Burger King Dress Code in Mo

Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1369447.html
 Quote:
Restaurant takes no-shoes rule a step too far More News Like most restaurants, the Burger King in the St. Louis suburb of Sunset Hills has a no-shoes, no-shirt, no-service policy. And baby, do they enforce it. Too much so, the company admitted, after restaurant workers asked a mother to leave because her 6-month-old wasn’t wearing shoes. Jennifer Frederich and her infant daughter stopped at the restaurant Sunday. Frederich figured tiny baby feet were immune from the rule. Burger King indicated Thursday that workers had taken the no-shoes, no-service policy too far.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
5,044
Location
Kansas
After a couple of videos surfaced that shows employees taking baths in the BK dish washer tub while the managers fully knew about it, I think they are now overracting a little bit.
 
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
1,453
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
 Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Rules is rules. Want the rule to exclude infants? Write it that way.
Does the rule define what a shoe is? If I'm carrying an infant I'd consider my self the shoes for the infant since I keep its foot from ever touching the ground by holding it.
 
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
4,009
Location
Calgary Canada
I'm not sure what people expect, and I don't find this in any way surprising. Burger King and places like that pay the lowest possible wages, and naturally they get what they pay for in terms of employees.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
5,215
Location
Houston, Tx, USA
 Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Rules is rules. Want the rule to exclude infants? Write it that way.
+1 and this is a great way to keep kids out of restaurants.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
5,215
Location
Houston, Tx, USA
How could this possibly be a political issue? It would be really funny if this thread got locked because a Canadian started talking about American politics.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
715
Location
Ks
Well, I for one am glad to see them stepping up to reprimand a rebellious child. If they hadn't put a stop this, it'd be no shoes today, shoplifting tomorrow, and man-1 by the end of the week.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
6,367
Location
Midwest
Could she really have been planning to feed the poor child Burger King food? Or worse yet stuff it in her own face? They did her and the child a favor by asking her to leave-she should be thankful.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
5,153
Location
MW
 Originally Posted By: Jim 5
I'm not sure what people expect, and I don't find this in any way surprising. Burger King and places like that pay the lowest possible wages, and naturally they get what they pay for in terms of employees.
That is not the reason. The management does not delegate decision making to the employees so they have to follow the rules. And the rules say no shoes, no service. An employee is not encouraged to make a decision to interpret and bend the rule.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
36,723
Location
ME
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
An employee is not encouraged to make a decision to interpret and bend the rule.
Their motto used to be "sometimes you've got to break the rules".
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,676
Location
'Stralia
 Originally Posted By: brianl703
Obviously you've never heard of "malicious compliance".
It's a strategy that sadly, you sometimes have to adopt.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Originally Posted By: CivicFan
 Originally Posted By: Jim 5
I'm not sure what people expect, and I don't find this in any way surprising. Burger King and places like that pay the lowest possible wages, and naturally they get what they pay for in terms of employees.
That is not the reason. The management does not delegate decision making to the employees so they have to follow the rules. And the rules say no shoes, no service. An employee is not encouraged to make a decision to interpret and bend the rule.
Well, they clearly had the posted policy to not serve the infant. The policy didn't say "No shirt No shoes No ENTRANCE". The mother had shirt and shoes ..no reason not to expect service. There was no prohibition against entrance in the posted policy.
 
Top