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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

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      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

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.

Underpouring 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 nearly 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 invaluable management tool. Between pour cost and bar productivity, there isn’t a scam or fraud that you can’t catch.


Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.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
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

Bartender Theft: Top Ten Ploys

Controlling theft behind the majority of bars is no mean task; eliminating it altogether is virtually impossible. Temptation is a fine thing, and unfortunate­ly, the opportunity for bartender theft is overwhelming. However, in the interests of long-term survival, you have no choice but to tackle the problem head on. Be wary of the following top-ten common ploys:

Less Common (But Equally Damaging) Employee Theft

The more experienced the dishonest employee, the better equipped he or she is to manipulate the system. Thieving members of staff are quick to detect exactly how much an owner really understands about the business. In the beverage industry, take nothing for granted. Alert yourself to the following, somewhat extreme, possibilities.

• Reusing closed tabs. The bartender appears to ring up the drink price but, in actual fact, only halfway enters the tab into the register. He or she then hits "0" to give the impression of ringing it in.

• Over-ringing. When the customer isn't looking, the thief over-rings an amount on the tab and then re-rings the tab for less than the amount charged.

• "Paid outs." The bartender claims that the money was refunded for various reasons, such as faulty cigarette machines.

• Jigger substitution. The bartender brings in his own shot glass that looks identical to the official jigger but is actually smaller. Several short measures over a shift add up

• Changing shifts. It is easy for the thief to make, serve and collect several drinks during a busy "hand-over" period.

• Deliberate mistakes. Drinks are then returned and resold or given to a friend.

• Breaking empty bottles and pretending they were full. Full bottles are then requisitioned to replace the "broken" empty bottles.

Substituting water in the drip tray. The bartender pretends he or she had to waste a pint to clear the lines and then pockets the difference.

This article is an excerpt from the Food Service Professional Guide to Controlling Liquor Wine & Beverage Costs, authored by Elizabeth Godsmark, published by Atlantic Publishing Company. This excerpt has been reprinted with permission of the publisher. To purchase this book go to:

Atlantic Publishing Company
Amazon.com

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

BARTENDER THEFT:

Crescent ‘No Lawyers’ Bar & Grill embezzler Kristi L. Hurles gets 14 years

A longtime worker financially crippled the owners of the Crescent through her many thefts.

• BY KATY MOELLER 

A longtime Boise business owner wept in Fourth District Court Thursday morning as she told a judge about the damage inflicted by a former employee who prosecutors say embezzled more than $155,440.

“She did about the worst thing that someone could do to another human being,” Crescent “No Lawyers” Bar & Grill owner Jody Morrison told Judge Darla Williamson. “She took our trust and feelings for her, and she took the ultimate advantage.”

“She stole more than money,” Morrison said. “She stole our hearts as well.”

Kristi L. Hurles, 45, pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft. She was sentenced to 14 years in prison and must serve at least two years before she’s eligible for parole. She received credit for 85 days served.

Williamson said Hurles also must pay full restitution of $204,174.61, including attorney’s fees of $48,734.61.

Hurles had worked at Jody and Butch Morrison’s bar and grill for more than 20 years off and on, doing bartending, serving and some bookkeeping.

Her last year as an employee was in 2009, and she was charged with two felony grand theft counts last fall. As part of a plea deal, one count was dropped.

Prosecutors say Hurles —known to bar patrons as “Cookie” — stole money by taking business checks intended for business accounts and cashing them.

Ada County Deputy Prosecutor Shawna Dunn said the Morrisons gave Hurles bonuses and a retirement account, while the highly trusted employee stole from them over and over again.

Dunn said in court that Hurles had filed bankruptcy three times and had refused to bring her lifestyle in line with her income. The Statesman was able to confirm only one filing, in 2010.

Hurles, dressed in a purple jail jumpsuit, expressed remorse in court.

“I totally apologize for everything I did to the Morrisons. They were a good family,” Hurles said. “It was a hard time. And, no, I did not take money for the whole 25 years, like you guys are saying I did.”

“I took about 14 months,” she said. The crimes that she was prosecuted for occurred between 2005 and 2010.

Hurles tried to speak directly to the Morrisons in court, but they looked away.

“Please look at me, I’m telling the truth,” she implored the couple.

Hurles’ attorney Charles Crafts pleaded for leniency, arguing that his client had no prior criminal record, has strong family and community support and wants to re-pay the money she stole.

In handing down the sentence, Williamson said Hurles had essentially established a criminal record when she stole repeatedly from her employers.

The judge said the substantial amount of money that Hurles stole affected not only the Morrisons — who drained a retirement account, tapped their savings and ran up credit card debt to keep their business open — but the 30 employees whose jobs were jeopardized, or who didn’t get raises or other compensation.

“Your honor, I didn’t steal a large amount of money,” Hurles said, interrupting the judge.

Williamson told Hurles that she made hard economic times even harder for those around her.

“I think that punishment is important in this case,” Williamson said. “It’s got to send a message to other employees.”

Hurles has 42 days to appeal.

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2011

Defense Attorneys win dram shop case because their client had proper safe guards in place and a good system of care for alcohol service. This verdict specifically exemplifies the need for good alcohol servicng policies and procedures. If they DID'T have this in place, then they most likely would have suffered $5,000,000.00 in damages (see red below).

DRAM SHOP NON-AWARD:

Hartline Dacus Attorneys Win Defense Verdict for Adult Entertainment Company

This jury trial ended in victory for the Defendant after attorneys of the firm successfully defended a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment in a case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man.

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) June 30, 2011

Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP today announced a jury trial victory after attorneys Darrell Barger, Brian Rawson and Stephanie Roark successfully defended their client in a two week Dram Shop liability trial in Harris County, Texas. The client is a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment with nightclubs in major markets across the U.S. According to court documents, the case involved an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man in 2007. The driver of the vehicle was an adult entertainer, who was driving home from work at the defendant’s nightclub when the accident occurred. She had a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit, and eventually pled guilty to felony intoxication manslaughter. Relatives of the victim filed suit against the nightclub, alleging the defendant was negligent in continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, and then allowing her to drive home from the defendant’s establishment.

“While we certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for the family of the victim in this tragic accident, we were confident that our client had not been negligent in this situation. We knew we needed to mount a strong defense to prove that the company played no part in the criminal actions of this independent contractor,” said Darrell Barger, a partner in the Corpus Christi office of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP.  The jury heard testimony from a variety of expert witnesses and was presented with a reconstruction of the accident. The plaintiff’s counsel claimed the victim experienced unimaginable conscious pain and suffering when he was struck by the entertainer’s vehicle and asked the jury to award $5 million plus punitive damages to the family of the victim.

Defense counsel argued that their client had safeguards in place to prevent serving alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated, as well as to prevent their patrons from driving under the influence of alcohol. The defense also brought in expert witness to establish that alcohol played no role in the accident. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Harris County jury of seven men and five women deliberated and returned a verdict for the defense on June 15, 2011.

SOURCE: Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP

Cause Number: 2009-07180
Court: 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

Sunday, February 27 2011

The Restaurant Blog

By John Foley

Fraud, missing cash, disappearing draft beer, and voided Vodka sales are all signs you may have a few unprofessional employees.

One perplexing observation: You can't assume your most professional employees are necessarily the most honest. True career professionals are honest. But there are also employees who seem professional but only have their own best interests in mind.

Any time you mix cash, booze, and food and leave the items unsupervised or unlocked you are going to have some degree of problems. If you add opposite sexes into the mix -- with even the slightest attraction towards each other -- it is the perfect formula for a party. It's just human nature. Owners need to accept the responsibility to address the problem.

Here are ten tips to help curb employee theft and fraud.

1). Announce your position on theft early on. During the first employee interview make sure you let potential employees know that you have a section in your employee manual dealing with theft. They need to read it and initial it. Simply stated – you prosecute. Now, do you send someone to the crowbar hotel for eating a steak? Probably not. But if they just happen to take a whole rib-eye out in the nightly bag of garbage and return later to pick it out of the dumpster, bye-bye.

2). Credit card fraud in any amount is considered a felony, and you will immediately call the police. Today, nothing is worse than being intentionally double-charged for a meal on a credit card. It revokes the trust the customer had with the restaurant and the employees.

3). Inventory is the road to financial success. Lock your liquor room. Take complete product inventory weekly. Keep a perishable list and have someone inspect the product before it is tossed and listed.

4). Your staff is not part of your family. I know this hurts, but it is true. You cannot be "one big happy family" and expect to succeed. Become a team -- winning teams work together. Families can be completely dysfunctional, and they are still a family. Families share everything in the refrigerator, the liquor cabinet, and the spare change.

Say it…"T E A M."

5). Only the house buys drinks. If you ever hear a bartender say, "This one's on me," fire them. They are working for themselves. You bought the booze wholesale; you deserve credit for the complimentary cocktail.

6). The staff meal. Everyone needs to eat.. The staff meal consists of whatever the chef wants to make within your guidelines. Set a time the staff can come early or stay late. And everyone eats the same meal -- no exceptions.

7). Do not under any circumstances allow your staff to drink at the bar after work. It seldom ends in one drink, and eventually it will cost you a lot of money, a server or two, and possibly your liquor license. Feeling gracious? Give them the money for a drink next door.

8). Have a secret shopping customer. Make sure it's a regular and someone you can trust. Have them come in on occasion to eat, drink, and spy. Pick up the tab. It will be worth it.

9). Short of silverware? Is all that being thrown away? Inventory it – quarterly.

10). It's The Art of War. Read it. If you find someone stealing, termination is a must. Bring up the incident, not the person, at your next pre-shift meeting. State your theft policy again. Drive the point of prosecution home.

BARTENDER THEFT:

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

Valley eateries profit from adding nightlife

by Kellie Hwang - Feb. 6, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

At 7:30 p.m. on a Friday, the dining room at Canteen Modern Tequila Bar on Tempe's Mill Avenue is packed with groups of stylish young people. Servers hustle out Latin fare, and indie rock plays in the background.

At 11 p.m., the dining room is still packed, but with gyrating couples. Sexy scruffy bartenders rapidly fire off tequila shots and a DJ plays Top 40 dance tunes, from Cee Lo Green's "Forget You" to "Raise Your Glass" by Pink.

In increasing numbers, this is the newest face of Valley nightlife, with a small-but-growing percentage of restaurants converting into dance clubs. As the effects of the recession linger, restaurateurs are working harder than ever to get the most profit out of their buildings.

"A lot of this is mandated by a poor economy," said James Spiers, senior lecturer of marketing at Arizona State University's W.P. Carey School of Business. "Restaurants that were cruising along all of a sudden now had to think, and be creative. 'How can I survive? What else can I do?' So they tried to utilize the time they wouldn't be open and offer something specialized, whether it's dance nights or cooking classes."

At Canteen, it's working.

"We had planned to have DJs on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from the get-go, but we didn't expect it to catch on as quickly as it has," owner Julian Wright said.

Wright said his profits have doubled since opening, and nightlife sales are growing more quickly than dinner.

"We need to transition gently," Wright said. "We slowly start turning the music up in the bar areas from 9:45 to 10:45, and keep it down in the dining room. By 10:45, we put the pedal to the metal."

The idea of restaurants transitioning into dance spots has been around as long as owners have paid rent or mortgages. But owners are getting much more strategic.

Many Latin and Mediterranean restaurants, such as Pepin in Scottsdale and the Olive Branch in Tempe, host salsa nights. Lessons start after dinner, followed by DJ'd salsa dancing until 2 a.m.

The dance night must match the restaurant's concept, and must be marketed as an extension of the brand, said Donna Hood Crecca, publisher and editorial director at Nightclub & Bar.

"You can't just throw up a dance floor, bring in a DJ and expect the guests to flow in the front door," Hood Crecca said.

In Phoenix, Heinrich Stasiuk started throwing late-night dance parties at his restaurant, Black Forest Mill, in 2009. The DJ-driven parties were runaway successes that made up in liquor sales what Stasiuk was missing in slumping food sales.

When he opened the Brick Pizzeria & Wine Bar in downtown Phoenix in 2010, Stasiuk brought along the concept. Brick has a lounge feel even during lunch, so staff just move tables and switch on mood-setting blue lights to create the Cheap Thrills atmosphere. The party routinely packs the restaurant.

"The night has exceeded my expectations," Stasiuk said. "With the amount of volume we do in liquor sales, it's like adding another day."

Stasiuk then launched a jazz night at his Sedona restaurant, Ken's Creekside American Bistro.

As general manager at the District American Kitchen and Wine Bar at the Sheraton Phoenix Downtown Hotel, Stasiuk introduced Valley DJs on Friday nights; the party is still strong.

"Any restaurant can do it," Stasiuk said. "They just have to do it right."

But it takes a lot to lure dancers into a spot used for dining.

In 2008, Lyte Lounge & Bistro in Old Town Scottsdale served sophisticated dishes from celebrated chef Justin Chacon by day, and by night became a beat-bumping club with bottle service. It closed after a year.

"I really believed in the idea and thought it had a decent following," Chacon said. "But maybe it was too far out. . . . And then the economy just ran it down."

Even now, managers struggle.

Primebar at Scottsdale Quarter hosts bands and DJs every weekend on the dining room's oversize stage.

"When we first started, we had a few bands that did detriment to our business," said bar manager Sean Snelling. "So we try to change it up on Fridays, and have a contract with EastonAshe on Saturdays, who are one of the more popular cover bands in town."

The concept can be pricey and time-consuming, but worth it financially.

At Tuscan Oven in Glendale's Westgate City Center, general manager Cody Lewien not only hires DJs on Friday and Saturday nights, but hosts a ladies night on Wednesdays, salsa dancing on Thursday and an industry night on Sundays. To make the transition, candles are lit and staff members change into dressier ensembles - corsets for waitresses, suits for doormen.

Now the late nights account for 40 to 50 percent of the restaurant's profits.

"In the environment we are in financially, we have to do a lot of different things to diversify, and to maintain and keep guests coming in," Lewien said.

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

Kristine G. Bottone - LA Bartender Examiner

November 3rd, 2009

I’ve stated this before, all bartenders steal. The theft could range anywhere from having an extra shift drink, heavy pouring, giving away more than the allotted amount of comps to get bigger tips or pilfering glassware, napkins, toilet paper or other bar supplies. Bar owners are well aware of this and accept it as one of the hazards of the bar business. But when the bar begins to lose profits, it’s gone too far.

The idea is to prevent in house theft before it starts. Surveillance cameras in bars is a growing trend and is a good way to cut back on theft but not always as effective as a bar owner might hope. The view of the cameras, depending on their location, can be limited and will only tell part of the story. If you’re an honest worker then it won’t matter where the cameras are. But bartenders looking to steal will find a way to avoid detection. This is when bar owners use another theft detection method called Spotters.

Spotters are essentially secret shoppers who come into the bar to spy on employees, mostly bartenders. They’ll sit at the bar and observe, watching the bartender for signs of theft or misconduct. Most reputable Spotter services employee former bartenders who are quick to pick up on scams that would go unnoticed by a regular customer. Spotters are often equipped with hidden cameras and record every exchange of a bartender suspected of stealing. At the end of their visit they’ll review the video and present their findings to the owner. Depending on what the tapes reveal the bartender could wind up with a warning or immediate termination. In some cases where the bartender has been caught stealing money outright charges have been pressed and the evidential tapes held up in court.

Some bar owners choose a Spotter service because the company boasts that they employ retired cops. While that may look good on paper, 9 times out of 10 they have no idea what they’re looking for. They’ll hone in on “suspicious behavior” but a lot of things a bartender does behind the bar can be misconstrued or deemed suspicious. Cash over rings are a perfect example. Instead of complicating the matter further by trying to find a manager to void it; bartenders usually make up the difference over the next couple of cash sales. The money goes into the register but they don’t ring it up until they make up the difference. This can easily be misinterpreted as ‘padding’ the register.

Bar owners have also been known to send friends and family into their establishment to spy on employees. They’ll offer them free food and drink in return they report what they see. Again, this leads to the issue of the Spotters not knowing what they’re looking for or at for that matter. Sometimes friends and family Spotters feel compelled to embellish the truth of something negative in order to justify what they ate and drank on the owner’s dime. True story: I was working full time at a bar, going to school full time and interning at a radio station. One night behind the bar my energy level wasn’t what it normally was and a customer asked if I was OK. I said I was fine, just a little tired and left it at that. The customer later asked why I was tired. I simply told him work, school, an internship and not enough nearly caffeine. That was that, or so I thought. The next day I got a call from the owner telling me that a Spotter, a friend of his, reported that I complained to him that I was tired. I was able to recall the entire exchange perfectly, pointing out that the Spotter failed to mention that he asked what was wrong and why I was tired, other wise I never would have mentioned it. He also failed to mention that he spent the majority of the night hitting on women and buying them drinks. It was never brought up again nor did I ever see the face of that Spotter in the bar after that night.

For the most part bartenders are hard working and straightforward people. It’s only a handful of dishonest self serving bartenders that give the rest a bad name. In all my years of bartending I have found that if the bar is making money and the bartender isn’t then the bartender needs to reevaluate their work ethic. If the bartender is making money and the bar isn’t, it’s safe to assume the bartender is stealing. Slow nights aside, if the bartender is doing their job well then the bartender and the bar both make money.

BARTENDER THEFT:

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

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010