Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Consumerist)   I'm sorry, since we don't charge a lot for this particular dish, you cannot take your leftovers home with you. Sincerely, the management   (consumerist.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, chain restaurants, shrimps, exceptions, store managers, hamburgers, Federal Trade Commission  
•       •       •

24545 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2010 at 2:56 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



389 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-03-13 10:18:55 AM  
funny the wife and i went to McCormick and Schmicks in Chitown, and spent around 100.00....we ate all of it....
 
2010-03-13 10:26:17 AM  
tobey Quote 2010-03-13 09:56:04 AM
upright_apes_r_us: They own a business not another persons rights. It is worth every second and I'm retired. Complacency is self serving road to limited liberties. Two dollars isn't the issue.

Yes, we know. Rights, liberties, amendments, constitutions, God, etc. We got it.

It just seems like a weird thing to sue for, that's all.

I'm just saying if I were retired, I would enjoy it and try not to get too hung up on the little things; like a restaurant that has a policy about not taking home half eaten burgers.

Maybe a little less legal action and a little more road trip in your Winnebago?

Okay, if I said gays don't deserve special rights and women don't need abortions. Now is there a fire in your belly, or is that not worth a fight too. How small is the limit that a right should be allowed to be diminished or treaded on before you would defend it? Day after day people on this board whine that they are deprived of some rights and when someone stands up and says they don't want personal liberties eroded even a little a complacent self serving person who lacks a value for even the littlest right say it isn't worth the fight. Is a couple of bucks in tea tax to England worth a fight? It is one thing to say I would not fight and another to chastise someone else who is willing defend personal liberties.
 
2010-03-13 10:29:11 AM  
What a bunch of overthinkers.

It is common practice to take your remaining portion home in a doggy bag. This is NOT the same as ordering take out or carry out during a happy hour special. The customers in good faith ordered their happy hour burgers and accompanied them with beers - the store would have made up any missing profit due to the special via this tie-in. In this particular example the store would have encouraged customer satisfaction by providing a doggy bag. Instead they have provoked indignation with a "No, not yours" attitude.

Nobody was trying to gyp the restaurant. Rigid adherence to rules tends to piss people off. I would not return to the establishment.

The manager, however, will be the next republican nominee.
 
2010-03-13 10:30:12 AM  
I just looked at the M&S website, i had no idea they were even *in* New England. Color me meh.
 
2010-03-13 10:33:23 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: tobey Quote 2010-03-13 09:56:04 AM
upright_apes_r_us: They own a business not another persons rights. It is worth every second and I'm retired. Complacency is self serving road to limited liberties. Two dollars isn't the issue.

Yes, we know. Rights, liberties, amendments, constitutions, God, etc. We got it.

It just seems like a weird thing to sue for, that's all.

I'm just saying if I were retired, I would enjoy it and try not to get too hung up on the little things; like a restaurant that has a policy about not taking home half eaten burgers.

Maybe a little less legal action and a little more road trip in your Winnebago?

Okay, if I said gays don't deserve special rights and women don't need abortions. Now is there a fire in your belly, or is that not worth a fight too. How small is the limit that a right should be allowed to be diminished or treaded on before you would defend it? Day after day people on this board whine that they are deprived of some rights and when someone stands up and says they don't want personal liberties eroded even a little a complacent self serving person who lacks a value for even the littlest right say it isn't worth the fight. Is a couple of bucks in tea tax to England worth a fight? It is one thing to say I would not fight and another to chastise someone else who is willing defend personal liberties.


lol ok then. You keep fighting the good fight, sir.
 
2010-03-13 10:34:14 AM  
Anyone who agrees with the restaurant is a total farking moron.
 
2010-03-13 10:36:33 AM  
I agree with the restaurant.
 
2010-03-13 10:37:56 AM  
What a damn retarded restaurant. They're just going to throw it away.

poughdrew: I agree with the restaurant.


Trigg Palin?
 
2010-03-13 10:39:38 AM  
tobey Quote 2010-03-13 10:04:45 AM
upright_apes_r_us: A policy is not a binding agreement

In this context, it kind of is.

If you were aware of their terms prior to ordering and you still order, I think you are pretty much bound to their terms.

What is it with you and 'rights', btw? How come ordering food in a restaurant means it is your property? If it's a pay-after kind of restaurant, you haven't even given them any money for it yet...

By ordering it you agreed to pay for it and you will go to jail if you don't, it is yours %100, that part is a actionable contract. Some crap wrote on a wall isn't. No you are not bound by a policy by the act of ordering. A policy is not a mutual agreement. That argument was address by me in this thread and by the court system. You are assuming a falsehood. It is a no go all the way.
 
2010-03-13 10:40:38 AM  
They bought the food, it's theirs, they should have been allowed to take it with them.

If the restaurant wants to be like this, they should comp them for the portions they didn't eat. The Boobies of the thread got it right.
 
2010-03-13 10:44:43 AM  
proteus_b Quote 2010-03-13 09:34:13 AM
upright_apes_r_us: They own a business not another persons rights.

the business had and stated their policy. why do you get to take away their rights to have a limited offer (i.e., to eat the food in the store)? do you take home food from buffets?

I have and no one raised a eye brow. I did not violate the spirit of the setting so no one raised a complaint. I could have been asked not to return.
 
2010-03-13 10:48:04 AM  
The solution is simple. Just have the appies on sale during happy hour. Maybe the house brew as well. Everything else is full price and comes with a doggy bag.
 
2010-03-13 10:50:39 AM  
balthan [TotalFark] Quote 2010-03-13 10:10:34 AM
upright_apes_r_us: The hostess initially took our food, but she came back rather quickly, advising us that no happy hour food could be taken to go, with no exceptions.
/It was taken and not returned.


Initially taking the food implies it was brought back. Regardless, if they had just asked for the bill the transaction likely wasn't complete, so how can it be theft?

The act of ordering it made one %100 liable for payment with the threat of jail, so it is yours. Just because one owes money on a house or car does not give the bank a right to take the property because a contract exist.
 
2010-03-13 10:55:25 AM  
Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."
 
2010-03-13 10:57:08 AM  

MithrandirBooga: Anyone who agrees with the restaurant is a total farking moron.


anyone who agree with the customer is fat.

/see, that's easy.
 
2010-03-13 10:59:15 AM  

JeffreyScott: Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."


Better Solution:
"$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.
 
2010-03-13 11:02:24 AM  
Dude shoulda just keistered the remainder of his meal and enjoyed it elsewhere.
 
2010-03-13 11:05:03 AM  
Apparently this person has never been to a place that had a wing special. It's a fairly common occurrence to undercharge for a dish and make up the difference on other items, especially one like hot wings that induces you to drink a lot like hot wings.

Don't like it? Don't eat there.
 
2010-03-13 11:06:59 AM  
...and the lesson learned:

"Dear McCormick and Schmick's:
While we appreciate that you tried to make a tempting happy hour offer, ($1.99 burger and fries. Dine in only. No take home.) there are FAR too many rules for me to abide. (i.e. no take home)

Please discontinue your incredible offer, or we may be forced to sue you.

signed,
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"
 
2010-03-13 11:11:18 AM  
brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 10:59:15 AM
JeffreyScott: Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."

Better Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.

Where does a right materialize to a business that allows them the ability to dictate what property the owner thereof may not leave with? My argument is that a contractual agreement would have to be made between both parties. Short of that there is no legal standing to enforce the rule. There is a right to banish the customer. When a resteraunt
 
2010-03-13 11:13:12 AM  
upright_apes_r_us Quote 2010-03-13 11:11:18 AM
brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 10:59:15 AM
JeffreyScott: Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."

Better Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.

Where does a right materialize to a business that allows them the ability to dictate what property the owner thereof may not leave with? My argument is that a contractual agreement would have to be made between both parties. Short of that there is no legal standing to enforce the rule. There is a right to banish the customer. When a restaurant sells food it is no longer theirs even if it hasn't left their property.
 
2010-03-13 11:14:45 AM  

brandnewchair: Dumb Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.


JeffreyScott: Best Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes which gives you the option of paying a little extra to take your food home, or not paying and leaving it here. Thanks for understanding."

 
2010-03-13 11:20:02 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 10:59:15 AM
JeffreyScott: Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."

Better Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.

Where does a right materialize to a business that allows them the ability to dictate what property the owner thereof may not leave with? My argument is that a contractual agreement would have to be made between both parties. Short of that there is no legal standing to enforce the rule. There is a right to banish the customer. When a resteraunt


You're absolutely right. I'm sure you cant spout off legalese and make you're point for why you technically OWN the food and you can do whatever you want with it...

but you've got to at least understand why they made the rule...

do you have to be such a douche about it?
just order the farking $1.99 burger and eat it. if you don't finish the INCREDIBLE deal, then shut the fark up, and come back and spend another $1.99 the next day.

anyway, ive learned there is no point arguing with douchebag guests that must nit pick over every little thing to maximize the value to them. in your mind you are right, you deserve this.

truthfully, as a restaurant bartender for 17 years, i would have just boxed up to the food, because i know whiny biatches like you will never be happy with something rationally explained to them.

christ... they try to make a great offer, and of course dipshiats find a way to ruin it.

ME ME ME ME ME!
 
2010-03-13 11:21:57 AM  
Where does a right materialize to a business that allows them the ability to dictate what property the owner thereof may not leave with? My argument is that a contractual agreement would have to be made between both parties. Short of that there is no legal standing to enforce the rule. There is a right to banish the customer. When a restaurant sells food it is no longer theirs even if it hasn't left their property.

You are probably right and at that point the restaurant says f it and stops offering any type of food specials because someone didn't get a doggie bag for a $ 2 hamburger.

America is now a country were 99% of the population is influenced by 1% of the idiots out their with thin skin and access to representation.
 
2010-03-13 11:22:59 AM  
brandnewchair: You're absolutely right. I'm sure you cant spout off legalese and make you're point for why you technically OWN the food and you can do whatever you want with it...

They're free to take the food with them. However, the restaurant owner doesn't have to provide them a container for such purpose.
 
2010-03-13 11:23:48 AM  

Sarrah Barracuda: brandnewchair: Dumb Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.

JeffreyScott: Best Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes which gives you the option of paying a little extra to take your food home, or not paying and leaving it here. Thanks for understanding."


"$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home."

say it with me...

"$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home."

...but i want to take my food home....
-then go somewhere else

...but i want to take a M&S burger home...
-pay full price

...but its only $1.99 at happy hour...
-so then dine in

...but i want to take it home...
-whatever. life is tough. kill yourself.
 
2010-03-13 11:24:48 AM  

The Icelander: Don't like it? Don't eat there.


This concept doesn't apply at the consumerist.

At the Y I go to they have a special. If you join in December and bring a friend and they join you both get a month free - applies to new members only. One person is making a huge stink about the "new members only" clause. Apparently she had a friend join up for 6 months, stop going, then join up again in December. Since she was outside her first year she didn't get the free month.. Now she wants not only a free month but free classes for her and her family. Someone should tie a brick to her leg and drop her in the deep end of the pool.
 
2010-03-13 11:30:48 AM  
Eh..Policy, stupid or not is policy and you agree to it by proxy when ordering food there.

All you can eat sushi places do the pay for rice thing so people don't go in pull the seafood off the rice and leave the rice lay. In fact a place I go to actually charges more for their sushi rice than they do for the ala cart stuff. It cost the same as sashimi does.

There is also a wing place that I go to with 20 cent wings on Tuesdays. They charge $5 for a to go box and it states on the menu that 20 cents wings are for dine in only customers and there will be a charge for a to go container.

MANY places have this policy the truely sad part is that enough people abused the generousity of these establishments to NEED a policy like this
 
2010-03-13 11:32:18 AM  
Several joints around me have the exact same policy. I don't have a problem with it. Everyone knows what the point of Happy Hour is - to get you to order more. If a happy hour has drink specials, it's to encourage you to buy food. If they have food specials, it to encourage you to buy drinks. The point is to keep the customer longer, making them more likely to buy more stuff.

Allowing customers to take advantage of the special price and leave defeats the purpose.

If these customers don't like it, they are free to eat somewhere that charges $10 per burger but lets you take the uneaten half home.
 
2010-03-13 11:33:24 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: The act of ordering it made one %100 liable for payment with the threat of jail, so it is yours.


If this had happened in Texas, they'd be legally justified in shooting the waitress in the face and walking out with thier half-eaten burger.
 
2010-03-13 11:34:34 AM  

castufari: The Icelander: Don't like it? Don't eat there.

This concept doesn't apply at the consumerist.

At the Y I go to they have a special. If you join in December and bring a friend and they join you both get a month free - applies to new members only. One person is making a huge stink about the "new members only" clause. Apparently she had a friend join up for 6 months, stop going, then join up again in December. Since she was outside her first year she didn't get the free month.. Now she wants not only a free month but free classes for her and her family. Someone should tie a brick to her leg and drop her in the deep end of the pool.


it seems to me that the whiners here that are siding with the restaurant here either:

1) dont realize what the public can be like, so don't realize that you need to make these rules.
2) are part of the shiatty people that complain about everything, and are the reason these rules have to be made.

if you're in group one, seriously.. its crazy out there. you wouldn't believe the crazy shiat people do to save themselves a few dollars. they have zero respect for other people just trying to make a living. You might not fully understand the reasons for this 'crazy' rule, but trust me, there are very rational reasons.

if you're in group 2, die.
your life is full of problems that you just have 'deal' with anyway. like the time you were on your way to a movie, and got a $1.99 burger and fries at a nice restaurant, but then...COULDN'T TAKE IT HOME!
 
2010-03-13 11:35:55 AM  
To add to my above statement this would apply in any store, eating place, or other service providing place.

If they have a policy on the wal that says when you leave we get to keep your shoes if you order food, pay for service X, or Buy Item Z and you do one of those things expect to leave without your shoes.

If you agree to it by completing the requirement set up then don't complain about it.
 
2010-03-13 11:37:45 AM  
brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 11:06:59 AM
...and the lesson learned:

"Dear McCormick and Schmick's:
While we appreciate that you tried to make a tempting happy hour offer, ($1.99 burger and fries. Dine in only. No take home.) there are FAR too many rules for me to abide. (i.e. no take home)

Please discontinue your incredible offer, or we may be forced to sue you.

signed,
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"

Dear owner; Your offer does not need to take the property I paid for from me to limit the number of hamburgers per person. If you treated your customers with dignity and respect they might even come back. If you are so worried about a half eaten hamburger you totally missed the boat and deserve a sound reprimand and sued. The customer's satisfaction should be your highest priority, they pay the bills. If you have policies levied against them don't expect them to. I'm not sure how stupid can you be but you have gotten off a great start.
 
2010-03-13 11:41:15 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 11:06:59 AM
...and the lesson learned:

"Dear McCormick and Schmick's:
While we appreciate that you tried to make a tempting happy hour offer, ($1.99 burger and fries. Dine in only. No take home.) there are FAR too many rules for me to abide. (i.e. no take home)

Please discontinue your incredible offer, or we may be forced to sue you.

signed,
ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!"

Dear owner; Your offer does not need to take the property I paid for from me to limit the number of hamburgers per person. If you treated your customers with dignity and respect they might even come back. If you are so worried about a half eaten hamburger you totally missed the boat and deserve a sound reprimand and sued. The customer's satisfaction should be your highest priority, they pay the bills. If you have policies levied against them don't expect them to. I'm not sure how stupid can you be but you have gotten off a great start.


and this what im talking about.
you will NEVER understand.
because to you, this isnt a great offer, with a few stipulations, by a restaurant trying to get you into their doors.
it's a RIGHT you deserve. and if they make the offer, then god bless america, YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE MOST OUT OF IT. YOUR WAY!

ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!
 
2010-03-13 11:45:07 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: Dear owner; Your offer does not need to take the property I paid for from me to limit the number of hamburgers per person. If you treated your customers with dignity and respect they might even come back. If you are so worried about a half eaten hamburger you totally missed the boat and deserve a sound reprimand and sued. The customer's satisfaction should be your highest priority, they pay the bills. If you have policies levied against them don't expect them to. I'm not sure how stupid can you be but you have gotten off a great start.


McCormick & Schmick is a national chain.

They have this policy for a reason. The reason is that there are not enough retards like you and the person in the article out there who would get offended about having such a policy as to never come back again when compared to the number of entitled farkwits out there who would clearly take advantage of the happy hour specials.

They figured out that:

$ Lost from Offended Customers [is Less Than] $ Money lost from Special Price Take Home Abusers

So, they made the policy.

The fact that a bunch of armchair restaurant CEOs think this wasn't some sort of well-thought out, long deliberated policy is hilarious.
 
2010-03-13 11:53:23 AM  
brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 11:20:02 AM
upright_apes_r_us: brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 10:59:15 AM
JeffreyScott: Problem: Business is suffering image issues due to poorly though policy regarding to go boxes.

Solution: Place statement on menu which says, "Due to the small profit margin on items listed on our happy hour menu we have to charge you $1 for to go boxes. Thanks for understanding."

Better Solution: "$1.99 burger and fries at happy hour. Dine in only. No to go or take home.

Where does a right materialize to a business that allows them the ability to dictate what property the owner thereof may not leave with? My argument is that a contractual agreement would have to be made between both parties. Short of that there is no legal standing to enforce the rule. There is a right to banish the customer. When a resteraunt

You're absolutely right. I'm sure you cant spout off legalese and make you're point for why you technically OWN the food and you can do whatever you want with it...

but you've got to at least understand why they made the rule...

do you have to be such a douche about it?
just order the farking $1.99 burger and eat it. if you don't finish the INCREDIBLE deal, then shut the fark up, and come back and spend another $1.99 the next day.

anyway, ive learned there is no point arguing with douchebag guests that must nit pick over every little thing to maximize the value to them. in your mind you are right, you deserve this.

truthfully, as a restaurant bartender for 17 years, i would have just boxed up to the food, because i know whiny biatches like you will never be happy with something rationally explained to them.

christ... they try to make a great offer, and of course dipshiats find a way to ruin it.

ME ME ME ME ME!

Do you understand there is no reason for the rule and it only serves to hurt the business? As a customer it is me me me me me and any business that forgets that is going to fail. Some people actually think being a prick is the going thing. That is why so many fail. Turn on kitchen nightmares and watch a few shows and you may even understand the error in your thinking. Whiny service providers destroy a business. Anyone who fails to cater to the customers should find a different profession because they are cutting their throat. If you want someones money act like it.
 
2010-03-13 11:55:41 AM  

The Homer Tax:
The fact that a bunch of armchair restaurant CEOs think this wasn't some sort of well-thought out, long deliberated policy is hilarious.


This.

The manager probably handled it more delicately than I would. MANY people only care about entitlement when it's theirs, but what about the the restaurants right to run their business as they see fit as long as they give you notice that it's different than you may expect? TFA said there's a notice about it in the menu. Don't like it, don't eat there. The "Don't like it, don't blah" statement is becoming cliche but it's true!

I don't know how it happened but we're really becoming a society of whiny kids with a "me, me, mine" mentality. All we did was grow out of it in a physical sense and into adulthood many just change it to rights and rules.

You enter into assloads of contracts all day long. Every time you walk into a building, taxi, someone else's home, and all most people care about is THEIR rights, not that of the other person. They said you can't take it home before you ordered it, won't expect to whine your way out of it.
 
2010-03-13 11:59:05 AM  

upright_apes_r_us: Do you understand there is no reason for the rule and it only serves to hurt the business?


There's a very clear reason for the rule, and the manager stated it. It obvious doesn't "only serve to hurt the business," or the business wouldn't do it.

Here's the thing: The options are delicious $5 for everyone, dine in, no to go; or, no $5 burgers for anyone.

I appreciate that the restaurant has this policy because it means that they can continue to offer me delicious $5 burgers at happy hour when I dine in at the bar.

People like you who think that business would have a practice for no reason other than to screw the customers need to get their heads out of their asses.
 
2010-03-13 11:59:29 AM  

upright_apes_r_us:
Do you understand there is no reason for the rule and it only serves to hurt the business?


honestly, do you believe this statement?
 
2010-03-13 12:09:10 PM  

MBK: I agree with the restaurant. People can and will abuse anything to get things for free/cheap.


Anybody who works in a restaurant will know exactly which customers these are. That's all I'm going to say.
 
2010-03-13 12:10:53 PM  
Simple solution, bring your own box next time. End of story.
 
2010-03-13 12:15:56 PM  
You paid for it, you own it. The restaurant can't stop you from taking it with you, but they can make it damn inconvenient by not giving you a box for it.
At which point you can decide it's a crappy way to implement that policy and not go back. If they lose enough customers over it, someone might rethink the plan.
 
2010-03-13 12:19:18 PM  
The Homer Tax Quote 2010-03-13 11:59:05 AM
upright_apes_r_us: Do you understand there is no reason for the rule and it only serves to hurt the business?

There's a very clear reason for the rule, and the manager stated it. It obvious doesn't "only serve to hurt the business," or the business wouldn't do it.

Here's the thing: The options are delicious $5 for everyone, dine in, no to go; or, no $5 burgers for anyone.

I appreciate that the restaurant has this policy because it means that they can continue to offer me delicious $5 burgers at happy hour when I dine in at the bar.

People like you who think that business would have a practice for no reason other than to screw the customers need to get their heads out of their asses.

And

brandnewchair Quote 2010-03-13 11:59:29 AM
upright_apes_r_us:
Do you understand there is no reason for the rule and it only serves to hurt the business?

honestly, do you believe this statement?


\Face palm, Horse poop, who is serving who?
Sign,"limit one per person.", how hard is that?
They think it is better to offend people.
Like I said there isn't a valid reason.
Any food service that causes friction with their customers has got their mission wrong. We catered to up to 600 a day and the customer came first. Ours was the US GOVERNMENT and they would not tolerate this for a second.
BTW How does the business lose squat when a happy customer leaves with a half eaten hamburger. Then look at all the ridicules claims claiming it does. Face palm!
 
2010-03-13 12:29:04 PM  

upright_apes_r_us: Any food service that causes friction with their customers has got their mission wrong.


Pretty much. The problem with this policy is not in banning to-go orders, it's that management thinks they're avoiding potential conflict by banning any to-go boxes at all. If I were running the place I would ban to-go orders too--but I wouldn't alienate dine-in customers who also sat there and spent money on drinks, etc. If someone who wanted an out-right to-go order complained about seeing dine-in customers take food, I'd deal with it. However, once the food has been paid for and half-consumed, that customer is indeed entitled to keep what they bought.
I would much rather deal with complaints from people who did not buy anything yet, than those that already spent money.
 
2010-03-13 12:30:15 PM  
What a half eaten S & M Cheezburger might look like (new window)
 
2010-03-13 12:32:59 PM  
 
2010-03-13 12:34:16 PM  

Cats_Lie: Charging for a box is tacky and lowers the value of the restaurant's brand.


Ok. So playing Cheezburger Cop is not tacky, and does not lower the value of the restaurant's brand. Rrrrrighty-o.

As for your glib comment about profit-- restaurants are a very competitive business. It is not uncommon to have a profit margin of 3%. These things do make a difference.

Hey, I know people in the biz. What makes the difference is usually a) petty theft - kitchen dudes carrying out raw steaks in their pants, barkeeps messing with the night's cashout and such shiat (a certain amount of which is always going to happen, especially in bigger cities), and even MORE important, b) not watching the overhead. Stuff like leaving huge piles of paper napkins on tables for mom to bathe the baby in.

If you are doing a loss leader deal, remember, it's a gesture of good will (note to corporate: this means more than a balance sheet entry, go look it up). Don't fark your goodwill by retroactively policing your customers or you're liable to end up on fark.
 
2010-03-13 12:45:10 PM  
you know, they don't post a policy anywhere that you can't eat your food slowly for 9 hours, so people should be allowed to just squat in the restaurant.
 
2010-03-13 12:45:35 PM  
ReverendJasen Quote 2010-03-13 12:29:04 PM
upright_apes_r_us: Any food service that causes friction with their customers has got their mission wrong.

Pretty much. The problem with this policy is not in banning to-go orders, it's that management thinks they're avoiding potential conflict by banning any to-go boxes at all. If I were running the place I would ban to-go orders too--but I wouldn't alienate dine-in customers who also sat there and spent money on drinks, etc. If someone who wanted an out-right to-go order complained about seeing dine-in customers take food, I'd deal with it. However, once the food has been paid for and half-consumed, that customer is indeed entitled to keep what they bought.
I would much rather deal with complaints from people who did not buy anything yet, than those that already spent money.

There is another aspect I never even touched on.
Many people of age, people who have a illness, who get in to a pinch simply have to leave, they can't wolf down the meal on demand.
It is ridiculous and insensitive to argue with them about in house policy.
They are not trying to beat anyone out of anything.
Some people on the board want to paint everyone as greedy cut throats because the jump to uninformed generalizations.
If one runs a business the owe it to everyone including their employees to become informed how the business effects people.
The only way to make a better decision is to have more information to draw upon. A lesson hind sight teaches very well.
 
2010-03-13 12:48:18 PM  

upright_apes_r_us:

\Face palm, Horse poop, who is serving who?
Sign,"limit one per person.", how hard is that?
They think it is better to offend people.
Like I said there isn't a valid reason.
Any food service that causes friction with their customers has got their mission wrong. We catered to up to 600 a day and the customer came first. Ours was the US GOVERNMENT and they would not tolerate this for a second.
BTW How does the business lose squat when a happy customer leaves with a half eaten hamburger. Then look at all the ridicules claims claiming it does. Face palm!



Dude. Have you been to McCormick and Schmidt's? It's an incredibly good deal for two dollars. They could tell me I had to cook it myself and stand up while eating it, and that would be fine. I'd still come out ahead.

It's give them an inch jackasses like you that ruin perfectly good happy hours for everyone else. Read your menu, obey the rules, tip well. Life is better if you aren't trying to fight every little condition and recognize a good thing when it comes your way.
 
Displayed 50 of 389 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report