Burger King Dress Code in Mo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,383
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.
 
Hey that kid was a violator. A rule is a rule don't make the creepy king come down on your [censored]
LOL.gif
!!!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
LOL.gif
 
Originally Posted By: brianl703
Obviously you've never heard of "malicious compliance".


It's a strategy that sadly, you sometimes have to adopt.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top