Bartender Summary
- Bartender 1: Tan Caucasian male with short brown hair with a small frontal flip. He was stationed at the northeast corner of the Xxxxxx main bar.
- Bartender 2: Thin Caucasian male with short brown, slightly messy hair. He was stationed at the xxxx bar near the smoking area.
- Bartender 3: Caucasian male with short brown hair wearing a pen behind his ear. He was stationed at the upstairs long bar in the xxxxxx room.
- Bartender 4: Caucasian female with blonde hair pulled in a pony tail. She wore a greenish bustier and was stationed at the upstairs satellite bar in the Xxxxxx room.
- Bartender 5: Caucasian male with gelled hair combed to the middle and a tattoo on his arm. He was stationed at the southeast corner of the Xxxxxx main bar.
The agent found an open spot at the bar and awaited service. Bartender 1 was very busy, and was attempting to work as quickly as possible. The agent appreciated the effort; however, he seemed to work at the expense of precision pouring. Many of the concoctions that he was pouring were rather heavy at a 5-6 count pours (4 count = 1 ½ oz). Systemically, the pours were heavier when poured in tall glasses. The agent could not confirm whether these beverages were ordered as doubles or if the extra liquor was due to a charge increase for drinks served tall.
Bartender 1 also had the tendency to group orders. Being that there were so many customers, he often began taking orders as he was pouring beverages for other customers and did not wait for payment before beginning preparation for subsequent orders. The agent understands that this may be perceived as an effective way to service customers at a quicker pace, but the practice also lends itself to cash manipulation and/or mistakes. When the agent ordered a beverage, it would have been easy to have walked without payment because transactions were not completed immediately. Agent stresses that a lot of revenue is probably being lost by the ineffective ringing.
Bartender 2 was stationed at the outdoor Xxxxxx bar, and handled a much lower customer volume. Bartender 2 was very methodical in his approach and was diligent about ringing orders immediately after service.
Furthermore, his pouring style was appropriate, typically ranging from about a 3-4 count portion. The patience and conscientiousness did not significantly impede service speed, and there was no indication that he was grouping orders or giving away free beverages. All orders seemed to be fully accounted for in his POS entries, and he maintained a clean bar.
Bartender 3 was also handling a significant customer flow, and he was rather disorganized in his POS practices. He was constantly grouping orders and was likely to have made mistakes in taking orders.
When the agent ordered a beverage, Bartender 3 took several orders simultaneously. This eventually led to confusion regarding what drinks went on which credit card. Bartender 3 had to return to the agent to confirm which beverages were included on which tab. It was evident that mistakes are easily occurring using this grouping practice.
Furthermore, he was heavy handed in his pours, typically delivering a 5-6 count for mixed beverages.
Bartender 4 was stationed at the upstairs satellite bar. She handled a very small volume of customers and seemed to have things under control. The bar was kept clean, and she made sure to ring orders into the POS immediately following service.
Furthermore, her pours were consistent and appropriate, using a 3-4 count pour on all beverages. She was organized and efficient.
Bartender 5 was stationed at the Xxxxxx main bar, and was overwhelmed with customers. The agent waited several minutes before he was able to approach.
It was noted that he has a preference for serving female customers, often overlooking males that may have been waiting for longer periods of time.
Although his pouring practices were responsible, he was not diligent about entering orders into the POS following service. He was observed grouping orders and handling multiple transactions simultaneously.
When the agent ordered a beverage, he prepared the beverage quickly and quoted a price. Rather than waiting for the agent to pay he moved on to serve another customer. When he returned he grabbed the agent’s credit card as well as another customer’s card that had been part of the beverage group. It was clear that he was not organized in his approach, as he had to return to ask us which card went with which order. Although it is promising that he was aware of his error, this practice is clearly not efficient and is prone to errors.
Overall, the pouring styles of the bartenders were relatively consistent and appropriate in volume; however, there was a trend of grouping orders that was evident throughout the night. This type of practice can easily lead to mistakes, beverage giveaways, cash manipulation, and it is the most effective way to mask bar theft.
In the case of Bartender 3, he was heavy handed in his pours and was also guilty of grouping orders.
With the exception of the satellite bar, none of the bars were kept clean and speedy service was prioritized over proper POS practices. The agent would have definitely recommended one additional bartender at the Xxxxxx main bar, as this location seemed to be the least clean and to have the most difficulty in handling the customer volume.
In the Agent’s opinion, Bartenders, along with the rest of the staff, need to be a bit more cognizant of customer intoxication. This is a team effort, and it is important for the bartenders to look for signs of intoxication (slurred speech, imprecise movement, etc.).
BARTENDER THEFT:
Michael Zenner – CEO
Hospitality Checkpoint
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. 2011
One thought on “BARTENDER THEFT – Grouping of drink orders and delayed drink rings can lead to unaccouted for alcohol drinks.”
Comments are closed.