Category: Respect

No Tip Reciept: The Legal Obligations of a Waitress


5510tA couple of weeks ago (I apologize for the delayed reaction) AOL Jobs featured a Claire Gordon's article about Victoria Liss, a waitress/bartender (the author called her both), who posted a copy of a customer's receipt on her Facebook page together with a photo of some guy who just happened to be the customer's double namesake.  She's done this in retaliation for a zero-tip and a note the customer wrote at the bottom, which basically amounted to a personal attack on her appearance.

The article has generated over 3500 comments.  If you scroll through them, you'll notice that most fall into two groups.  Those written by people, whose income at some point in their lives depended on tipping generosity, express compassion and support for Ms. Liss's being hurt by the "horrible" treatment; many share their own experiences of customers' "unfairness."  Others emanate the collective contempt towards the "obnoxious" expectations of tips by service industry professionals (especially in food and drink establishments), regardless of the quality of their work.  Many state that tips are essentially performance bonuses – a valid point I strongly uphold.

What surprises and worries me is that only a handful of commentators address the most important issue of the story – the illegality and immorality of Ms. Liss's act of publicizing the receipt to the whole world.  You see, it wasn't hers to use as she pleases.  A credit card receipt is a financial and legal instrument that binds together at least four entities: a credit card holder (customer), a credit card acceptor (merchant, in this case the restaurant as a legal entity and its owners), a credit card issuer (bank), and a payment clearance party (merchant service provider).  Do you see a waitress anywhere on this list?  With respect to the receipt, the server has a fiduciary duty to her employer to pass it to accounting.  That's it.  She was not supposed to copy it, take it out of her place of employment, or use it any other way.  Ms. Liss's actions violated the customer's personal rights to privacy and broke the fiduciary trust of her employer.   In addition, all those financial parties to the transaction are bound by the federal law to protect the credit card holders' privacy.   Ms. Liss exposed all of them to a possibility of civil legal actions and regulation censures.

Technically, every single party injured by Ms. Liss have rights to go after her: the customer, the poor innocent guy whose picture she posted, the employer, the merchant service provider, and the bank that issued the credit card.  At the very least, she should be fired.  And if I was in charge of Facebook's policy-making, I would close her account as well.  This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech – this is aiding in an illegal activity.             

Legal issues aside, what's up with the fact that she couldn't even remember the customer's face and got the wrong guy's picture?  Why nobody questions that?  

And I cannot help myself wondering about the other side of the story.  What prompted the customer to be so extreme?  Just your basic assholiness?  I doubt that.  Leaving no tip is one thing, but the text of the note may signify a reactive response to something that transpired beforehand.  Ms. Liss admits herself that her suggestion of fats multiplied by carbs was not welcomed by the guests.  What happened after that?  Did she walk away, mattering snide remarks about anorexia and bulimia?  You know, in that quite audible whisper, mastered so well by disgruntled service workers – the waitresses, the bartenders, the bank tellers, the park attendants, and so on, who hate their jobs and resent their customers.  At one point or another we all have been exposed to their passive-aggressive harassment.  Trust me, it can unbalance even the most stable of customers.     

Follow-Up to Dealing with Lawyers Post


11times_sq_03_2 Every empirical truth, even though is proven correct in most cases, has an exception.  Not all super-rich people are intellectual sadists, some celebrity children are actually incredibly talented and deserve to be where they are, some family businesses do not get ruined by subsequent generations, not all entrepreneurs are control freaks, not everything that Karl Pilkington says is innocent's wisdom, not all small businesses must be nurtured into survival, and for some young people the post-graduate degrees still may be the best alternative (those who consistently read my blog will know in which posts I've covered these issues, others may want to check them out in the archives).

And not all lawyers are made from the same dough.  There is a law firm that I've known for 15 years now that I really-really like.  Moreover, I try to work with them every chance I get.  I wanted to mention them as an exception that proves the rule in the original post on lawyers, but it came out too long and I don't like hurting the readers with oversize entries.  So, now they get their own separate honor post.

Zukerman Gore Brandeis & Crossman LLP was established in 1988.  In 1996 my CEO of the time and I were working on a $350-million annual contract with our largest supplier.  This was a young fast-growing entrepreneurial organization that did not have much of professional support prior to my arrival.  I wanted to bring into this deal sharp and hungry corporate attorneys to match our own hard-working ethics. 

When one of my networking contacts put me in touch with Nat Gore, I was instantly impressed (and that's a feat!) by his ability to cut straight into the heart of the matter.  It was like we were on the same intellectual wave.  Moreover, there were never any hints of arrogancy or disrespect.  This was especially impressive, considering that my boss was a suddenly very rich immigrant with terrible English.  Truth be told, even in New York City, there are plenty of xenophobes, but not these people.

As I always say, it's all about the quality of upbringing.  And these are cultured, well-mannered, smart as hell guys.  I never asked, but they probably got together because they had similar work ethics and attitudes.  But the most important thing is that they possess the quality that I highly treasure – they are experts.  Whatever I threw at them over the years – corporate agreements, venture capital investments, SEC inquiries, disputes with insurance companies, international taxation, foreign court testimonies, depositions – their handling of the matter was always superior and expedient.

Let me tell you, these are the only attorneys that I can rely on 100% and don't try to write documents for them.  Even though they are very fair: they are the only ones who will acknowledge that you wrote a good letter and there is nothing to add or subtract.

I am very happy that over the years they grew bigger and stronger: there is a total of 11 partners now, 3 attorneys of counsel, and 8 associates.  This Friday they are moving to brand new offices in that beautiful Eleven Times Square building.

Good luck to you at your new home, guys! 

CFO Folklore: The Home Front


Images-1 I touch on the gender inequality among financial execs once in a while – an obligatory topic for a female CFO/author/blogger.  I mean, everyone writes about it.  Entire institutions and organizations compile sociological studies dealing with these issues.  None of it seems to be creating any changing momentum, but hey, at least someone is willing to pay the researchers their salaries. 

The interesting thing, though, that most of the time these topics (including my earlier posts) deal with the social, rather than practical, aspects of the phenomenon.  People talk about advancement rates, compensation levels, female-to-male executives proportions, etc.  In a very scientific way, we say: all things being equal (education, achievements, intelligence, etc.), women still don't get a fair shake.   And nobody talks about the fact that, on a practical level, things are never equal between men and women, who strive for, or already achieved, top job positions.

First of all, women by nature are more conscientious and responsible than men.  That is why we have higher percentage of female straight "A" students both in high schools and colleges (yet, there are more male valedictorians!).  Secondly, women know only too well that they are at disadvantage due to the simple fact that they are not men.  That makes them work ten times harder than any man in their position would.  So, in truth they get rewarded at lower rates not for the equally good work, but for the job done much better.

But the biggest practical inequality occurs on the executive's home front.  I remember having a friendly airplane conversation with my CEO, on our way to a meeting in Germany.  At one point he said that I was the hardest working person he knew besides him – he honestly believed that he worked as hard as I did.  Of course, he was talking about the job itself.  Well, I thought that even at that I worked much harder (I did not take Friday's off during summers), but I chose to turn to more obvious facts of life.

I asked, " Who prepares your suit, shirt and tie for tomorrow every evening?"  "My wife," he said.  "We frequently work until 9 or 10 pm, is the dinner ready, when you come home?" "Yes."  "Who writes checks?  Who deals with repairmen?  Who talks to teachers?  Who buys groceries? Who takes kids to the doctors'?"  "The wife" was the answer to all the questions.  "Now, who do you think does all that in my home?"  

He knew the answer, of course.  So, every day I was working my executive job, let's say, just as hard as he did, plus his wife's job.  And that's true for most of female CFOs, whether married or single, with or without children. 

Look, how many unmarried male CFOs or Controllers you know?  I don't know any.  Even if their wives leave them, they get remarried very quickly – someone needs to take care of the home front.

On the other hand, a woman expected either to give up her personal life for the career, or hide it away, as if she does not have any.  It is especially true for those female executives who work in small and midsize companies – the salaries are not large enough to afford a Mr. Mom of a husband.  So, we are talking inequality cubed: the majority of women work harder, plus cover the home front (or give up life outside of the job), and still get paid and promoted on a much smaller scale. 

Here is the funny part.  At the end my boss asked, "How come you still read more than I do and go to the theater all the time?"  "Because I don't sleep," I answered.

Everyone Loves Lucy


Images-1 Last week Lucille Ball would have turned 100 years old.  Not every celebrity achieves the level of popularity that justifies posthumous birthday announcements, and I am glad that it applies to this great comedienne, who entertained people for so many years.   (As a side note, I must mention that it is a testimony to our electronic dependency that Google doodles have become integral parts of establishing people's immortality – I love them too, by the way.)

And I love Lucy, who also undeniably belongs in this blog as a brilliant businesswoman – one of the most powerful Hollywood women of all times. 

The business success started with Desi's shrewd decision of setting up a television company Desilu (with Lucy's effigy right there in the logo), equally owned by the spouses and responsible for production of not just I Love Lucy, but also Star Trek, The Andy Griffith Show, Mission:Impossible, The Lucy Show, Our Miss Brooks, The Jack Benny Program, and many others.  Only three years into its existence, the company was considered such a powerful television presence that it became a natural choice of  many consumer product conglomerates, including Phillip Morris, for production of high quality TV advertisement.

Desilu was one of the first entertainment companies to recognize a power of merchandising – an entire line of I Love Lucy products, from pajamas and dolls to furniture sets, was a tremendous success.  In 1954 alone they brought a net profits of $500,000 (over $4 million in today's money).  After purchasing RKO's facilities, Desilu Productions has become the largest studio in Hollywood, running 33 sound stages (more than either MGM or Twentieth Century Fox).  When Lucy bought Desi out in 1962, she became the first female head of a major studio.

I've seen different numbers estimating Lucy's worth at the time of her death in 1989, wildly ranging between $25 million and $65 billion.  It does not really matter.  One thing we can say for sure – she did well for herself. 

Many biographers, TV historians, and ardent fans, have been arguing for decades, about whose contribution was most important in Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz's financial success.  While Desi did present the company as a President, we may never know whose idea it was was to do this or that deal.  Without a doubt, Lucy was always a bankable asset.  Moreover, it is a known fact that the artistic merits and public appeal of such long-lived franchises as Star Trek and Mission: Impossible, that still continue spawning new feature movies, were evaluated and approved by her personally.  

But the most remarkable lesson in Lucille Ball's shrewdness as a business woman comes from a very personal matter.  Many enterprises fall apart on account of minor tiffs between unrelated partners.  Lucy and Desi Arnaz stuck together through marital problems for a long time and got a divorce only after the final episode of Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour was filmed.  Moreover, they managed their business separation in the most civilized and mutually-beneficial manner, remaining friends for the rest of their lives. 

 

CFO’s Performance Focus


I frequently talk about psychological trends and general attitude patterns in a broad sort of sense.  Yes, large groups of people share similar traits due to comparability of their backgrounds, environments, occupational qualifications, etc.  The very reason I write for the audience of financial professionals is because I believe that our experiences have common points and the topics would be understood and accepted; that our expert qualities unite us; that metaphorically speaking we all "have been in each other shoes."  I write about our bosses, small business owners, entrepreneurs as a group of people with very strong and easily recognizable idiosyncrasies.  But I never go too far with it.  I acknowledge and value individuality and uniqueness of each person and each situation.  That is why sometimes I describe experiences of specific people, including my own.

This separates me from organizational behaviorists, especially those who popularize their science for digestion by the masses.  In their zealous attempt to fit the entire universe into a simplistic, easily explainable system, they go as far as dividing everything and everyone into 3-4 categories.  And so, they manage to divide all possible motivations, intentions and impulses that guide employees' task performance focus, into just four categories (they even claim that it applies to "any given situation"):

(1) getting the job finished, which supposedly results in speeding up, being aggressive, and careless;

(2) getting the job right, which translates, according to this theory, into nearly OCD-ish fear of making a mistake and slows people down – they are just checking and re-checking everything over and over again;

Note that these two categories are placed on the opposite sides of the matrix.

(3) get along with people – I cannot offer any comments on this motivation nor its behavioral interpretations.  Honestly, I don't know what the hell is that all about;

(4) be appreciated – Ah, this one all executives understand very well, that's what we strive for.   But why is it associated with "being heard, being assertive, contribute to others;" moreover, why is it separated from 1 and/or 2?

This is laughable!  I don't know what kind of subject group the scientists studied to draw these conclusions.   Maybe these are just empirical deductions.  Then, how many personal observations were accumulated to form these opinions?  One thing I can say for sure  – they are definitely not based on hard-working financial professionals like us – CFOs, Controllers, VPs of small and mid-size businesses. There is no possibility for us of separating "getting it done" and "getting it right."  You don't become a CFO by accomplishing either one or another. 

And it has nothing to do with the time frame, as some suggest.  Other humans maybe can switch between the two, depending on how much time they have on their hands.  Us?  We live under constant pressure to get everything done yesterday and there is no room for errors.  Of course, the good news is that if you are for real, if your expertise is not phony, if you got where you are through hard work and exceptional abilities, you cannot do it any other way.  Your qualities and professionalism carry you through and that how you get to be appreciated.  All at the same time!