POS permissions: who can void, who cannot

A bar manager notices that one bartender's voids are three times anyone else's. Most nights it is a handful of drinks, each with a plausible reason: rung in twice, wrong size, guest changed their mind. Over a month, it adds up to a meaningful amount of stock that left the bar and never reached the till. Nobody had ever set out who could void what, so everyone could void anything.

POS permissions are the rules that decide who can do what on the till: take orders, void dishes, give things away, discount checks, see the takings. Set well, they protect the business and the staff alike. Set badly, or not at all, they leave everyone exposed: the business to losses and honest staff to suspicion.

This guide covers how to set permissions by role rather than by trust, the four actions that should always involve a manager, how to handle comps and voids without slowing service, and the reports that keep the whole system honest. Every venue and figure in it is an example.

Every till holds actions that move money: voiding a dish, comping a check, applying a discount, changing a price, reopening a closed check. Each is legitimate in the right circumstances and costly in the wrong ones. Permissions decide who can take each action.

Without permissions, every member of staff can do everything. That is convenient until something goes wrong, at which point nobody can say who did what, and every member of the team falls under the same suspicion.

Good permissions are not a sign of distrust. They are the same as a key to the office or the safe: a way of making responsibilities clear.

The most common mistake is setting permissions by trust: the long-serving bartender can do everything, the new server can do nothing, and the rest fall somewhere in between depending on who the manager likes. That is unfair to staff and hard to manage as the team changes.

Set permissions by staff roles instead: server, bartender, supervisor, manager, owner. Each role gets the permissions its job needs, and everyone in that role gets the same. When someone is promoted, their role changes and their permissions follow.

Roles make permissions simple to explain, quick to set up for new staff and easy to review.

Permissions only work if every action is recorded against the person who took it. That means every member of staff signs in as themselves, with their own code, every time they use the till.

Shared logins defeat the whole point. If three bartenders use the same code, a void is recorded against all of them and none of them. A quick sign-in, a tap on a name and a short code, makes it easy enough that nobody needs to share.

Make it a rule from the first day, and never give a new starter someone else's code to use "just for tonight".

Four kinds of action should always involve a manager, because they move money after the fact. First, voiding a dish after it has been sent to the kitchen, because the dish may already have been cooked. Second, comping a whole check, because it gives away an entire meal. Third, discounts and price changes beyond a small set amount. Fourth, changing or reopening a check that has already been paid.

Each is sometimes right: a dish sent back, a serious complaint, a regular's agreed discount, a payment recorded on the wrong check. But each is also the most common route to losses, honest or otherwise.

Manager approvals for those four create a natural check without slowing ordinary service.

Manager approvals must not stall a service. If every approval means finding the manager, explaining the problem and waiting while they walk to the till, staff will find ways around the rule.

Where the system supports it, a manager can approve with their own code at the till in seconds. Where it does not, the manager takes the action themselves, or the team agrees a simple rule: the server records the void with its reason, and the manager reviews every one at the end of the night.

Whatever the method, the principle is the same: a second person knows about every action that moves money.

Servers need to do their jobs without waiting. They should be able to ring in orders, change dishes before they are sent, send, hold and fire courses, split and move checks, and record payments.

They should also be able to void a dish before it has been sent to the kitchen, because that is usually a simple correction: entered twice, wrong dish pressed. A void before sending costs nothing, because nothing has been cooked.

Beyond that, actions that give away food or money are better left to a supervisor or manager.

Supervisors and managers handle the exceptions: voids after sending, comps, discounts, refunds and corrections to paid checks. They also need to see the takings, the reports and the voids and comps of the whole team.

Owners and senior managers may need more: changing prices, editing the menu, adding staff, changing permissions themselves. Keep those to the smallest group that needs them, because each is a change that affects every service.

Managers need training too. They should know which actions need their approval, how to approve quickly, what reasons to accept and how to read the voids and comps report. A manager who approves every request without looking is no better than no approval at all.

Make it clear that approving is a check, not a formality. A manager who asks what happened before approving a void after sending catches mistakes, and keeps the process meaningful.

Comps and voids are different, and the till should keep them apart. A void removes a dish that should never have been on the check: entered by mistake, or cancelled before it was made. A comp gives away a dish that was made and served: a dessert for a birthday, a dish replaced after a complaint.

Keeping them separate makes the figures meaningful. Voids show mistakes in ordering; comps show generosity and complaints. Mixing them hides both.

Every void and comp should carry a reason. A short reason, chosen from a list or typed in a few words, turns the record from a list of numbers into an explanation.

Comps have two main uses: rewarding regulars and putting right a complaint. Both are good for the business when they are deliberate, and both can drift into habit when nobody watches. A dessert for a regular's birthday is generous; a free round for the same friends every week is a cost nobody agreed.

Agree what comps are for, who can give them and up to what value, and record each one with its reason. A manager who can see every comp, and why, can keep generosity where it does the most good.

Reasons only help if they mean something. "Other" and "mistake" on every void tell the manager nothing. A short list of clear reasons helps: entered twice, wrong dish, guest changed mind before sending, sent back, complaint, house treat, staff meal.

Review the reasons, not only the totals. A rise in "sent back" may point to the kitchen; a rise in "entered twice" may point to the till's layout or a new server; a rise in "house treat" may point to a generous manager or to something less innocent.

Shrinkage is the loss of stock that is not explained by sales: wastage, mistakes, theft and over-pouring. In hospitality, part of it often passes through the till, as voids, comps and discounts that hide stock leaving the building. The wider idea of shrinkage covers every kind of unexplained loss.

Permissions are one of the main defences. When only the right people can void and comp, and every action is recorded against a name and a reason, the till's figures and the stock count can be compared, and gaps can be traced.

Our guide to spot checks: twenty lines, ten minutes, every week covers comparing stock with sales.

The voids and comps report, by member of staff and by reason, is the most important permission report. Read it every night at close, and look at the week as a whole every Monday. Our guide to POS reports a manager should read daily sets it in context.

Look for patterns, not single events. One person whose voids are far above the others, voids clustered at the end of a shift, comps for the same guests every week, or voids made after a check was printed for the guest are all worth a quiet question.

Most patterns have innocent explanations: a new member of staff, a difficult menu item, a regular's standing treat. Ask, listen and record what you find.

Some systems let staff change a dish's price at the till, or ring in an open item with a price typed in by hand. Both are useful occasionally, for a special not yet on the menu or a one-off charge, and both are a route to undercharging.

Limit price changes and open items to managers, or to a small set amount, and review every one. An open item with a vague name and a low price, rung in often by the same person, deserves a closer look. Where possible, add specials to the menu properly, so they are charged at the right price every time.

Discounts need rules of their own. Decide which discounts exist, such as staff meals, a regular's agreed discount or a promotion, who can apply each one and up to what amount. Anything outside those rules should involve a manager.

Unplanned discounts are a common source of lost revenue: a server who knocks a little off for friends, or a manager who offers a discount to settle every complaint. Record every discount with its reason, and review them weekly.

Staff meals and drinks are a legitimate cost, but they need rules. Decide what staff may have, when and how it is recorded: as a comp with a staff reason, as a staff discount or through a separate staff menu. Make the rule the same for everyone.

Recorded properly, staff meals appear in the reports as what they are, rather than hiding among voids or vanishing altogether. Unrecorded staff meals are one of the most common sources of unexplained stock loss, and they are almost always innocent.

Permissions must change when people do. When a member of staff leaves, remove their access on their last day, not weeks later. When someone is promoted, change their role so their permissions match their new job. When someone moves to a different venue, check their access there too.

Review the list of staff and their roles every few months. Old accounts for people who left long ago are a common gap.

In a group, staff may work at more than one venue, and their permissions should match their role at each. A manager at one site may be a server when covering at another. Give each person access only to the venues they work at, and review it when they move.

Group-level roles, such as an operations manager who can see every venue's reports, should be few and clearly defined. The wider the access, the more important it is that it is used for the job and nothing else.

New starters should begin with the permissions their role needs, not more. A new server needs to take orders, send them and record payments. They do not need to comp checks or apply discounts in their first week.

Explain the permissions to them on the first day, and why they exist. Staff who understand that permissions protect them, by making clear who did what, are far more comfortable with them than staff who feel watched.

Our guide to onboarding staff so night one is not chaos covers the wider first week.

Cash brings its own permissions. Decide who can open the drawer without a sale, who can take cash payments and who counts the drawer at close. A drawer opened with no sale is sometimes needed, to give change, but a pattern of no-sale openings is worth watching.

Count the drawer at the end of every shift, with two people where you can, and compare it with the till's cash total. Record any difference, however small, and look for patterns over weeks. Most differences are mistakes in change; a regular shortfall on one shift is a question to ask.

Sometimes the reports raise a real concern. Handle it fairly and carefully. Look at the evidence over several weeks, not one night. Consider innocent explanations. Talk to the person privately, with the figures in front of you, and listen to their answer.

Follow your employment policies and, where needed, take advice before taking any action. Permissions and reports give you evidence, but they do not replace a fair process.

Write the permissions down: each role, what it can do on the till and which actions need a manager. Keep it with the staff handbook and show it to every new starter.

A written policy makes permissions fair and predictable. Staff know what they can do without asking, managers know what they must check, and nobody is surprised when the system refuses an action.

Good permissions build trust rather than eroding it. When every action is recorded against a name and a reason, honest staff are protected: a shortfall cannot be blamed on everyone, and anyone whose record is clean has evidence to show it.

Explain this to the team. Permissions are not a judgement on anyone; they are how a business with money moving through many hands keeps everyone safe.

Permissions drift. People are given extra access just for one night and keep it, roles change without permissions following, and accounts for staff who left stay open. Every quarter, review the list: everyone with access, their role, their permissions and whether they still work there.

The review takes half an hour, and it closes the gaps that cause most problems. Record what you changed and why, so the next review starts from a clear picture.

An invented bar lets every member of staff void and comp anything, using a shared code. Its stock counts show a steady gap in spirits that the till cannot explain.

The bar gives every member of staff their own sign-in, sets permissions by role and decides that voids after sending, comps, discounts and changes to paid checks need a manager. It introduces a short list of reasons and reads the voids and comps report every night at close.

Within a month, the voids fall by more than half, most of them from simple mistakes now caught before the drinks are poured. The gap in the spirits count narrows. One pattern remains, with one bartender, and a quiet conversation finds a training problem with the till's measures, which is fixed.

In servearound, roles are set module by module, with view, create, edit and delete for each, such as the point of sale, payments and menus, and every member of staff signs in on a shared screen with their own name and four-digit PIN, so every action is recorded against them. Anyone who can take orders on the point of sale can void, comp or re-fire a line, or void or comp a whole check, each with an optional reason. There is no separate manager-approval step, so the roles decide who can use the till at all, and the reports do the checking.

Once any payment has been recorded against a check, the till will not void or comp it, and each void and comp raises a notification for the team. Payment analytics show voids and comps by member of staff, and order analytics show the void and comp rates and the value voided and comped. See Order Fulfillment.

The rules that decide who can do what on the till: take orders, void, comp, discount, change prices and see takings.

By role. Everyone in the same role gets the same permissions, and permissions change when roles do.

Voids after sending, comps of whole checks, discounts beyond a set amount, and changes to paid checks.

Not if they are quick: a manager's code at the till, or a nightly review of every void with its reason.

A void removes a dish that should never have been on the check; a comp gives away a dish that was served.

Read voids and comps by member and by reason, and look for patterns over weeks rather than single nights.

Remove their access on their last day, and review all accounts every few months.

No. They make responsibilities clear and protect honest staff when something goes missing.

POS permissions decide who can move money on the till. Set them by staff roles, not by trust, and make sure everyone signs in as themselves. Servers need to take orders, correct them before sending and record payments; supervisors and managers handle the exceptions.

Involve a manager in four actions: voids after sending, comps, discounts beyond a set amount and changes to paid checks. Give every comp and void a meaningful reason, read the report by member and reason every night, review accounts when staff change, and handle any concern with evidence and a fair conversation.