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

LIQUOR LIABILITY: $40 MILLION awarded in teen's death - Boy on bike killed by drunken driver

March 10, 2010 21:37 by administrator

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

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


Protecting Bar Profits - Bar Guru Does Battle With Bartender Theft

February 23, 2010 01:18 by administrator

Interesting article that I just finished reading on the BarProfits.com website newsletter run by Robert Plotkin at Bar Media Inc. If you don’t know who Robert Plotkin is, well you should. “Google”  "robert Plotkin Books" and see all the beverage management books that he has written. Very well done material. Their contact info, website, and blog are listed below.

BarMedia Main Office: 1665 E. 18th Street #106, Tucson, AZ 85719 Mail: P.O. Box 14486, Tucson, AZ 85732 - Tel: 520.747.8131 • Fax: 520.903.0540

http://www.barprofits.com/  http://www.barmedia.com/blog/users/barprofits/  contact@barprofits.com

Bar Guru Does Battle With Bartender Theft

From: BarMedia.com newsletter

RICK SANDVIK IS living proof that when it comes to succeeding in the bar business, street smarts trump an MBA every time. The longtime industry veteran is the man behind Precision Pour control spouts and he’s spent the better part of the last 30-years speaking with an average of 50 bar owners a day. Having seen and heard it all, Sandvik has earned the equivalent of a graduate degree from Barmanship U.

“I don’t think there’s any question that over-portioning liquor is the most significant source of losses behind the bar,” says Sandvik. “But it should be noted that when it comes to ripping off the house, bartenders often know no bounds.”

As an example Sandvik cites a time when he agreed to spot a customer’s bar. “The guy couldn’t figure out how the bartenders were ripping him off. I went one night when I knew the owner wasn’t expected in and sat at the bar such that I could watch both cash registers. I was there for hours and watched the bartenders ring-in every sale and deposit every nickel of proceeds.”

Stumped, Sandvik called the owner who was off on vacation. He explained that he’d been at the bar for hours and watched every transaction entered into both registers.

“After a brief pause the owner said, what’d you mean two registers? We only have one register behind the bar. Sure enough, when the bartenders knew the owner wasn’t in town they’d bring in their own machine—same make and model—and would go into business for themselves. Now that’s pretty nervy.”

Then there was the time that Sandvik caught a bartender smuggling in a metal jigger behind a client’s bar. For all intents and purposes it was indistinguishable from the one used at the bar, save one important difference. The bartender had put clear epoxy in both sides of the device effectively reducing their volume.

“It was a really clever scam,” contends Sandvik. “In effect this guy was under-portioning every drink he made, which in turn created a surplus of liquor that he later poured, sold and pocketed proceeds. It took a while for me to catch that.”

Sandvik considers under-pouring an insidious form of theft. “It’s difficult to detect, doesn’t affect pour cost and victimizes the clientele by serving them inferior drinks. If the guests occasionally do happen to notice, they typically place the blame for the bad drinks on the bar, not the bartenders.”

Another widespread scheme used to rip off a bar is to tamper with its inventory. For instance, over the course of a shift a bartender pockets the proceeds from 12 drinks that collectively contained 16-ounces of various well liquors. At closing while the bartender is breaking down the bar, he replenishes what was stolen by filling a pint glass with water and distributing it among the well products.

According to Sandvik bartenders get away with it because it’s challenging to tell if liquor has been watered down. “That’s why in the day many bars actually stocked hydrometers. They’re devices that show the specific gravity of a liquid and therefore its alcohol content. However, I can’t recall the last bar I worked with that had a hydrometer on-premise.”

So Sandvik recommends another, equally reliable method of detecting whether liquor has been diluted with water. “Years ago a state liquor inspector taught me to vigorously shake a bottle of booze, which forces air into the spirit. When you stop agitating the bottle you’ll see countless small, uniformly sized alcohol bubbles swirling within the liquid. If there’s water in the liquor you’ll notice a small number of relatively large bubbles immediately burst on the surface.

 CONTROL ISSUES

 SANDVIK SAYS SOMETIMES theft is so blatant its nearly impossible not to spot—that is if someone is actually watching. To illustrate, he points to a letter he received from a client who said three things happened after he switched to Precision Pours. First, his bar manager quit in protest. Second, the operation’s liquor pour cost dropped 5 points, and finally, he noticed fewer of his guests looking as if they’d been over-served. The bar owner later learned that the ex-manager had been stealing about two cases of booze a week and selling it to his friends.

“It explained how his bar manager could afford to drive a new BMW,” adds Sandvik. “But c’mon, how can a bar owner miss such blatant theft? Ever since I’ve been urging my clients to never hire a manager who drives a better car than you do.”

Precision Pours are now used in over 40,000 bars in the U.S. and abroad. These innovative devices utilize a patented ball bearing assembly to cut off the flow of fluid at the prescribed measure. They all but eliminate under-pouring or over-pouring liquor and are effective in deterring illicit practices behind the bar. Since they function like conventional spouts, they don’t impede speed of service and don’t require staff training to achieve optimum results. The spouts are available in seven portion sizes ranging from 5/8 ounce to 1 1/2 ounces.

Since no bar or restaurant operates under the burden of too much profit, effective portioning controls are a must. It’s challenging for a business to remain in the black when the staff is playing fast and loose with the inventory. Regardless of whether bartenders are over-pouring measurements, giving liquor away, selling it and pocketing the cash or drinking it themselves, the financial impact on the bar is the same.

Precision Pours are as fast as free-pouring without the attendant worries and expense. As is true with any system, the control function of the devices can be subverted.

“Fortunately,” says Sandvik, “removing the spout from the bottle prior to pouring is a tad obvious.”

Excerpt from the Barprofits.com newsletter

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811


Exotic Embezzling: Investigating Off-Book Fraud Schemes

January 18, 2010 18:36 by administrator

Exotic Embezzling: Investigating Off-Book Fraud Schemes

By Thomas Buckhoff and James Clifton

For obvious reasons, cash is the asset most often stolen by dishonest employees. Fraudsters typically target cash as it enters or leaves the business. Thoroughly understanding the controls and procedures in place for processing cash flowing through a business is of primary importance when conducting a fraud examination. Inadequate cash flow controls, especially over substantial amounts, allow dishonest employees to divert cash into their own pockets. Understanding these controls allows investigators to generate ideas, known as fraud theories, that describe how someone could steal cash from the organization without getting caught. These ideas can be categorized as either on-book or off-book fraud schemes.

Historically, law enforcement and financial investigators are reluctant to investigate off-book fraud schemes due to their lack of direct, documentary evidence. The case study below illustrates various methods effectively used to detect and investigate off-book fraud schemes. Such indirect methods include financial statement analysis, undercover surveillance, invigilation, and admission-seeking interviews.

On-Book and Off-Book Fraud Schemes

Cash larceny involves the theft of cash after it has appeared on a company’s books. Such schemes are called on-book frauds because an examination of the victim company’s records can easily reveal the cash shortage. Here, the company typically knows that a theft has occurred. On-book frauds can be categorized as billing, payroll, expense reimbursement, check tampering, or register disbursement schemes.

Skimming is an example of an off-book fraud, which involves theft of incoming cash before it enters the accounting records. Thus, no record of the fraud exists on the company’s books. Skimming typically entails selling goods or services to a customer, collecting the customer’s cash payment, and making no record of the sale. The victim generally does not know that a theft has occurred. Off-book frauds cannot be detected by examining the company’s books and records and generally are categorized as skimming, unrecorded sales, understated sales and receivables, or theft of checks through the mail.

Case Study: Northern Exposure

Northern Exposure (all names in this case study have been changed) was a gentleman’s club featuring exotic dancers. Its primary revenue sources were cover charges and food, beer, and liquor sales. A recent local ordinance outlawed the type of entertainment offered by Northern Exposure. The club’s manager, however, successfully petitioned the city council to obtain an exemption, and Northern Exposure was allowed to continue operations in a competition-free environment. The substantial effort by the manager on the club’s behalf earned her the owner’s trust and loyalty. In the initial fraud investigation interview, the owner said that anyone could be a suspect—except the manager.

Because of the exemption, the club’s profit potential was enormous. Northern Exposure generated huge amounts of incoming cash, because no credit cards or checks were accepted. However, a huge risk existed that employees would figure out a way to divert incoming cash into their own pockets.

Larry Swenson, Northern Exposure’s owner, was not satisfied with the 10% margins being realized. He engaged two certified fraud examiners to determine why the club was not generating the 35% margins he had expected. They embarked upon a typical fraud examination, whose steps include understanding cash controls, generating fraud theories, collecting and evaluating evidence, estimating losses, assisting in filing claims or bringing charges, and making recommendations.

Understanding Cash Flows

By interviewing Swenson and other personnel, the fraud investigators learned that cash flowed into the business as follows:
Customers paid a $6 cover charge to enter the club. No receipt was given, nor was a head count made. Customers placed orders for food or beverages with the servers. The servers started out with $40 in a cash pouch. They paid the bartenders for their orders from this, then collected payment from the customer. At their shift’s end, the server gave the initial $40 back to the manager and kept the difference as tips. At the end of the night, the manager counted the cash and closed out the cash registers; the cash was deposited by the manager the next morning. Changes in beer and liquor inventory were not reconciled to the drinks rung into the cash register, nor were the register tapes reconciled to deposits listed on the bank statements.

Generating Fraud Theories

The fraud examiners determined that it would be relatively easy for employees to steal and not be caught, based on the control levels they discovered. They developed the following fraud theories:

  • Employees collecting the $6 cover charge could pocket some of the money or allow free admission to friends.
  • Servers and bartenders could get drinks for customers, not ring them into the registers, and pocket the cash received from the customers.
  • Anyone with access to the cash registers (i.e., servers, bartenders, and the manager) could simply take cash directly from the registers.
  • The manager could perpetrate any of the schemes available to the employees, and could steal part of the deposit.

Off-book frauds such as the first two theories are called skimming and are essentially unrecorded sales. The second two would be considered on-book frauds. Because there was a transaction record, the fraud could be detected by reconciling the cash register tapes to the deposits. In Northern Exposure’s case, however, cash register printing ribbons were not replaced on a timely basis, resulting in illegible tapes.

Collecting and Evaluating Evidence

Indirect investigative methods were used to test the fraud theories. Financial statement analysis is one such method that can be used to test all four fraud theories presented. If employees are indeed stealing cash from the club, then the actual sales markup-over-cost ratios are expected to be less than the budgeted ratios. Accordingly, the fraud investigators determined the actual markup-cost ratios for beer and food sales. Beer was purchased for $.60 per bottle, then sold to customers for $3 each, a markup of 500%. Food items costing $5 were sold to customers for $12.50, a 250% markup. One year’s budgeted revenue was calculated, based on cost of sales and expected markup ratios, then compared to one year’s actual revenue (see Exhibit 1). The significant differences in ratios clearly supported the fraud theories—in fact, food sales were less than their cost of sales! Using this indirect investigative method, the total estimated annual fraud loss due to skimming or cash larceny was $379,974.

The investigators knew that the club had a big problem with fraud; determining which employees were responsible came next. Undercover surveillance can be used effectively for identifying dishonest employees. Posing as customers, a team of six trained fraud investigators (with experience as bartenders and servers) spent a collective 40-hour week at the club observing the employees’ activities and behavior. This surveillance revealed that 90% of them, including the manager, regularly stole cash from the club, with little regard to subtlety. The reason that employees never complained about salary levels, despite low base wages and a lack of raises, became clear. In fact, several servers and bartenders had been there for years, which is highly unusual for this type of club. The lead investigators communicated their findings to Swenson, who, though concerned, was reluctant to take action without more substantive evidence of employee theft.

Estimating Losses Incurred

To more firmly establish the fraud losses and estimate their amount, the fraud investigators conduced a week-long invigilation. Invigilation creates a strict internal control environment so that opportunities to commit fraud are virtually eliminated and a fraud-free profile can be established. The cash received and deposited during the invigilation is then compared to the periods before and after. As an indirect investigative method, invigilation can be very effective in estimating fraud losses. The key to an invigilation’s success is making the employees think that any theft during that period will be detected. Instilling the perception of detection in this case was accomplished by sending in the same team of six investigators to watch the employees for one week. The club’s employees and manager were informed that the investigators were there to make sure that every dollar collected from customers made it into the bank at the end of the day and that changes in consumable inventories were properly accounted for. During the invigilation, the investigators conspicuously watched employees handling cash, conducted surprise cash counts, reconciled changes in inventory to cash register tapes, monitored end-of-night cash counts, and witnessed the daily cash deposits.

The first day brought an incident that greatly heightened the perception of detection. Meals were served downstairs, away from the live entertainment area. Suspecting the single server working downstairs of skimming money from food sales, one of the investigators conducted a surprise cash count and reconciled cash rung into the register to meals prepared by the cooks. The server had skimmed $25 in the first hour she worked. When confronted with the evidence, the server confessed and was immediately terminated. News quickly spread to the other employees, who realized that their activities were indeed under close surveillance. No other employees were caught skimming during the remainder of the invigilation.

During the invigilation’s first night, a Friday, $8,300 in cash was deposited into the bank—the largest sum for one night in the entire 15-year history of the club. This occurred on what was considered a “slow” night—unlike the previous week, which had seen near-record attendance. The manager and employees all soon realized that setting such a record on a slow night reflected poorly on them. This convinced Swenson that his employees were stealing from him, and he wanted to fire everyone on the spot. The investigators persuaded him to allow the invigilation to continue for the entire week as planned. The results of the week-long invigilation are summarized as follows:

Gross cash receipts during the invigilation were $30,960, compared with $25,775 the previous week and $22,006 for the annual weekly average (see Exhibit 2). The revenue during the week of invigilation exceeded the average weekly revenue by $8,954 and the previous week’s revenue by $5,185, despite being a slow week. The above differences implied that at least $259,250 and as much as $447,700 was skimmed per year. (After changes were implemented following the investigation, the remaining nine months’ sales were $300,000 higher than for the same period in the prior year.)

Swenson no longer doubted that his employees were stealing from him. As noted earlier, Swenson had had difficulty believing his manager was stealing because of her efforts to exempt the club from the city ordinance. It became apparent that these efforts were motivated by a desire to protect her illicit cash flow.

Employee interviews were held during the week of the invigilation. Their purpose was twofold: to further enhance the perception of detection during the invigilation period, and to provide employees with an opportunity to report any fraudulent activities. Very specific questions were asked during the interviews, based upon information from the prior undercover surveillance and the ongoing invigilation. While no one admitted to stealing, they did implicate fellow employees; many claimed that manager Betsy Smith was the primary thief.

Filing Claims and Pressing Charges

During her interview, Betsy Smith was confronted with the evidence from the undercover surveillance, invigilation, and employee interviews. After 2 Qs hours, she admitted to stealing almost $100,000 over three years. Her admission was converted to a written statement, which she ultimately signed. The statement detailed the amounts she had skimmed, when she had done so, and the various techniques (skimming from liquor sales, bank deposits, video sales, and food deliveries) she had used. An attached summary totaled the funds skimmed by source. Since evidence collected in resolving off-book fraud schemes is mostly indirect and circumstantial, obtaining a signed admission statement greatly facilitates the filing of employee dishonesty insurance claims or criminal charges. In this case, such a claim was filed by the fraud investigators on behalf of Northern Exposure.

The insurance company restituted Northern Exposure for the maximum coverage amount provided by their policy, $50,000. Clearly, the coverage amount was inadequate given the exposure to risk for such a cash-intensive business. As required by the insurance provider, evidence collected during the fraud examination was turned over to local law enforcement for prosecution.

Making Fraud Prevention Recommendations

Cash-intensive businesses (e.g., bars, restaurants, casinos, convenience stores, movie theaters) are vulnerable to off-book fraud schemes. Few people will steal if they think they will be caught and suffer serious negative consequences. Accordingly, the most effective deterrent is to instill this perception of detection in employees’ minds. In Northern Exposure’s case, the two assets most susceptible to theft were cash and inventory, especially the beer and liquor inventories. Consequently, better internal controls were needed to safeguard those assets.

The following internal controls were implemented:

  • Liquor and beer inventory access was restricted to one person, the head bartender, establishing responsibility for inventory shortages.
  • A meticulous physical inventory was taken, with liquor bottles weighed both before and after each night’s shift. The change in inventory was reconciled with the cash register receipts, providing an independent check on how much cash should be deposited for any given night.
  • Cash registers were closed out by the night manager, who had no access to the registers during the shift. The cash deposits were also made by the same individual. The next day the general manager would reconcile copies of the cash registers tapes to the deposit slips. The general manager also performed bank-to-book reconciliations at the end of the month.
  • Financial statements were analyzed monthly to determine if the markup-cost ratios were consistent with pricing policies.
  • Employees were encouraged to call a fraud hotline if they had knowledge of fraudulent activity being perpetrated by any of the employees. Such tipsters, if their information proved accurate, were rewarded with a cash bonus.
  • Surveillance cameras were installed directly over each cash register to ensure that the cashiers rang up sales correctly. Employees immediately tested the cameras with pranks and found that security personnel were indeed watching. (Northern Exposure spent $25,000 on surveillance equipment, which was recovered in less than one month through the prevention of skimming.) This strengthened the perception of detection and deterred two common ways bartenders steal: leaving the cash drawer open between sales, and hitting “No Sale” or “Void” on the register to open the cash drawer. In both cases, since no sale record is made on the cash register tape, the bartender can pocket the money from such sales. Ideally, the cash register tape should capture No Sales and Voids and bartenders should have to explain them at the end of their shift.
  • To further enhance the perception of detection, employees were informed that the following would be conducted on a surprise basis during the month: 1) undercover surveillance, 2) inventory and cash-register audits, 3) review of disbursements and supporting documentation, and 4) employee fraud assessment interviews.

Companies will always be susceptible to fraud at the points where cash enters or leaves the business. But even cash-intensive businesses can take measures to ensure that fraud is minimized or eradicated. Despite a lack of direct evidence, off-book fraud schemes, such as the skimming that occurred at Northern Exposure, can be detected and thwarted through indirect investigation techniques and careful control over the cash flow a business generates.

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811


Eat, Drink and Be a Success

January 18, 2010 01:42 by administrator

Eat, Drink and Be a Success

Ingredients for success in the food and beverage industry.

By Joel Holland   |   Entrepreneur Magazine - August 2009

You’ve likely heard that the majority of new bars and restaurants fail within the first few years. Add a heavy course load to this discouraging statistic, and it seems almost impossible to launch a successful food and beverage business while in college. But as a college entrepreneur, you actually have some advantages over the 9-to-5ers.

Now in his second year at Georgetown Law, Fritz Brogan not only challenged the restaurant failure myth, he flat out defied it. The full-time student has already been a partner in two successful bars and co-owns two of the hottest establishments in Washington, DC: Gin & Tonic, a happening tavern, and Kitchen, a popular restaurant serving Southern comfort food.

But success didn’t happen overnight. Brogan spent his undergraduate years at Georgetown learning the ropes, bartending at two local bars and then managing a third bar before graduating. “I think a lot of people have this dream that being a bar owner is all about running around, talking to beautiful girls and buying drinks for your friends,” Brogan says. “But to be successful in this business, you need to be able to do the job of every single person who works for you.” And it’s equally important to understand your customer, he adds. “When we designed the bar, I said to myself, ‘Is this the kind of place I would go to if I didn’t own it? What about my friends and the girls we hang out with? Would they go if it wasn’t mine?’” Using input from college buddies (aka his future customers) Brogan built a bar that had the formula to succeed from day one. “We designed Gin & Tonic with our target audience in mind,” he says. “Since I party and study with that demographic, it was very easy for me.”

University of Missouri senior Cary Silverman also tapped into the vast oasis of free (and hungry) market research candidates, turning to his fellow students for inspiration before launching Pub-Corn, a company that manufactures and sells beer- and cocktail-flavored popcorn. The idea popped into Silverman’s head one night as he observed friends sneaking alcohol into the campus movie theater and couldn’t help wondering what popcorn and alcohol tasted like together. Pub-Corn now ships more than 2,000 bags of its specialty popcorn per week, thanks to Silverman’s nontraditional market research; he went straight to his potential customer base--down the hall. “Just grab a handful of your friends and say, ‘Look, I’ve got this product, try it and tell me what you think,’” he says. “Chances are your friends are going to be the ones who are most honest with you anyway.” 

___________________________________________

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811


Tags:
Categories: Blog | Industry Information
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

How to spot and combat the dishonest bartender

January 10, 2010 17:33 by administrator

How to spot and combat the dishonest bartender

by Herman E. Zaddareli

Most bartenders are basically honest. Unfortunately, some are not. Of all the workers in the hospitality industry, the bartender has the best opportunities for stealing.

Consider that the bartender alone is generally responsible for taking a drink order, preparing it, serving it, collecting income, recording it on the register or data machine, and making change. In some operations, especially small ones, he or she is also responsible for ordering products, conducting inventories, and reconciling cash when the shift ends.

A basic principle of sales income control is to reduce the opportunities for theft available to one employee working alone. However, it is very difficult to do so in the case of a bartender, because his or her duties cannot conveniently be divided with another worker. If that could be done, it would make it more difficult for the bartender to steal because collusion between two or more employees is usually required.

Control of bartender theft begins during the job interview. While it's easy to say "hire honest people," in practice, it's hard to do so objectively.

Checking applicant references, utilizing the services of a bonding company, and placing a bartender in a tightly controlled operation are several techniques that are at the beginning of the bartender control strategy.

It is not easy to determine the honesty of a bartender or any other employee in an objective way. Still, many managers pride themselves on being able to select an honest staff. The realization that it is difficult to do so is a good justification for a detailed study of ways to control bartender theft.

A number of standard operating procedures can be utilized for controlling theft of this kind. First, you can use a system to anticipate the amount of income that should be collected. The use of guest checks, electronic data machines, pre-check registers, and so on are examples of ways to provide a "double-check" on the amount of sales income rung on the register. Second, you can closely supervise the bartender when he or she is working. Third, you can use a shopping service, which will help assess the extent to which bartenders comply with required operating procedures. Finally, you can develop detailed procedures for the use of registers and data machines. Bartenders should know that they are not allowed to bunch sales, work out of an open cash drawer, and leave the tip jar close to the register.

One tactic many operators use for controlling bartender theft involves replacing the cash drawer during the work shift itself. The manager rings the machine to assess the amount of sales generated since the beginning of the bartender's shift. The cash drawer is pulled and replaced with another cash drawer. The money in the cash drawer should be counted.

The sum of all sales rung up plus the beginning cash bank should, of course, equal the amount of cash in the drawer. If there is more cash in the drawer than is expected, the manager has a clue that the bartender has been "no-ringing," that is he or she has been giving away drinks, depositing money without registering the sale on the machine, or keeping track of the amount of cash that can be withdrawn at the end of the shift or some other convenient time.

The wise manager knows the standard beverage cost and routinely compares the expected costs with the actual costs. If the difference exceeds a pre-established variance, that is an objective indication that "something is wrong." The theft of sales income -- which increase the beverage cost percent -- is a common reason for excessive variances.

The beverage manager will do well to ask himself this question: "If I were a dishonest bartender, how would I steal from the operation?"

To the extent that answers to that question can be developed, the manager is aware of potential problems that must be corrected. Unfortunately, though, the street-wise bartender is often aware of many more ways to steal than the manager has any inkling of. At the least, however, the manager must accept the responsibility of making the sales income control system as tight as possible without losing sensitivity to the need for efficiency at the time of guest service.

Some managers use a wide variety of procedures to reduce opportunities for theft. For example, they might mark house bottles to make it more difficult for dishonest bartenders to bring in their own beverage stocks, or they could rotate the shifts of bartenders and beverage servers.

Hiring inexperienced bartenders, who presumably do not know a wide range of theft methods, is a third example. At least one property has fired a dishonest bartender and then rehired him as a special consultant to demonstrate common theft methods that he and his colleagues have used to beat the house. A common denominator in all of these management strategies is the need to make routine comparisons between the potential and actual costs and take corrective action as necessary.

Close supervision has already been noted as a major deterrent to bartender theft. Managers should recognize that there is no automatic correlation between length of employment and the honesty of the staff member. Frequently, long-tenured bartenders are given more freedom than those newly hired and are not required to follow all operating procedures.

It is that kind of situation that enables the dishonest bartender -- regardless of length of employment -- to steal. Therefore, it is important that tight procedures be developed and implemented and that all employees, regardless of length of service, be required to comply with them.

If you understand that it is extremely difficult to prevent bartender theft, you will recognize the importance of implementing basic, common-sense strategies to reduce the impact of the problem on your bottom line. Likewise, you will take another step in your progress toward reducing bartender theft if you are aware that your employees as well as the people down the street are likely to steal. Once the manager recognizes that he is susceptible to theft and that control procedures must be developed and implemented to combat the problem, he has taken the first step.

A commitment to reducing the chances of bartender theft can be converted into action plans to revise operating procedures as necessary to "tighten" sales income control practices.

In contrast, those who are unaware of the significance of the problem will probably not take any steps to fight it. As a result, the facility's economic objectives can never be maximized.

by Herman E. Zaddareli 

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811


Tags:
Categories: Blog | Industry Information
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Why Now is the Time to Open a Restaurant

December 3, 2009 21:21 by administrator

Rents are dropping, talented chefs are up for grabs and, most important, smarter diners are looking for value, not glitz.

Last year, Philip Hoffman did something most people would call crazy in this economy: He opened a restaurant.

Taking over the lease on a failing French bistro in New York's Greenwich Village, Hoffman and his team stripped out the Gallic bric-a-brac, leaving the room with a cool, spare look. They hired a tiny staff and created an eclectic, accessibly priced menu--overseen by a chef with three-star experience. Then they threw open the doors, and lo and behold, The New French, as they slyly named it, has been such a success that sales were up 7 percent this summer over last. Now the restaurant is expanding, with a sidewalk cafe and possibly into a space next door. On a recent holiday weekend, chef Livio Velardo served 150 brunchers in a single afternoon.

This in the worst economy since the Great Depression.  

"I don't think there's a good time or a bad time to open a restaurant," says Hoffman, who started cooking at 15 and stayed in the business until 1999 before founding a private-label  manufacturing business called FoodSwing. "But if you do your job well, you'll do well. People want to get cared for in a recession. People want to get drunk in a recession."

Everyone knows the prevailing wisdom about the restaurant business: It's a bad bet, notorious for failure, with three out of four places closing within the first three years.

But consider this: Studies have found the risk of closing is the same in good times and bad, according to Andrew Rigie of the New York State Restaurant Association. And the upsides to a down economy make it a risk worth considering. Rents have dropped by as much as 66 percent in prime locations, and landlords are actually offering abatements. There's a huge pool of talented chefs and workers desperate for jobs and willing to work for much less. And, as Hoffman says, "There's money sitting on the sidelines" to be tapped for investments, even if banks are not loaning at all.

Today, a new restaurant will likely need much, much less of it. Just a few years ago, startup costs could easily be in the millions, with most of that shelled out to a designer and publicist. Like many restaurateurs today, Hoffman and his team were able to open on an apron string--a mere $30,000 investment--in part because the expectations for the restaurant experience have changed so radically.

Plush dining rooms, star chefs and menus built around foie gras and truffles feel outdated--while rooms that are simple, with a personal touch, feel right. The trendiest dishes of 2009 were built around less expensive ingredients, such as bacon, seasonal produce and good ground beef--which means restaurants can charge less per dish but still make more money on them. A new generation of diners watching the Food Network and "Top Chef" is more interested in what's on the plate than if a headwaiter is on the premises: They want value, not glitz.

No wonder more restaurants have begun opening at an amazing clip: In cities as far-flung as Philadelphia and Kansas City, Mo., the rate of openings this fall is the highest in recent memory. Applications to open food establishments in New York City were up 25 percent over 2008 in the first four months of the year.

But rarely are these showy, splashy temples of design.

Consider Animal in Los Angeles, a stark box with bare tabletops and 47 wooden seats that are among the most sought-after in town. Owners Jon Shook and Vinny Dotolo started with a catering company that "took off like wildfire" and are now renowned as the Food Network's "Food Dudes," the makers of gutsy dishes like poutine with oxtail gravy.

"When we opened, we originally wanted to be a neighborhood restaurant serving tasty food," Dotolo says. "The bare-minimalist style came from Jon and I floating all the cash for this business. People go to restaurants to eat. We knew if we made the food good, it didn't matter what we hung on the walls."

David Chang in New York City has become a phenomenon on par with the city's four-star establishments by adopting the same food-first attitude at his four Momofuku restaurants. "I play to my strengths: offering something excellent in the most spartan of environments." And people go to absurd lengths to snare a backless stool at one of his counters in a cramped room, especially since he does not even employ a reservationist, saving money by only taking reservations online.

"If we knew how to operate a real restaurant, with people in penguin suits, I would name it Hubris," he says. "We don't do that well." 

Donatella Arpaia, who has four restaurants in New York City and Miami, agrees with the sentiment: "People are being careful. They only want to go out for reliable food."

Her rustic-looking neighborhood restaurant Kefi--opened last winter with chef Michael Psilakis--is known for doing 500 covers a night with new Greek entrées that top out at $15.95. "Kefi is a massive success because it's the right location and the right concept in this economy," she says. The partners' high-end restaurant Anthos, by contrast, is struggling because it caters to a corporate crowd in Midtown Manhattan. "People are afraid of Anthos-style restaurants now," Arpaia says. Even diners on expense accounts who in previous downturns would drop $1,000 on a bottle of wine now worry that "it looks bad."

Which makes the hoariest cliché in the restaurant business even more true today: Location, location, location. And, once again, the outlook is encouraging. Venerable Hudson Street, where The New French is thriving, is one long strip of "for rent" signs, including one right next door where the restaurant is considering expanding.

"It's a good time because you can get into a space really, really reasonably," says Rob Levitt, chef/owner with his wife Allison of Mado in Chicago. "A nice-size space that five years ago was $5,000 or $6,000 a month is now $2,000."

He opened in a gentrifying neighborhood where young people are moving for low rents and want great food, just not "super-fine dining," and has built a devoted following with a local/sustainable menu built around the farmers market.

Celina Tio, who left the American Restaurant in Kansas City, Mo., to open her own restaurant, was ready to move to Charlotte, N.C., when she found a spot closer to home that "I never thought would be possible." She is remodeling a space in the Brookside area that has two essential elements: Heavy pedestrian traffic and strong local support for the restaurant that had been there 20 years. 

And Peter Oleyer of Calexico in Brooklyn, N.Y., says he and his partners spent a year searching in the rough-and-tumble Red Hook neighborhood, educating themselves by watching what was available, how much it rented for and to whom. Opening a French bistro there would be a disaster, he says, but "people can eat tacos twice a week, and they do. In this economy you have to focus on your neighborhood."

Similarly, Yassmin Sarmadi, owner of Church & State in Los Angeles, says opening a simple bistro downtown has worked brilliantly. "As people started moving back," she says, "there was more need for eateries for people who wanted to go out and not spend a lot of money." Most of her entrées are less than $28.

Restaurateurs agree: You can't understimate the value of location. "Never gamble on an iffy location," Arpaia says. "You can have less staff, less infrastructure, but you need to study the location really well." And negotiate intensely, trying to get as many concessions as possible.

Restaurant owners have also gained the upper hand in negotiations with service providers from upholsterers to contractors, who are strapped for cash and anxious for jobs. There are "deals" to be made on staff too. Says Hoffman, "A chef who wanted $100,000 before may now deal for as little as $35,000. It depends on the players involved."

Velardo of The New French says many chefs who trained at the top, in three- and four-star restaurants, now want to work in less formal environments. The restaurant world is also attracting professionals from other industries, whether Wall Street or interior design. Arpaia says she used to be overwhelmed with culinary school graduates "who couldn't hold a knife and wanted $50,000 to $60,000 a year, and now I get career-changers who are overqualified but willing to work to make their dream come true. The era of the celebrity chef hit a high point. Now we're going back to basics."

Tio hired her whole staff without any advertising after she received 40 to 50 applications for 15 positions. The owners of Church & State snared Walter Manzke, the former chef at two L.A. temples of fine dining, Bastide and Patina, when he approached them.

Even with all the bargains and opportunities in a beaten economy, it takes money to make money with a restaurant. Animal's founders spent "substantially less than a million" to open but say it was still "insanely expensive" given the size of the place. Tio budgeted as much as $120,000 for her restaurant with 50 seats inside and 50 outside. In New York, Chang says a small restaurant could cost $300,000 while a four-star aspirant might be $10 million. But as Mendes of Aldea in New York warns: "If you spent $5 million on building a restaurant, entrées would have to be $36 and you'd be dead by now."

Banks, Sarmadi observes, always resist lending to open restaurants, which rank second to retail in profitability. But credit is so tight now that they are really pulling back. Hoffman's business associate Ron Feldman says the bank he approached for an expansion loan told him, "We only loan to people who don't need money."

Investors are the usual solution, but the Calexico partners took a more clever route: They started with a taco truck on the streets of Manhattan and built both a clientele and a pile of savings. Originally they had drawn up a business plan for four small taquerias and gone so far as to gather investors before getting cold feet and trying to "baby-step it." Three years later they opened a restaurant with a kitchen big enough to serve as a commissary for the trucks--and a ready-made clientele.

As always, the bottom line really is the bottom line, which is why successful restaurateurs hammer on the importance of a business plan. "You can't think you are going to open a restaurant and only pay the bills," Mendes says. "You really have to have a strong plan. It's tedious, it's a test of patience. But it's key." More important, "don't open with zero in the bank --I've been open for six months and am still paying bills for construction."

Arpaia and others lament that culinary schools graduate chefs with no serious training in business beyond managing food costs. And so she advises: "Partner with people who know what they are doing and not be undercapitalized. If you think you need $50,000, you really need $100,000. You need to cover payroll, food and wine. People who are undercapitalized make it to nine months; most don't make that first year." 

Even so, she says: "There are tremendous opportunities to get into the business now--if you're capitalized, you're smart, you know what you're doing and you're committed to service." 

Once upon a time, the business plan for opening a restaurant required an expensive section on marketing: Hire public relations firm, print up fliers, stage a press party to kick things off. Nowadays three words nearly suffice: Facebook. Twitter. Blogs.

In a business where word of mouth can make or break you, a restaurateur now has serious megaphones for spreading the word. And they're all free. The food truck phenomenon illuminated the way, as cooks who had no land lines or set location have been able to alert aficionados by tweeting their whereabouts and daily offerings.

Restaurants have been quick to follow. Mado in Chicago, which buys a whole hog every two weeks to butcher and cook, tweets when it has porchetta on the menu, and reports that within minutes the phone is ringing for reservations. Twitter is also a useful way of tracking customer reactions and quelling complaints before they spread.

Facebook is most valuable for building a fan base for a restaurant, chef or both, but is also an effective way to disseminate specials or other deals. Animal in Los Angeles has a fan page with much of the information a diner might search for on a website.

Beyond social media, blogs are the new promo launch pads. Sites such as Eater and Grub Street need to feed an insatiable tip machine and will announce openings well ahead of even daily newspapers. And it just takes an e-mail to make it happen.

By Regina Schrambling   |   Entrepreneur Magazine - November 2009

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.

eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811


Tags:
Categories: Industry Information
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (0) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

To Catch A Thief

November 10, 2009 22:11 by administrator

To Catch A Thief

Written by Bill Main www.billmain.com

June 1st, 2009

Any foodservice operation with a bar knows that it can be a challenge to keep beverage costs under control, and even more difficult to get to the root of the problem. Weekly inventory procedures, training in proper cash handling, and an accurate calculation of actual and theoretical costs are industry best practices. But often there is a suspicion that something else is going on…employee theft.

One way to put your suspicions to rest is to track bartender overs and shorts. Working with the bar’s cash-register tapes, create a spreadsheet according to bartender and shift. Keep track of the amount the drawer is over or short each shift. If two bartenders share a register, the over/short activity should be shared equally, or pro-rated based upon hours worked.

In the sample below, note that the first three bartenders have accumulated “shorts” during a two-week time period. Added to previous weeks, they have a cumulative “shortage” of 3.47. Shortages are considered to be within industry standards and practices if they stay within a 1% range. Mistakes made by these bartenders in serving and ringing up beverages are accruing to the “benefit” of the customers, who may be receiving a slight amount more than they are paying for.

But look at bartender number four, Sam Wilson. He has accumulated “overages” of +6.77. Instead of errors made in the guests’ favor, there is the sense that the guests are paying more than they should for the quantity of beverages being received. More likely, however, this bartender is stealing. He may be serving drinks to patrons and guests, collecting the cash payments, and placing the currency in the cash drawer. What he fails to do is “ring up” the drink in the cash register or on the point-of-sale system. This is an obvious and common practice, causing a slowly increasing beverage cost.

Bartenders can accumulate, over the course of a shift, a significant amount of cash from payments not “rung up.” For example, in an average bar or cocktail lounge operation, by the end of the shift the excess cash could be $50 or more. The problem for the thieving bartender is that he has to somehow keep track in his head of the total amount of cash skimmed. For example, if a bartender accumulates $40 in cash that has not been rung up, the typical behavior is to only take $30 — to psychologically “cover your tracks” by taking less than you have actually skimmed. But keeping an accurate account of what has been skimmed is difficult to do. A bartender who is stealing can usually be identified by monitoring a pattern of overages.

We’ve provided a ready-to-use Over/Short Tracking Form. Don’t be afraid to let your employees know that you’re keeping track. Often times this is enough of a deterrent to stop a thief in action, or prevent others from taking advantage.

Bill Main, FMP, FCSI, is a nationally-recognized author, foodservice consultant, and professional speaker. His goal is to help you define who you are, where you want to go, and the best way to get there. Bill Main & Associates (www.billmain.com) offers a wide range of consulting services, resources and tools in the areas of strategic growth, marketing, menu, leadership, training, and management development

Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

 

 


Do yourself a favor. Get rid of dishonest employees

November 10, 2009 21:57 by administrator

Re-Post from: THE SNUG: a rant & review of the Irish hospitality industry.

 Do yourself a favour. Get rid of dishonest employees

 Posted by barkeeper under Barry Chandler

You know the scenario. The cash hasn’t been balancing at the end of the night and you have your suspicions as to who is responsible but you haven’t caught anyone in the act and don’t want to risk accusing the wrong employees. Some nights you have too much cash, and some nights too little.

If cash is going missing, then its going missing from one place and one place only – the cash register. The process should be simple, a customer orders a meal or a drink, its entered into the cash register, the customer profers payment and the transaction is closed and change given. However, clever and dishonest employees can work the system so that they dont enter the full value of the meal or hit a button relating to a lower priced item and pocket the difference.

With most till scams that I have come across, the defrauded cash normally stays in the drawer until the bartender has an opportune moment to remove it. This will normally be when there are no customers or staff around. To get around this, vary the times at which you remove the cash drawer and do a register reading. If nobody knows when management are going to remove the drawer, they run the risk of being caught in the act.

With this procedure, it is essential that only one staff member is allowed access to one cash register during their shift. Otherwise, blame is easily put on other employees who used it. Also ensure that the employee counted their cash in the drawer when they came on duty so that they cannot use the excuse of the opening float being incorrect.

Maintain this procedure, even after the offending employees have been caught and fired so that future employees will see the controls that are in place before they attempt something similar.

Business is hard enough without having to worry about dishonest emplyees, so let them go as soon as they are caught stealing.
Barry Chandler


Michael Zenner - CEO  
         

Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811