Been asked to pay back a short till?

[Guest Battleaxe]

When i worked at G J Coles, our floats were made up and we had o count it into the till. Any money removed during the day was counted in front of us and we had to countersign the chit. At end of day till was counted again, checked against the detail roll and the float recounted. This way we knew if there was a shortage or over. Never on a shortage were we asked to repay, because three or four people could have used the till during the day. In the pub, up to six bar staff could use the till at any time, it was ony when it was quiet and you are the only member of staff operating the till was a mistake brought to your attention, but never asked to repay shortages. Overs were the problem.

 

Different horses for different courses I guess.

[thejanegirl]

They tried to do this at the large national pizza chain I have a second job with.

 

I spoke to a solicitor friend about it and she said absolutely not, no way could they do that, especially as so many people had till access and we weren't starting with a 'clean' till.

 

Unfair Terms In Contracts Act was mentioned.

 

I asked work how they intended to collect any monies 'owed'; I wasn't handing it over, so they would have to ring Payroll and put a deduction through on my, and everyone else's wages for, say £1.50, 75p etc.

 

I threatened to ring HR @ head office to discuss the matter further and no more was said.

[blackcatchillers]

I can not work out for the life of me how companys are allowed to go near somebodys pay packet. The things i have found out while being on this site have amazed me.Do the laws come from the same era as sending kids up chimneys,women not having the vote and people shooting tigers for a larf.

[meagain]

If you're short on your till, then the money you've rung up and the money you've taken in don't tally. This means you haven't done your job properly. Having more than one person with access to the till complicates things slightly, but the same principle applies - someone has failed to give accurate change, or has allowed a customer to defraud the business (short-change scams, and the like). It's a theoretically-correct application of liquidated damages - as opposed to e.g. docking you the day's pay for being £5 short. The 10% cap is there to ensure that people actually do still get paid.

[seylectric]

That's all every well in theory but it could be a faulty till or it could be that another member of staff on a "shared" till is dipping.

 

I have even seen members of staff "set up" by other employees simply to get rid of them - all sorts of things go on! You can't simply fob it off by saying the person hasn't done their job properly!

 

Here's another example - A decorator I know was recently contracted to repaint the room where the takings are counted, where the change is put through the counting machines at the local bus depot. He enjoyed a great weekend in the pub thanks to picking up over £740 in change from behind the benches that had obviously fallen down the back during the counting process and that obviously has been deducted from who know how many employees wages over the years?

[meagain]

That's all every well in theory but it could be a faulty till or it could be that another member of staff on a "shared" till is dipping.

 

Faulty tills aside, it is still the case that someone is not doing their job. Actual assignment of the shortage might be a problem, but the motive is otherwise sound.

[blackcatchillers]

So if someone is not doing there job they get fined,is this instead of vebal and writen warnings?I cant help feeling this is a crock of sh*t and one more reason why my blood presure aint what it used to be.

[seylectric]

I'm going back 20 years, but I used to work for the aforementioned bus company as a driver. If our takings were down, it came out of our wages. If they were over the company kept it giving the reason that if we started with a set float and took that out at the end then any "overs" were not our money.

 

The union argued for years that it wasn't theirs either and it should at least be put against the "shorts", i.e. if you were £5 short overall at the end of the week but were £4 over on some shifts, then you only have to pay back £1, but to no avail.

 

Ticket machines were regularly faulty, I once showed a total of £180 takings for the shift on a quiet night-time route which typically took about £40-£50 at most. I had £47 takings. No possible way could I have made mistakes adding up to £133 on a quiet night using a ticket machine with pre-programmed buttons (higest fare then was about 80p) but I had to pay it back.

[meagain]

So if someone is not doing there job they get fined,is this instead of vebal and writen warnings?I cant help feeling this is a crock of sh*t and one more reason why my blood presure aint what it used to be.

 

They're not getting fined. Look up "liquidated damages". If you think it's unfair, write to your MP, and brace yourself for job losses.

[jell_is]

So what happens to drip trays in a bar? should the staff be fined liquidated damages for not pouring pints properly? Simply the answer is no.

 

With every operation in an organisation there is an associated risk, which always results in a loss of income to that organisation. How many times do staff get penalties for being late in the production of documents? You might not get your bonus but you would not have monies deducted from your salary!

 

I have worked for many companies who have tried to instate a "top-up" system and they never get them in or to stick. Its either a case of pay a shortfall and keep any extras, which would generally result in customers getting ripped off the odd coin here and there so staff don't have to worry or a case of the company taking the ups with the downs.

[meagain]

So what happens to drip trays in a bar? should the staff be fined liquidated damages for not pouring pints properly? Simply the answer is no.

 

That would probably be because the drip tray is nothing to do with the till being down £10. That, and the mitigating circumstances in when the drip tray ends up being used, and it is already offset against the price of a pint.

[dori2o]

Here's an interesting thought.

 

When the employer asks for anomolies in the till to be reconiled by the employee, do they show it in their annual accounts, or do they claim the loss that has occured in their accounts to HMRC at the year end?

 

 

After all, if the employer is taking a 'cash' payment from the employee(s) their is no receipt given to the employee- unless via salary deduction, and the till receipt, unless amended will not show payment.

[meagain]

I would imagine the till is not made up on the spot, but rather the difference is noted somewhere for deduction, in toto and before tax, from the wages when they're actually paid. This sort of record-keeping would be necessary to ensure the 10% rule is observed.

[omicron]

As a cashier, if you're being held responsible for your till, go into cover your arse mode. Check your float, make it clear no one else uses your till, and insist on being present during cash up.

 

When I worked in store managerment, all we ever used to do was have an overs and unders pot on the desk in the cash office, make it right for the computer and the safe and keep an eye on the staff to see if a pattern emerges. Generally, it was just small "swings and roundabouts" errors.

 

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to give this sort of reccomendation on here, but can I reccomend anyone doing this sort of work is a union member, personally, I'm with USDAW (Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers). Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers: Homepage

[meagain]

As a cashier, if you're being held responsible for your till, go into cover your arse mode. Check your float, make it clear no one else uses your till, and insist on being present during cash up.

 

A cashier should never be forced to make up shorts on a till someone else has used. If the business regularly rotates people during the day without giving them a fresh till with a fresh float, there should be no reconciliation with pay at all.

 

As I mentioned before, at McD small differences (single-figure pounds) were a strike, three strikes was retraining (which at my branch consisted of the store manager asking "Do you know what you're doing?", to which we were to answer "Yes, sir"). Petty differences (a few pennies) were put down to untraceable handling errors (missing a small coin during the day, the £1 bags being off by a penny, etc.).

[jell_is]

That would probably be because the drip tray is nothing to do with the till being down £10. That, and the mitigating circumstances in when the drip tray ends up being used, and it is already offset against the price of a pint.

 

The point was that it is an indirect loss to sales and if that is recovered in the price of a product then how do you know the pricing of products does not take into account some statistical analysis of till shortages???

 

Also, agreed that waste in assets are not a direct loss in cash but however they are a loss to a company as stock, in turn sales and in turn cash. Maybe the analogy of a drip tray was off but the idea was there.

[Movingon]

No, I immediately understood the "Drip Tray" argument. I reckon a good 5-10% of a bar's beer stock gets lost in the drip tray... so how can they say with any certainty how far down the till is?

 

Easy these days - the sensor on the hand pump, or the counter on the press-switch. If you press the switch once, you get half a pint (250ml these days?) and this is counted as "One" in stock reports. If you pull the hand-pump to it's full extent, this is similarly counted as "One" on the stock system. Spillage isn't counted because if you count "one" for each half pint, there should be "one" half pint's worth of money in the till; regardless of the actual amount of beer left in the barrel.

[indebtstudent]

I thought I might join the debate. I used to work for a betting shop and I always felt the procedures for counting cash were very poor.

 

You counted the till yourself then put it in the safe the next day. This sounds fair but there were many times when I came in to have a till short at the start of the day, sure you could do a cash dec but what was to say you hadn't pocketed the difference?

 

In the end they changed it so the manaer hd to transfer the money into thier till at the end of the day then transfer it too the safe, this got the onus off the cashier but made overworked managers do yet another job at EOD.

 

Where I work now we each have our own seperate cash, which is much better. It can be checked at any time but only you have the key for you rsafe compartment, which can only be checked in an emergency by the maanager who ha s aduplicate. The duplicate keys would only be used where a key had been lost and so any foul play would be obvious (dup keys are sealed in a bag!)

[indebtstudent]

Oh and Stonelaughter these all singing all dancing modern pumps are perfectly capable of making mistakes. Last time I worked in a pub the instruction to new starters was the magnet will pull a bit then a bit more then do halfs, this happened every second or third pint so you had to have a glass to hand to catch the excess. In effect it was the

[Movingon]

Wth?!

[kippy2]

precisely wth? :confused: constructive no not reminds me of the days when i was a student

[morteee]

No, I immediately understood the "Drip Tray" argument. I reckon a good 5-10% of a bar's beer stock gets lost in the drip tray... so how can they say with any certainty how far down the till is?

 

Easy these days - the sensor on the hand pump, or the counter on the press-switch. If you press the switch once, you get half a pint (250ml these days?) and this is counted as "One" in stock reports. If you pull the hand-pump to it's full extent, this is similarly counted as "One" on the stock system. Spillage isn't counted because if you count "one" for each half pint, there should be "one" half pint's worth of money in the till; regardless of the actual amount of beer left in the barrel.

 

I'll contribute to this one as I work for a large pub company on the sales optimisation team, the vast majority of pubs have dispense monitoring equipment in their pubs these days and that is accurate to at least 1000th of a pint so yes the loss due to overdispense is EASILY monitored (the equipment monitors dispense via the lines leaving the keg/cask and not at the pump itself)

 

our company also runs courses for pub owner to show them just how much product can be lost due to poor dispense (over pouring) and in the space of a year average pubs lose around 1400 pints!

 

now a pint of carling (cheapest main brand) in my local is £2.30

 

£2.30 x 1400 is an annual lost revenue of £3220.00 per annum which lets face it is a substantial amount

 

if a pub can work out figures that easily for lost revenue due to over pouring then I am sure they can manage a few tills that might be short especially as most tills these days are itemised

[meagain]

£2.30 x 1400 is an annual lost revenue of £3220.00 per annum which lets face it is a substantial amount

 

That £3220 is taken into account when deciding the price of a pint. You can't do that with shorts and overs, for what should be very obvious reasons (something to do with the relative value of something against itself).

[morteee]

actually no it isnt in most pubs, and yes I do know my company owns nearly 10,000!

[meagain]

Are you telling me your company sells its pints at cost price?