Bartender Summary
· Bartender 1 – Xxxxxxxxx: Caucasian female with blonde hair pulled into a ponytail. She wore a black shirt with yellow trim and black pants.
· Bartender 2 – Xxxxxxxxx: Caucasian female with dark brown wavy hair pulled into a ponytail. She also wore a black shirt with yellow trim and black pants.
The agent found an open spot at the bar and was given a friendly greeting by Xxxxxxxxx. The agent ordered a beverage, and Xxxxxxxxx promptly asked for ID. After confirming the agent’s age, Xxxxxxxxx prepared the beverage and quoted a price upon delivery. The agent presented a credit card, and Xxxxxxxxx confirmed that the agent wished to keep a tab open.
Xxxxxxxxx was very energetic and spent the majority of her time dancing along to the music. This did not impede her work, and seemed to add to the energy of her surroundings.
The bar was fairly crowded this evening, and many of the individuals seemed to be collegiate and of questionable age. For the most part, the agent observed Xxxxxxxxx carding individuals as they approached the bar. Later, when the associate arrived at the establishment, Xxxxxxxxx made sure to verify age; however, there were significant portion of the crowd that seemed to be very familiar with Xxxxxxxxx, as evidenced by their conversation content and her familiarity with their names. These individuals were never carded, and it was not long before the agent observed the first beverage being given away free.
At approximately 9:50 pm, the agent observed a male customer call the bartender by name and ask for a shot of Patron. Xxxxxxxxx prepared the shot. The customer secured cash from the customer, and brought it over to the POS; however, when she reached the computer, she quickly dropped the sum of money directly into the tip jar, which was positioned in rather close proximity to the POS system.
Shortly afterward, the same customer brought two friends over to take a round of the Patron shots. This time the transaction was handled appropriately; however, these customers were very visibly intoxicated, and they subsequently spilled a good portion of the tequila onto the bar. This spillage was never cleaned up. More importantly, Xxxxxxxxx displayed complete neglect to the level of intoxication of her customers.
The agent, and later the associate, sat at the bar until 10:00 and never were even offered a menu. Eventually, the agent reached over the bar for one at which time Xxxxxxxxx approached and asked whether we wanted to order food, handing us menus. This was nearly 45 minutes after first sitting at the bar. Xxxxxxxxx did not make any recommendations from the menu, nor did she mention the Thursday wing special that is featured at the establishment. She also neglected to mention any other beverage specials that might have been occurring. As the agent and associate perused the menu for what turned into 19 minutes, the agent observed another beverage being given away for free.
At approximately 10:07 pm, the agent observed a tall male wearing a hat approach the bar. Again, he and the bartender seemed to be familiar with one another. This individual asked Xxxxxxxxx for “another Margarita.” Xxxxxxxxx promptly prepared the drink, but did not enter anything into the POS system to account for the beverage.
Finally, at 10:19, Xxxxxxxxx came back to us and asked if we were ready to order. The agent placed a food order, and the associate ordered an additional beverage. Xxxxxxxxx had no idea about the beverage, which was listed as a feature item on the menu. She was very rude to the associate, as if it were not her responsibility to know the menu. Her only response was, “it’s a huge menu.” This behavior was rather disconcerting. If Agent was not on duty, we would have tabbed out and never returned to this establishment.
As the agent and associate awaited the food, the agent observed Xxxxxxxxx’s bartending style. It was very evident that her pouring methods were highly variable. Occasionally, beverages would be lucky if they were reaching a 1 ¼ oz, and at other times her pour count would reach 5 counts (4 count = 1 ½ oz pour).
At 10:22 pm, Xxxxxxxxx was preparing a beverage from a bottle that was nearly empty. Rather than using a jigger to measure precisely, Xxxxxxxxx decided to pop off the pourer top and free pour the remainder into the glass. Precision on pour amounts was totally out the window, although it appeared that the customer was likely the one whom was shorted in this scenario. The agent also observed Xxxxxxxxx free pouring from a Beefeater bottle later in the evening, at approximately 11:07 pm.
The agent’s food arrived in a reasonable amount of time. Surprisingly (This was the agent’s personal feeling by this point), Xxxxxxxxx came to check on the food order.
At approximately 10:30 pm, the agent observed one of the employee’s that had apparently gotten off work approach the bar. Xxxxxx approached him and asked what he wanted to order. He gave an order, and Xxxxxxxxx postponed service to take care of some of the other customers first. Eventually, he stated that he would like to order from one of the other employee’s tonight. It was unclear about what his intentions were, but it seemed suspicious at the time and was noteworthy. It definitely raised “red flags.”
At approximately 10:58 pm, the individual that had ordered the margarita earlier had returned. This time he was complaining that he was not nearly drunk enough yet. Xxxxxxxxx mixed him an additional margarita and again neglected to ring the order into the POS.
Due to proximity, the agent was able to observe Xxxxxxxxx much more closely than Xxxxxxxxx; however, they were both rather variable in pours. Despite this variability, the agent never observed either bartender pour more than a 4 ½ count. This is still rather strong, but not necessarily egregious. The agent would definitely recommend more training on pour counts, or perhaps requiring them to use a jigger for precision.
The agent also felt that the two bartenders had a good energy behind the bar adding to the vibe of the establishment; however, it appeared that their rapport with the customers went over the line, as evidenced by free beverages being given away.
Both bartenders need to be much more alert to intoxicate customers, as there were quite a few of them. A group toward the back of the room were becoming very loud and boisterous by the end of the night, classic signs of intoxication for which a bartender should be aware.
The agent’s largest issue with the MOD’s during this evaluation are in regards to what they allowed to happen during the observation. To begin with, there was absolutely no method to deter underage people from getting alcohol. There was a beer pong tournament and a nice patio area where any individual could take multiple drinks and hand them out to whomever. The agent was not checked for ID at the door, and there were no wristbands or stamps to indicate drinking age. There was absolutely no regulation. On a night when there are open beer pong tables to whomever wishes to play, there needs to be some method of regulation, especially when the layout of the establishment includes a restaurant feet from the bar area that allows all ages. The responsibility to ensure that the area is secure for underage drinking is ultimately the MOD’s responsibility.
Michael Zenner – CEO
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Mobile: 602-622-0875
Toll Free: 800-880-0811