I thought the article printed below was a pertinent article even though it was written about the retail industry as it also exemplifies the current theft epidemic in the bar-liquor service industry.

When the “Great Recession” started a year - year and a half ago, the Eye Spy office observed an anomaly in its regular mystery shop reports. The evaluations submitted with incidents of employee theft increased by an astounding 400%. It was astonishing. It was also very disconcerting to observe, albeit a boon for us, but still a bit to stomach.

I’ve always been under the impression of the 25%-50%-25% rule of bartender theft. 25% of bartenders will never EVER steal from you – it’s not in them and they have high integrity. Another 25% are the polar opposite and will rob the house EVERY single chance that they get. From day one they are testing the parameters looking for loopholes of theft opportunities. The other 50% is a bit gray. This group will still when an opportunity presents itself. Maybe they are disgruntled in there job, with their employer/manager or feel slighted in some way. Also, if they happen to be in financial dire straights – mortgage, alimony, child support etc. This group steals only occasionally when the opportunity or need is there. Now with that said, with that formula, 75% of bartenders WILL STEAL from the house at some point.

What happened here is a perfect storm of bartender theft so to speak. That group of 50% that was a gray area, well, they ALL started stealing and stealing big. Customers that we have had for 6 or 7 years with little or no theft occurrences were now having theft issues. Bartenders for the most part live hand to mouth with their money – it’s cash, very liquid, and comes and goes like that feather floating in Forest Gump.

They also have a “standard of living” and when they are used to making $100 - $300 a night, and are now making $50 - $150, well that becomes a financial issue. When their bartending shifts are cut back because of the sag in the economy and the owner wants to cut labor, well that becomes a financial issue. Their shift are cut back and is coupled with a drastic reduction in tips as well, well that becomes a financial issue. Some idiot irresponsible mortgage lender helped get them into that $500,000 home, then the teaser mortgage, resets and triples, well that becomes a financial issue. Now they’ve maxed out their credit cards, well that becomes a financial issue. With all that said, you can interpolate what the easiest and quickest solutions to their woes are – start stealing and that’s what happened and is still happening.

~Michael Zenner

Thefts by employees a big problem made bigger in hard times

Retailers spend a lot of time and money to prevent shoplifting, but a bigger threat to the bottom line is the person behind the counter.

No one knows exactly how much employees steal each year, but one national survey late last year showed that companies lost $18.7 billion in the 12 months ending in June because of worker theft — the largest single cause of retail “shrinkage.”

Another survey for 2008 found that employees stole far more than shoplifters and that among 22 large retailers, one in 30 employees was caught stealing.

“It happens from the top down to the bottom up,” said Terrence Shulman, an author and a counselor on the subject who is a lawyer with a master’s degree in social work.

Two recent local cases illustrate how large the problem can be. A former employee is suspected of stealing more than $300,000 in goods from a Target store in Kansas City. In Johnson County, a salesman and shipping clerk together stole an estimated $30,000 worth of suits from an Overland Park men’s store.

Experts say that with hard times, more employees are stealing, but many have always done it anyway. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long said that 75 percent of employees steal from their employers at least once.

They start small, get bolder and often get caught, said Casey Chroust, a vice president with the Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Said Shulman: “More are getting caught because security is getting more sophisticated, but there are fewer loss-prevention officers, so it’s kind of a wash.”

Allan Bachman, the education manager for the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, last week called the situation “almost a perfect storm” as companies that are trying to weather the recession eliminate protective measures.

Two years ago, the association estimated that American businesses lost 7 percent of annual revenue to fraud, but the group now suspects that figure has grown. A short random survey last spring found fraud increasing as those who monitor it get layoff notices.If a company is floundering, some managers may try to loot the ship before it sinks, experts say. The same goes for employees facing layoffs and demands for harder work.At the boss levels, big money vanishes with fraud such as embezzlement and kickback deals with suppliers.“There is a possibility that schemes are being created right now that won’t be discovered for years,” Bachman said.

Bachman said thieves who steal by fraud are often people in positions of absolute trust. Said Shulman: “It is often the star employee who is led out in handcuffs.”

The Target employee suspected in the massive thefts from the discount chain’s Ward Parkway store had worked there since the store opened and was considered its best employee, police said.Target security officers in January realized items were missing from a loading dock and started an investigation.

Police were called in to investigate and officers conducting surveillance watched as the female employee helped to put merchandise from the loading dock in two movers’ trucks. Officers followed one truck to a Henry County farmhouse, and they found about $100,000 worth of Target goods there. Officers said the house was set up like a store, with mini-refrigerators and freezers on a back porch, household items in one room, and toys and clothes in another. It was one of four such farmhouses they raided. The investigation continues, and the woman has not been charged.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Red Bar

1. Bartender 1: Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’6” tall, long blonde hair pulled back in to a side ponytail.  The bartender wore a black tank top and black pants

1. Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’11” tall, brown hair pulled back in to a ponytail.  He had long thick sideburns.  He wore a black t-shirt and black pants.  He was identified by customers as Xxxxx.

The agent approached the bar and was quickly greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx was friendly smiled at the agent and asked if he would like to place an order.  The agent indicated that he needed a few moments to decide, and look at the menu. 

Xxxxx patiently waited while he served other guests, and leaned on the back counter between guests. 

When the agent did decide on a drink, Xxxxx asked if the agent had a liquor preference.  Once the drink order was complete, Xxxxx turned and placed the drink order in to the computer.  When the agent requested to start a tab, Xxxxx requested a credit card to start a tab.  Xxxxx placed the credit card in a small glass to the left of the left POS. 

The agent observed Xxxxx handing receipts to every customer who paid with cash.  The tip from the customer would go in a clear plastic cylinder that was on top of the left POS leaning on a small structural wall that separated the bar back in half.

Xxxxx seemed to be enjoying himself at work that evening.  He would make small talk with the guests as well as with Bartender 2.  A happy bartender always seems to make for happy guests.  There was a bit of casualness about the way the two bartenders interacted and joked with each other.

When the cocktail servers would place orders, a receipt would print out to the bartenders POS.  Instead of placing the chit with the drinks made, and handing both the receipt and the drink to the server, every chit was thrown away after the order was read.  The cocktail waitresses never received this piece of paper verifying their drink orders. This should be a required practice in case verification is ever needed.

A bar back was quite busy helping out the bartenders throughout the evening.  He would bring them clean glasses, and clear out the dirty used glasses.

Xxxxx as well as Bartender 2 cleared off the bar top immediately after the drinks were finished.

Once the agents drink would become half full, Xxxxx would ask if the agent needed an additional drink. 

Every drink ordered was put in to the POS system.  The check was presented correctly with no mistakes.  The final payment was accepted and processed in a timely manor.

Please see the Addendum for additional information that may put the agent’s identity at risk.

Addendum:

Two small incidences happened during the agents visit to the Red Bar that may be worth mentioning. 

The outside bouncer came in to the bar complaining to Xxxxx about not feeling well.  I believe he said he had a sore throat.  Xxxxx whipped up a concoction for him in a small shot type of glass.  He was using simple ingredients in which did not make the agent suspicious, until the agent overheard Xxxxx telling the bouncer that there was only a small amount of alcohol in the drink.  Xxxxx did not ring this drink into the computer in any way, not even under a comp tab.  This is giving away alcohol, as well as the bouncer having alcohol on the job.  At the very minimum this drink should have been rung in as a comp drink.

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 second incident happened at 11:18pm.  A small group of people came up to the bar, and seemed to be familiar with the bartenders.  They placed an order with the bartender for three drinks.  Xxxxx did not accept cash, did not take a room key and did not take any form of payment.  Xxxxx went to the register and typed a few things in, however he was servicing multiple guests at this time, and could have been entering in the other orders.  The agent did not have a clear view of the screen to see what he specifically was inputting.  The patron next to the agent spilled a drink, breaking the glass, and needed to order a new one.  This drink the guest paid cash for; this order was put in to the POS where it is unclear if the other was ever actually entered.

The third incident happened at 11:25pm.  Two men approached the bar; they were familiar with the bartenders, and had a tab open using an American Express Credit card.  They ordered one more round of drinks and then asked to close out the tab.  While Bartender 2 went to grab the credit card for the tab, and the receipt, Xxxxx took a minute and introduced himself to the guests.  Bartender 2 handed the gentleman his credit card and receipt, and said “Eric, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Eric said ok, and then grabbed a $10 bill and threw it on the table for tip.  Bartender 2 threw it back.  They settled on four one dollar bills.  The agent did not see either bartender call a manager over to comp a check. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Red Bar

1. Bartender 1: Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’6” tall, long blonde hair pulled back in to a side ponytail.  The bartender wore a black tank top and black pants

1. Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, Caucasian 5’11” tall, brown hair pulled back in to a ponytail.  He had long thick sideburns.  He wore a black t-shirt and black pants.  He was identified by customers as Xxxxx.

The agent approached the bar and was quickly greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx was friendly smiled at the agent and asked if he would like to place an order.  The agent indicated that he needed a few moments to decide, and look at the menu. 

Xxxxx patiently waited while he served other guests, and leaned on the back counter between guests. 

When the agent did decide on a drink, Xxxxx asked if the agent had a liquor preference.  Once the drink order was complete, Xxxxx turned and placed the drink order in to the computer.  When the agent requested to start a tab, Xxxxx requested a credit card to start a tab.  Xxxxx placed the credit card in a small glass to the left of the left POS. 

The agent observed Xxxxx handing receipts to every customer who paid with cash.  The tip from the customer would go in a clear plastic cylinder that was on top of the left POS leaning on a small structural wall that separated the bar back in half.

Xxxxx seemed to be enjoying himself at work that evening.  He would make small talk with the guests as well as with Bartender 2.  A happy bartender always seems to make for happy guests.  There was a bit of casualness about the way the two bartenders interacted and joked with each other.

When the cocktail servers would place orders, a receipt would print out to the bartenders POS.  Instead of placing the chit with the drinks made, and handing both the receipt and the drink to the server, every chit was thrown away after the order was read.  The cocktail waitresses never received this piece of paper verifying their drink orders. This should be a required practice in case verification is ever needed.

A bar back was quite busy helping out the bartenders throughout the evening.  He would bring them clean glasses, and clear out the dirty used glasses.

Xxxxx as well as Bartender 2 cleared off the bar top immediately after the drinks were finished.

Once the agents drink would become half full, Xxxxx would ask if the agent needed an additional drink. 

Every drink ordered was put in to the POS system.  The check was presented correctly with no mistakes.  The final payment was accepted and processed in a timely manor.

Please see the Addendum for additional information that may put the agent’s identity at risk.

Addendum:

Two small incidences happened during the agents visit to the Red Bar that may be worth mentioning. 

The outside bouncer came in to the bar complaining to Xxxxx about not feeling well.  I believe he said he had a sore throat.  Xxxxx whipped up a concoction for him in a small shot type of glass.  He was using simple ingredients in which did not make the agent suspicious, until the agent overheard Xxxxx telling the bouncer that there was only a small amount of alcohol in the drink.  Xxxxx did not ring this drink into the computer in any way, not even under a comp tab.  This is giving away alcohol, as well as the bouncer having alcohol on the job.  At the very minimum this drink should have been rung in as a comp drink.

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 second incident happened at 11:18pm.  A small group of people came up to the bar, and seemed to be familiar with the bartenders.  They placed an order with the bartender for three drinks.  Xxxxx did not accept cash, did not take a room key and did not take any form of payment.  Xxxxx went to the register and typed a few things in, however he was servicing multiple guests at this time, and could have been entering in the other orders.  The agent did not have a clear view of the screen to see what he specifically was inputting.  The patron next to the agent spilled a drink, breaking the glass, and needed to order a new one.  This drink the guest paid cash for; this order was put in to the POS where it is unclear if the other was ever actually entered.

The third incident happened at 11:25pm.  Two men approached the bar; they were familiar with the bartenders, and had a tab open using an American Express Credit card.  They ordered one more round of drinks and then asked to close out the tab.  While Bartender 2 went to grab the credit card for the tab, and the receipt, Xxxxx took a minute and introduced himself to the guests.  Bartender 2 handed the gentleman his credit card and receipt, and said “Eric, we’ll take care of this one for you; because we’re silly like that.”  Eric said ok, and then grabbed a $10 bill and threw it on the table for tip.  Bartender 2 threw it back.  They settled on four one dollar bills.  The agent did not see either bartender call a manager over to comp a check. 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Bartender Summary

Bartender 1:  Xxxx, 5’8”, Xxxxx, in his twenties, with a medium build and a Xxxxx buzz cut.  He introduced himself as Xxxxx.

Bartender 2:  Xxxxx, 5’2”, Xxxxx, in her twenties, with a petite build and Xxxxx hair.

Bartender 3:  Xxxxx, 5’4”, Xxxxx, in her twenties, with a slender build and long, Xxxxx hair worn in a ponytail.  Xxxxx referred to her as his sister.

The bartenders wore the xxxxx-and-xxxx, xxxxx uniform shirt and had a neat and groomed appearance.

The agent was seated several minutes before he was acknowledged by a bartender.  Although Xxxxx walked by him several times, he did not address him.

After several minutes, Xxxxx approached and placed a cocktail napkin and then a menu in front of the agent, but he did not speak.  He returned shortly and asked if the agent cared for something to drink.

Xxxxx relayed the agent’s order to Bartender 3, who prepared the drink after several minutes.  Xxxxx delivered the drink and asked if the agent cared for something to eat.  He did not mention any specials or make any recommendations.  He also did not ask whether the agent had been to the establishment before.

While the agent was deciding on food, Bartender 2 approached and asked if he had any questions about the menu.  She was friendly and smiled.

Xxxxx returned in appropriate time to take the order.  He did not offer up-sell options or additional courses—in fact, he down-sold the agent’s order.  Please refer to the Food and Beverage Summary for details.

Xxxxx placed a printed tab in a glass in front of the agent immediately after taking his food order.  He provided napkins and silverware quickly thereafter, and delivered chips and salsa within minutes.

All items arrived very quickly after they were ordered, and Xxxxx checked back after each course as appropriate.

Bartender 3 appeared to handle most of the service bar volume, which she did attentively and according to protocols.  All bartenders delivered consistent 1 ¼-ounce pours for single-liquor drinks—slightly less than the establishment standard.

The bartenders kept printed tabs in front of guests and updated them immediately after preparing rounds.

Although the bartenders appeared to account for all drinks prepared for bar guests, the agent observed three issues of integrity:

At 7:11pm, Bartender 2 prepared two mixed drinks atop the shelves and coolers, and in the Agent’s opinion, making an obvious effort to try to be out-of-sight.  She walked the drinks over to a high-top table in front of the bar at which was seated Xxxxx patrons.  Bartender 2 conversed briefly with two of the patrons, who demonstrated their thanks, making it obvious to the Agent through the mannerisms that Bartender 2 had provided the drinks gratis.  When Bartender 2 returned behind the bar, she did not ring in the drinks.

At 7:12pm, Bartender 3 opened the drawer using “No Sale.”  She took cash out of the register, then walked to the end of the service bar, where she first appeared to try to enclose the cash in her hands, then to place it in the bar rail.  In a matter of seconds, she picked up the money again and walked to the other side of the bar.  Her hands were then out of the agent’s view, but the agent believes Bartender 3 was either putting the money in a purse or a pocket, or otherwise hiding it.

The bartenders allowed the cash register drawer to remain open for as long as five minutes.  The agent did not observe any theft as a specific result of this, but the practice is often indicative of an effort to avoid having to ring in items.

On their down-time, the bartenders exerted effort towards keeping the area behind the bar clean, but they were not quick to clear the bar top, as empty glasses and bottles remained after guests departed.  The bartenders appeared focused on end-of-night cleaning, as they asked one another what had already been done.

The bartenders handled fruit with their bare hands.

Xxxxx proved friendly and made an effort to chat with guests.  He also extended a handshake and introductions.  Bartender 2 also appeared pleasant and periodically checked on the agent; Bartender 3 did not circulate the bar top.

When the agent was finished eating, Xxxxx offered him a box and removed his plates to the kitchen, returning with the remaining food already packaged. 

Xxxxx did not offer the agent dessert or coffee.

Xxxxx informed guests that he was departing before leaving the bar. The agent ordered another item after Xxxxx departed, and Bartender 2 provided fresh linen and silverware.  The item arrived within five minutes, and Bartender 2 checked on the agent shortly.

Bartender 2 asked if she could offer the agent anything else.  She did not specifically ask about dessert or coffee.  The agent liked the professional and polite verbiage Bartender 2 used.

Bartender 2 promptly processed the agent’s payment after he presented it; the itemized receipt in front of him had been maintained throughout the visit and was correct.

Bartender 2 returned the itemization with the agent’s credit card receipts.  She did not ask for identification for his card, as it instructs.

Bartender 2 smiled and thanked the agent after processing his payment.

Both Bartenders 2 and 3 called to the agent with thanks and goodnight as he departed.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Hello Bar Owners & EYE SPY Clients - This is EXACTLY why we stress in our Eye Spy Reports about liquor liability in regards to over service. Bar Owners, regular Eye Spy evaluations that report on your staff in regards to over service can really help you if you happen to unfortunately find your self in a dram shop (liquor liability) lawsuit. Regular reports AND follow up with DOCUMENTED action can help indemnify you in a lawsuit as it shows that you are making an effort with the standard of care in regards to liquor service.

LIQUOR LIABILITY:

$40 MILLION awarded in teen's death

Boy on bike killed by drunken driver

By Kim Smith Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Saturday, February 13, 2010 12:00 am

A Pima County jury awarded the parents of a Tucson boy killed by a drunk driver $40 million Friday. City taxpayers will be responsible for a third of that, with the driver and Chuy's restaurant sharing responsibility for the rest.

Jose Rincon Jr., 14, and a friend were riding their bicycles east on East Broadway near Harrison Road around 7:20 p.m. Jan. 12, 2008, when Glenda Rumsey struck both teens with her car. Rincon died.

Although the city was found to be only one-third responsible, its more than $13 million share is the largest individual judgment ever against the city, dwarfing the $1.75 million paid to the family of Deshun Chance Glover, who was electrocuted at the Hi Corbett Field complex in Reid Park in July 2008.

Rumsey, whose blood-alcohol level was 0.249 two hours after the crash, was sentenced to 14 years in prison last year. Chuy's, which is where she had been drinking, has already settled with the family for an undisclosed amount.

A lawyer for the family argued successfully that the city was partially at fault because of the poor design of the road.

City Attorney Mike Rankin said the city will appeal. He said he was surprised both by the amount and by the city's being found 33 percent responsible.

"This is shocking," Rankin said, adding he was stunned at the amount and "the notion the city would be equally responsible as a drunk driver that was three times the legal limit."

Jose and Adriana Rincon burst into tears when the verdict was read.

After having been through both a criminal and a civil trial, nothing has changed, Adriana Rincon said. "It doesn't bring him back. Tomorrow I still have to find a way to cope."

Jose Rincon said the lawsuit was never about money.

"The main reason we're here is for vindication and to carry the ball the whole 10 yards on (Jose Jr.'s) behalf," he said.

The three-way finding of blame validated their belief there was a "perfect storm" of variables that came together and took their son's life, Jose Rincon said.

"In my heart of hearts it started with Glenda Rumsey, but that doesn't excuse irresponsible business practices nor cavalier decision-making on the implementation of well-thought-out and carefully designed building plans," he said.

Last week, the Rincons' attorney, Ronald Mercaldo, told jurors a city engineer abandoned plans to add 5 feet of asphalt to the roadway during an improvement project, creating a large offset in the lanes on either side of Vozack Lane, just east of Harrison. As a result, Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge.

Rumsey's attorney, Stefano Corradini, agreed his client and Chuy's were largely responsible for the crash, but he, too, blamed the city because of the road design. He would not comment after the verdict.

Attorney Richard Davis, who defended the city, told jurors that engineers did nothing wrong. He blamed Rumsey, saying roads can't be designed to be drunken-driver-proof.

The jury deliberated less than three hours.

Mercaldo said he was grateful to the jury but noted the judgment will never compensate the Rincons for their loss.

Jose, a straight-A student at St. Michael's Parish Day School, died hours after he took entrance exams for Salpointe Catholic High School.

The middle of the Rincons' three children, Jose Jr. was known to be kind and an exceptional musician and talented athlete.

Judge Kenneth Lee presided over the trial.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

A long time client of ours was propositioned to become a partial owner of another establishment. He wanted my staff to go in and check how the operation was being run so that he could get a third party judgment view of the restaurant. The spotter’s report (truncated as many parts needed to be removed for privacy reasons) was rather stunning at how horribly this establishment is being run.

Bartender Summary

• Bartender: Xxxxx female with long curly blond hair. She wore a black shirt with blue jeans. She was audibly identified as Xxxxx by servers.

The agent was seated at the bar and greeted by the bartender approx 2 minutes later. The bartender was friendly, but not overtly courteous or positive. She did not smile often, and she did not interact with patrons in a friendly or positive way.

The bartender’s pours were consistently accurate. She poured a steady 4 count (4 count = 1 ½ oz) for cocktails and seemed to use correct recipes.

All of the drinks she served included correct garnishments, and straws. She was not consistent with using cocktail napkins at the bar. She would place drinks directly onto the bar top.

Bar tabs were kept on paper tickets that the bartender would stick onto the metal freezer with a magnet. The bartender would mark tabs on the refrigerator. The agent did not see any supplemental accountability measures in place to ensure that the drinks were being marked on the tab. In other words, the agent feels that there is no way to know if the bartender was, in fact, was ringing in all the drinks served.

The agent also found that the bartender was accepting many server call outs. Servers were generally be at a table near the kitchen area and call out to the bartender to get a drink for them. The bartender would give the drink to them over the bar and take no money from the server in exchange for the drink. The agent also found this very troubling since there is no way to know if the server was charging for the drinks or not.

The bartender would frequently leave from behind the bar for extended periods of time. The bartender would disappear leaving the servers and patrons at the bar to literally fend for themselves. The agent observed servers go behind the bar on numerous occasions getting bottled beer. The agent did not see any server pour their own cocktail, but did help themselves to bottled beer. Needless to say, this is very troubling and opens the door wide open to potential abuses by servers.

Finally, the agent found the bartender eating a meal while on duty behind the bar. She stood in the middle of the bar area next to a table that held a plate with some pasta on it. She stood eating and then would serve drinks while she ate without washing her hands. This is an Arizona Health Code Violation. The agent found it unprofessional for an employee to be eating while on duty, especially while at their post.      

Wait Staff Summary

• Server: Xxxxx female with long brown hair and a slender physique. She identified herself as Xxxxx.

The agent was seated and almost immediately approached by the server. Xxxxx carried herself with a positive demeanor and was friendly when talking with patrons. She asked for a drink order and wrote it on a pad. She then went over to the poker tables and took numerous orders from the poker players as well. She then went to the kitchen area and started to sort her orders on her tray. She used separate papers to write the orders on, so by the end of her round she had a stack of papers to go through. She took a few minutes to sort herself out, and then started to input the kitchen orders and (surprisingly) went behind the bar to start getting her own beers. She served the poker players drinks, but did not establish a form of payment. She did not collect cash or credit cards while she served drinks. The agent does not know which system she was using to ensure the right drinks were put on the right tabs, especially for the poker players.

Unlike many of the poker player’s drinks, the agent’s drink order took a very long time. The agent’s drink order was taken at 7:35, but were not delivered until 7:50. The agent believes a 15 minute wait time is far too much for a simple drink order.

Xxxxx seemed knowledgeable about the items on the menu. She did not offer appetizers or make any suggestions to the agent. She made several returns to the agent to ask if the agent was ready to order food, but did not think it important to ask to start with an appetizer or to make a suggestion to help facilitate the decision.

Xxxxx doubled as the server for tables and the poker room. The agent believes that Xxxxx found it difficult to handle the work load. She seemed constantly flustered and rushed. She frequently forgot drink orders, and took a very long time to bring drinks and food to be brought out to the table.

She even forgot silverware from time to time. The agent overheard one patron very upset that he was served a steak without silverware to eat it with. Then when he requested silverware, he wasn’t brought knife to cut the steak with.

The agent believes having more than one server to service the poker area would have been prudent. There was another server on hand, but she seemed to only focus on a section of tables. There was definitely a need for more help in the poker area for more efficient service.

The dining area was always in need of some pick ups. There were a lot of empty bottles, and used glassware all over the poker area that needed to be retrieved. The floors also needed to be spot swept and clean up from time to time. Trash built up on the ground, especially under the tables, during the evaluation period.

The agent’s food order took 20 minutes to be brought out to the table. When it was finally brought out, there was no side items brought along with it. The agent requested side items, and received them several minutes later.

The food presentation needed work as well. The presentation looked boring, and mostly thrown together.

When the agent was ready to cash out the tab, Xxxxx asked the agent for a credit card without giving an itemized tab or a total first. The agent received a credit card transaction receipt but no itemized receipt. Agent finds this very disconcerting and a loop-hole for theft opportunity.

Management Summary

The manager on duty was Xxxxx, the owner of the establishment. He was observed to be imbibing beverages at the bar. He was very visibly intoxicated. At one point, the agent observed him pushing kamakazi shots to the poker players. He was also talking to patrons quite often and being very friendly.

The manger did approach the agent at one point and ask how the experience was going. He was friendly and nice.

He did seem somewhat helpful to staff, however it would have been a big help to bus tables and pick up the trash in the poker area.     

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

BARTENDER THEFT: Gave Free Drink to the Liquor Agent, Bar Theft, Bad Service, and Liquor Liability Issues.

Bartender Summary:

• Xxxxx:  Xxxxx male with dark brown spiked hair.  He wore the xxxxx male bartender xxx.

The agent and associate found an open spot at the bar and sat down.  Xxxxx quickly approached us and gave us a greeting.  He offered us a drink and the agent and associate each ordered a beverage.  Xxxxx did not ask for ID before preparing and delivering the beverages.  Upon delivery of the beverages, Xxxxx asked whether we wanted to order food.  The agent declined, and Xxxxx politely introduced himself and told us to let him know if we needed anything else.  He entered our order into the POS, but did not quote a price or ask for a credit card to hold the tab.

The bar was relatively slow during the period of this observation, and Xxxxx appeared to be very lax as a result.  He spent a fair amount of time eating food at a corner table of the room.  During these breaks, he would generally have the MOD stand in for him at the bar.  Furthermore, there was one female, Xxxxx with brown hair and glasses, who appeared to be an employee but was not in uniform, and was going behind the bar to give Xxxxx hugs and joke around with him.  She was also observed standing at the end of the bar eating food.

Xxxxx was somewhat inconsistent in his approach to using the POS.  On most occasions he would enter orders into the POS immediately; however, the agent observed two occasions in which he did not do so. 

• At approximately 9:22pm, Xxxxx was observed serving a beverage to a customer without entering anything into the POS. 

• Furthermore, for the agent’s final round, Xxxxx did not enter the beverage into the POS. 

Although this was only two occasions during the observation, it represented a significant percentage of observed transactions given the volume of business.  This style of bartending can easily lead to mistakes and/or the giving away of free beverages.  Ultimately, the agent’s rogue beverage never made it onto the final itemized bill. If the bartender is delivering free drinks to a bar theft detection Agent, then management can interpolate there are some serious integrity issues present.

The agent was also concerned with Xxxxx’s adherence to liquor laws.  Xxxxx was not observed checking any customers for identification, the agent and associate included.  Furthermore, Xxxxx appeared to be indifferent about the level of intoxication of his customers.  The agent observed two individuals that were visibly intoxicated during the evaluation. 

Xxxxx continued to deliver beers to the customers, even after they began exhibiting signs of intoxication.  The agent observed one of the men dropping his phone as he tried to complete a call.  When he was finally able to complete the call, the content of his conversation was overheard and focused on how him and his friend were heavily drunk and that they needed whomever to come pick them up.

AZ TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3
4-244. Unlawful acts

14. For a licensee or other person to serve, sell or furnish spirituous liquor to a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person, or for a licensee or employee of the licensee to allow or permit a disorderly or obviously intoxicated person to come into or remain on or about the premises, except that a licensee or an employee of the licensee may allow an obviously intoxicated person to remain on the premises for a period of time of not to exceed thirty minutes after the state of obvious intoxication is known or should be known to the licensee in order that a nonintoxicated person may transport the obviously intoxicated person from the premises. For purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to the extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.

At approximately 9:48 pm, the agent observed Xxxxx pouring about a 5 count of Bushmills into a highball glass.  As he balanced the beverage with cola, he added a short additional tail of Bushmills for good 6+ count measure and delivered it to a customer (4 count = 1 ½ oz).

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

Bartender Summary

• Bartender Xxxxx:  Xxxxx male, short brown hair, 5’8”

The agent and associate were seated at the bar top and greeted by Xxxxx.  Xxxxx was friendly and placed two cocktail napkins down on the bar top in front of us with the logos facing towards us.  Xxxxx asked us what we would like to drink, and at the same time handed us menus with the drink menu page facing up.  The agent and associate ordered two drinks, and Xxxxx immediately moved to prepare the drinks. 

Xxxxx did not ask for ID, even though both the agent and associate are under 30 years old. 

Xxxxx prepared both drinks and delivered them to the agent and associate.  Xxxxx was seen using a jigger most of the time and an ice scoop at all times. 

Xxxxx then moved back to the kitchen and retrieved chips and salsa.  At 8:00pm the agent and associate ordered a few appetizers, one of which was delivered at 8:02pm and the rest were delivered at 8:10pm.  Xxxxx checked back on our how we were enjoying both our food and our drinks multiple times during the evaluation period.  When the agent and associate were finished eating, Xxxxx offered to-go boxes and additional drinks.  Xxxxx delivered the drinks in a timely manner, and when he delivered the drinks he also asked if we would like to order a dessert, and he mentioned fried ice cream in particular. 

Xxxxx presented the check to the agent and associate even though we did not request it.  The check was presented in a clean check presenter and was verified to be accurate.  The agent placed payment into the check presenter, and Xxxxx processed the tab for payment quickly. 

Starting around 9:00pm, Xxxxx started to seem like he wanted to go home, and he made loud verbal announcements to his friends at the bar that he did not want to stay very late.  This exclamation made the agent and associate feel very rushed to leave, Xxxxx felt fairly accessible, though he did spend a considerable amount of time conversing with patrons seated at the bar he seemed familiar with.  The bar top and area behind the bar were both very clean and well organized.  Xxxxx did not put tab receipts on the table in front of patrons.

Two separate suspicious activities were observed. 

The first activity dealt with a lone female patron who was observed to be friends with or related to one of the female servers.  This patron was seated at the bar top and greeted by Xxxxx by first name.  The patron ordered a Jack and Coke, and Xxxxx poured the cocktail correctly using a jigger.  Xxxxx provided this patron with the cocktail, but Xxxxx did not record this drink into the POS. 

The second incident that took place involved two female patrons who appeared to be off duty employees from within the resort.  Many of the employees in the establishment knew these two patrons by first name, and they were greeted very warmly.  Xxxxx poured both of the female patrons tall cocktails, using an astonishing ten count pours, without a jigger (4 count = 1 ½ oz).  Xxxxx provided the patrons with these cocktails and was never seen registering these drinks into the POS.           

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811