his fingers. If there was too much ice in the glass he would scoop it out with his fingers. This is not only a health code violation, but just really not pleasant to see. It made us want to tab out and leave.

After Bar 1 scooped the ice with the metal shaker he would spin it in his hand before setting it back on the bar top.

Bar 1 and Bar 2 were observed offering food and drink menus to patrons as well as reviewing with them.

Both bartenders were observed making drinks and then moving to the POS although no one guest at the bar had a receipt in front of them.

Agent observed several people running tabs and neither bartender asked for any credentials from the patron or a credit card to hold the tab open.


This is a very poor business practice which is enhanced when there are two bartenders. In the event that one and bartender forgets or delays (grouping orders) to ring up a drink and the other bartender prints out the tab for the patron, drinks could be missed being charged. Agent recommends that the bartenders place an updated receipt in front of each guest in a small rocks glass, and following a strict "make a drink - ring a drink policy." Agent also recommends securing tabs with a credit card.

at 10:45 PM Agent observed Bar 1 greet 3 males at the bar each one giving them a fist bump, which signified to the bar spotter that they were well acquainted with each other. They spoke for a moment and then Bar 1 proceeded to make SIX double shot Grey Goose and Red Bull drinks. Each man then threw up a $10.00 bill and they all fist bumped again before the men departed. Bar 1 gathered up the $30.00 in cash, paused a moment to look around, and then deposited all the cash directly into the tip jar.

Both bartenders made and served shots to many of the patrons at the bar and then move to the POS but it is difficult to tell whether or not they actually rang them up or ring them up accurately as no receipts were produced. Agent has been bar spotting for a long time and highly suspects an integrity bartender theft issue but was unable to fully substantiate the claim. Agent suggests follow up on this from further Hospitality Checkpoint Agents.

Bar 1 was observed mixing drinks with the standard four count pour method but always topped off each drink with another tail of a pour, so therefore delving additional alcohol for each drink. Delivering additional alcohol of more than what is prescribed by management for financial and/or social gain is considered bartender theft.

Bar 2 was consistent with a four count pour.

Both bartenders poured beers with the appropriate collar.

Both bartenders were observed being attentive to the patrons at the bar and offering additional drinks at the appropriate times.

The bar top and the back bar appeared to be clean and neat and well-organized.

Agent thought that both bartenders were a little lax in the way they were dressed, especially Bar 1 who was wearing a baseball cap on backwards. Agent understands the look/feel of a casual bar/restaurant; however, this looked more like he was headed to a ball game or party as opposed to being at work. Agent recommends the bartenders appearance should be uniform in the type and color of shirts they wear.

Michael Zenner - CEO      

hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free drinks, Liquor Law Violations, Employee Alcohol Consumption,

November 10, 2012 16:03 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                                                                            

§        

·       Bar 1:  Named Xxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx male, athletic build, approximately 6’0”, with short black hair, wearing a black Xxxxx T-Shirt, and grey shorts.  Later in the evening these pants were changed to white and blue striped xxxxxxxxxx.

·       Bar 2:  xxxxxxxxxxxxx female, thin build, approximately 5’6 with long, straight xxxxx hair, wearing a pink tank top, black shorts, and axxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .

·       Bar 3:  xxxxxxxxxx female, thin build, approximately 5’3, with long xxxx hair, wearing a white, button up shirt, with three-quarter length sleeves, a pink crop-top underneath, and jean shorts.

·       Bar 4:  xxxxxxxxxx male, medium build, approximately 6’0, with dark hair and a xxxxxxxx, wearing an Xxxxx T-Shirt, and jeans.

·       Bar 5:  xxxxxxxxxx male, thin build, approximately 6’2, with xxxxxxx hair, xxxxxxxxxxx, wearing a black Xxxxx tank top, and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

The agent and associate approached the bar and were immediately greeted by Bartender 1, Xxxxx, whose name was overheard rather than provided by introduction.  Xxxxx was the only bartender on shift at that time.  Xxxxx leaned onto the bar and asked the agent and associate what they wanted to drink while scooping up a handful of ice from the ice bin in front of him, shaking all but one piece of ice out of his hand, and placing the ice in his mouth.  The agent and associate asked for a minute to think and Xxxxx rudely turned his back without any recognition or smile.

This is a 2-part AZ Health Code issue, as first Xxxxx placed his bare hands into the sanitized ice, and then touched his mouth with his hands and the product and then put his hands back into the ice bin without washing.

Xxxxx spoke to one of the customers sitting at the bar, eating a few more pieces of ice while talking to the patron, and then proceeded to stand in front of the register texting on his phone.  The agent and associate waited three minutes while Xxxxx was texting, at no point did he stop and look around at his customers to see if service was needed, and finally turned around saying “sorry about that.  Do you know what you want yet?”  The agent and associate placed a drink order (see food and beverage summary for details).

Xxxxx placed beverage napkins in front of the agent and associate and quickly served the beverages.  Xxxxx asked if the agent and associate would like to pay cash, a credit card was provided to start a tab, which Xxxxx swiped into the POS system after placing the drinks into the system, and placed the credit card into a box of cards.

Xxxxx never asked for proper identification. Agent's associate is well under the age of 30. This is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management.

At no point did Xxxxx attempt to strike up a conversation with the agent or associate and only asked if an additional drink was desired once throughout the entire evaluation.

He was noted to continuously grab fistfuls of ice from the ice bins, dropping all but one chip of ice back into the bin, and eating the single remaining chip while talking to customers.  Xxxxx was also observed using his bare hands, instead of tongs, to place and squeeze fruit and garnish into drinks, as well as use a dirty mixing tin to scoop ice into clean glassware, if he was not scooping the glassware directly into the ice bin.  Xxxxx was also noted to be frequently texting behind the bar throughout the evaluation.

Bartender 2 arrived behind the bar at approximately 9:54 pm.  She greeted various customers, showing off the teddy bear tied to her back and explaining to various customers that they were having a pajama party.  Bartender 2 was not observed texting behind the bar, nor having any integrity issues, but was stationed on the opposite side of the bar from where the agent and associate were sitting.

Bartender 3 arrived at approximately 10:07 pm, smiling to customers as she entered behind the bar.  Based on overheard conversations it became apparent that Bartender 3 was a customer or mutual friend of many patrons and was training to bartend at the establishment as a new hire.  Throughout the evaluation she was also polite and friendly with customers, but was minimally observed as she was being trained by Bartender 2 and stayed with her on the opposite side of the bar.

Bartender 4 arrived at approximately 10:10 pm, immediately checking in and chatting with the first three bartenders as well as the bar-back.

At 10:20pm he was noted to make a phone call behind the bar, which lasted approximately two minutes.  After the call he scanned the bar and began serving and associating with patrons.

Bartender 5 arrived shortly after Bartender 4, at approximately 10:17 pm.  Bartender 5 also checked in and chatted with the other staff members briefly, then waved and greeted many of the patrons who, at this point, were filling the bar.

When the agent and associate were ready to close the tab it took approximately ten minutes to catch the attention of one of the bartenders, all of whom were extremely busy by this time serving the high volume of customers.

Bartender 4 noticed the agent and associate’s need of service and yelled over the music “how can I help you”.  The agent gestured a desire to close their tab.  Bartender yelled again over the music inquiring about the last name on the tab, which the agent provided.  The tab was provided in a clean check presenter, signed, and returned.

Due to having multiple drinks spilled on the agent and associate, the remainder of the evaluation was completed away from the bar-top and in the crowd.

Multiple left issues were observed during this evaluation:

At 10:27 pm Xxxxx was observed ducking his head into the corner of the bar and quickly drinking a mixed shot through a straw.  He stood, scrunching his face in response to the strength of the liquor in the drink, emptied the remaining ice and straw into the trash, and continued to work.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

The alcohol also was not registered into the POS or any comp/spill sheet; therefore, Agent scores this as an integrity/theft issue. Consuming alcohol while on duty is also a dram shop liquor liability issue. Should an unfortunate incident happen, or an act of violence occur that results in litigation, Xxxxx's impairment can cause disastrous results for the owners.

At 10:30 pm Xxxxx was observed serving three shots of rumplemintz poured into rocks glasses without a jigger and as 1.5 ounce shots and then served the shots to three gentlemen by the service well without charging for the shots or placing them on a comp tab in the POS system.

At 10:37 Xxxxx was observed making 15 mixed drink shots, initially mixed in two separate mixing tins and distributed into 15 rocks glasses, then stacked the glasses in three piles and handed them over the bar to a gentlemen with guests sitting at one of the booths.  Xxxxx did not charge for the shots, nor put the shots into the POS system, but did take money from the gentlemen and agent observed him to put it directly into the tip cup.

At 10:39 Bartender 5 was observed making 6 shots, initially mixed in a mixing tin and poured evenly into rocks glasses, and handing them to a one girl over the bar without charging her or putting the drinks into the POS system at all.  This patron proceeded to carry the shots to the patio to serve to her friends.

This is also an ADLLC Violation.

 

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

At 10:46 Xxxxx was observed pouring 2 Don Julio shots without a jigger, as 1.5 ounce shots, and serving them to a patron who was previously served free drinks from the bar-back (see bar-back summary for details).  These drinks were not charged for nor entered into the POS system.

 

There was an additional integrity issue observed regarding the reputation of the bar rather than the staff:

In the beginning of the evaluation there were two female patrons sitting at the corner of the bar next to the agent and associate.  Each were initially dressed in regular clothes, however, as the bartenders changed in order to wear pajama party attire, one of the two patrons changed in the bathroom into a see-through, lace, tight, short dress, and extremely tall heels.  This change was previously known and strongly encouraged by all of the staff, clearing pointing out that it had been planned and discussed with the staff prior to the shift.  This patron sat at the bar in this outfit as well as a sports hat continuing to drink and dance to the music by waving her hands around her and aggressively nodding her head and body to the music.  

Later in the evening, when the servers came out with liquor bottles to free-pour into the patrons’ mouths, this patron was helped onto the bar by the bar-back and began aggressively dancing on the bar.  As she bounced up and down on the bar, continuing to wave her hands and arms around, her skirt continuously rode up her legs and above her rear end, exposing her rear as well as her purple thong.  Her see-through dress also obviously exposed her breasts and nipples to the crowd which is against the law.

This patron stayed on the bar, dancing, leaning down and dancing in front of and accepting tips from customers, and sexually and provocatively grinding up against a staff member dressed in a bear costume who was also on the bar.

TITLE 19, CHAPTER 1

R19-1-214. Sex Acts Prohibited, Real or Simulated

No licensee shall permit, on the licensed premises, any person to perform acts of or acts which constitute or simulate:

1. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, or any sexual acts which are prohibited by law;

2. The touching, caressing, or fondling of the breast, buttocks, anus, or genitals;

3. The displaying of any portion of the areola of the female breast, or any portion of his or her pubic hair, anus, vulva, or genitals; or

To those patrons appearing concerned that the girl was going to knock over their drinks, and would move their drinks for her, she would lean over and yell “don’t worry.  I am a professional!”

Although some customers were initially entertained by this, most customers quickly shifted from smiling and laughing to shaking their heads at the spectacle on the bar.  On more than one occasion the patron danced in front of a group of girls, or guys, sitting at the bar, who proceeded to leave their seats and spots and move to a different section of the establishment to get away from the girl.

This was a behavior that appeared to be seen as distasteful and inappropriate by more than one patron as well as the agent and associate.  The agent feels that it is also important to note that a patron dancing on the bar, especially in that attire and platform heels, is an extreme safety as well as health and liability risk.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free drinks, Intoxicated Security Employee Theft

September 6, 2012 21:39 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

My associate and took seats at the bar and were immediately greeted by a Caucasian Blonde female with tattoos on her xxx. She did not introduce herself but we later ascertained her name was Xxxxx. Xxxxx had a BIG smile in her greet of us and asked what we wanted to drink. Agent associate asked if there were any specials and she named a Kettle Orange Vodka as the special. Agent asked a few questions about items and Xxxxx showed good product knowledge. We placed an order and she went to go prepare it. She prepared our drinks quite differently. My associates drink got a 1 1/4 oz count pour where my drink was nearly a 6 count and almost double the alcohol. Agent did not order a double and was quite puzzled by the alcohol volume disparity. We started a tab with Xxxxx and she took the appropriate measures.

Xxxxx is very friendly and seems to fit into this bar like a glove. She's friendly with regulars as well as new guests as she strikes conversation and is very pleasant. She has good bartender presence for the most part and has good bartending prioritization skills.  The one hygiene issue of note was that she frequently scratches the scalp of her head and does not wash her hands afterwards.

However, she does have some bartending issues issue that need to be addressed. First, her pour counts are all over the place. They range anywhere from 1 1/4 oz to over 3 oz at times and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme/reason to it. The patterns that were picked up by the Agent were a 1 1/4 oz pours for the Kettle Orange that was on special. I even saw one under-poured with a single ounce shot. Agent saw this many times through the night. Women in general usually received a higher pour volume, as did those who apparently were tipping larger. With the later of these, this Agent scores this as a bartender theft occurrence as delivering additional alcohol over what is prescribed by management (1 1/4 oz pour) to increase gratuity and/or social status is a form of bartender theft.

Second, her ringing procedures are lackadaisical. This can be attributed to laziness and/or masking of integrity issues and bartender theft. Countless times throughout the evening there were drinks delivered with no movement made to the register to record them (see observations below).

Another rather important issue was some of the guests in the bar looked to be of questionable age and Xxxxx was serving them. It's of the agent's opinion that she probably felt that intoxicated Xxxxx had already carded them giving her a false sense of security. Bottom line is though she served these guest alcohol. Agent will add that I cannot substantiate the age of these guests; however, it was of my opinion they were of questionable age.

Xxxxx fell behind many times on clearing glassware and wiping the bar top down. Agent put her arm in a puddle of liquid and was not pleased about it, then exacerbated when I had to go to the unclean restroom to wash up. My associate commented that if security Xxxxx wasn't such a life of the party so to speak, he could have helped her maintain the bar better, as for the most part she did all the work.

Because Xxxxx was busy seemingly running the entire bar, the facility didn't seem to be running at it's best efficiency level. If Xxxxx had a security member who didn't disappear and helped her frequently, the bar would have run much smoother and a bi-product of this would have been more sales revenue.

Xxxxx was at about a 90% clip in using cocktail cards with guests. Drinks were ordered and served in a timely manner except for some occasions when she got busy.

Xxxxx scoops ice with glassware. This is just wrong and a very bad habit that should be broken right away. It's very unsanitary and a cause for health concerns, and possible injury due to broken glass.

Specific observations:

As aforementioned, Xxxxx had a propensity to not ruing drinks. This makes it very cumbersome to substantiate bartender theft occurrences accurately. This agent suggests that management make some immediate policy changes and create a make a drink - ring a drink policy and enforce it. This will force accountability.

At 9:39 she prepared a drink with a 5 count of alcohol and did not move to record the drink.

At 9:43 she prepared 3 shots of whiskey and did not move to record the drinks.  Age observed her move to POS 2 min later and this could have been the ring in.

At 9:47 she delivered 1 yellow and 3 brown beers to a female patron and did not move to record. This woman looked of questionable age. At 10:00 it appeared she delay rang these beers.

At 9:48 Agent observed the bartender has a personal drink behind the bar. Agent cannot ascertain the contents.

9:45 Agent's drink is dry and she is not asked for a refill until 8 minutes later.

At 9:55 Agent observed Xxxxx counting money from a wood box next to cig display. Agent would stress to management that NO money should be handled outside of the POS drawer and legitimate transactions. This makes a rather ripe situation for bartender theft when this is allowable.

At 9:58 3 shots (Jameson?) were delivered to customers and no movement to record the drinks. One consumed my Security Xxxxx.

At approximately 10:01 Security Xxxxx took money out of tip jar and then gave it to a customer, who then appeared to give it to Xxxxx and then she put it back into tip jar. It was a very bizarre occurrence to observe and highly suspicious in nature. Age could not verify exactly the nature of what happened but suspects maybe the money hand changing round robin was a lame effort to satisfy a security camera. That is just an hypothesis. Regardless, the alcohol went unaccounted for.

At 10:06 Xxxxx under pours a guest a Kettle orange with less than an ounce of alcohol.

At 10:10  3 shots were delivered and no movement to record the drinks. Xxxxx also drank a shot with the guests but it appeared to be in a different sort of glass than the others.

At 10:15 agent observed Xxxxx make a drink with a 4 count of alcohol into a short glass, then the customer exclaimed that she wanted it tall and Xxxxx poured the drink into a pint and then added another ounce of alcohol. She was not observed accounting for the drink at that time.

Xxxxx asked and prepared a drink for my associate, but for some odd reason did not ask me for one. Agent started to suspect that she may be impaired of some sorts, as I also observed her making other simple mistakes such as delivering drinks to the wrong guest after making them. this happened a few times.

Several minutes later she asked me if I wanted another drink and went to prepare it, She made my drink with a 4 count 1 1/2 oz pour and did not report to the POS to record it on my tab.

At 10:26 Xxxxx appeared "distracted" delivering drink to wrong person the corrected herself. She did not report to the POS to record the drink.

At 10:29 Xxxxx almost gave change to wrong patron.

At 10:33 my associate ordered a drink and she prepared it with a 6 count of alcohol. This time she DID report immediately to the POS.

At 10:36 My associate reported that it appeared Xxxxx was drinking a beer. At 10:43 A male patron at the bar Gave Xxxxx another shot of alcohol.

At 10:44 Xxxxx made a cocktail and did not report to the POS.

At 10:50 Xxxxx is observed going to the POS and group ringing sales all at once. It appeared as if she was looking around at guest sand drawing from a mental inventory in order to try and correctly ascertain all the alcohol drinks she had delivered for tabs.

At 10:56 Xxxxx prepared 2 cocktails for a man and a woman at the bar. One was poured with a 5 count and the other was poured with a 6 count. This really exemplified the inconsistent pours of this bartender.

At 10:58 Bartender was observed coming out from bar and collecting glassware. Doorman Xxxxx nowhere to be seen. She was also later observed wiping the tables.

At 11:11 Xxxxx was observed delivering 2 drinks and a beer and not observed reporting to the POS to record.

At 11:12 Xxxxx made 2 bombers of some sort and not observed reporting to the POs to record.

At 11:17 she was observed making a cocktail for one guest and not ringing it in and then moving to another guest an deserving him a Corona and not ringing it in either.

At 11:23 is observed going to the POS and group ringing sales all at once. It appeared as if she was looking around at guest sand drawing from a mental inventory in order to try and correctly ascertain all the alcohol drinks she had delivered for tabs.

At 11:26 Agent was a bit distracted by something that happened near the pool table. When I turned around the POS screen had "No Sale" and Xxxxx was counting money in the wood drawer. Agent cannot substantiate what happened.

At around 11:35 Xxxxx gave two shots to customers who looked as if they had already tabbed out. One of the customers tried to pay and appeared she shook it off in a "don't worry about it" fashion. The shots were not seen accounted for.

11:40 Security Xxxxx doing another shot of alcohol.

Tab procedures were carried out in a timely manner. No itemized receipt  was given.

Security Summary

Upon arrival, security Xxxxx was at the front entrance and asked us for ID's. I pulled my wallet from my purse and showed it to him and he mumbled something inaudible and I said "what?" and he leaned in to ask me again and that is when I was ht with a wall alcohol smelling bad breath.  I showed him my ID again and took a step back and took note that he had a  goofy look on his face and glassy eyes. His level of alcohol impairment was absurd. As we passed, he yelled something at my associate and gave him a fist bump. My associate then said to me, "Is that Door Guy totally wasted or what?"

The professionalism of this guy was way out of line. He also appeared to do next to nothing to help out with Xxxxx. His numerous disappearances left the door unattended and people just walking in without properly showing ID. many of the disappearances were associated with a young Caucasian female with red hair.

At one point he stumbled through the bar in an attempt to hug some guy spilling drinks and bumping into other guests.

This employee is a liquor liability dram shop lawsuit waiting to happen.

He did not greet us farewell upon our departure.                                                           

Beverage Summary

DO NOT POST THIS SECTION TO STAFF

SPOTTER ANONYMITY WILL BE COMPROMISED

My associate ordered one of the Kettle Orange drinks and it was awful and it was sent back. He then ordered Knob Creek and Coke and the drinks were inconsistent with taste because each one was made with different volumes of alcohol.

Agent had Malibu and Diet drinks and it was the same issue with inconsistent tastes because of fluctuating liquor volumes.

The two shots listed at the end of the bar section were for me and my associate. We tabbed out and purposely tipped Xxxxx rather large and as an integrity test pre-text, said "let's order a shot before we go" She delivered the shots and said they were free.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Spotting the Fingerprints of Theft

May 16, 2012 22:09 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Great Article about bartender theft written by industry leading author Robert Plotkin. If you haven’t read any of Plotkin’s book, you should. They are very informative and a must read. Here is his website: http://www.barmedia.com/

Spotting the Fingerprints of Theft
May 8, 2012 By: Robert Plotkin

Do you have a problem with theft behind the bar? Many in the bar business do. But if you’re waiting for a rise in your pour cost to alert you to a potential problem, you may be out of luck.


Tracking pour cost has long been the accepted way of detecting bartender theft. However, there are more ways to steal from a bar that won’t have the  slightest affect on pour cost. In fact, a clever thief can steal from your bar and actually make your pour cost percentage drop.


Pour cost analyzes the relationship between cost and sales. If a bartender serves a drink and pockets the cash proceeds, he’s basically increasing cost without increasing sales, which will cause pour cost to rise. While the increase may be imperceptible, pour cost will rise. If the bartender then replaces the stolen ounce of liquor with an equal amount of water, pour cost will remain unaffected.


Substitutions are examples of a type of theft that won’t cause pour cost to rise. The scam involves a bartender making drinks with well liquor instead of call brands, charging customers call prices and pocketing the difference. Because the bartender poured well liquor and registered the transaction as a well sale, pour cost remains unaffected.


Underpo
uring schemes are another example. A bartender short pours a series of four drinks by a quarter of an ounce, thereby creating a surplus ounce of liquor. The bartender then sells that shot of liquor and pockets the cash. Again, pour cost is unaffected.

While measuring your pour cost is a smart thing to do, it’s not enough. If the early detection of internal theft is important to you, there’s more you should know.


With n
early all types of theft behind the bar, one thing is certain: The cash proceeds are not ending up in the register. Regardless of the scam, the money winds up in the bartenders’ pockets. So to spot the first signs of theft, look at sales.

Bar productivity measures bartender sales per hour and is computed by dividing the shift’s gross sales by the number of hours the bartender worked. There are two aspects to tracking productivity: calculating the staff’s average sales per hour figured on a weekly basis and computing the daily sales per hour figures for each shift.

Calculating the staff’s productivity involves totaling the bar’s gross sales and dividing them by the total bartenders’ payroll hours for the week. It’s advisable to calculate the day shift’s average sales per hour separately from the night staff’s average. Because there is often a considerable difference between the two figures, calculating the day shift’s productivity separately from the night shift’s makes the analysis more relevant.

For example, if the two night bartenders rang in $6,935 in sales for the week and clocked in a combined 83 payroll hours, the staff average for the night crew works out to $83.55 per hour. During the day, the bartending staff rang-in $2,250 is sales and worked 40.5 hours for a staff average of $55.55 per hour.
The second aspect of productivity is tracking sales per hour for each shift during the week. To illustrate, two bartenders work on Thursday night. “Jim” works six hours a

nd rings in sales of $542 or $90.34 per hour. Adam, working six and a half hours at the same bar on the same night, registers sales of $442, which translates to $68.15 per hour.

Keep a journal or spreadsheet and track productivity figures for each shift on an on-going basis. After several weeks, patterns will emerge. It soon will become evident who are your sales leaders and who fall consistently short of the staff average.


Explanations for Low Productivity


If a bartender’s sales per hour come in consistently below the staff average, five things are possible. One, he may move too slowly and literally can’t keep up with de

mand. Two, he could make lousy drinks, so people don’t stick around. Three, his personality and attitude could be so off-putting that customers leave early. Four, his sales ability could be so unrefined that he consistently undersells. Or five, he could be stealing.

How do you know which it is? Take some time and observe the person. Does he move quickly and with purpose? Or is he more laid back and sluggish? If the person can’t keep up behind the bar, then you’ve identified an area in which he needs to improve.


If that’s not a problem, does it appear as if he has the necessary skills for the job? Do his drinks look good, or are they frequently returned? Does the bartender have a good personality for the job? Does it seem as if he has a positive working attitude? Does he exhibit good sales ability?
If none of these things seem to be a problem, he may be stealing. Regardless of the scam, theft takes a toll on productivity. Tracking productivity can prove to be an invaluabl
e management tool. Between pour cost and bar productivity, there isn’t a scam or fraud that you can’t catch.


Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free drinks and shots for friends

May 9, 2012 17:00 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bartender:  Xxxxxx, Latin female, about 5’5” tall, medium thin build, shoulder length straight brown hair, wearing a black bikini top, jean shorts, and flip flops.


Agent and associate were unable to procure a seat at the bar during this evaluation because the seats were taken the whole time.  But agent did observe some things while sitting at one of the tables.

When agent first arrived both Xxxxxx the bartender and Xxxxxx the waitress were seen waiting on tables and making drinks.  Xxxxxx was the only one seen pouring alcohol.  Xxxxxx was only seen getting her own water and sodas.

At 3:18 PM a man walked in and was standing under the projection screen looking around, Xxxxxx asked him if he needed a table and he said yes, and went and sat at the lone table by the lounge area.  Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx walked past him, each at least once if not several times and no one waited on him.  Agent is unsure whose section this was as Xxxxxx was waiting on the high top tables and Xxxxxx was waiting on the booths.  (Please refer to the waitress summary)

At 3:32 Xxxxxx put an order into the POS the receipt came up and Xxxxxx had her back turned flirting with some male customers.  After 2 minutes of Xxxxxx standing there, Xxxxxx finally turned around and saw her there.  Xxxxxx then served a customer 3 shots, another customer a draft beer, then made Xxxxxx’s drinks, and then reported to the POS.  Xxxxxx was seen cluster ordering on several different occasions during this evaluation.  She did not report directly to the POS after making a drink order.

On a few occasions Xxxxxx would yell out to the guys at the tables and ask if they want shots.   Xxxxxx was seen making and serving these shots to the guys and some people at the bar she obviously knew.  Agent did not observe these shots to ever be recorded or paid for because Xxxxxx did not report directly to the POS.

Xxxxxx was only seen using an ice scoop to put ice into a baggy for someone.  Dirty glasses were stacking up on one side of the bar.  It was rather busy, Xxxxxx seemed to keep up well, when she was working and not flirting. She was very friendly and had a great personality. She seemed to enjoy her job, and everyone seemed to like her.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Not ringing drinks in right away, over-pouring.

May 9, 2012 16:29 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bartender 1:  Caucasian female, 5’6”, with an average build. She had blonde/brown wavy hair worn in a pony tail. She wore a black XXXX top with black pants.

·       Bartender 2: Caucasian male, 6’, with a stocky build. He had brown hair with a slight beard. He wore a red XXXX polo shirt and jeans.

·       Bartender 3: Caucasian female, 5’5”, with an average build. She had long black hair work half pulled into a pony tail. She wore a white blouse and black pants.

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian female, 5'5”, with an average build. She had long brown hair worn straight and in a pony tail. She wore a white blouse and black pants.


As the agent approached the xxxxx bar he found seating available at a very busy bar. Bartenders 1 and 2 were serving a nearly full bar, as well as people standing at nearby bar tables. The two bartenders seemed to work efficiently and well together.

Neither bartender offered their name to the agent.

A few seconds after being seating Bartender 2 greeted the agent and offered a beverage. The agent ordered a cocktail, and Bartender 2 failed to ask for a liquor preference. He did check the agent's identification. I am frequently asked for ID.

Bartender 2 quickly prepared the drink with quite the heavy pour, one bordering on a 6 count. As the agent watched Bartender 2 through the evening he appeared to have a heavy hand on most pours.

As he provided the agent the beverage he also offered a menu; he would return about ten minutes later to see if any food would be ordered. No credit card was collected from the agent to start a tab. After watching, the agent deemed that both bartenders were picking and choosing who they required a credit card of to start a tab.

It seemed that each bartender had that own side of the bar which they were responsible for serving. They would regularly crossover into each other's sides when necessary however. Bartender 1 was predominantly seen working at the far end of the bar, while Bartender 2 was serving guests at the end closest to the front entrance.

In addition to serving guests Bartender 2 was also responsible for pouring server's drinks. The agent noticed a couple disturbing trends as far as server tickets went.

The first being that Bartenders 1 and 2 seemed to lack any awareness and urgency to make server tickets. Many tickets sat for a great deal of time before either being poured or before a server shouted across the bar to get a bartenders attention.

Secondly, with server drinks as well as bar guests drinks, Bartender 2 had an unsanitary habit of handling drinks by the rim of the glass. And lastly, it seemed that the standard was to place the physical ticket in the drink itself.

Cleanliness as a whole was also an issue at the first floor bar. While Bartender 2 did wipe down the section of the bar where the agent sat down, the remainder of the bar top stayed filled with empty glassware, trash and soiled dishware. These cleanliness issues duplicated themselves at the high top tables in the bar area. A barback/busser was on duty however he was not seen doing much to maintain cleanliness standards either.

The agent observed Bartender 1 mostly from afar due to the large crowd filling her end of the bar. During his time at the bar, the agent did observe a couple of possible integrity/theft issues.

The first occurring at 9:30pm when Bartender 1 poured a full 9 count cocktail for a guest at the far end of the bar then failed to ring anything in.

Also, at 9:45pm both bartenders worked to prepare several shots for some regulars sitting at the bar. These shots also appeared to go unaccounted for.

More disturbing than these two occasions was the minuscule amount of time both bartenders visited the POS to ring things in. For the amount of drinks leaving the bar, neither bartender visited the POS nearly enough. Bartenders 1 and 2 may have accounted for the two integrity issues listed above, however it would be difficult to figure that since the general practice was not to ring drinks in immediately after serving them. It's very hard to assess theft issues if the bartenders are rarely ringing in the drinks directly after they make them.

Agent highly suggests management instruct the bartenders on a make a drink - ring a drink policy and strictly enforce it. The system in place of delayed rings and group/batch ordering is a sieve for bartender theft opportunity.

Both Bartenders 1 and 2 were very friendly and helpful with the agent. Bartender 2 was present to offer additional beverages when appropriate and had a friendly farewell for the agent as he departed.

Moving to the Xxxxx bar, the agent was abruptly met by Bartender 3. Before offering any sort of friendly greeting, she quickly asked if the agent was just upstairs to smoke or to drink. Her approach was a bit abrasive and did not create an environment in which the agent would wish to stay. Nevertheless, the agent ordered a beverage for which Bartender 3 started a tab. She asked the agent's name to start a tab but did not offer hers in return.

Bartender 3 had maybe one or two empty seats at her bar and a mostly empty dining room with exception of one table. Rather than taking the opportunity to chat with her guests, the agent observed Bartender 3 being mostly stand-offish.

Shortly thereafter two more guests came upstairs and attempted to order drinks. The guest inquired how tabs worked at the separate bars, asking if they were connected or if he would need to close each one separately. Bartender 3 once again responded in poor manners with a short, rude, curt response that simply wasn't necessary.

With not much happening at the second floor bar, the agent closed his tab and moved to the third floor bar. He quickly found a spot at the bar. It was quite some time before Bartender 4 greeted the agent which was only after he asked for a menu.

The agent believes this delay in service to be due to the fact that he still had a beverage in his hand from the downstairs bar. The agent observed this pattern recur at the 2nd and 3rd floor bar throughout the night. While a guest may not need a drink at the moment, good service standards dictate that employees greet all guests or perhaps offer a menu.

After the initial point of contact, Bartender 4 was helpful, friendly and attentive. The agent observed Bartender 4's pour count which were accurate. She had quite a few guests at the bar to serve and was quick to account for all drinks.

Bartender 4 asked for a credit card to start a tab. She returned at appropriate times to offer additional drinks and to inquire if the agent needed a menu. She did not offer her name to the agent.

Food and beverage service from Bartender 4 was quick and well-timed. During her spare time the bartender kept busy by organizing the bar, rearranging bottles, and insuring that the bar top was clean.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT - ADLLC Violation, Alcohol Consumption While on Duty, Poor Customer Service

April 30, 2012 19:59 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary                                                          

  • Bar 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’6 with a slender frame and shoulder length brown hair wearing a black tank top and jeans.

 The agent and associate took a seat at the bar top and were greeted by Bar 1.  She provided water glasses and a carafe of water and stood in front of us waiting for a drink order to be placed.  She did not provide a friendlier greeting including welcoming us or verbally asking what we would like to drink.  We requested a minute to look at the wine list.

She returned a short time later and asked “What do ya think.” which is much too casual of a statement for the nature of the establishment in the agent’s opinion.

A drink order was placed and made quickly (see food and beverage summary for details).  She did not use beverage napkins for the drinks even though there were beverage napkins neatly placed on the bar top nearby.

She did not report to the POS to start us a tab or place an itemized chit in front of us.  In fact, no guests at the bar had chits in front of them on the bar top.            

Approximately 35 minutes after the drinks were ordered Bar 1 rang in our drinks, printed the check and placed it in front of us on the bar in a check presenter.  The agent understands the house policy of providing guests a receipt after items are ordered but felt Bar 1’s method was more similar to auto dropping the check as it was presented in a presenter. Agent points out that this methodology is sieve of opportunity for bartender theft and suggests that management address it. Moreover, it's very cumbersome to "spot" for bartender theft if the bartender simply isn't ringing in drinks.

 She did not ask us of another round was wanted and the agent’s beverage was nearly empty.

 The agent provided payment and it sat on the presenter for approximately 5 minutes before it was processed which surprised the agent since Bar 1 was so quick to drop the check she had no rush to process the payment for the agent.  She thanked us in-genuinely in the agent’s opinion and quickly picked up the presenter to collect her tip. 

She did not acknowledge us as we left which made for a poor last impression in the agent’s opinion.

 Overall the agent felt Bar 1 was not very friendly towards the agent and associate.  She only seemed interested in conversing with guests she already knew. 

 She was observed eating food off of guests’ plates behind the bar while on duty and in view of guests. 

 She also consumed wine regularly while on duty behind the bar which is a violation of the Liquor Law.  She was not discreet in any way.  She kept a glass of red wine by the open bottle she was pouring from on the back bar.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

12. For a licensee, when engaged in waiting on or serving customers, to consume spirituous liquor or for a licensee or on-duty employee to be on or about the licensed premises while in an intoxicated or disorderly condition.

The agent noted Bar 1 doing side work preparing to end her shift.  She was cleaning glassware and refilling mixers in pour containers.  She was marrying the mixers in pour containers that were already in use which is ill advised in the agent’s opinion.  The agent recommends new pour containers be used when prepping mixers so that the oldest product get used first. 

 To protect spotter anonymity further details from the bar evaluation can be found in the food and beverage summary.

 Neither the agent nor the associate were asked for ID.  One of which is very near 21; therefore, this is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management.

The agent and associate were the only guests aside from regulars and employees at the bar top.  To protect anonymity further details from the evaluation are as follows:

There was an instance of poor guest service observed with Bar 1.  At approximately 10:36 two guests entered the establishment.  She immediately told the guests the establishment closed at 10 and they left the establishment rather disappointed.  She did not attempt to invite them to the bar top to enjoy a cocktail or state they should definitely come back before 10 to sample the cuisine.

The agent made a call prior to visiting the establishment that was not used for scoring purposes.  The agent inquired about the hours the kitchen and establishment were open until to insure ample time to perform both a dining room and bar evaluations.  The employee that answered the call stated the kitchen closed at 10PM but the establishment closed at 11PM.  The instance of Bar 1 turning guests away decreases revenue from the establishment and also could possibly deter the guests from returning which is bad for the establishment as a whole in the agent’s opinion.  The agent feels all guests entering the establishment should be provided good customer service and be invited into the establishment during hours of operation even if it is close to closing time and staff is ready to end their shifts.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012