I don’t see it either, Steve. It doesn’t make much sense to me. Is it just a matter of trying to get all the food up at the same time?
When you are serving a group, they all expect service at the same time. Nobody is going to be happy if they have to sit and wait while their bills are processed one by one. When you are dealing with a group, you have to total the bills, run the transaction, and make change for everyone at the same time.
If you had twenty individuals, chances are their meals would end at different times, allowing you to space out the transactions and provide timely service. People only have to wait for one check to be run, not twenty.
Individuals allow you to prioritize your actions. If you are dealing with a bill for patrons one, five, and seven, and patron fifteen is looking antsy over there about his water, you could finish up with patron one, get patron fifteen’s water, and finish up the rest. However, if you are working on patron one through twenty’s check, and patron fifteen wants water, you either hold up everybody’s* checks, or you make patron fifteen wait until you are done with all of them.
If you have to make one individual out of a group wait for something, it’s going to be noticed. But if an individual on their own has to wait an extra minute or two for something, they’ll be none the wiser.
You are much less likely to screw up when you are only running a couple transactions at a time. If you walk back the register with a fistful of money and credit cards, you are bound to mess something up.
In short, restraunts are designed and staffed so that only a certain percentage of their patrons are going through the "check’ part of their dining experience at the same time. It’s the same way that a restraunt might have ten grills when they usually seat fifty people- only so many people are going to be on the “grill” stage of the meal at a time. In normal operations, this is never an issue. But if they are hit with an unexpected glut, service is going to worse for everyone. There comes a point- which may be reached at “twenty seperate checks”- that they simply cannot handle it and provide adequate service to you and their other patrons.
At that point they are going to turn you away. I’m sure if it came up enough, they would keep extra staff and equiptment on hand. But as it is, most large parties make reservations where they explain their needs or go to places with banquet facilities.
Are you sure about this?
I am just asking because $3.00 is a big deal to me. I used to throw money around. I remember the feeling of being able to spend small amounts of money freely. Most people don’t think when they pick up a soda, buy a lottery ticket, lose a fiver, or play “who can leave the biggest tip” with their friends (we usually tipped 30-50% just to show off to each other). So I can understand feeling like it isn’t a big deal.
But those days are gone for me. I get X amount of money to spend on entertainment Y amount to spend on food. Those are the only budgets I have after “rent”. I do not have any savings. Once my money for the week is gone, I can’t get any more. The ATM card doesn’t work when the balance is zero.
Incidently, my food budget is $3.00 a day. That means if I go over my “entertainment” budget by $3.00, I don’t get to eat one of those days. That is an absolute fact. When that happens, I hope someone invites me to a dinner party, or I drink a lot of coffee.
And if that makes me not good to be around, I don’t know what to say. .
Fair enough. Thank you for that explanation, even sven.
No sven, it doesn’t make you no good to be around, it makes you no good to share a dutch treat meal where everyone splits the cheque evenly.
Look, you’re on a budget (and don’t we all know it). Fine, if your friends ask you out to dinner, and theres a group, and they always split the cheque evenly, and have done so for the past three years, which you have observed and participated in when you were more flush, it’s not fair for you to suddenly change the rules because your circumstances have changed.
I think if girlfriend had made some arrangements about her $3 shortage, or had at least mentioned it, no one would have complained. But the fact of the matter is, she didn’t. What this means is that whomever is sorting the cheque is on the hook for her $3. That’s just not fair. If you can’t afford to participate in a particular activity either suggest something you can afford, or meet up after said activity.
Sven, if you were in my group of friends, we’d have no problem each throwing in an extra buck to cover you. It’s the company we like, not the meal in and of itself.
And, “[am I] sure about this?” Of course I am. If I want to throw away five bucks on scratch-off lottery tickets, buy a Red Bull or other overpriced trifle, I’m going to do it. I’m not sure why those days are gone for you, but the fact that they are does not make me a bad person (or you, for that matter).
It’s not about the money. It’s about her wanting to impose her own wishes on everyone else.
Cheesesteak: I never said they shouldn’t be dissapointed. I was merely trying to give some explanations as to why some restaurants might not be able to.
Steve Wright: because the systems in some resturants aren’t equipped to split what would normally be 5 tables into 20. A lot of resturant systems have table numbers programmed in, and you can’t put through an order without a table number. And I see even sven has covered the rest. Hope that clarified.
wring, I never said it was an unreasonable request. Obviously it’s not, as some resturants will honor it. Something I’ve mentioned in almost every single post I’ve made. Some places will do it. Usually, smaller resturants won’t because they’re not equipped to. I have no idea where you got that I said no resturants would do it, I suspect, out of your ass. Please feel free to quote me saying that I thought no resturants would do it. Where did I ever say it was unreasonable? Once again, I was merely trying to give explanations for those resturants who won’t honor the request. And where did I ever say a resturant should question why the guest has the need? That’s exactly what I was arguing against! Why the guest has the need does not matter! I’m not going to go over this again, if you don’t get it by now, you never will.
Cheesesteak: I never said they shouldn’t be dissapointed. I was merely trying to give some explanations as to why some restaurants might not be able to.
Steve Wright: because the systems in some resturants aren’t equipped to split what would normally be 5 tables into 20. A lot of resturant systems have table numbers programmed in, and you can’t put through an order without a table number. And I see even sven has covered the rest. Hope that clarified.
wring, I never said it was an unreasonable request. Obviously it’s not, as some resturants will honor it. Something I’ve mentioned in almost every single post I’ve made. Some places will do it. Usually, smaller resturants won’t because they’re not equipped to. I have no idea where you got that I said no resturants would do it, I suspect, out of your ass. Please feel free to quote me saying that I thought no resturants would do it. Where did I ever say it was unreasonable? Once again, I was merely trying to give explanations for those resturants who won’t honor the request. And where did I ever say a resturant should question why the guest has the need? That’s exactly what I was arguing against! Why the guest has the need does not matter! I’m not going to go over this again, if you don’t get it by now, you never will.
All right. So you read me as snide. ::sincere face:: For that, I am sorry.
But you read like you were aligning with a group of posters who seem to have an axe to grind with Una Persson. You have distinguished yourself, however, for your cogent and measured post. That’s cool. I apologize for lumping you in with them.
re: Gibson’s
BTW Cerri: Do they still display the raw steaks at the table? Now that might make me eat meat again.