Three years ago, one of the most famous cashier revolts in media history came in the form of the “Waffle House girl.” 24-year-old Halie Booth boldly stood up to an unruly customer who threw a chair at her by grabbing the chair midair and de-escalating the situation. According to FOX News LA, before throwing the chair, that particular customer had already taken part in a “big physical fight within the Waffle House,” and they were asked repeatedly to leave the premises, after which they decided to unleash physical violence against Halie Booth. This situation, initially posted on Twitter, went viral across all media platforms and even made it to global news. It brought to light the extent to which working as a cashier could be physically dangerous, as well as mentally taxing.
Booth’s situation was an extreme example of many negative, unnecessary experiences brought onto workers by customers in their workspaces. As if matters could not be worse, Waffle House’s response to this video was to fire her shortly after the video surfaced. She recalled how, “they had told me I’m always welcome back at that store … Six months later, when I went to apply at another Waffle House in North Carolina, I found out that I was blacklisted and on the do not hire list.” While her home Waffle House location was kind to her about the situation, but the corporation was not on Booth’s side as a victim, thus choosing to protect their image over protecting their worker.
It reflects what the corporation ultimately values—the money that they make as a result of their brand image with no real concern for worker treatment within the workspace. In 2025, another incident occurred in which we saw a customer livid over a canceled breakfast order at a McDonald’s in Saginaw, Michigan. When the phrase, “Angry customer throws hot coffee on McDonald’s employee,” hit the headlines after a video surfaced on Facebook, news outlets began to elucidate their concerns.
Coverage by ABC News Chicago recalls the situation detailing that, “In the video, the woman says she has been at the McDonald’s for an hour and argues with the employee, who explains that her breakfast order was automatically canceled by the restaurant’s system due to breakfast service being closed for the day. The employee repeatedly tells the customer that a refund had been issued and would take 48 hours to be credited to her. When the employee finally disengages, the customer yells expletives, takes the top off the cup, and throws the hot coffee at the worker as she walks away.”
The lack of patience in the customer in this situation, my situation at the register, and incidents like the Waffle House girl’s, truly affect the feelings and safety of the workers throughout all of these interactions. As if the mental effect of going through a traumatizing event like this was not enough, FOX, in the same coverage, reported that, “The employee suffered minor burns, and the department recommended the suspect be charged with felonious assault, MLive reported.”
McDonald’s as a corporation had nothing to say about the matter, and as far as research shows, the worker was not compensated more for her trouble or given any assistance dealing with her burns by any parties involved. The lack of a statement in defense of the worker as well as any potential compensation really signifies McDonald’s true care for their worker in the altercation. What was reported, though, was the customer left the situation with only a mere misdemeanor and was released on $5000 bail for what was truly more of an aggravated assault case. Again with this McDonald’s incident, we see the same customer/company lack of care issues repeating themselves with the company not paying nearly enough mind to workers being put through traumatic experiences in their workplaces, and customers not being nearly as considerate as they should be to front end workers and their safety.
I myself would come to understand another perspective on the hardships of working in clothing retail. Although not quite as dire as either situation, I too experienced first-hand the extent to which customers can push cashiers and company neglect to care. This past winter break, like most college students I picked up a part-time job to make money for school and gifts for the holiday season. I found a job opportunity for a clothing retailer that I, as a consumer, really enjoyed. During the in-person interview, the manager explained the sentiments of the company, echoing how they wanted to, “make everyone feel accepted, proud in their own skin, and that the customer should always leave happy.” She even told me that she had worked there and loved it before she became a manager. I could not wait to work for such a wonderful company that cared so much about their shoppers and worker’s self worth.
It was not long before I started working there that I realized that everything that glittered in the interview was, in fact, not gold. Customer reactions on a daily basis could range from volatile at best to ridiculous flaunting for attention at worst. I tried to have empathy for all customers, no matter the situation, but what I could not grasp (and still cannot) to this very day, is why they would take out their frustrations on me, the cashier, for things that were out of my control.
In one of my most negative customer encounters working with this retailer, my more experienced coworker watched as I had an exchange with a customer who wanted me to apply a coupon to her purchase but did not have it physically with her, and as I explained that I could not help her without it, she grew more irate and slammed her bag down before walking away. Afterwards, the same coworker tried to give me a “helpful” talk, but it was ultimately one that led to me walking to the breakroom in tears. She tried to convince me that this was just, “the way things are in retail,” and that, “everyone cries sometimes.”
That statement really gave me insight into the terrible way that so many workers are conditioned to feel like their feelings are not real concerns after going through traumatic events in the workspace because of what customers have said or done to them. She proceeded to explain that the company says that the customer should always leave happy and exceptions are few and far between and in my situation, I was wrong. This whole event highlighted to me that even when front end workers are in the right, they are made to feel by companies that by speaking out about their negative customer experiences, they are the ones who are wrong. Like with my coworker, so many retail workers are suppressed into developing mindsets that their issues and negative encounters need to be kept private and that by calling attention to the situation, they are putting the brand at risk of losing money because that customer may not come back. Drawing back to situations like Booth’s, it seems that large companies prioritize their brand images and ensuring that the customers, the people spending money, are always glorified in their behavior (wrong or right) rather than who they are paying, their workers.
Looking at the McDonald’s situation, my situation, and even with the Waffle House incident, a similar conclusion about why companies are not speaking out and protecting their workers can be drawn. Truthfully, at the root of all company choices, money can be identified as the main motivation for their responses. If a company feels like they’re being threatened by workers’ testimonials about negative customer experiences, or if their company is at the face of scrutiny because of unscrupulous behavior happening in their establishments, they will opt for removing, blacklisting, and/or ignoring the workers rather than punishing the real culprits, often the customers. If companies would rather ignore these situations as a whole rather than elaborate on the kind of customers that they want to serve and the kind of treatment that their workers deserve, then they, too, are at just as much fault as the customers who commit wrongdoings because of their active neglect.
All in all, though my situation was rather tame in comparison to the dangers of what these other two, likely of many, posed, it still goes without saying that for any retailer, companies should prioritize worker safety in the face of customers and consumers should be more mindful of how they are handling situations with front end workers. Examining these incidents, it is true that one of the unfavorable realities of retail is that workers run the risk of being put into hazardous situations just by doing their job properly and that companies may not stand behind them in doing so, but there is also hope in the idea that another reality can exist if customers take better mind of the ways in which they are reacting to workers as no altercation should end with anyone being hurt in any workplace. When we all work to practice more patience and empathy within retail spaces and when companies take on more responsibility for protecting their workers, we will see a new reality where all parties will part agreeably.
