SOT- split checks - why does it matter to restuarant?



On 16 Aug 2005 05:46:00 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:37:00 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> > > ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do -- she does
> > > not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants separate checks.
> >
> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it? When
> > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check evenly. If
> > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person puts it on
> > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone else. If you
> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered it,
> > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
>
> But what do real ACQUAINTANCES do? Like others, I see no need to
> pay for a co-worker's appetizer, beer, whatever.
>
> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars spent
> > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should entertain at
> > home instead - so they can control their costs without looking like a
> > cheapskate.
>
> Not every group restaurant experience is "having fun with friends".
> My usual experience is an obligatory going-away lunch or some such.
>
>
Answer: If it bothers you so much, don't go. It's not an obligation,
unless of course, you don't have a social life and going to large
banquetlike functions in restaurants is your idea of fun. If so,
quityerbitchen.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:12:11 -0400, Debbie wrote:

> I have seen the money collector use tip money received from other diners
> towards his own meal, thereby reducing the tip significantly. I have seen
> it often enough that in these situations I now pay the money collector the
> meal money and leave the tip for it at my place. There are all kinds in
> this world.

You didn't say something to that person about it in a rather loud tone
of voice? Shame on you! That's another situation where once is
enough and I'd opt out of those situations. If you can't learn by
experience, don't expect the rest of us to feel sorry for you.
 
On 16 Aug 2005 15:13:52 +0200, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Mon 15 Aug 2005 11:35:17p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:37:00 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> >> ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do -- she does
> >> not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants separate checks.
> >
> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it? When
> > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check evenly. If
> > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person puts it on
> > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone else.
>
> That's rather difficult to do when more than one person wants to put their
> meal on their card. This is a situation I often run into.
>
> If you
> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered it,
> > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
>
> Yeah, with friends. I won't do it with co-workers. There are inevitably
> those who habitually take advantage of this and I don't make enough money
> to support their eating/drinking habits.
>
> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars spent
> > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should entertain at
> > home instead - so they can control their costs without looking like a
> > cheapskate.
>
> heh! I don't do business luncheons at home!

The simplest answer is to stop doing business during a meal and stop
eating out with co-workers.
 
jmcquown wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
>
>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So, why no split checks? Computer registers track every little
>>>>>>detail, why so much trouble?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jeanne
>>>>>
>>>>>Explanation I've heard is that if all the orders are on the same
>>>>>ticket the food is all ready (theoretically, anyway) at the same
>>>>>time
>>>>
>>>> Thank you to you and Jill for answering my question: the
>>>>kitchen prefers all on one ticket for expediting, etc. Makes
>>>>sense. Makes sense also to clip all together and say it's for one
>>>>table.
>>>>Apparantly some kitchens can handle split checks for 4-6 (read this
>>>>often on menus), but not for larger parties.
>>>> Everyone else was misinterpreting ... I added some commentary
>>>>about personal results of splitting the total tab; I was not
>>>>referring to giving the kitchen separate orders instead of one
>>>>large.
>>>>I am capable of remembering what I ordered and doing my own math.
>>>>Having been burned and learned, I've ever since been cautious.
>>>>
>>>>Jeanne
>>>
>>>Not being "burned" by a friend, but watching a friend "burn" the
>>>server by being a total cheapskate with the tip? I've had lunch
>>>with a woman who, if her meal was $20 and the service excellent,
>>>leaves 50 cents as a tip. I'm so embarrassed by this I wind up
>>>over-tipping so the poor server doesn't get stiffed.
>>
>>You call that cheap ******* FRIEND? With friends like yours you don't
>>need any enemies. I don't have any cheap ******* friends... pull the
>>cheap ******* routine on me once and you never even get to
>>acquaintance.
>>
>>Sheldon
>
>
> Hey, she's not screwing me, she's screwing the server. I don't think it
> makes her a bad friend, it just makes her a bad (or ignorant) customer.
>
> Jill
>
>
Is there a polite way you could raise the issue with her without
damaging the friendship? We hang around with a couple that are cheaper
than all get out but are very good friends. When we first went out to
dinner with them DH was shocked they left no tip at all. DH made up for
it. The second time it happened DH got the appropriate tip out and
placed it on the table. It wasn't very tactful but it worked. The
third time we ate out with them DH came out point blank and asked if
they would like to contribute to the tip. We have them well trained now
and they do contribute to the tip all the time. I think they just didn't
realize that tipping is part of the normal restaurant experience. They
were so cheap they seldom ate out and when they did it was at fast food
joints so they really didn't know. If it were me I would just gently
mention tips are expected by the servers.

Funny thing about tips though. You pay for the food which supports the
restaurant and in turn pays for the servers. The restaurants pay such a
piddly amount in wages to the servers which explains the high turn over.
You then substidize the servers' wages by adding a tip. Should that
not be the responsibility of the restaurant? Just thinking out loud
here...
 
sf wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2005 05:46:00 -0700, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:37:00 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>> >
>> > > ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do --
>> she does > > not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants
>> separate checks. >
>> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it?
>> When > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check
>> evenly. If > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person
>> puts it on > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone
>> else. If you > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone
>> else ordered it, > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL
>> friends do.
>>
>> But what do real ACQUAINTANCES do? Like others, I see no need to
>> pay for a co-worker's appetizer, beer, whatever.
>>
>> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars
>> spent > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should
>> entertain at > home instead - so they can control their costs
>> without looking like a > cheapskate.
>>
>> Not every group restaurant experience is "having fun with friends".
>> My usual experience is an obligatory going-away lunch or some such.
>>
>>
> Answer: If it bothers you so much, don't go. It's not an obligation,
> unless of course, you don't have a social life and going to large
> banquetlike functions in restaurants is your idea of fun. If so,
> quityerbitchen.

sf, come on... when you are in a work environment where the boss says "we're
gonna do a lunch" you feel *obligated* to go. To not do so makes you seem
like the non-team player.

Now, I have never been much of a team player, but if the boss says "let's
all do lunch" you go. In a perfect world, the boss will pick up the check.
Doesn't always happen. In that case, I still don't want to pay for someone
elses' appetizer, dessert or drinks when I didn't partake of any of it.

Jill
 
sf wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2005 15:13:52 +0200, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Mon 15 Aug 2005 11:35:17p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:37:00 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>> >
>> >> ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do --
>> she does >> not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants
>> separate checks. >
>> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it?
>> When > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check
>> evenly. If > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person
>> puts it on > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone
>> else.
>>
>> That's rather difficult to do when more than one person wants to
>> put their meal on their card. This is a situation I often run into.
>>
>> If you
>> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered
>> it, > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
>>
>> Yeah, with friends. I won't do it with co-workers. There are
>> inevitably those who habitually take advantage of this and I don't
>> make enough money to support their eating/drinking habits.
>>
>> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars
>> spent > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should
>> entertain at > home instead - so they can control their costs
>> without looking like a > cheapskate.
>>
>> heh! I don't do business luncheons at home!
>
> The simplest answer is to stop doing business during a meal and stop
> eating out with co-workers.

It's not that simple. Sheesh.

Jill
 
>>>
>>> Not being "burned" by a friend, but watching a friend "burn" the
>>> server by being a total cheapskate with the tip? I've had lunch
>>> with a woman who, if her meal was $20 and the service excellent,
>>> leaves 50 cents as a tip. I'm so embarrassed by this I wind up
>>> over-tipping so the poor server doesn't get stiffed.
>>
>> You call that cheap ******* FRIEND? With friends like yours you don't
>> need any enemies. I don't have any cheap ******* friends... pull the
>> cheap ******* routine on me once and you never even get to
>> acquaintance.

Being a former pastry chef at a three star restaurant I have to say that the
worst tippers were women and minorities. Not being a bigot or crude, but
this is from years in the business.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:36:22 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it? When
> > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check evenly. If
> > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person puts it on
> > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone else. If you
> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered it,
> > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
> >
> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars spent
> > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should entertain at
> > home instead - so they can control their costs without looking like a
> > cheapskate.
>
> A lot of the people you see in groups at restaurants are not friends going
> out for a good time. They are often working people out for a meal, people on
> training courses, conventions etc.

Since we're getting further and further away from a real social
situation and into pseudobusiness type situations.... none of this is
obligatory. Don't eat with them.

> Some of them are on expense accounts, but
> if they are anything like the provisions of my former employer, the maximum
> allowable claim is a lot less than the cost of the dinner in a nice place.

So, now I'm supposed to feel sorry for people on an expense account
who choose a restaurant out of their per diem budget? It ain't gonna
happen.
>
> Just think how generous gluttons and sots can appear playing your game. They
> can eat and drink twice as much as everyone else and then make a magnanimous
> gesture by throwing in their equal <?> share and a little extra for tip .

You know Joe Blow drinks like a fish and you're a tea toller - so why
subject yourself to eating with him when you're all at an "away"
training? Surely there is another tea toller who would like a quiet
dinner with one other person... maybe a whole bunch of them. If
you're on a diet/vegan/nondrinker/whatever, get a grip. I'm seeing a
lot of passive aggressives in this thread. They don't know how to say
no, but won't hesitate to whine and complain about ponying up to pay
their share of the bill.

The main problem is that the rules aren't spelled out clearly when the
lunch/dinner is arranged. If the restaurant doesn't split checks, you
pay your fraction of the total. If it does, then enjoy yourself
knowing that you won't pay any more than what's listed on the menu for
that carrot and glass of water.
 
thunder wrote:
>>>> Not being "burned" by a friend, but watching a friend "burn" the
>>>> server by being a total cheapskate with the tip? I've had lunch
>>>> with a woman who, if her meal was $20 and the service excellent,
>>>> leaves 50 cents as a tip. I'm so embarrassed by this I wind up
>>>> over-tipping so the poor server doesn't get stiffed.
>>>
>>> You call that cheap ******* FRIEND? With friends like yours you
>>> don't need any enemies. I don't have any cheap ******* friends...
>>> pull the cheap ******* routine on me once and you never even get to
>>> acquaintance.
>
> Being a former pastry chef at a three star restaurant I have to say
> that the worst tippers were women and minorities. Not being a bigot
> or crude, but this is from years in the business.

I didn't want to bring this up, since reality has labelled me a bigot and
racist in the past... but from experience, black women tend to tip much
less, if at all.

Jill
 
On 16 Aug 2005 08:13:54 -0700, Sheldon wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> > Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> >
> > > ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do -- she does
> > > not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants separate checks.
> >
> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it? When
> > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check evenly. If
> > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person puts it on
> > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone else. If you
> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered it,
> > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
>
> You're not talking friends, real or imagined, you're talking SUCKERS...
> REAL friends pay their REAL share, not try to get over.
>
You're exuding baloney through all cavities. Don't go if it's such a
problem for you.

> > When people watch the bottem line so closely that a few dollars spent
> > having fun with friends makes a difference, they should entertain at
> > home instead - so they can control their costs without looking like a
> > cheapskate.
>
> Why would any normal brained decent person want to invite a cheap
> ******* to their home, if they won't pay their REAL share at a
> restaurant what makes you think they will recpricate in kind with a
> dinner at their home.

Nobody is talking about reciprication of any kind.

> Perhaps your idea of "fun with friends" is
> getting scammed. Are you so hard up for 'friends' you feel compelled
> to buy people? Heck, I can be "friends" with everyone in the bar, all
> I gotta do is announce the next round is on me... only "friend" I made
> is the bar.
>
What? I go out to dinner with friends so I can enjoy the conversation
instead of focusing on preparing/serving/cleaning up after the meal.
I have a group of friends that often call at the last minute to have
dinner out. That's what we do. It's a nice chance to see them and
eat w/o planning ahead. What I don't do is eat out with business
aquaintances and then complain about check sharing.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:15:16 GMT, Sarah wrote:

> I take it sf stufs her self stupid with the most expensive things on the
> menu and then gets her 'friends' to pay for most of it!
> Sarah

You couldn't be further from the truth, but if I did... you have the
option to opt out.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:31:28 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > Basic math involve splitting the totall "x" ways. So, if the cost of
> > that meal (to the penny) is so important, you should decline the
> > invitation.
>
> It certainly benefits your argument to quibble about pennies. When it comes to
> restaurant meals that involve various courses and drinks, the amount can be
> $10-20. It is not $10-20 only once. It will be that much each time, with the
> same people running up smaller tabs and the same other people taking advantage
> of them.
>
Why do you put yourself into the situation if it's a problem for you?
 
"Jeanne Ketterer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Slightly off topic here, but thought can slide the question in, might be
restaurant managers or professionals lurking. We were talking about tipping,
etc., and my husband wanted to know why can't restaurants allow split checks?
Often he goes out to eat with four other guys and they end up in the same place
bec they can split it, plus leave their own (often generous) tip. I go out with
a bunch of the ladies to a local restaurant and although they won't split a
large party (sometimes there are 6-8 of us), they will deduct at the register
each's dinner, etc. And we do leave a good tip.

Splitting a check among 8 or more, IMO and experience, leaves one or two paying
for way more than their own selection. I've gotten ripped this way. I'm not
paying for your drinks. So now before we go join other couples for dinner
(other than out with the ladies in abovementioned place), I check first if we
can have separate checks. Some are offended, but really this comes from my
experience of getting burned. And more times than not, I will (or both of us)
order an extra appetizer to be enjoyed by the whole table, making clear I'm
paying for it.

So, why no split checks? Computer registers track every little detail, why so
much trouble?

Jeanne

Actually they can - normally it is up to the restaurant or the server if they
want to go to the trouble. Personally I have never had a problem asking for a
separate check - The last time was at an Olive Garden (not my choice) and a
birthday party of 14. most were separate checks - probably 5 or 6 in all.

There is one other problem - Normally for large parties over X people many
restaurants have an automatic Gratuity that is added to the bill.


Dimitri
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:13:10 -0700, Marcella Peek wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> sf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Speaking as a member of the rest of the group.... since splitting a
> > check is so painful for you, I'd rather see you some other time where
> > check splitting isn't involved. This has nothing to do with our
> > friendship, I just don't want you to be so upset about something so
> > trivial. See you at the annual (friends) picnic!
> >
> > :)
>
> Work lunches are often not optional. When your boss schedules "lunch"
> staff meetings you get to go.
>
> My friends know how to add up what they ordered.
>
This is too weird for words. If your "boss" schedules a meeting in a
restaurant, then he should be paying the bill.
 
sf wrote:

>
> > A lot of the people you see in groups at restaurants are not friends going
> > out for a good time. They are often working people out for a meal, people on
> > training courses, conventions etc.
>
> Since we're getting further and further away from a real social
> situation and into pseudobusiness type situations.... none of this is
> obligatory. Don't eat with them.

You don't always have the option, nor is that always the best option. I worked on
the road, often with a group. I had to work in other districts and went to a lot of
one and two week training courses. We had to go to restaurants, and splitting up to
go to different restaurants was not really an option. It certainly isn't good for
working relationships to exclude someone from eating with us. Separate checks was a
much better option.

> > Some of them are on expense accounts, but
> > if they are anything like the provisions of my former employer, the maximum
> > allowable claim is a lot less than the cost of the dinner in a nice place.
>
> So, now I'm supposed to feel sorry for people on an expense account
> who choose a restaurant out of their per diem budget? It ain't gonna
> happen.

I don't expect it. I can tell you that my maximums for meals were $6.50 breakfast,
$9.50 for lunch and $18.00 for dinner. The last time I was sent to our head office
they booked me into a hotel near the office. Breakfast in the hotel was close to
$10, and the cheapest entree was $32. Needless to say, I hoped into the car and
went elsewhere. Luckily, the course was not held at the hotel. If we had had only
enough time to grab lunch at the hotel restaurant we didn't have the option to go
elsewhere, and that is the case. Hotel restaurants take full advantage of captive
audiences.

>
> You know Joe Blow drinks like a fish and you're a tea toller - so why
> subject yourself to eating with him when you're all at an "away"
> training? Surely there is another tea toller who would like a quiet
> dinner with one other person... maybe a whole bunch of them. If
> you're on a diet/vegan/nondrinker/whatever, get a grip. I'm seeing a
> lot of passive aggressives in this thread. They don't know how to say
> no, but won't hesitate to whine and complain about ponying up to pay
> their share of the bill.

Passive aggressive? I don't think so. We didn't allow anyone to take advantage of
us and then grumble about it. We were up front about everything. We made sure that
everyone paid their share, and we usually managed to get separate checks.


> The main problem is that the rules aren't spelled out clearly when the
> lunch/dinner is arranged. If the restaurant doesn't split checks, you
> pay your fraction of the total.

When I arranged our Christmas luncheons it was done at a restaurant near our local
headquarters. I advised the restaurant ahead of time that we wanted separate checks
because there were some tightwads who would not leave a tip if they could get away
with it.
 
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:53:17 -0600, Mark D wrote:

> "I guess the moral of the story is, when'a you go out with'a people to
> eat, always order the most expensive thing on the menu!" Mark

Good story, but the conclusion smacks of immaturity.
 
Dimitri wrote:

> Splitting a check among 8 or more, IMO and experience, leaves one or two paying
> for way more than their own selection. I've gotten ripped this way.

Exactly. In a large group there will always be one or two who will conveniently
forget that they had a particular appetizer or an extra drink or two. They will
probably also underestimate the tax and tip. That leaves the person or people
handling the money on behalf of the server to make up the difference.
 
"Melba's Jammin'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

| Explanation I've heard is that if all the orders are on the same ticket
| the food is all ready (theoretically, anyway) at the same time -- it's
| planned to all be ready at the same time. If each meal goes in on a
| separate ticket, it's treated as -- a separate ticket and/or table. :-/


I've seen servers write all the orders (12-14) on one slip for the kitchen
but at the end of the meal ask if we want separate checks and provide each
person with a computer printout of his/her tab -- so it's not impossible.

Gabby
 
"Dave Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Splitting a check among 8 or more, IMO and experience, leaves one or two
>> paying
>> for way more than their own selection. I've gotten ripped this way.
>
> Exactly. In a large group there will always be one or two who will
> conveniently
> forget that they had a particular appetizer or an extra drink or two. They
> will
> probably also underestimate the tax and tip. That leaves the person or people
> handling the money on behalf of the server to make up the difference.

By the same token if you're in a party of 10 and one of the people orders a
$50.00 bottle of wine - should everyone kick in $5.00.

We do a lunch thing here at the office. When a person comes to the division or
leaves or if it is their birthday we as a group go to lunch. The person being
honored does not pay. We then take the bill with tip and split it among the
people present. IIRC it has never been over $10.00 per person - Even at a
Japanese Curry House.

Dimitri
 
"sf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 16 Aug 2005 08:13:54 -0700, Sheldon wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>> > Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>> >
>> > > ?? That's exactly what she said she does NOT want to do -- she
>> does
>> > > not want to pay for someone else's drinks. She wants separate
>> checks.
>> >
>> > Separate checks is just plain stupid. How clearly can I say it? When
>> > you go out with a group, be prepared to split the check evenly. If
>> > the restaurant doesn't do separate checks, ONE person puts it on
>> > his/her card and collects equal amounts from everyone else. If you
>> > don't drink or have appetizers/dessert but someone else ordered it,
>> > you split the total anyway. That's what REAL friends do.
>>
>> You're not talking friends, real or imagined, you're talking SUCKERS...
>> REAL friends pay their REAL share, not try to get over.
>>
> You're exuding baloney through all cavities. Don't go if it's such a
> problem for you.

Is it really beyond your ability to understand that people are often put in
a situation where they feel obliged to go? That is just about the simplest
concept imaginable but you don't get it. Guess what - everyone else does.


--
Peter Aitken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back