Someone once said, "Let not your heart be troubled, for there is nothing you can do to change what's done."

Please keep us posted on developments if you can.

Thank you Evans for the post.

IF true, they may want to file a second suit alleging a lack of security and insufficient training or time to do normal duties placed them in mortal danger, and the stress of the resulting experience has affected them negatively, both personally and professionally. I've already mentioned that right-to-work laws act as a shield to employers against lawsuits for wrongful termination. Many employees only learn this after the fact.

Any manager who sees an opportunity for armed robbery because of company policy or lack of action in the face of an obvious danger should (in fact is duty-bound to) report it in writing to corporate headquarters and keep copies of such correspondence. I still have my copies of a memo detailing how the security of the manager's office where I was robbed was weak, including a workable plan and diagram for solving the problem for less than $300 (which, BTW, was never approved).

Think about it this way, the robbers made off with an *extra* $800.. That makes it a profitable score.. Much more profitable than your average gas station. By making their theatre a profitable score, they have almost guarenteed they will be robbed again.

What you have stated is the ONLY argument that could mitigate the firing, though, and will probably be used as the first line of defense.

Why do I state that the statement is bullshit? Because in an armed robbery situation such as this, the individual drop that wasn't made is usually only a small portion of a much larger amount stolen. In a theatre robbery, petty cash, later box office, game and concession receipts, change fund, etc. are all usually taken. I suspect the $800 might represent only 20% of the amount lost. The statement that the $800 extra is a determining amount for a robber to return is so ludicrous as to rate right up there with the logic of chain letter riches and trickle down economics.

Requiring, as a matter of policy, numerous bank drops (usually with two people) is a set-up and NOT an especially valid or cost effective method of loss control, and I suspect my statement can be statistically proven.

GCC in 1984 required a drop after each set of show starts and an additional drop whenever more than $200 in receipts had accumulated, except at the very end of the day. Even though the banks were often close to the theatre, I measured the average time out of the building during a single drop at one theatre to be 12 minutes, exclusive of the count and prep time in the theatre.

Running a grind schedule there were a minimum of five show starts per day, and at least six seperate deposits to be made, more often ten or twelve. Over 2 man-hours per day were spent on deposits, (a figure usually denied as a gross overstatement by those who haven't used a stopwatch to time the activity) and a semi-competant robber waiting at a bank for as little as half-an hour during peak times was guaranteed a mark.

With other circuits, especially manager-operator combinations, there might be only two staff members in the theatre at certain times, and (fortunately?) the number of required drops is usually fewer. Shift change, first evening shows and a late drop are common. With one circuit there were times I had the choice of making the deposit alone (against policy), not making the deposit (against policy), or taking the other employee and leaving the entire theatre building full of customers with no one on the floor or in the booth while projectors were running (only technically against policy since it wasn't written down as a policy). I used common sense, policy be damned. Guess which policy I had to break fairly often?

The loss of any extra deposit is regretable, and a full accounting needs to be made, but termination for such a breach in policy is on a par with termination for a breach of policy of the toilet tissue in the restrooms being found "almost" out. The drop policy argument is a straw man designed to deflect the true responsibility, which usually lies not with the manager or assistant, but with the theatre owner or corporate office.

An owner can easily install a time-lock and/or depository safe on-premises and reduce both the probability of robbery and possibility of large amounts being stolen, which leads into another comment I have. Every theatre company that I worked for that required night drops or depository drops required the employee to provide the car and never wanted to properly reimburse the employee for milage or wear and tear on the car. When submitting milage reports, I've had rude stares when I pointed out that 10 trips per day to and from a bank only 1/4 mile away was 5 miles and over two weeks was roughly 60 miles for the manager. Not paying for that wear and tear on a private auto is corporate theft from employees, and most employees are too chicken to cluck.

5 miles x 365 days = 1825 miles. 1825 miles x 30 cents per mile = $547.50. Lost time of two hours per day doing drops x $10/hr = $20.
$20 x 365 = $7,300. $7,300 + 547.50 = $7847.50.

A wide variety of safes for depository or time lock functions are available that can easily pay for themselves. With a five minute net check, I found these:
http://www.safes.com/hmhighsecdep.html http://www.lemlocks.it/en/Casse.htm http://nationalsafe.net/depositorysafe.html

Firing people who have been robbed is a hoary tradition in the industry that was originally based on the idea that the manager had to be involved somehow, and the terror of a manager being robbed and then fired would somehow magically make all the other managers never get robbed. That idea is bullshit as well, in addition to being immoral and idiotic.

I had over a dozen years of experience in management when I was robbed. The afternoon deposit wasn't dropped because the assistant had to hightail it to deliver a print and I was swamped from the point I walked in the door with crises that were piled on top of each other.

I lay odds that firing because of an undeposited drop being lost is made ten times as often because of a denial of reality by upper management than any effect the loss of the few dollars has. It is convenient and comforting for someone in a secure office to say "Well, this person brought the theft on themself, and firing them will teach everyone a lesson." Seems to me that a similar hairbrained argument was used to justify the rape of women for years.
"She brought it on herself. Getting raped teaches her a lesson." Managers are being stuck against their will in the virtual low-cut dresses of large amounts of cash and insufficient security and getting screwed regularly by both robbers and corporate pricks.

If a manager loses an extra drop and the company requires him or her to make it up out of his or her own pocket over time, fine. Fair is fair. On the other hand, termination of an employee (for whatever reason) that has just been through the trauma of an armed robbery while in the employ of the company is a morally bankrupt act and an indication of a major rectal-cranial inversion.

Whatever...

The more profitable the take, the more likely another robbery becomes.. If the emps in question did not make an $800 deposit, it is safe to assume that most of the $800 was large bills (twentys, fiftys , hundreds). $800 in large bills is easy to carry away and spend ($800 in ones is hard to dispose of, and $800 in quarters are just too bloody heavy to steal).

You may not like your companys deposit policys, but they are there for a reason. If you don't like them, talk to your boss. If you are told they won't change you have 2 choices, follow them or quit.. Simple, eh?

Now, does banking procedures make up for lax security? Not really, but it can minimize your exposure. Theatres are not easy targets, and their difficulty increases with their size. The trick to not getting robbed is to make the score not worth the risk.

Gas sataions get robbed because, even thogh the profit is low, the risk is low. An inside robbery (as opposed to a box office stick up)at a theatre is high risk. If a robber comes in and robs you and all he can get to is a bunch of ones, fives and quarters, he probably won't come back, as it will be a low profit score. If he comes in and gets several hundred dollars in larger bills, the score becomes worth the risk.

Don't believe me, ask a cop...

And one more thing, your staements about safes, drop policys, and general building security "assumes facts not in evidence".. Specifically, the article made no mention on what type of safe the theatre had, what their policys are, or anyting one the physical security of the building.

That is why in my first post, I stated *If* there was a policy, the term was justified. Let's not crucufy poor Ajay or his theatre based on the assuption that he is the personification of everything you hate...

BTW, when did losing a deposit become as trivial as almost being out of toilet paper???

Paragraph one, which a weak satire attempting to recover from my blowing away your original argument, the argument forwarded by you that $800 out of a larger amount was somehow an amount that would make a robber return. I used the actual percentage involved in the robbery where I was the victim. That 20% of the total loss was the stated determining factor in my own termination. I trust you have an equally valid source of information for your estimates?

Even the basic logic of your paragraph is faulty. Robberies are crimes of opportunity, and your satirical comment that $30 or $800 makes no difference is not as satirical as you might want others to believe. The desperate and stupid often prey on the weak for miniscule amounts. Read the papers sometimes, you'll read about how people get killed for resisting the theft of a gold chain or wallet with $20 in it.

Following your lead, "Whatever..."

The next paragraph continues the theme "the more profitable... the more likely..." Again, faulty logic. Taken to an extreme, this logic would dictate there should have been thousands of "Great Train Robberies" and an ever decreasing number of petty thefts. Again, the real point is that robbery doesn't happen without opportunity.

"Follow them or quit...Simple, eh?" No, it isn't that simple, and you know it full well. I made it readily apparent that following those policies can be literally impossible to do consistently.

If your wife told you to hover six inches above the carpet so you wouldn't get it dirty and she didn't have to Hoover it, or she would divorce you, would you be able to hover above the carpet to save her Hoover? If you truly loved or respected her, would you take that one rule as the determining reason to quit the marriage? If you needed a job you had worked years to attain, at great personal sacrifice, to support yourself, and wife and kids, would you raise the dust of vocal discontent and risk losing that job, or try your honest best and hope that you didn't get caught in one of those times when events conspired against you? Simple, eh? Maybe it is to the simple-minded.

Banking procedures... Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote before. Let me repeat myself in smaller words and a short sentence.

Common theatre banking deposit procedures often MAXIMIZE exposure.

I detailed this in the GCC example. Owners set the policy. You almost had it right though, the trick to not getting robbed IS to minimize exposure and maximize the chance of the robber getting caught and convicted (or hurt).

About asking a cop... Jim, I've known many cops. I got the son of a cop who worked for me to turn himself in for theft. I've seen cops try vainly to figure out which end of the donut to dunk. Most cops I've met have an IQ one half that of their testosterone level, which is why they haven't made detective or gone on to better jobs. I'll save the taxing of the brains of the boys in blue and say it straight out:

Repeat performances by crooks are usually because the owners that have had problems refuse to put in the security measures to prevent the event from happening again. Managers don't have that decision making choice and are forced to work under those conditions. How's that for simple?

You seem to forget that I was not only manager in my career, but district manager and have had a wide range of experience, probably more than 95% of people in the industry, including most owners. Where one circuit licked its wounds, fired people and went on about its merry way, another that I worked for rebuilt an office, sealing off the offending door to the lobby, installed security cameras, put an alarm on the doors and safes, and installed a second depository safe with a timelock. You seem to be attempting to defend those who merely lick their wounds and expose fresh managers to the exact same danger that has put previous managers in mortal danger. Do you really want to do that?

You'll note that I predicated my first post on the Ambrish Keshani situation with an "IF" and disclaimer. I relate from my own personal experience, Jim. It could be close to the situation in Tennessee or not. I hope it isn't. My intent is not to crucify Ambrish, but point out a disturbing industy practice. However, if Ambrish has built a cross and decided to hand ex-employees nails, that is none of my doing. I've never worked for him, nor have I ever set foot in his theatres.

"BTW, when did losing a deposit become as trivial as almost being out of toilet paper???"

That one is simple to answer. At the same time that owners started treating managers as disposable as toilet paper.

Jim, I like you, but I am a master debater and have the experience, strength, and moral determination to back up my position to the hilt. If you want to work with or for people who don't comprehend the dangers of a job where a random robbery and single bullet can end the life of a manager in their employ, then go ahead. Don't try to justify or glorify them here though, because I will continue to pull those puny plaudits from their penny-pinching palms.

The two ex-employees were, as I recall, asking for two million dollars for wrongful termination. How much would their parents ask for if a bullet had "wrongfully terminated" them instead? Compare that to the cost of installing proper security measures and eliminating the problem before it had a chance to develop.

There is not enough information to make a determiniation however. If this was an after close robbery, and $800 was taken, that probably represents the entire days reciepts, therefore this is probably a slower 10 screen, probably with a lower managers fund.

Theatre office robberies are typically not crimes of opprotunity. A box office stick up may be, but there are too many varibles in a theatre robbery for a criminal not to put at least some planning into it. An office robbery is not a quick in and out like a gas station. Especially in larger complexes, finding the office may be incredibily difficult.

Great Train Robberies are dangerous. Typically the payoff isn't worth the risk..

I do have to ask, if GCC had such impossible policies, and were so unreasonable as to fire anyone who raised a concern, why did you stick with them?

Your statements on cops are kind of off the wall... You caught a cops kid stealing? Good job.. I bet his dad's reaction was much more severe than the juvinile justices systems was.

I do agree with you that holes in security exposed during a robberymust be fixed to deter future robberies. Firing employees who intentionally did things that increses the risk may be part of filling those holes. For example, if your theatre has a policy that no customers are to be readmitted after close for any reason, and then an usher lets someone in who proceeds to rob the theatre, firing that usher would not be out of line. Now, if the theatre has no such policy, then firing the usher would only be justified if the usher showed a severe lapse of judgement (i.e. the guy he let is was wearing a ski mask). However, enacting such a policy following a robbery may be a good idea.

Jerry, don't lecture me about the dangers of the theatre buisness. I work in a theatre where is is not unusual for us to have more off-duty police officers on duty at the theatre than are on-duty in the small city we are in. Not a month ago, one of those officers got his nose broken in a schuffle with 2 individuals that decided they didn't need tickets to be in the building..

Last weekend, my ushers threw out someone for jumping theatres. About a half an hour later, one of those ushers was doing a permiter check when that individual, and his friends, confronted that usher and theatened him.. Luckily, additional ushers and managers were close, and the group withdrew once they were outnumbered, and finally left the premisis when police arrived.

Granted, none of this tops the "terriorist act using a weapon of mass destruction" (so said the FBI spokesman) that my theatre had in 1999, but it is still scary enough...

Do not even imply that I am unconcerned with the saftey and welfare of the people who work for me.. Quite frankly, that is about all I think about..

 |  IP: Logged

The standard policy of multiple daily bank drops is interesting if you analyze it. It essentially says that by reducing the amount of money in a single drop, it will reduce the temptation of robbery. This concept doesn't make sense, because of the nature of theatre business. Joe Blow manages for a theatre with this policy, dutifully making three or more deposits per day of $200 for five days of the week. The robber learns most business occurs Friday and Saturday evenings. He scopes out the bank and hits on the scheduled drop of the Friday 7 PM show starts. The take? Estimating low, 400 customers x $5 = $2,000 minimum plus concession. Time exposed- less than half an hour. The amount and opportunity are enough to suggest a repeat performance, and yet the corporate office is "concerned" but not upset. Joe Blow decides to skip a deposit on Wednesday afternoon, and the casual robber gets $400 instead of $200 and the world caves in because Joe was being "irresponsible." Horse Hockey. Business logic for people who have frog spit for brains, and bean-counters who spend an hour at the post office each day to avoid having to pay to have stamps on hand or invest in a postage meter.

Multiple drops are based on the EXPECTATION that a manager will eventually be robbed at gunpoint. (Nice attitude, huh?) The smaller amount in a multiple drop bag reduces the financial risk to the company by a minimal amount, but increases the exposure of the manager.

In contrast, an on-site depository safe with time lock reduces both financial risk and exposure of the manager. The same companies that can cough up money for a new sound system for each auditorium in a ten screen theatre can't afford a depository safe or armoured pick-up? Maybe there are places like that, and something like this probably would be a burden to a small five screen in the country, but I put it to you that the whole issue is a matter of priorities and a deliberate choice; that the potential for a manager getting hurt and the company having to pay out are less than the cost of insuring the safety of employees.

Businesses had to be forced to cover exposed moving belts in factories and it cost owners money to make changes. How is this that much different?

You asked why I stuck with GCC? I did only until I'd realized for certain just how hidebound the company was at the time, and then I quit, giving proper notice. There is another story in all that which I can't tell at this time.

Firing employees to shore up security can be problematic. In my case, I wasn't even the person who opened the door that admitted the robber. The robber had been in the lobby, waited until one employee was in the office, then grabbed another employee and stuffed him against the peephole and had him to rap on the door. The employee in the office asked who it was, looked through the peephole, and opened the door while I was working on reports. There was no money out at the time. Employees HAD to be admitted to the office by design, since the boxoffice could only be entered through the office. Fire the kid that had the gun stuck in his back? Nah, too cold. Fire the employee who opened the door, even though she checked to see who was there? A female minor who had been terrified and whose parents might sue? Nope. Fire the manager who was doing reports? Right. Change the faulty design that directly led to the opportunity? No way!

I don't deny that there can be flagrant violations of policy that require termination. Counting money with an unlocked door, etc. could be reasons for such an action. I do suggest that different companies handle situations differently.

The more caring company that I mentioned in a previous post realized after one robbery that an assistant had broken policy in a way that had directly led to the success of the heist. That assistant was beaten badly enough during the robbery that he spent a week in hospital recovering. When he was released, he was given a probationary return with the reasonable assumption that he NEVER would make that error again, and would actually prevent others from being as foolish as he had been. It worked. At the same time everyone learned from his mistake, the managers were assured that the company would treat them fairly in any such situation. Good companies don't have to rule by terror.

I am in the enviable position of having had the experiences, and looked at robberies from the point of view of both manager and district manager. I don't work for a theatre company now, and I can speak my mind freely without having to worry about that next paycheck. I guarantee my attitude pisses off some people and alienates me from others, and I am willing to accept that gladly if only one or two managers don't have to go through what I did, or get hurt, or get killed.

I am glad that you are concerned about the safety of your employees. Be thankful if somebody out there is as caring of your own safety.

A million each as an asking price and bargaining chip is, IMO, reasonable. I'm sure actual settlement would end up being much less.
One doesn't walk up to a trespassing German Shepard with a flyswatter. One doesn't go into court without demanding an amount that gives bargaining room. One million won't even buy a whole house in San Francisco.

Another company I worked for earlier in my career did not have such a policy and that was on the other end of the extreme example I mentioned above. Picture a brand new 15 plex, routinely selling out 80-90% of the available seats in the complex, and just me making trips by myself to the bank. I remember carrying over $75,000 at a time to the bank for this company! This is where Jim's argument really comes into play. Looking back on those days, that was just fucking stupid and I don't know why I agreed to do it. However, I had my own way of transporting the money. I would change out of my shirt and tie and get into street clothes where I had the money in my jacket pockets, stuffed into a couple of empty film cans, or whatever I could find. (I always tried to vary it, so there would be no pattern.) I had the on-duty police officers expecting me in the lobby and when they saw me walk out were very cool in playing along with my request. I requested that they NOT walk out the door with me, but casually follow me at a reasonable distance as if they were policing the parking lot until I got into my car. At that point, the officers that stayed in the car to drive around the parking lot knew what vehicle I drove and would follow right behind me all the way to the bank. I felt MUCH safer handling this in that manner and to anyone looking for a manager making a bank run, I was damned hard to spot. What did other managers do there? They walked out in their full suit, carrying a big nylon bag that was obviously a bank bag! Amazingly in the time I worked there, nobody was robbed. Still, for that kind of money, the risk would've definitely brought about a sequel!

Nowadays with most every theater I know of having armored transport service, fortunately the days of bank runs are virtually over.

I'd forgotton about deposit cap policies, and your post shows the idiocy of those quite well. As a side note, the 75K deposits also show how tort reform only serves to keep any business above a certain cash-flow immune from meaningful correction by the courts.

I would suggest that any manager reading this who has to work under unreasonable cash handling policies print out the entire thread, and have it sent certified mail by a trusted third party to the president of the circuit (keeping a copy and the certified mail receipt of delivery). The law looks _very_ dimly on people who have been forewarned of a dangerous situation and do nothing to correct it. Think Firestone/Ford Explorer and you'll catch my drift.

Also, if you work with cash and cannot physically follow company policy to the letter because of situations such as Brad and I describe, document it and get other managers to document their own difficulties. One manager who goes into a corporate office saying that he can't follow policy will get himself fired. If half the managers in the circuit state this, along with documentation, there is a chance the policies might change. If they don't, trust me, you don't want to be around.