Is sharing food in a restaurant unfair.

Pawwed Rig · 11-09-2017 04:09PM

I have never been to a place that insists on minimum orders and I have been to hundreds of restaurants in my time. Where are these places?

irelandrover · 11-09-2017 04:12PM

If it was one adult and 2 kids then they are effectively only ordering for 2 but taking up a table for 4. If there was people waiting for tables then the restaurant makes more money if you leave and they can seat 4 people that will order 4 meals.

if it was quiet and there was free tables then its a stupid policy.

Erik Shin · 11-09-2017 04:13PM

irelandrover wrote: »

If it was one adult and 2 kids then they are effectively only ordering for 2 but taking up a table for 4. If there was people waiting for tables then the restaurant makes more money if you leave and they can seat 4 people that will order 4 meals.

if it was quiet and there was free tables then its a stupid policy.

Some restaurants don't like or want children....would be interesting to see if there was a dedicated kids menu.

storker · 11-09-2017 04:20PM

seamus wrote: »

Two people sharing a single meal are eating into profit margins, which are very tight as it is. So much so that if two people were to share a pizza, it might actually be costing the restaurant money for those people to be sitting there.

But it's not two people sharing one meal, it's one and two "half-persons" eating two meals. Between them. Given that restaurants don't usually ask people to share tables with strangers, there is actually no more space taken up by the woman and her kids than by an adult couple who would get a table to themselves anyway. Anyway, I'm sure an empty table eats into profit margins even more, since it's not bringing in any money at all.

Our family (2 adults, 2 kids) has eaten in many restaurants and never had an issue with ordering half adult portions for the kids. Once we were unable to order a half portion of a particular item because of the way it was cooked, and this was explained, which was fine with us. We just ordered a half portion of something else.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I have never been to a place that insists on minimum orders and I have been to hundreds of restaurants in my time. Where are these places?

Good question. It would be useful to be able to avoid them and warn others.

Obvious Otter · 11-09-2017 04:27PM

The kind of restaurant that enforces silly policies like this is one to be avoided. If the margins are that tight then you can only imagine the shortcuts that are been taken in the kitchen. If you're running a restaurant and can't afford to sit people sharing a pizza then you're in the wrong business. If you don't want people sharing food then don't put Pizza on the menu. It's not very hard. The people defending this kind of nonsense are as bad.

Boater123 · 11-09-2017 04:28PM

It was many years ago, but myself and some pals and a few of their pals went out > I ordered some food to share but they said it wasn't enough food between 5000 people. I showed them and made the five loaves and two fish feed everyone.

Once went to a wedding in Cana, and you wouldn't believe what they were charging for corkage.

branie2 · 11-09-2017 04:30PM

Boater123 wrote: »

It was many years ago, but myself and some pals and a few of their pals went out > I ordered some food to share but they said it wasn't enough food between 5000 people. I showed them and made the five loaves and two fish feed everyone.

Once went to a wedding in Cana, and you wouldn't believe what they were charging for corkage.

Was that the wedding were water was supposedly turned into wine? Or so the rumour goes

Cyrus · 11-09-2017 04:35PM

seamus wrote: »

Having chairs occupied in a restaurant costs money one way or another. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons why restaurants have "everyone must order a meal" policies.
Whether they were correctly applied in this case, we don't know because the OP is far too vague and unlikely to be any clearer about the circumstances since the story is second hand.

having chairs unoccupied costs more money.

seamus · 11-09-2017 04:38PM

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You'll always have one or two complete oddballs on this site defending bizaree busines practices.

Standard business practices.

While this is a pretty niche and unnecessarily rigid application of the rule, it's standard practice in any restaurant (fast food excluded) to have rules about the minimum that needs to be ordered per person.

I'm not defending this specific instance - we don't really have enough information to know the full facts - I'm simply pointing out that this is pretty widespread and has a sound basis behind it.

Try going into your favourite restaurant with a friend on a busy evening, take a table and then order a single main course and ask them for two plates and two glasses of water. See what they say. You'll find that this "bizarre" rule is more common than you think. Most of us just don't tend to encounter it.

Is it any more bizarre than having a service charge for large parties? Or a takeaway having a minimum order amount before they'll deliver to you?

storker wrote: »

But it's not two people sharing one meal, it's one and two "half-persons" eating two meals. Between them.

From a restaurant's point of view it's three people. It's 3 seats occupied, 3 sets of cutlery and dishes to be washed, 3 glasses of water, 3 places to be wiped and set, 3 people to be waited on.

Children are only "half-people" in terms of how much they eat. To a restaurants expense bill, they are one entire person each.

vicwatson · 11-09-2017 04:42PM

They should be thankful for the business, don't ever return

Cyrus · 11-09-2017 04:43PM

seamus wrote: »

Standard business practices.

While this is a pretty niche and unnecessarily rigid application of the rule, it's standard practice in any restaurant (fast food excluded) to have rules about the minimum that needs to be ordered per person.

I'm not defending this specific instance - we don't really have enough information to know the full facts - I'm simply pointing out that this is pretty widespread and has a sound basis behind it.

Try going into your favourite restaurant with a friend on a busy evening, take a table and then order a single main course and ask them for two plates and two glasses of water. See what they say. You'll find that this "bizarre" rule is more common than you think. Most of us just don't tend to encounter it.

Is it any more bizarre than having a service charge for large parties? Or a takeaway having a minimum order amount before they'll deliver to you?
From a restaurant's point of view it's three people. It's 3 seats occupied, 3 sets of cutlery and dishes to be washed, 3 glasses of water, 3 places to be wiped and set, 3 people to be waited on.

Children are only "half-people" in terms of how much they eat. To a restaurants expense bill, they are one entire person each.

None of those are costs as such, or if you were to attribute specific costs to each item that incurs an incremental cost it would be tiny.

the same staff will be on that night whether they serve 10 people or 30 people, the dishwasher will run the same amount of times etc etc.

storker · 11-09-2017 04:46PM

branie2 wrote: »

Was that the wedding were water was supposedly turned into wine? Or so the rumour goes

It was actually Ribena, but the guests were too p1ssed to notice.

seamus · 11-09-2017 04:52PM

Cyrus wrote: »

having chairs unoccupied costs more money.

Not necessarily. There's a pretty fixed cost per place setting. A chair that's occupied for an hour might cost the restaurant 25c. So two chairs that are occupied for an hour, costs 50c. An empty chair costs effectively nothing.

Which is fine when you have two people sitting there who order €30 of food (of which maybe 2% might be profit) and €20 of alcohol (markup of about 40%).

If two kids come in, order a €15 pizza and sit there for an hour, then your profit on that pizza is 30c. But they've cost you 50c by sitting there. So you're down 20c. That's assuming they're not occupying seats that other patrons could occupy.

Profits on food are insanely tight. There's a reason that 80% of restaurants go out of business in their first two years.

As I mention above, these rules sound petty and insane, but when your profits per table are so narrow, you need ways to protect your income. The mother might have "subsidised" the loss on the kids' meal, which is why applying the rule was possibly unnecessary here. But maybe not. If she just ordered a pizza for herself, the manager might have made a call on it and decided their custom wasn't worth it.

Sinister Kid · 11-09-2017 04:53PM

Santan wrote: »

i work in a bar and restaurant, and this is one of the dirtiest moves that I hate seeing people do, nobody has a problem if you just decide you dont want to eat there or dont want the drinks you ordered, but just be a decent human about it and tell the staff instead of just walking off. It is getting much more common I dont know how people think this is ok. Since the crisis people think they can demand anything now, and it just has to be accepted, I get that places took the mick in the early 00´s, charging €15 and more for a sandwich or baguette, that went on every where and a lot of those places I know of went to the wall when they did not change their ways in the last 10 years, but now I have people getting really angry at me, if they order a sandwich and dont like salad, why they must pay the full price, can the manager come out and explain why, if they dont want the salad or the chips, there is not a discount, and its when they get verbally abusive to staff because of it, especially after they have cleaned their plates. It just makes working in this sector so much harder. Why must people just be dicks for the sake of it.

Well said.

Lau2976 · 11-09-2017 04:54PM

I don't think it's that weird tbh. I've been to plenty of places where I have to make a meal of sides, because I'm vegan and allergic to nuts and can't eat a lot of soy because of a thyroid issue, and have been turned away a number of times. Most of the time these where middle of the road, not fancy but not QS places. I have found them the least accommadating

It is a stupid policy though. Especially with kids and a pizza, pizza is the ultimate sharing food.

Cyrus · 11-09-2017 04:55PM

seamus wrote: »

Not necessarily. There's a pretty fixed cost per place setting. A chair that's occupied for an hour might cost the restaurant 25c. So two chairs that are occupied for an hour, costs 50c. An empty chair costs effectively nothing.

Which is fine when you have two people sitting there who order €30 of food (of which maybe 2% might be profit) and €20 of alcohol (markup of about 40%).

If two kids come in, order a €15 pizza and sit there for an hour, then your profit on that pizza is 30c. But they've cost you 50c by sitting there. So you're down 20c. That's assuming they're not occupying seats that other patrons could occupy.

Profits on food are insanely tight. There's a reason that 80% of restaurants go out of business in their first two years.

As I mention above, these rules sound petty and insane, but when your profits per table are so narrow, you need ways to protect your income. The mother might have "subsidised" the loss on the kids' meal, which is why applying the rule was possibly unnecessary here. But maybe not. If she just ordered a pizza for herself, the manager might have made a call on it and decided their custom wasn't worth it.

sorry i disagree, all things being equal an empty seat costs the same as an occupied one as most of your costs are essentially fixed.

Therefore having some contribution to overheads is better than none.

it depends on the situation of course, if your restaurant is always fully booked them you may want to optimise the profile of customer, but thats not really possible is it.

its a bit like a taxi driver at the airport getting the hump with a fare to swords. you have to take the rough with the smooth!

eviltimeban · 11-09-2017 04:55PM

seamus wrote: »

Try going into your favourite restaurant with a friend on a busy evening, take a table and then order a single main course and ask them for two plates and two glasses of water. See what they say. You'll find that this "bizarre" rule is more common than you think. Most of us just don't tend to encounter it.

It's different with kids. Parents with younger kids generally tend not to linger in restaurants, as once the kids have eaten, they get bored and it's time to go home. So you tend to finish a lot quicker, freeing up the table, than a couple of adults would, who might have wine and stay chatting for a few hours.

I've taken my kids for pizza in loads of places and they've always shared a pizza, and there's never been an issue. We're usually also ordering drinks, juices, chips, ice cream etc, so there's plenty of food being brought to the table.

If I went to a restaurant and was told I had to order them a pizza each, I'd put up with it and order the smallest salad on the menu and just eat one of their pizzas, and I certainly wouldn't return.

storker · 11-09-2017 04:56PM

seamus wrote: »

Children are only "half-people" in terms of how much they eat. To a restaurants expense bill, they are one entire person each.

Really?

Heating & lighting: No difference in cost whether there are kids or adults at the table.
Waiting & kitchen staff: No difference in cost. They have to be there even if the table is empty.
Cost of ingredients and cooking the pizza: The same whether the pizza is eaten by one adult or two children.
Rent, insurance, etc: No difference.

So what are we left with, the cost of washing the cutlery etc used by the one extra kid? If this is the difference between profit and loss, the restaurant will be soon out of business anyway. What other expenses am I missing?

The only way your analysis works is if the restaurant is crowded and the woman and two kids would be taking up space that would be occupied by three adults, and who would use that space if the woman and kids weren't there.

That the woman and her kids were given a table in the first place, and that the waitress said that sharing was not allowed as a policy suggests that how busy the restaurant actually was didn't come into it.

Cyrus · 11-09-2017 04:57PM

eviltimeban wrote: »

It's different with kids. Parents with younger kids generally tend not to linger in restaurants, as once the kids have eaten, they get bored and it's time to go home. So you tend to finish a lot quicker, freeing up the table, than a couple of adults would, who might have wine and stay chatting for a few hours.

exactly once they get bored you need to GTFO :P

johnnyskeleton · 11-09-2017 05:00PM

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Back to school with you
And you had the whole interwebs to look up the formula.

Its pizza pie not pizza square root

BrokenArrows · 11-09-2017 05:06PM

pjohnson wrote: »

Waitress and restaurant a bit of a dick. Never heard of that policy before.

Bit harsh on the waitress. Its unlikely it was her idea, but managements.

freshpopcorn · 11-09-2017 05:08PM

I did study hospitality in college and worked a little in the industry. The customer is generally always right. I've seen elderly people come into 5 star hotels and offering half portions/etc and parents ordering things between kids. These situations would be different to 8 teenagers sitting down and ordering a coke between them.

....... · 11-09-2017 05:11PM

This post has been deleted.

pilly · 11-09-2017 05:30PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so you think its acceptable for one person, to sit at a table for 4 people?

:rolleyes:

If a restaurant is half empty why not?

lazybones32 · 11-09-2017 05:33PM

Wildcard7 wrote: »

Wow, what an incredibly crappy thing to do.

The restaurant tells you the conditions under which they serve you. You're free to decide those conditions don't suit you or are indeed a complete and utter ripoff, and just walk out. You're free to tell everyone who doesn't ask you about how horrible the place is. You're free to leave a 0 star review on TripAdvisor, Yelp, etc.

You're not free to cause them financial harm.
You're not free to make them throw away food.

Wow...

Meh!...if those conditions weren't properly signed at the entrance, i'd do it. And not feel guilty.

lawred2 · 11-09-2017 05:43PM

Benjamin Green Salesclerk wrote: »

A friend of mine was in a restaurant with her two kids recently and because the pizzas were really big (and quite expensive) she ordered one between the two children. The waitress refused, and said she had to order a meal for each person at the table.

I was really surprised by this, as I've often done the same. But another friend thought the restaurant were quite right and people shouldn't be taking up, for instance, a table for four if they're only ordering two meals and planning to share.

Just wondering what people's views on this are?

I'd be walking out if anyone tried that on with us.

lazybones32 · 11-09-2017 05:44PM

Santan wrote: »

i work in a bar and restaurant, and this is one of the dirtiest moves that I hate seeing people do

And what do you make of policy that children must order a large adult-sized meal?
Respect and courtesy work both ways. Don't wait until people are ready to order to inform them that an unusual and unreasonable policy is in place.

Erik Shin · 11-09-2017 07:01PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Meh!...if those conditions weren't properly signed at the entrance, i'd do it. And not feel guilty.

And you can be knicked for that don't forget, people seem to think businesses are there to entertain muppets

Wildcard7 · 11-09-2017 07:05PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Meh!...if those conditions weren't properly signed at the entrance, i'd do it. And not feel guilty.

Why does it have to be signed at the entrance? Do all the prices for all the dishes need to be signed outside too?

I can't imagine your behaviour anywhere outside of a restaurant, but let's try anyway...

Lazybones32: Ok I'll take that couch, how much was the price again? 229.-? Ok that's great. Who can I give the delivery address to?
Salesperson: Sorry, we don't deliver.
Lazybones32: You don't deliver? Everyone delivers!
Salesperson: We don't.
Lazybones32: *knocks something off the shelves and breaks it, walks out*

Same thing. Looks a bit stupid and childish to you? That's because it is.

By the way: You're not standing up for yourself by doing what you suggest. You're not sticking it to the man. You're trivially annoying the waiting staff (trivially because they're used to this sort of crap), and you're stressing out the minimum wage slave in the kitchen that now has to cook extra stuff that's not even being used.

The only thing you realistically achieve is showing everyone involved that you're an entitled pr1ck that can't handle situations like a grown up.

Billy86 · 11-09-2017 07:33PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Meh!...if those conditions weren't properly signed at the entrance, i'd do it. And not feel guilty.

You're not hurting the business at all doing that, it will likely be taken directly out of the waitresses/waiters pay.

Though the kind of scenario in the OP warrants the whole party up and leaving immediately, and making a point of publicly naming and shaming the establishment. If it was a waitress on a power trip then that's the end of her job and rightly so, but if it was a management decision then they'll notice it in their pockets (and if they're not the owners, could wind up putting their jobs on shaky ground). I would mark that kind of policy as considerably worse than poor food or service due to how deliberate it is.

Is sharing food in a restaurant unfair.

Comments