Tin City business owner: Robbery was an inside job

Raw video: Robbery at M&M Cafe in Tin City

Security camera video

A restaurant owner in Tin City believes a disgruntled former employee might have been responsible for an attempted armed robbery at the business Thursday night.

“It’s definitely an inside job,” Matt Moen, owner of M&M’s Café, said Friday. “He looked too calm. It’s too relaxed.”

Employees had already locked up for the night when they heard a man knocking at the door around 9:30 p.m., according to reports from the Naples Police Department.

After learning the man’s name was Steven and getting the OK from a general manager over the phone, one of the employees opened the door, at which point a masked man with a handgun busted inside.

The entire robbery attempt took less than 20 seconds, according to surveillance footage. Moen said the masked man went straight to a hiding spot for money that only an employee or a former employee would know about. Another employee had hidden the money in a different spot, and police say the intruder left the café not a penny richer.

Although the robber used the name Steven, the name of an employee who recently quit, Moen said he doesn’t believe Steven was the one who tried to rob the place. He suspects it was another employee who was recently let go 89 days into his introductory 90-day probationary period and thus was told Monday he was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

“The perpetrator fit the description,” Moen said. “Detectives feel like there’s some sort of connection.”

Moen said police are in the process of obtaining cell phone records for a handful of employees, hoping to find information that will lead to an arrest. He was told by police that most commercial robberies in Naples are committed by employees or former employees.

“They said, ‘They’re all inside jobs, and yours is an inside job. We just have to connect the dots,’” Moen said.

Faced with a shortage of trustworthy employees, M&M’s made two new hires Friday that Moen said have good work experience. Although the robbery attempt was startling, he said he is glad nothing worse happened.

“I’m just grateful that nobody got seriously injured,” Moen said. “I have no ill will toward the robbers, but I hope they catch them.”

© 2014 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 49

ltlnsx writes:

Did the owner actually admit here that he let an employee go 89 days into a 90-day probation ... so he didn't have to pay unemployment benefits??? Apparently, somebody DID actually get robbed at that place.

SwampRatt writes:

Dirt bag owner getting rid of an employee 1 day before the end of probationary period.

titanbite writes:

If, in fact,"all of these are inside jobs", what's to say that the owner of this business isn't at the center of his own robbery, insurance fraud is much more prevelent during economic downturns, such as the one we're suffering today.

How has business been this year, slow?

NaplesFL93 writes:

Two of the responses above hit "the nail on the head." Dirt bag owner letting an employee go one day before 90 probationary period ended to avoid paying unemployment. While we admittedly don't know all the details, this one really smells. I really hate to judge others without knowing the details, but "if" this was indeed the fact, the owner should take a long hard look in the mirror. Karma is a funny thing! You're day is coming!!

lionfishhunter writes:

My daughter worked at Pincher's right next door. What a horrible place to work. The atmosphere created by management was one of a lack of common courtesy and respect for their employees. If that wasn't enough they were told daily, prior to the last election, that if they voted for Obama and Obamacare wasn't repealed they would have their hours cut unless they could provide proof of health insurance. Pincher's would be a good case study in college business courses on how not to get the best loyalty and productivity from your employees.When I first saw the headlines I thought for sure they were talking about Pincher's.

Rainman11 writes:

Har... you all sound like a bunch of PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

Probationary period, max, 90 days, employee sucks... get rid of before 90 days are up. Smart decision.

Or do you think the non efficient employee should be rewarded for sucking at the employment attempt?

Oh, I tried, and couldn't cut it, REWARD ME... dumb action, if the employer keeps him on, then lets him go. That is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

Here4Now writes:

in response to NaplesFL93:

Two of the responses above hit "the nail on the head." Dirt bag owner letting an employee go one day before 90 probationary period ended to avoid paying unemployment. While we admittedly don't know all the details, this one really smells. I really hate to judge others without knowing the details, but "if" this was indeed the fact, the owner should take a long hard look in the mirror. Karma is a funny thing! You're day is coming!!

Ditto absolutely!

MasonDixon writes:

in response to Rainman11:

Har... you all sound like a bunch of PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

Probationary period, max, 90 days, employee sucks... get rid of before 90 days are up. Smart decision.

Or do you think the non efficient employee should be rewarded for sucking at the employment attempt?

Oh, I tried, and couldn't cut it, REWARD ME... dumb action, if the employer keeps him on, then lets him go. That is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

They always know the best way for others on how to run THEIR OWN BUSINESS and spend THEIR OWN MONEY.

pritchard2020 writes:

Are you kidding me? I run a business with 18-25 year old kids and they can't get their head out of their cell phones. Worthless with no job skills. They shouldn't ever get unemployment, they should get another job and learn a skill. 9 am means show up at 8:50 not 9:28. The pope says you should hire these young kids so we do but absolutely no unemployment when they can't cut it.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to titanbite:

If, in fact,"all of these are inside jobs", what's to say that the owner of this business isn't at the center of his own robbery, insurance fraud is much more prevelent during economic downturns, such as the one we're suffering today.

How has business been this year, slow?

If nothing was actually taken, then there's nothing to actually file an insurance claim on.

Where's the fraud?

lionfishhunter writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

Are you kidding me? I run a business with 18-25 year old kids and they can't get their head out of their cell phones. Worthless with no job skills. They shouldn't ever get unemployment, they should get another job and learn a skill. 9 am means show up at 8:50 not 9:28. The pope says you should hire these young kids so we do but absolutely no unemployment when they can't cut it.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the pay compensation you offer has something to do with the quality of worker you attract?

DogFolks writes:

Let's all bash the small business owner. These evil people only supply 80% of all the jobs in the country.

FifiFarley writes:

What an a--...one day before. Karma, buddy.

mj999#268792 writes:

in response to Rainman11:

Har... you all sound like a bunch of PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

Probationary period, max, 90 days, employee sucks... get rid of before 90 days are up. Smart decision.

Or do you think the non efficient employee should be rewarded for sucking at the employment attempt?

Oh, I tried, and couldn't cut it, REWARD ME... dumb action, if the employer keeps him on, then lets him go. That is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

Then maybe the employer should have let him go sooner instead of using him right up to the end of the probationary period. It`s obvious why he waited 89 days.

mj999#268792 writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

Are you kidding me? I run a business with 18-25 year old kids and they can't get their head out of their cell phones. Worthless with no job skills. They shouldn't ever get unemployment, they should get another job and learn a skill. 9 am means show up at 8:50 not 9:28. The pope says you should hire these young kids so we do but absolutely no unemployment when they can't cut it.

Maybe you should hire older more mature people with job skills. That would solve your problem. Of course you`re going to have to pay them more, which will cut into your profits, but you`ll have a lot less headaches.

CannoliCalzone writes:

That's why it's called a "PROBATIONARY PERIOD"

zurich writes:

Haven't seen too many parents encouraging their kids to seek employment at a young age .Most don't even help around the house ,and spend hours doing nothing but video games .Mom and pop shell out money to their kids without so much as a thank you .I'm grateful I grew up in the 40's -60's when mowing a lawn for a quarter gave me a lot of satisfaction .Of course a matinee of cowboy shows and a pack of Walnettos was worth working for

ltlnsx writes:

in response to CannoliCalzone:

That's why it's called a "PROBATIONARY PERIOD"

Sub-par workers are sub-par from day one. Either the manager is sub-par himself and didn't realize he had hired a sub-par employee until 89 days in. OR, the manager just didn't want to pay unemployment. Take your pick!

BonitaTango writes:

in response to ltlnsx:

Did the owner actually admit here that he let an employee go 89 days into a 90-day probation ... so he didn't have to pay unemployment benefits??? Apparently, somebody DID actually get robbed at that place.

Expect A LOT more of this once the Obamacare circus is in full swing!

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to Rainman11:

Har... you all sound like a bunch of PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

Probationary period, max, 90 days, employee sucks... get rid of before 90 days are up. Smart decision.

Or do you think the non efficient employee should be rewarded for sucking at the employment attempt?

Oh, I tried, and couldn't cut it, REWARD ME... dumb action, if the employer keeps him on, then lets him go. That is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

And you sound like---never mind, it will removed by staff---let's pretend for the sake of argument, that you are, in fact now or ever was an employer--how many days would it take you to figure out that this employee "sucked"?? 10?? maybe 15?? okay let's say 25. But 89???

This was obviously a cheap shot against the employee and, as in so many economic problems today, the people can only see the SYMPTOMS but do not see the the CAUSES.

Purchasing power of lower and middle income goes up--business at these types of places go up--workers and owners both making decent money and making payments--owners need to keep workers AND provide the benefits, most of which have been provided by successful business owners for decades---worker is kept on the job and does NOT resort to robbery as a revenge (justified by some) or just plain robbery (condemned by all.

These issues never seem to come up at places like Shula's, Tommy Bahama's, Campiellos, etc.---and it's not ALWAYS because they are run by owners with better knowhow when it come to running a successful business.

So just use the same old simplistic labelling--it's the fault of the Progressive Liberals---

I'll credit with one thing--at least you didn't label them as Socialists which seems to be the catchword phrase of the Right Wing these days.

Believe it or not, the great majority of people in this situation actually WANT to work, and not be thrown on the unemployment scrap heap.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

Are you kidding me? I run a business with 18-25 year old kids and they can't get their head out of their cell phones. Worthless with no job skills. They shouldn't ever get unemployment, they should get another job and learn a skill. 9 am means show up at 8:50 not 9:28. The pope says you should hire these young kids so we do but absolutely no unemployment when they can't cut it.

Are you kidding me?? You actually get your workers to last even 89 days with this stereotypical attitude towards apparently EVERYONE in this rather large demographic??? And for the record--18-25 years olds are not regarded as "kids"--most of them are old enough to drink, all are old enough to fight in the army, all are tried as adults as a matter of law, and they can even buy guns--lots of them, and carry them concealed, emboldened with the right to Stand Their Ground.

Here's a case where you know none of the details, but have already implied that you know everything about it, and him. I'll bet you are permanently excused from jury duty, and not due to a medical reason. Come to think of it, maybe it is.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to lionfishhunter:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the pay compensation you offer has something to do with the quality of worker you attract?

Or as one comedian once phrased it in a comedy bit--minimum wage equals minimum effort. Now before anyone gets all worked up, I do not believe that is appropriate though process, nor do I believe that the numbers who DO think that way are as high as some here seem to imply---I see so many of these workers go out of their way to be of help--and very little of what some here try to categorize them. Nor in my own work history, but I was lucky enough to work in situations with benevolent owners whose employees stayed on long term.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to zurich:

Haven't seen too many parents encouraging their kids to seek employment at a young age .Most don't even help around the house ,and spend hours doing nothing but video games .Mom and pop shell out money to their kids without so much as a thank you .I'm grateful I grew up in the 40's -60's when mowing a lawn for a quarter gave me a lot of satisfaction .Of course a matinee of cowboy shows and a pack of Walnettos was worth working for

MOST don't even help around the house--Really? You can provide a source for this conclusion based on a scientific study, can't you? How much time do you actually spend in and amongst this age group?

Rainman11 writes:

in response to mj999#268792:

Then maybe the employer should have let him go sooner instead of using him right up to the end of the probationary period. It`s obvious why he waited 89 days.

Perhaps the employer was trying to give him the benefit of doubt, that he might actually learn how to do what he/she needed to do to be a benefit/asset to the job.

How many times do you let an employee make the same mistake?

This is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

And if the employer decides he/she does not fit the position, it is smarter to let them go during the probationary period.

And for you morons saying now he/she can't get unemployment because they were let go on day 89, do not know a thing about unemployment.

If memory serves me , one has to have had like 180 days of gainful employment in the previous six months to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Meaning they wouldn't have gotten unemployment anyways, if they had made it to day 91.

Hence, everyone beaching about how unfair, and he deserves more from someone or something, do sound like PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS wanting someone else to pay him for nothing.

Just my .02 cents on the issue.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to DogFolks:

Let's all bash the small business owner. These evil people only supply 80% of all the jobs in the country.

I have to tell you, supporting a worker is not "bashing all small business owners". I LOVE small business owners--I am spending time doing meaningful socializing in the next few days with some for whom I worked for several years. And it has been several years since I did work for them.

These people created an atmosphere of mutual respect and everyone felt more like they were working WITH and not just FOR.

I will keep repeating what seems to me to e te real issue--if business is good, and workers are making a good pay, most problems seem to go away--and I honestly believe that in time--not even that long--increasing pay and benefits for workers is the only way to maintain that positive atmosphere--and that come with more paying customers who had disposable income.

Any business owners who feel so extremely beset, well, might consider a different source of income.

I wish you the best and hope for great success for you--really--and your staff.

Rainman11 writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

And you sound like---never mind, it will removed by staff---let's pretend for the sake of argument, that you are, in fact now or ever was an employer--how many days would it take you to figure out that this employee "sucked"?? 10?? maybe 15?? okay let's say 25. But 89???

This was obviously a cheap shot against the employee and, as in so many economic problems today, the people can only see the SYMPTOMS but do not see the the CAUSES.

Purchasing power of lower and middle income goes up--business at these types of places go up--workers and owners both making decent money and making payments--owners need to keep workers AND provide the benefits, most of which have been provided by successful business owners for decades---worker is kept on the job and does NOT resort to robbery as a revenge (justified by some) or just plain robbery (condemned by all.

These issues never seem to come up at places like Shula's, Tommy Bahama's, Campiellos, etc.---and it's not ALWAYS because they are run by owners with better knowhow when it come to running a successful business.

So just use the same old simplistic labelling--it's the fault of the Progressive Liberals---

I'll credit with one thing--at least you didn't label them as Socialists which seems to be the catchword phrase of the Right Wing these days.

Believe it or not, the great majority of people in this situation actually WANT to work, and not be thrown on the unemployment scrap heap.

Har... I never implied that he wanted to be thrown into the unemployment heap, no one does.

Employer in the past, yes, I usually decided in the first week if a person could cut it or not. Was I ever wrong, yes. Was I ever right, far more than I was ever wrong.

As to the rest of the issues, read my reply above.

MasonDixon writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

Are you kidding me?? You actually get your workers to last even 89 days with this stereotypical attitude towards apparently EVERYONE in this rather large demographic??? And for the record--18-25 years olds are not regarded as "kids"--most of them are old enough to drink, all are old enough to fight in the army, all are tried as adults as a matter of law, and they can even buy guns--lots of them, and carry them concealed, emboldened with the right to Stand Their Ground.

Here's a case where you know none of the details, but have already implied that you know everything about it, and him. I'll bet you are permanently excused from jury duty, and not due to a medical reason. Come to think of it, maybe it is.

For the record, they're still considered "kids" in the age group you mention (plus a year!) on their folk's insurance.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to MasonDixon:

For the record, they're still considered "kids" in the age group you mention (plus a year!) on their folk's insurance.

Are you saying that the insurance policies actually refer to them as "kids" in writing??--Perhaps, "family members"?? And despite this (which was not the case when I turned 18 btw) my other examples, and more, clearly demonstrate that these are not "kids"--but sometimes people try to cite the exception as a way to try and prove a rule.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to Rainman11:

Har... I never implied that he wanted to be thrown into the unemployment heap, no one does.

Employer in the past, yes, I usually decided in the first week if a person could cut it or not. Was I ever wrong, yes. Was I ever right, far more than I was ever wrong.

As to the rest of the issues, read my reply above.

Totally agree--and I bet you might agree with the fact that the fellow workers might have known even before you if they could cut it or not---lol--they would be the ones who had to pick up the slack. And you do them a favor I always thought by letting them go earlier, like that first week, rather than later, like after 3 months,.

Same for the worker if he or she knows it's not the job for them. I have seen it, and probably you as well, where you LIKE the worker, get him all trained and he leaves for a better job after 2 or 3 months---I've seen some owners who try and withhold their checks for that.

zurich writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

MOST don't even help around the house--Really? You can provide a source for this conclusion based on a scientific study, can't you? How much time do you actually spend in and amongst this age group?

Would working 21 years in the Juvenile Court Services give me a few clues ?

karjay24 writes:

It does not take 90 days to decide to keep an employee. But you have to train an employee, let him/her get use to the job, observe the skill level,personality, and ethic. If it does not work you need time to find a new employee and start process over this is why 90 days is ok. If they are awful at first you fire right away, if they have potential you give a chance. Some employees can handle a job in the summer, but season they cannot.

WeThePeople2016 writes:

in response to zurich:

Would working 21 years in the Juvenile Court Services give me a few clues ?

Well working with that specific demographic has certainly tainted your views of the entire demographic----I don't believe that restricted your categorization to some or a few, or many--it was a blanket indictment--maybe because I have spent about 40 years working exposed to that age group and finding the vast majority to be honest, reliable, and hard working has tainted my view a bit--but I do see the negative aspects you cite as well--just don;t see it to be the norm---and for society's sake, I hope that my perspective is closer to the truth.

HenryChinaski writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

Are you kidding me? I run a business with 18-25 year old kids and they can't get their head out of their cell phones. Worthless with no job skills. They shouldn't ever get unemployment, they should get another job and learn a skill. 9 am means show up at 8:50 not 9:28. The pope says you should hire these young kids so we do but absolutely no unemployment when they can't cut it.

People have no idea how bad kids have gotten. I have encountered many cases where I had to let an employee go as they simply couldn't come to terms with the fact that they can't have their phone on when working.

They unconsciously see the phone as an extension of themselves, an extension of their brain and to think and act independently of the phone seems very foreign to them.

People who grew up thinking, remembering and functioning without a phone see the world in a completely different way than kids who think their phone is an extension of themselves and it's not only their birthright but their constitutional right to have access to it at any time, at work included.

I am on the advisory board of LWIT and by far the biggest problem employers are having is finding employees who can grasp that they do in fact exist independently of their phones.

This dependance on phones to function is out of hand.

bossman1 writes:

in response to HenryChinaski:

People have no idea how bad kids have gotten. I have encountered many cases where I had to let an employee go as they simply couldn't come to terms with the fact that they can't have their phone on when working.

They unconsciously see the phone as an extension of themselves, an extension of their brain and to think and act independently of the phone seems very foreign to them.

People who grew up thinking, remembering and functioning without a phone see the world in a completely different way than kids who think their phone is an extension of themselves and it's not only their birthright but their constitutional right to have access to it at any time, at work included.

I am on the advisory board of LWIT and by far the biggest problem employers are having is finding employees who can grasp that they do in fact exist independently of their phones.

This dependance on phones to function is out of hand.

Henry, The most prolific blogger on these NDN forums '20 comments a day' does it from his work computer while working. I don't believe he is a young guy either.

bossman1 writes:

I would guess Matt Moen works a lot of his employees just less than the probationary period of 90 days.
It does cover the holidays and most of the 'season'.

pritchard2020 writes:

in response to lionfishhunter:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the pay compensation you offer has something to do with the quality of worker you attract?

I pay $10 -$17 an hour. These kids aren't worth 8. Theyre way overpaid. And they are learning a skill from a cuban mechanic. American teenagers are worthless

pritchard2020 writes:

in response to WeThePeople2016:

Are you kidding me?? You actually get your workers to last even 89 days with this stereotypical attitude towards apparently EVERYONE in this rather large demographic??? And for the record--18-25 years olds are not regarded as "kids"--most of them are old enough to drink, all are old enough to fight in the army, all are tried as adults as a matter of law, and they can even buy guns--lots of them, and carry them concealed, emboldened with the right to Stand Their Ground.

Here's a case where you know none of the details, but have already implied that you know everything about it, and him. I'll bet you are permanently excused from jury duty, and not due to a medical reason. Come to think of it, maybe it is.

We teach these entitled brats skills. The school system and their parents do not. There has to be small businesses that do this, otherwise these kids will just go to jail. This kid had no right to break into his employer or previous employers business. Its ENTITLEMENT that is the problem. Theyre not entitled to unemployment. Where did unemployment come from?? We never had this when I was a kid and I'm only 40. I have an 18 year old daughter who works 3 small jobs and goes to high school. I appreciate the skills and the opportunity her employer offers her. I would never allow her to take unemployment EVER.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

If nothing was actually taken, then there's nothing to actually file an insurance claim on.

Where's the fraud?

Fraud is misrepresentation.
If something is taken, it's called theft...

Piano is slightly out of tune...

HenryChinaski writes:

in response to bossman1:

Henry, The most prolific blogger on these NDN forums '20 comments a day' does it from his work computer while working. I don't believe he is a young guy either.

Im not talking about Millinials being on their phone to blog.

Im talking about how they cant grasp that when on the clock if a friend wants to text them a message that receiving that message and responding to it is not allowed. Or even necessary.

When told that they have to lock their phone in their locker when arriving they look at you in disbelief and say, "What if someone calls?"

This is after the phone policy being explicitly stated in the interview.

When it is explained to them that receiving personal calls while at work is not a possibility (unless it's a medical emergency and the person calling needs to call the business not the individual) they cant come to terms with that basic work policy.

They literally see the phone as an extension of their body and of their mind, to them it is a part of who they are.

The thought of locking the biggest part of their brain and personality in a locker for eight hours seems like a ridiculous proposition to them.

They believe that if they have 30 seconds free that it is their God given right to be on their phone for 29 of those 30 seconds.

They cant seem to grasp how that 30 second "break" turing into a three minute break as customers pile up is a problem.

They need to learn that while at work 100% of your focus is on your job, not 30% on your job and 70% on your phone. Or even 99% on your job and 1% on your phone.

Hopefully I am describing it adequately.

mj999#268792 writes:

in response to Rainman11:

Perhaps the employer was trying to give him the benefit of doubt, that he might actually learn how to do what he/she needed to do to be a benefit/asset to the job.

How many times do you let an employee make the same mistake?

This is why it is called PROBATIONARY.

And if the employer decides he/she does not fit the position, it is smarter to let them go during the probationary period.

And for you morons saying now he/she can't get unemployment because they were let go on day 89, do not know a thing about unemployment.

If memory serves me , one has to have had like 180 days of gainful employment in the previous six months to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Meaning they wouldn't have gotten unemployment anyways, if they had made it to day 91.

Hence, everyone beaching about how unfair, and he deserves more from someone or something, do sound like PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS wanting someone else to pay him for nothing.

Just my .02 cents on the issue.

I will agree that it is smart for the employer to let him go before the 90 days are up. I agree that the employee doesn`t deserve unemployment if he is not capable of doing the job. But there are better ways of handling an employees termination. Seriously! Day 89! That is just disrespectful and unnecessary. If the employer was that unsure by day 89 he should have just kept the employee. And I don`t know why you have to include progressive liberals in this. Does every article on here have to be about politics?

Davidh239 writes:

in response to HenryChinaski:

Im not talking about Millinials being on their phone to blog.

Im talking about how they cant grasp that when on the clock if a friend wants to text them a message that receiving that message and responding to it is not allowed. Or even necessary.

When told that they have to lock their phone in their locker when arriving they look at you in disbelief and say, "What if someone calls?"

This is after the phone policy being explicitly stated in the interview.

When it is explained to them that receiving personal calls while at work is not a possibility (unless it's a medical emergency and the person calling needs to call the business not the individual) they cant come to terms with that basic work policy.

They literally see the phone as an extension of their body and of their mind, to them it is a part of who they are.

The thought of locking the biggest part of their brain and personality in a locker for eight hours seems like a ridiculous proposition to them.

They believe that if they have 30 seconds free that it is their God given right to be on their phone for 29 of those 30 seconds.

They cant seem to grasp how that 30 second "break" turing into a three minute break as customers pile up is a problem.

They need to learn that while at work 100% of your focus is on your job, not 30% on your job and 70% on your phone. Or even 99% on your job and 1% on your phone.

Hopefully I am describing it adequately.

Henry, you are 100% correct.

wentfishn writes:

in response to mj999#268792:

I will agree that it is smart for the employer to let him go before the 90 days are up. I agree that the employee doesn`t deserve unemployment if he is not capable of doing the job. But there are better ways of handling an employees termination. Seriously! Day 89! That is just disrespectful and unnecessary. If the employer was that unsure by day 89 he should have just kept the employee. And I don`t know why you have to include progressive liberals in this. Does every article on here have to be about politics?

The employer has the right to do as he sees fit , he is the boss !

HenryChinaski writes:

in response to Davidh239:

Henry, you are 100% correct.

People who haven't had to contend with it wont get it.

bossman1 writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

We teach these entitled brats skills. The school system and their parents do not. There has to be small businesses that do this, otherwise these kids will just go to jail. This kid had no right to break into his employer or previous employers business. Its ENTITLEMENT that is the problem. Theyre not entitled to unemployment. Where did unemployment come from?? We never had this when I was a kid and I'm only 40. I have an 18 year old daughter who works 3 small jobs and goes to high school. I appreciate the skills and the opportunity her employer offers her. I would never allow her to take unemployment EVER.

prit, I was laidoff in 1962 from a steelmill and collected for two weeks, unemployment insurance has been around at least since then.
Your 18 year old daughter works three jobs and still goes to high school? Hopefully she is a senior, will graduate and get a good job.
You will never let her..., really? Never let her....?

bossman1 writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

I pay $10 -$17 an hour. These kids aren't worth 8. Theyre way overpaid. And they are learning a skill from a cuban mechanic. American teenagers are worthless

"American teenagers are worthless"?
Maybe you should go back to Cuba where teenagers arn't worthless and you can teach them to work on 1950's Chev's and Ford's.

HenryChinaski writes:

in response to bossman1:

"American teenagers are worthless"?
Maybe you should go back to Cuba where teenagers arn't worthless and you can teach them to work on 1950's Chev's and Ford's.

Some American Teenagers are fine but the vast majority are even more spoiled and disconnected from reality than their parents, which is really saying something.

pritchard2020 writes:

in response to HenryChinaski:

Some American Teenagers are fine but the vast majority are even more spoiled and disconnected from reality than their parents, which is really saying something.

I'm an american, born in kentucky. After hiring tons of lazy teenage-early 20's Americans, I hired a Cuban mechanic. He can fix anything and won't steal. Would never consider unemployment. There is a major problem with kids aged 17-26. They are lazy and entitled. To even think about unemployment at this age is rediculous. I'm not the only employer who feels this way. There is a major problem and blaming the employers is not the answer. I work 7 days a week, 10 hours a day and my employees are so stressed out by working 9 hour days that they are on every other day. So a 40 year old woman can work 7 days a week but if you are 18-26, 3-4 days a week is almost too stressful? Mothers, stop breastfeeding your sons, they're turning into lazy idiots.

wentfishn writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

I'm an american, born in kentucky. After hiring tons of lazy teenage-early 20's Americans, I hired a Cuban mechanic. He can fix anything and won't steal. Would never consider unemployment. There is a major problem with kids aged 17-26. They are lazy and entitled. To even think about unemployment at this age is rediculous. I'm not the only employer who feels this way. There is a major problem and blaming the employers is not the answer. I work 7 days a week, 10 hours a day and my employees are so stressed out by working 9 hour days that they are on every other day. So a 40 year old woman can work 7 days a week but if you are 18-26, 3-4 days a week is almost too stressful? Mothers, stop breastfeeding your sons, they're turning into lazy idiots.

Yup !!!!

bossman1 writes:

in response to pritchard2020:

I'm an american, born in kentucky. After hiring tons of lazy teenage-early 20's Americans, I hired a Cuban mechanic. He can fix anything and won't steal. Would never consider unemployment. There is a major problem with kids aged 17-26. They are lazy and entitled. To even think about unemployment at this age is rediculous. I'm not the only employer who feels this way. There is a major problem and blaming the employers is not the answer. I work 7 days a week, 10 hours a day and my employees are so stressed out by working 9 hour days that they are on every other day. So a 40 year old woman can work 7 days a week but if you are 18-26, 3-4 days a week is almost too stressful? Mothers, stop breastfeeding your sons, they're turning into lazy idiots.

Born in Kentucky, answers some questions.
Why would you hire tons of lazy teenagers?
From 17-26 they are lazy? Before 17 and after 26?
When you work 7/10 are you working for min. wage or for your own business? To expect a wage earner to work as long and hard as you is un-realistic.
Should Mothers stop breast feeding thier Daughters too? Or just thier sons?
.
Pritch, The fact that you say you hired 'tons' of lazy teenage Americans in your short time as a business owner and are dis-satisfied with all of them says much more about You than them.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features