Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Marines Refused Service At Eatery?

Posted by   + Show Post

Marines Refused Service At Eatery? Claims Fly Online

Phone Calls Hammer Weberstown Mall Sub Shop

KCRA.com
updated 1 hour ago

STOCKTON, Calif. - KCRA.com

Web postings claim a Stockton sandwich shop refused to serve Marines at lunch on Monday, and the talk has led to a boycott of the eatery.

Calls for the boycott were posted on Facebook pages for the

and other sites across the Web.

Posters claim that that Marine recruiters in Stockton were refused service at this Charley's Grilled Subs in Weberstown Mall.

Franchise store owner Jian Ortman said she's scared. Phone calls have been coming in nonstop from across the country, some with threats.

Ortman said this in a statement:

Military recruiters came to our restaurant and had a long conversation with our employee. We asked them to take their conversation outside of the restaurant because our employee was working. We did not refuse to serve the soldiers. We told the soldiers that we support our troops, but do not support the war. I meant no insult to the men and women that put their lives in harm's way to protect our freedom.

The owners of the sub shop said they never refused to serve the military, in fact, they say the recruiters have been there before and not only that they offer the military a discount.

Employees at the restaurant said their boss did nothing wrong.

"We give 10 percent to them, and we serve everybody, we have no hate toward anybody," employee Sondy Nguyen said.

The two Marine recruiters declined to comment on camera. A Marine representative said in a statement that, "As Marine recruiters, we enjoy discussing the Marine Corps opportunities with anyone who would like information."

Charley's is a national chain with hundreds of restaurants and known for its troops support.

"Whatever happened, I think they took it too far and overexaggerated," Nguyen said.

So far, there are no boycott signs springing up, but the phone has been taken off the hook.

The owners at Charley's Grilled Subs in Stockton said so far, business is about the same, but sales have not been affected. Many of the Charley's eateries are located on military bases.

 

by on May. 13, 2010 at 1:21 AM
Replies (41-48):
ArmyGal
by Bronze Member on May. 14, 2010 at 5:43 AM

Not here, the recruiters here are aggressive and spam call you/send mail. Even show up at your house if you ask ONE question. You can't apply your situation to everyone just like I can't mine. I've been active duty 5 years and 3 years reserve. I'm plenty aware how recruiters work, atleast in Fayetteville NC, after doing HRAP on two separate occasions.

Employees at the restaurant said their boss did nothing wrong. I'm guessing you didn't read this in the article? The restaurant shouldn't be going through this. There's a way to file a compliant. I'm seeing this too much where people want to believe the Military personal no matter what they say. This might shock you, but sometimes there are people in the Military who lie. Shocking right?

Quoting norwegianwood:

 How do you KNOW this?

It was lunch time, undisputed. Neither my son nor any of his friends or my daughter's friends have EVER had more than ONE recruiter show up to meet with them, and it's always with an appt set/arranged from either a phone call to the recruiter office, career day wherein the student filled out a form, or a referral..but always a phone call and arranged appt time, and it's ONE person, not two or three. They said they were 'refused service' perhaps because in their opinion, they had gone in for lunch, and no matter whether they or the employee started up the conversation, ultimately, they were asked to leave BEFORE they were served: i.e. 'denied service'

The simple fact of their not giving a statement is not evidence of anything. When they let others know about what had occurred, and a 'call for a boycott' happened, that's fine. But, when a newspaper calls and wants them to speak, and it may result in a 'reflection on the Marine Corps or result in some 'legal action' they aren't allowed to just speak on the issue.' So, it's not proof of anything. It's like suggesting that if someone invokes the 5th rather than testify or chooses to exercise their right not to take the stand in their own trial that it MUST be because they are guilty.

I see nothing IN the article to suggest that they went there with any OTHER intent than to get lunch, since it was LUNCH TIME. As I stated, I have worked in a lot of restaurants and customers often times seem disinterested in the business going around them and will engage the server in all manner of conversations that often times feel awkward or difficult for the employee, especially a young one, to extricate themselves gracefully from. I have never ONCE had a boss indicate to me that THEY were a 'bad customer' or 'in the wrong' for tying me up like that. It was MY job to figure out a graceful way to indicate I really needed to get to the other customers. I see NO evidence that this employee tried to do that and they were too insistent; I see no statement by said employee that they came there ONLY to 'recruit'...that information is NOWHERE.

The marine that came to speak to my son about the Marines, an appt arranged after a career day and my son's indication of interest, he was very gracious. When he called to 'follow up' with my son, my son told him that his father asked him not to make any military career decisions until he came home frm Iraq to discuss it with him directly--my dh is USAF over 25 years...the recruiter has respected that. He called after the time my dh was expected home, my son said, he was not interested in joining the marines and we have had no more communication. It was neither annoying or aggressive. No moreso than any other 'sales' person who might call or inquire as to potential interest, and without more 'specific' information as to the actual facts of how/why they entered that restaurant, I am saying that LOGIC tells me if it was lunchtime, it was likely 'to get lunch'...and that their being asked to leave before they got to order is what inspired them to write to others about their being 'denied' lunch. Because imo the other explanation does not mesh with reality or logic.

P

Quoting Mandipants:

No NW-- the recruiters were clearly in the wrong. Not the business.

Your argument is a fallacious one.

Quoting norwegianwood:

 So...I guess boycotts are BAD when the interpretation of 'one side' of the issue is 'being USED to hyperbolize' an otherwise non-issue? Wow. Tell the people in AZ that. They'll be so glad to hear that.

P


 



norwegianwood
by Platinum Member on May. 14, 2010 at 5:58 AM

 As you pointed out, you can no more speak to what happened here than I can. And yes I did read the article. Did you? Did you see that it was lunch time? Explain to me why they were 'working' on lunch? Explain to me why they would presume the 'best' time to try to recruit someone who works in a restaurant would be the busiest part of the restaurant day? You really find it 'odd' that the employees, whose actions played a role in this entire issue, would want to make sure and 'back up' the boss where they are 'employed'? That's really a difficult question for you to consider? Explain to me what the Marines had to gain AT ALL from lying about wht the boss did? Give me ONE reasonable explanation for why they would need to make this up in order to ask people to boycott? Go on...there isn't one. Period.

P

Quoting ArmyGal:

Not here, the recruiters here are aggressive and spam call you/send mail. Even show up at your house if you ask ONE question. You can't apply your situation to everyone just like I can't mine. I've been active duty 5 years and 3 years reserve. I'm plenty aware how recruiters work, atleast in Fayetteville NC, after doing HRAP on two separate occasions.

Employees at the restaurant said their boss did nothing wrong. I'm guessing you didn't read this in the article? The restaurant shouldn't be going through this. There's a way to file a compliant. I'm seeing this too much where people want to believe the Military personal no matter what they say. This might shock you, but sometimes there are people in the Military who lie. Shocking right?

Quoting norwegianwood:

 How do you KNOW this?

It was lunch time, undisputed. Neither my son nor any of his friends or my daughter's friends have EVER had more than ONE recruiter show up to meet with them, and it's always with an appt set/arranged from either a phone call to the recruiter office, career day wherein the student filled out a form, or a referral..but always a phone call and arranged appt time, and it's ONE person, not two or three. They said they were 'refused service' perhaps because in their opinion, they had gone in for lunch, and no matter whether they or the employee started up the conversation, ultimately, they were asked to leave BEFORE they were served: i.e. 'denied service'

The simple fact of their not giving a statement is not evidence of anything. When they let others know about what had occurred, and a 'call for a boycott' happened, that's fine. But, when a newspaper calls and wants them to speak, and it may result in a 'reflection on the Marine Corps or result in some 'legal action' they aren't allowed to just speak on the issue.' So, it's not proof of anything. It's like suggesting that if someone invokes the 5th rather than testify or chooses to exercise their right not to take the stand in their own trial that it MUST be because they are guilty.

I see nothing IN the article to suggest that they went there with any OTHER intent than to get lunch, since it was LUNCH TIME. As I stated, I have worked in a lot of restaurants and customers often times seem disinterested in the business going around them and will engage the server in all manner of conversations that often times feel awkward or difficult for the employee, especially a young one, to extricate themselves gracefully from. I have never ONCE had a boss indicate to me that THEY were a 'bad customer' or 'in the wrong' for tying me up like that. It was MY job to figure out a graceful way to indicate I really needed to get to the other customers. I see NO evidence that this employee tried to do that and they were too insistent; I see no statement by said employee that they came there ONLY to 'recruit'...that information is NOWHERE.

The marine that came to speak to my son about the Marines, an appt arranged after a career day and my son's indication of interest, he was very gracious. When he called to 'follow up' with my son, my son told him that his father asked him not to make any military career decisions until he came home frm Iraq to discuss it with him directly--my dh is USAF over 25 years...the recruiter has respected that. He called after the time my dh was expected home, my son said, he was not interested in joining the marines and we have had no more communication. It was neither annoying or aggressive. No moreso than any other 'sales' person who might call or inquire as to potential interest, and without more 'specific' information as to the actual facts of how/why they entered that restaurant, I am saying that LOGIC tells me if it was lunchtime, it was likely 'to get lunch'...and that their being asked to leave before they got to order is what inspired them to write to others about their being 'denied' lunch. Because imo the other explanation does not mesh with reality or logic.

P

Quoting Mandipants:

No NW-- the recruiters were clearly in the wrong. Not the business.

Your argument is a fallacious one.

Quoting norwegianwood:

 So...I guess boycotts are BAD when the interpretation of 'one side' of the issue is 'being USED to hyperbolize' an otherwise non-issue? Wow. Tell the people in AZ that. They'll be so glad to hear that.

P


 

 

 

Mommy_of_Riley
by Jes on May. 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

I don't think either side is "making it up"...  I think a situation gone blown out of proportion because sometimes people run with stories and over-exaggerate things.  It happens.  It will happen again.

As for debating "lunch time"...  come on!  People don't take lunch at the same time.  So NOT ONE OF US HERE can say if they were working or on lunch break.  My husband had lunch at 11:00 when he was in CA and now in TX he gets lunch at 1:00...  When he was on Recruiting Duty he worked through lunch A LOT.  Most of the time he had lunch around 1 - 2...  And while he worked there, there were some really shady guys... 

Once again.... some recruitors harass their potential enlisters...  It happens ALL THE TIME.  There are also the good guys who are kind and only call when you ask them too, etc.  There is always good and bad to every situation.

ArmyGal
by Bronze Member on May. 14, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Exactly. Oh and my lunch break was 15mins at about 2pm because I was a cook lol. When I was a 42A I had lunch from 11am-1:30pm was amazing lol.

Quoting Mommy_of_Riley:

I don't think either side is "making it up"...  I think a situation gone blown out of proportion because sometimes people run with stories and over-exaggerate things.  It happens.  It will happen again.

As for debating "lunch time"...  come on!  People don't take lunch at the same time.  So NOT ONE OF US HERE can say if they were working or on lunch break.  My husband had lunch at 11:00 when he was in CA and now in TX he gets lunch at 1:00...  When he was on Recruiting Duty he worked through lunch A LOT.  Most of the time he had lunch around 1 - 2...  And while he worked there, there were some really shady guys... 

Once again.... some recruitors harass their potential enlisters...  It happens ALL THE TIME.  There are also the good guys who are kind and only call when you ask them too, etc.  There is always good and bad to every situation.



norwegianwood
by Platinum Member on May. 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM

 I have never one time heard of them going uninvited into a place of business at IT'S busiest time--uh, lunch rush in a restaurant is ALWAYS between 11-2...and it's pretty easy to figure out. I have NEVER heard of it being 'more than one' recruiter to go on an appt, but I HAVE heard of coworkers 'going to lunch together'...

Sorry. The ONLY group with a 'reason' to be lying here is the business owner. No one has given me one valid reason from recruiters to make shit up just to start a boycott..No one. The boss on the other hand might have a reason, given all the phone calls to want to 'publicly' get 'their version' of events out there, and the employee has a job to try to keep...Nobody has given me a plausible explanation for the recruiters to have started this if they KNEW they had gone into this business at the worst time in order to try to recruit.

P

Quoting Mommy_of_Riley:

I don't think either side is "making it up"...  I think a situation gone blown out of proportion because sometimes people run with stories and over-exaggerate things.  It happens.  It will happen again.

As for debating "lunch time"...  come on!  People don't take lunch at the same time.  So NOT ONE OF US HERE can say if they were working or on lunch break.  My husband had lunch at 11:00 when he was in CA and now in TX he gets lunch at 1:00...  When he was on Recruiting Duty he worked through lunch A LOT.  Most of the time he had lunch around 1 - 2...  And while he worked there, there were some really shady guys... 

Once again.... some recruitors harass their potential enlisters...  It happens ALL THE TIME.  There are also the good guys who are kind and only call when you ask them too, etc.  There is always good and bad to every situation.

 

Martina70
by Bronze Member on May. 14, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Lunch time is a  fairly broad term, it could mean anywhere from about 11am-1pm depending on when someone started working.

Lot's of people take 'working' lunches, especially when the pressureis on to get the job done. From what I understand, a recruiters bonus and job performance is somewhat based on how many people they successfully 'recuite'.

The whole point- was that it WAS an inappropriate time to try and recruit an employee who was on the clock.

Why- after repeatedly eating there and having a military discount, do you think the manager just happened to ask these two recruiters to leave?

Quoting norwegianwood:

 As you pointed out, you can no more speak to what happened here than I can. And yes I did read the article. Did you? Did you see that it was lunch time? Explain to me why they were 'working' on lunch? Explain to me why they would presume the 'best' time to try to recruit someone who works in a restaurant would be the busiest part of the restaurant day? You really find it 'odd' that the employees,Quoting ArmyGal:

Not here, the recruiters here are aggressive and spam call you/send mail. Even show up at your house if you ask ONE question. You can't apply your situation to everyone just like I can't mine. I've been active duty 5 years and 3 years reserve. I'm plenty aware how recruiters work, atleast in Fayetteville NC, after doing HRAP on two separate occasions.

Employees at the restaurant said their boss did nothing wrong. I'm guessing you didn't read this in the article? The restaurant shouldn't be going through this. There's a way to file a compliant. I'm seeing this too much where people want to believe the Military personal no matter what they say. This might shock you, but sometimes there are people in the Military who lie. Shocking right?

Quoting norwegianwood:

 How do you KNOW this?

It was lunch time, undisputed. Neither my son nor any of his friends or my daughter's friends have EVER had more than ONE recruiter show up to meet with them, and it's always with an appt set/arranged from either a phone call to the recruiter office, career day wherein the student filled out a form, or a referral..but always a phone call and arranged appt time, and it's ONE person, not two or three. They said they were 'refused service' perhaps because in their opinion, they had gone in for lunch, and no matter whether they or the employee started up the conversation, ultimately, they were asked to leave BEFORE they were served: i.e. 'denied service'

The simple fact of their not giving a statement is not evidence of anything. When they let others know about what had occurred, and a 'call for a boycott' happened, that's fine. But, when a newspaper calls and wants them to speak, and it may result in a 'reflection on the Marine Corps or result in some 'legal action' they aren't allowed to just speak on the issue.' So, it's not proof of anything. It's like suggesting that if someone invokes the 5th rather than testify or chooses to exercise their right not to take the stand in their own trial that it MUST be because they are guilty.

I see nothing IN the article to suggest that they went there with any OTHER intent than to get lunch, since it was LUNCH TIME. As I stated, I have worked in a lot of restaurants and customers often times seem disinterested in the business going around them and will engage the server in all manner of conversations that often times feel awkward or difficult for the employee, especially a young one, to extricate themselves gracefully from. I have never ONCE had a boss indicate to me that THEY were a 'bad customer' or 'in the wrong' for tying me up like that. It was MY job to figure out a graceful way to indicate I really needed to get to the other customers. I see NO evidence that this employee tried to do that and they were too insistent; I see no statement by said employee that they came there ONLY to 'recruit'...that information is NOWHERE.

The marine that came to speak to my son about the Marines, an appt arranged after a career day and my son's indication of interest, he was very gracious. When he called to 'follow up' with my son, my son told him that his father asked him not to make any military career decisions until he came home frm Iraq to discuss it with him directly--my dh is USAF over 25 years...the recruiter has respected that. He called after the time my dh was expected home, my son said, he was not interested in joining the marines and we have had no more communication. It was neither annoying or aggressive. No moreso than any other 'sales' person who might call or inquire as to potential interest, and without more 'specific' information as to the actual facts of how/why they entered that restaurant, I am saying that LOGIC tells me if it was lunchtime, it was likely 'to get lunch'...and that their being asked to leave before they got to order is what inspired them to write to others about their being 'denied' lunch. Because imo the other explanation does not mesh with reality or logic.

P


 


 

 

 


cagnew80
by Bronze Member on May. 14, 2010 at 2:23 PM

The only thing I got out of this is that it is a poorly written story with very few details. I don't think you can fairly draw any conclusions from it. It's bad reporting... too many holes. Speculation is pointless.

Mommy_of_Riley
by Jes on May. 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM

No one ever said that the Marine recruiters made anything up!  Maybe some other guy in the shop told a friend what happened and then he told someone and the story got over-exaggerated.  Like I said, it happens.  You seem like the only one here insistent on blaming someone for this situation.  I don't think either party involved is to be blamed.  People gossip and the stories get retold and retold until everything is blown out of proportion.  Didn't you even play telephone when you were young? 

Anyways, when my husband was on recruiting duty he ALWAYS worked with another guy.  They went to schools together, they went to home visits together, they worked together almost all day long.  It's actually pretty common for recruiters to have partners.  When my husband was recruited years ago he was met by Gunny Prus & SSGT Edwards were together every time they came to talk to him.  It makes it safer for them.

 

Quoting norwegianwood:

 I have never one time heard of them going uninvited into a place of business at IT'S busiest time--uh, lunch rush in a restaurant is ALWAYS between 11-2...and it's pretty easy to figure out. I have NEVER heard of it being 'more than one' recruiter to go on an appt, but I HAVE heard of coworkers 'going to lunch together'...

Sorry. The ONLY group with a 'reason' to be lying here is the business owner. No one has given me one valid reason from recruiters to make shit up just to start a boycott..No one. The boss on the other hand might have a reason, given all the phone calls to want to 'publicly' get 'their version' of events out there, and the employee has a job to try to keep...Nobody has given me a plausible explanation for the recruiters to have started this if they KNEW they had gone into this business at the worst time in order to try to recruit.

P

Quoting Mommy_of_Riley:

I don't think either side is "making it up"...  I think a situation gone blown out of proportion because sometimes people run with stories and over-exaggerate things.  It happens.  It will happen again.

As for debating "lunch time"...  come on!  People don't take lunch at the same time.  So NOT ONE OF US HERE can say if they were working or on lunch break.  My husband had lunch at 11:00 when he was in CA and now in TX he gets lunch at 1:00...  When he was on Recruiting Duty he worked through lunch A LOT.  Most of the time he had lunch around 1 - 2...  And while he worked there, there were some really shady guys... 

Once again.... some recruitors harass their potential enlisters...  It happens ALL THE TIME.  There are also the good guys who are kind and only call when you ask them too, etc.  There is always good and bad to every situation.

 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)