Monday, February 28, 2005

Clarification

Okay it's still not my business, but, as requested by my devout blog followers (well, Leo), here is some slightly less vague waffle.

Let's suppose there's a person, A, who runs a business and employs persons, B and C, who've worked there for something like four months and two years, respectively.

Now one day when A is adding up the amount of money made, they discover that it doesn't tally and there appears to be some money missing. What does A do? Do they:
  1. Talk to B and C and try and work out what happened in a calm, rationale manner, figuring that there are a number of ways said money could be missing, or appear to be missing?
  2. Naturally assume that B or C, or possibly B and C acting together, stole the missing money, act very strangely for a few days, then, whilst drunk, try and arrange a staff meeting (and at the same time ask curious onlookers, namely me, how to spell the jig is up), at the staff meeting (nearly a week after the incident) accuse B and C of theft, then fire B and put C on 'hold'?


Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Well, the size of "some money" is relevant - if it's "a lot" then you've clearly employed a thieving bastard. IF it's "not much" then it could be as simple as someone putting 20s in the till where the 10s go, and a bunch of dishonest customers getting extra change.


One assumes that Ohio is a "right to work" aka "right to arbitrarily fire" state, and so legally A can do whatever he likes.



A has behaved like a total [word that rhymes with a kind of flat-bottomed boat] and deserves a sharp kick in the [rhymes with the things that keep your oars on your boat].



Despite A being a complete [rhymes with a leaf that relieves stinging], if the sum of money concerned is large, or happened multiple times, I'd sympathise with his actions. If it's less than a couple of hundred dollars, say, I'd have to never speak to him again.



There's my $0.02, but with the exchange rate these days, that's not worth an awful lot.

Anonymous said...

I think "A" could have avoided this problem by not firing a certain cute little former B/C type who never would have stolen from A.

THen again, A's "J" is definently a B (as in the b word)

Anonymous said...

Hooray, hooray for the spinster's sister's daughter.

Ryan said...

Hooray, hooray for the spinster's sister's daughter.

To the axeman, all supplicants are the same height.

It does read like some twisted masonic handshake, I feel almost let down that I understood what Anonymous (II) meant. Although I'm not convinced anyone stole anything and I wouldn't like to comment (but I am commenting...) on anyone's J (or any isolated J), as I don't believe that any J's have been B's to me.

Anonymous said...

Well, without asking what the caged whale does, and also not having any paticularly "B" Js, if you'll pardon the juxtaposition, I'd be interested in knowing which of the several posible Bs we're talking about here.

Ryan said...

I believe that the other Anonymous was suggesting that a certain person, J, was a bitch. Whereas I was trying to assert that none of the various J's (including the one I believe they were referring to) I know have been bitches to me.