Bartender Summary
The following bartenders were observed the evening of the thirteenth:
- Bartender 1: XZxxxx Female, 5’7″, medium build, dark hair to the shoulders pulled back in a ponytail, black quarter sleeve shirt, small hoop earrings and pendant necklace
- Bartender 2: XZxxxx Female, 5’7″, average build, highlighted dark hair past the shoulders, red Xxxxx tank top, large hoop earrings
- Bartender 3: XZxxxx Female, 5’6″, average build, highlighted dark hair past the shoulders, black Xxxxx sleeveless top, large hoop earrings
- Bartender 4: XZxxxx Female, 5’5″, average build, wavy dark hair past the shoulders, black Xxxxx tank top
The agent entered the bar and waited at the bar nearly three minutes before being greeted by Bartender 1. She approached by asking, “Can I get you a drink?” Afterward, she immediately prepared, presented, and rang in the order. Other than this, the agent only noted two instances of bartenders actively offering drinks to customers, and in keeping with the agent’s experience, this occurred only when there was no glass in front of a customer standing at the bar for minutes. Even a customer standing behind an empty glass was not enough to prompt an effort at active sales.
All the same, once a drink was specifically requested, all bartenders would go quickly into action, making the drink, presenting it, and ringing it up, though in at least one case, the round was not rung up entirely correctly.
In particular, at 23:35, Bartender 1 was observed taking a customer’s order of a mixed drink and a quarter bottle of Xxxxx. Bartender 1 initially rang this in correctly, with the mixed drink coming in at eight dollars and the Xxxxx at twenty, for a total of twenty-eight dollars, the amount initially displayed in small text at the bottom of the screen. This was also the amount she quoted to the customer; however when she finalized the transaction after taking the full payment, the amount that showed on the screen for minutes after the fact was eight dollars.
Surely this process was hidden and made all the easier to carry out by the fact that all the bartenders used a pile of small bills on top of the register to make change, eventually building up larger bills for their tips by exchanging change between the register and their stacks on top of the drawers, and shifting their cash around accordingly.
In this case though, based on the sequence of screen touches, the round difference between the correct and incorrect amounts displayed, and the ease of hiding the overage, it seems likely to the agent that the extra twenty dollars went straight into Bartender 1’s tips. And it was not difficult to do.
In a system in which the customer’s cash is folded into a bartender’s tips every time cash is handed over, there is no need for the bartender to even sneak around, risking incrimination by temporarily storing stolen cash in the register or pocketing it surreptitiously – putting the customer’s money in your tips is standard procedure. What’s more, the brazen nature of this process of charging more than is clearly displayed on the screen suggests that Bartender 1 feels completely secure in doing this and has likely done it many times. In other words, the theft has probably gone on for so long “unchecked” that there seems to be no need to even hide it.
This piece of theft struck the agent as disappointing but not entirely unexpected, as Bartender 1 showed far more initiative to wait on customers and make money than did any others.
For example, during the period from 23:33-42, when Bartenders 2 and 3 were spending the entire time talking, showing each other their phones and ignoring customers in the process, Bartender 1 took over the vast majority of responsibility. Similarly, she worked disproportionately hard from 23:43-8, in which Bartender 2 was once again showing her cell phone to someone who appeared to be a manager or owner (Latino male, 5’10”, muscular build, dark fade, Grey suit with black tee shirt) standing at the open end of the bar. Nevertheless, in spite of this motivation to make money, none of the bartenders showed a particular willingness to up-sell. When a customer asked for a mixed drink or type of liquor without specifying a brand, they generally gave the cheapest of that type rather than offer something premium that would positively affect their own tips and the house’s sales.
Compounding the problem of the drawer-top cash being handled several more times than was necessary to make change; it was also the cause of a breakdown in cash-handling controls at 24:40 in which Bartender 3 found cash on the floor between the register and her neighbor’s tip box. After a period of visible confusion as to where it came from, she simply threw the extra cash in the nearest tip box.
Additionally, irregularities in pouring technique were rampant. Only Bartender 4 had a consistent 4-count (1.5 ounce) pour. While the pours of the rest were relatively consistent, they were all too heavy. Bartenders 1 and 3 had consistent 5-counts, and bartender 2 varied between a 5- and a 6-count. That is to say, the average over pour was a waste of more than 25%, and likely also fed a loss in sales due to customers being satisfied with fewer and stronger drinks.
What’s more, in addition to being the only bartender with an appropriate pour, Bartender 1 was also the only one to actually use the ice scoop, whereas the other bartenders all risked customer infection and laceration by simply scooping ice with the glasses in which they planned to make the drinks, in the process risking the customers’ health and the establishment’s liability.
In addition to a heavy average pour among the staff, the agent also witnessed such irregularities as Bartender 2 pouring Long Island Iced Teas made with cumulative 13-count and 16-count pours at 24:43 and 48, respectively. The latter was a whopping quadruple pour of liquor. Serving this much alcohol in on drink is a major liquor liability. It also constitutes a form of bartender theft as the extra liquor is not accounted for.
Given that a number of large-mouthed bottles and highly individually shaped liquor bottles did not have pour spots, there was more over-pouring still when these bottles were used. As such, the agent would strongly recommend a significant refresher course in re-teaching proper blind pour timing to staff on all the marginalized bottles.
While there was no cocktail server, on occasion, Bartender 3 would check the floor tables, bringing back any small order and delivering it. She handled all such issues at once, with no middle man or confusion, and no under-reported ring-ins or redundancies in communication.
Other than the problematic practice of keeping change bills in plain sight and accessible, the issues noted above were the only examples of mishandling cash. All cash drawers were kept closed when not in use at that moment, and all tabs and cash orders were otherwise handled responsibly.
The bartenders and bar-back (Latino male, 5’8″ closely cropped dark hair and narrow full beard) also did an excellent job of keeping the back bar clean, though the bartenders rarely moved to take an empty glass or unused cocktail napkin off the bar top or wipe it down.
Instead, this was left almost entirely to the bar-back. While he stayed busy at all times though, he had a tendency to get absorbed in a task like washing and stocking glassware for long enough that the cleanliness of the bar top would suffer until he was done with his current task.
Bartender 1 was drinking from a Collins glass with ice and a red colored drink off and on all night, but no one was observed eating. Otherwise, all bartenders appeared hygienic and professional, but Bartenders 2 and 3 spent a significant amount of time playing with their cell phones as detailed above. This did not significantly hamper Bartender 1’s ability to serve customers, but appeared very unprofessional to the customer, especially since they never washed their hands afterward, but continued scooping ice out of ice wells with glasses they were holding.
Finally, even though the security staff failed to card the agent’s party, from the bartender’s perspective, there was intentional serving of un-carded patrons, but there was at least one noticeably over-served patron (see “Security” section for details).
BARTENDER THEFT:
Michael Zenner – CEO
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.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
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2010