Bob wrote:

> You assume that the parents of the crying child were guests at the hotel.
> They might not have been.


True. But my general principle remains the same. In a free standing
restaurant, there likely isn't a place where a baby could cry without
disturbing the guests. All the space is either waiting room, bar,
dining area, food prep areas, bathrooms, and a little office space which
might have money and valuables in it such that it is off limits to
patrons. In a hotel, even if the family isn't staying there, there
could be a corner of the lobby or an unused conference area where
parents with a fussy baby could walk back and forth and quiet the kid.
All they need is a hallway or empty cloak room that's out of the rain
and snow. Come to think of it, even smokers are sent outside. Hmmm.


--Lia

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> We were lucky for a while to have a local steakhouse which had an "adult
> only" room. It was a large room and smoking was permitted in 1/3 of it.
> Their ventilation and filtering system isolated the smoking area quite
> well. It was heaven! Their "family" room was all non-smoking. Guess they
> figured that parents shouldn't smoke in front of the children. :-)


In my dreamworld, restaurants would have baby rooms, smoking rooms,
cellphone rooms, loud music rooms, baby but no smoking rooms, smoking
but no cellphone rooms, cellphones but no music rooms and every possible
permutation so you could go in and demand a dining area that didn't
allow smoking or babies but did allow pontification and wordplay.
Others could ask for a place where they could bring their pet wombat.


--Lia

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Was I wrong or did I miss something???
>
> "The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
> romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA. After
> waiting 20 minutes past our scheduled reservation, we
> were seated at a quiet booth that was available the
> entire time. Soon (8:15pm)a family of 4 with a tired 2
> year old crying to go home was seated behind us. After
> 10 minutes of non-stop crying, we spoke with a
> waitress about the disturbance caused by the child.
> The ownercame by our table and refused to speak to the
> family and told us we could be moved to a louder part
> of the restaurant if we didn't like the noise from the
> child. Since the romance for the evening was ruined,
> we decided to move. I was too upset to accept any
> compensation offered, but still shocked that on my $86
> tab they charged me a $10 corkage fee on my bottle of
> wine. The food and service is worthy of 5 stars, but
> owner is a horrible manager and will sacrifice your
> romantic evening at the expense of a crying child.
>
> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
> service.
>
> While I think I should have walked out, my wife was
> looking forward too much to her Duck breast with a
> Lobster Tail. By that point McDonalds was good enough
> for me.
>
> I am curious as too your comments.


Shorting him the tip was prolly a good move. Dragging him out to the alley
for a round of goon dancing might have been more appropos... but at least
your romantic evening wasn't spent in a jail cell with a 300 lb guy named
Bubba...


--
I made magic once. Now, the sofa is gone...
http://www.dwacon.com




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0527-0, 07/04/2005
Tested on: 7/6/2005 9:50:37 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Dave Smith > said:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
> > > any child whose parents can afford to take them to a 4-star restaurant,
> > > and are willing to inflict the inherent obnoxia of a preschooler on
> > > people expecting a relatively refined dining experience is likely a
> > > spoiled brat, yes.
> >
> > I'm sorry but I disagree. You see we raised our kids and we exposed
> > them to the finer element in dining. But, we had the rule if they acted
> > up in any manner, they were out the door and that is how it should be.
> > They should not be allowed to disrupt other diners and there is a
> > certain decorum they needed to learn for public dining.
>
> I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were part way
> through the main course and into a bottle of wine and the kids started acting up
> would you really get up and leave? I have seen to many parents allow their kids
> to run around in restaurants.

You only have to follow through once or twice with a lot of kids. Once
they know that they are absolutely not going to get away with it, they lose
their power over the adults in their lives, and they settle down, pronto
when the car is mentioned.

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jul 2005 08:58:52 -0700, Karen wrote:
>
>> Is the Saddleback Inn a hotel? If so, travelers or guests are invited
>> to dine in any of their restaurants. I would think kids in a restaurant
>> in a hotel would not be a surprise.
>>
>> It sounds like you were grouchy from the onset.
>>
> Good reply and I agree with you!

Ill behaved children don't belong in any restaurant. If the child had a
problem, the parents should have take steps to fix the problem or the owner
should have asked them to do something. Like leave.

"sf" > wrote in message
> Oh, puleeze - it's a hotel.
>
> I hope those parents were just as distressed by the baby crying and
> have learned their lesson.

That gave the parent even less an excuse. The parents should have returned
to the room with child. Kids cry. Parents are obligated to fix the problem
or remove the child from a place that annoys others. Simple manners and
consideration. This was not a simple shriek, it was constant crying.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>
> I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were part way
> through the main course and into a bottle of wine and the kids started
> acting up
> would you really get up and leave? I have seen to many parents allow
> their kids
> to run around in restaurants.

I would and I have. You find the problem, fix it, and return. Can't fix
it? Then you leave. Kids can be a problem, get sick, etc., but it is my
problem, not everyone in hearing distance.

Damsel wrote:

>
> > I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were part way
> > through the main course and into a bottle of wine and the kids started acting up
> > would you really get up and leave? I have seen to many parents allow their kids
> > to run around in restaurants.
>
> You only have to follow through once or twice with a lot of kids. Once
> they know that they are absolutely not going to get away with it, they lose
> their power over the adults in their lives, and they settle down, pronto
> when the car is mentioned.

That's true, but I don't want to be the one who has to put up with it the first few
times that they have to resort to it. I have been in the position of listening to
people warn their kids repeatedly that they just had their last warning more times
that I care to count.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> Ill behaved children don't belong in any restaurant. If the child had a
> problem, the parents should have take steps to fix the problem or the owner
> should have asked them to do something. Like leave.

They would do the same to a drunk who is annoying the other customers.

Dave Smith > wrote in message
...
> ~patches~ wrote:
> > > any child whose parents can afford to take them to a
> > > 4-star restaurant, and are willing to inflict the inherent
> > > obnoxia of a preschooler on people expecting a relatively
> > > refined dining experience is likely a spoiled brat, yes.
> > >
> > I'm sorry but I disagree. You see we raised our kids and
> > we exposed them to the finer element in dining. But, we
> > had the rule if they acted up in any manner, they were out
> > the door and that is how it should be. They should not be
> > allowed to disrupt other diners and there is a certain decorum
> > they needed to learn for public dining.
> >
> I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were
> part way through the main course and into a bottle of wine and
> the kids started acting up would you really get up and leave?
> I have seen to many parents allow their kids to run around in
> restaurants.

To answer your question, yes. I have twice picked up Daughter-units
Alpha and Beta and left a restaurant when they became too fussy to sit
and began to affect those patron around us.

The first time, both girl-units were infants. They were asleep when we
arrived for our reservations so we felt reasonably sure we could eat and
be done by the time they awoke -- by the end when the check was being
delivered. But by meal-delivery -- after the sixth couple came by and
cooed at us how lovely they were -- both were fully awake, screaming
holy hell and less lovely than prior. I quickly lifted both up and we
three exited until I could calm them down.

The second (and last time) either tried the "well they're all running
about so we don't have to" scenario, a quick trip out to the car to
explain what I expected in a restaurant was enough to end any
shenanigans.

Spawn isn't ready for that level of dining so we get a babysitter and a
TV dinner for her. She's happy and so is everyone else.

It's all about setting expectations and adhering to the "If-Then"
scenarios. My girls are consistently complimented on their manners and
maturity. They are asked back when others are not.

The Ranger

"Edwin Pawlowski" > said:

> Ill behaved children don't belong in any restaurant. If the child had a
> problem, the parents should have take steps to fix the problem or the owner
> should have asked them to do something. Like leave.

It's strange that management sometimes chooses to placate the troublemakers
rather than their good customers. Doesn't make sense.

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Damsel > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> You only have to follow through once or twice with a
> lot of kids. Once they know that they are absolutely
> not going to get away with it, they lose their power
> over the adults in their lives, and they settle down,
> pronto when the car is mentioned.

Yep. It's known that if I mention the car, it's already too late. Even
my teenage nephew, INMF (It's Not My Fault), knows not to push this.

ObFood: Angel Hair pasta with roasted garlic sprinkled with shredded
aged asiago.

The Ranger
---
I can't wait 'til I'm a teenager! Then you won't be able to order me
around!"
Alpha Ranger, 1234:55, 11/30/02

>I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
>the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
>tip.

I hope he went to the parking lot and let the air outta your tires.
Why punish the WAITER??? You're an ass.

Damsel wrote:

> It's strange that management sometimes chooses to placate the troublemakers
> rather than their good customers. Doesn't make sense.

Yes, it makes sense. Trouble makers make trouble. :-)

"Peter Aitken" > writes:
>"nancree" > wrote:

>> holiday/family week-end. Don't you suppose the parents were hoping to
>> have a quiet family dinner as well? Baby-sitter prices these days, in
>> a resort area, can run more than the dinner tab. Why didn't they/you
>> ask to be served in another, quieter area? Go to an adult club. Or ask
>> to be served in the bar area. There seem to be more "Crying Babies"
>> here on RFC that in the Saddleback Restaurant.

>It is really bizarre that you consider someone who wants a quiet and relaxed
>ambience in a fancy restaurant to be a "cry baby." Perhaps to you dining is
>just shoveling food into your mouth. To many others it is an enjoyable time
>for relaxation, companionship, and conversation. To have an icepick stuck in
>my ear - which is just about what a squalling baby is like - really ruins
>the experience. To have my companion's voice drowned out by a brat's shriek
>tends to spoil the moment. Do you really not get this?

I'm sure nancree understands. I definitely agree with you, Peter,
that a young child's screaming (and sometimes running around or throwing
things) is one of the most annoying, irritating things that can happen
when you're trying to enjoy dinner. And parents who allow this sort of
thing and don't even try to calm the child or monitor their actions are
deplorable.
However, I do know some people just aren't bothered by little kids
screaming or running amok. Like the parents, they just tune it out, or
it doesn't affect them. I would like to think that those who aren't
bothered by screaming at least realize that many others *are* bothered
by it, and just because they are bothered by it doesn't mean they are
insane or cry-babies.
Like I said before, it doesn't matter if the OP was telling the truth
or not, in a hypothetical situation like this, if I had gone to a
restaurant expecting it to be a quiet, adult atmosphere and found myself
sitting next to a large family with multiple kids, one screaming, I
would not have stayed.

Stacia

Dave Smith > said:

> Damsel wrote:
>
> > > I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were part way
> > > through the main course and into a bottle of wine and the kids started acting up
> > > would you really get up and leave? I have seen to many parents allow their kids
> > > to run around in restaurants.
> >
> > You only have to follow through once or twice with a lot of kids. Once
> > they know that they are absolutely not going to get away with it, they lose
> > their power over the adults in their lives, and they settle down, pronto
> > when the car is mentioned.
>
> That's true, but I don't want to be the one who has to put up with it the first few
> times that they have to resort to it. I have been in the position of listening to
> people warn their kids repeatedly that they just had their last warning more times
> that I care to count.

See, you're surrounded by amateurs. <G>

You pick the offending kidlette up under one arm, and use the hand at the
end of the other arm to muffle their screams while you briskly exit the
establishment. Then you have your discussion out in the car. Only took
starting the car one time to cool my daughter's jets when she was little.
From then on, she knew I meant business.

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>

>
> We were lucky for a while to have a local steakhouse which had an "adult
> only" room. It was a large room and smoking was permitted in 1/3 of it.
> Their ventilation and filtering system isolated the smoking area quite
> well. It was heaven!


That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
don't any more, right?


(!)

" dwacon" > said:

> Shorting him the tip was prolly a good move. Dragging him out to the alley
> for a round of goon dancing might have been more appropos... but at least
> your romantic evening wasn't spent in a jail cell with a 300 lb guy named
> Bubba...

You work for the United Nations, right? ROFL!

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Dave Smith > said:

> Damsel wrote:
>
> > It's strange that management sometimes chooses to placate the troublemakers
> > rather than their good customers. Doesn't make sense.
>
> Yes, it makes sense. Trouble makers make trouble. :-)

There ya go, getting all logical again!

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snipped>
>
>>The IRS applied a formula that said they owed more than they claimed. And
>>charged them more.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> Exactly as I said. Thank you.

Peter, this is what you said:
-------------------------------
>>> Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do
>>> not receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who
>>> are ignorant of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to
>>> squeeze money in tips they do not deserve.

>> Sorry, Peter, It's true. Over the years, several of my servers had
>> to ante up more money on their taxes because the IRS said they'd
>> "misstated" what they should have claimed.

>> Pastorio
>
> You need to read the IRS regulations as I have. It is very clear that
> servers can keep track of and report actual tips and pay taxes only
> on that. If they do not keep track then the IRS may apply an
> estimation formula.

The IRS applied a formula that said they owed more than they claimed.
And charged them more.

Pastorio
--------------------------------

They kept track of their tips but the IRS said they understated them
based on their statistical models. At least a few of my people paid
taxes on money they never received. A couple others may have been lying
because they lied about other stuff, but one never knows.

Pastorio

On 6 Jul 2005 19:27:08 -0700, "Food For Thought" >
wrote:

>>I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
>>the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
>>tip.
>
>I hope he went to the parking lot and let the air outta your tires.
>Why punish the WAITER??? You're an ass.

The 'staff' should have caught the problem immediately and removed the
offending youngster and its party to a different (not quiet) part of
the restaurant.
As I see it it is their fault (plus the manager who was useless).
= no tip in my world!

Ken.

Peter wrote:
>Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do not
>receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who are ignorant
>of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to squeeze money in tips
>they do not deserve.

You're half right.

In many chain restaurants (which this wasn't, apparently), owners are
exempt from paying servers minimum wage. When I was a manager at Pizza
Hut, we paid servers $2.15 an hour, assuming that their tips would make
up the remaining $3 balance.

When they clocked out, servers were obligated to declare their tips:
they all knew what the minimum was they needed to declare and would
declare the minimum. Payroll taxes were then paid on this declared
minimum.

Now, as to higher-standard restaurants...servers are paid at least
minimum wage...but everything else is the same. Servers, in order to
clock out, must declare some amount of tips. Payroll taxes are based
on those amount of tips declared plus the hourly wage.

So...the server is probably not paying taxes on tips not received,
because servers know to declare the minimum tips needed to clock out -
and unless they're a horrible server, they should come out ahead.

That being said...Peter, I can only go back to the original post, which
said that the service was excellent, but the atmosphere was ruined by
something beyond the server's control. IMO, the server should have
been tipped...and the note left for the manager, with a follow-up call
to the owners.

Lisa Ann

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>> Oh, puleeze - it's a hotel.
>>
>> I hope those parents were just as distressed by the baby crying and
>> have learned their lesson.
>
> That gave the parent even less an excuse. The parents should have
> returned to the room with child. Kids cry. Parents are obligated to
> fix the problem or remove the child from a place that annoys others.
> Simple manners and consideration. This was not a simple shriek, it
> was constant crying.

No way to know if the parents had a room at the Inn or if they were simply
there for dinner. I agree they should have left, but I also have found a
lot of parents are so used to tantrums and screaming fits from their kids
they simply tune them out. I suppose the premise is not to give in to their
fits so as not to validate whatever it is the child is screaming about.
I've run into the same thing on airplanes where they can't just take the kid
outside. Seriously, I've been on a plane where a toddler was screaming and
the parents just kept chatting with the couple across the aisle and ignored
the child. The fact that they were across and back about 5 aisles didn't
matter; I had a major headache by the time the plane landed. And I couldn't
go anywhere either! I was tempted to open the emergency exit and jump.

Jill

Peter wrote:
>There is some validity to what you say but what other option did the
>customer have? Perhaps an angry employee will help the manager change his
>ways. The waiter is responsible for certain things that may not be within
>his control. For example if there is a really long wait to get your food it
>may be the kitchen's fault but it is still the waiter's responsibility and
>can validly be reflected in the tip.

IMO, angry employees *never* change management's mind...and I say this
as both a manager and an employee.

Angry *customers*, however, can have a huge impact.

And as for the idea that the waiter is reponsible for the wait for
food...no, s/he's not. What the waiter *is* responsible for is letting
the customer know that there's a wait...offering something in exchange
for the wait...apologising profusely for the wait...and did the server
mention there's a wait?

Anyone who has ever worked in food service knows there are only 2
reasons for delay: 1) The manager under-scheduled or 2) the restaurant
got slammed.

If it's the first of the month - or a Friday - and you go into a
restaurant that only has 3 servers for the entire restaurant...you know
the manager underscheduled. Take it out on the manager, not the
server.

If it's the middle of the month - and middle of the week - and you go
into a restaurant that has a couple busses sitting out front, and 3
servers running around trying not to go insane...they got slammed. In
that case, just be patient...they're doing their best.

Oh, I forgot about the 3rd reason for delay...the kitchen has just
caught on fire and y'all have to evacuate the building!

Lisa Ann

Lisa Ann wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>>Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do not
>>receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who are ignorant
>>of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to squeeze money in tips
>>they do not deserve.
>
>
> You're half right.
>
> In many chain restaurants (which this wasn't, apparently), owners are
> exempt from paying servers minimum wage.

In most places around the country, this holds - for all restaurants
where servers are tipped.

> When I was a manager at Pizza
> Hut, we paid servers $2.15 an hour, assuming that their tips would make
> up the remaining $3 balance.

Same as when I owned restaurants.

> When they clocked out, servers were obligated to declare their tips:
> they all knew what the minimum was they needed to declare and would
> declare the minimum. Payroll taxes were then paid on this declared
> minimum.

We had them put it on their time cards.

> Now, as to higher-standard restaurants...servers are paid at least
> minimum wage...but everything else is the same.

Not necessarily. I knew of a few restaurants that didn't pay their
servers at all. Tips were so high that they tried this illegal ploy and
got away with it for a while. But when it hit the fan, several people
paid huge fines, had to provide back pay, and a couple owners did time.
As they should.

Pastorio

> Servers, in order to
> clock out, must declare some amount of tips. Payroll taxes are based
> on those amount of tips declared plus the hourly wage.
>
> So...the server is probably not paying taxes on tips not received,
> because servers know to declare the minimum tips needed to clock out -
> and unless they're a horrible server, they should come out ahead.
>
> That being said...Peter, I can only go back to the original post, which
> said that the service was excellent, but the atmosphere was ruined by
> something beyond the server's control. IMO, the server should have
> been tipped...and the note left for the manager, with a follow-up call
> to the owners.
>
> Lisa Ann
>

Bob (this one) wrote:
>Not necessarily. I knew of a few restaurants that didn't pay their
>servers at all. Tips were so high that they tried this illegal ploy and
>got away with it for a while. But when it hit the fan, several people
>paid huge fines, had to provide back pay, and a couple owners did time.
>As they should.

When I was living in Illinois, there were many pizza places that did
something similar: they claimed their drivers were "independent
contracters", paid them nothing, and still demanded a percentage of the
tips.

And as for your example...yeah, I can see that happening. *My* example
was optimistic. <g>

And I agree...fines and jail time for the owners...

Lisa Ann

How is this the WAITER'S FAULT??? You're lumping everyone into
"STAFF." Think about what you're saying. SEAT yourself in that
situation. You'd stiff your waiter for actions he/she didn't do?

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 02:07:15 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> > Oh, puleeze - it's a hotel.
> >
> > I hope those parents were just as distressed by the baby crying and
> > have learned their lesson.
>
> That gave the parent even less an excuse. The parents should have returned
> to the room with child. Kids cry. Parents are obligated to fix the problem
> or remove the child from a place that annoys others. Simple manners and
> consideration. This was not a simple shriek, it was constant crying.


You weren't there and the OP seemed like a whiner. His wife wanted to
stay, so it wasn't as bad as he claims.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:09:48 -0500, jmcquown wrote:

> I also have found a
> lot of parents are so used to tantrums and screaming fits from their kids
> they simply tune them out.

I was under the impression it was an INFANT. Infants cry (and not
very loudly) - that's the nature of the beast. If mom or dad had
already shoved a pacifier or bottle in it's mouth, then maybe the
problem was at the other end. In any case, the OP had his chance to
leave but didn't - even though getting up and leaving would have been
a clearer statement of dissatisfaction than stiffing the waiter.

I have no sympathy for him.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:34:38 -0500, Phoebe Roberts, EA wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > Saddleback Inn is a Best Western.
>
> It doesn't seem to be. There's a Saddleback Inn Best Western in OKC,
> but the one in California isn't related as far as I can tell.
>
You're absolutely right... I was skimming too fast. The one in
California is "pet friendly".

wrote:
> Was I wrong or did I miss something???

You were wrong not to tip the waiter if his service was good. The
manager did what he could to accomodate you. You're being a prat.

That being said, the couple should not bring young children to that
restaurant except on "family night", if they offer one.

-L.

On Wed 06 Jul 2005 10:19:36p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:34:38 -0500, Phoebe Roberts, EA wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> > Saddleback Inn is a Best Western.
>>
>> It doesn't seem to be. There's a Saddleback Inn Best Western in OKC,
>> but the one in California isn't related as far as I can tell.
>>
> You're absolutely right... I was skimming too fast. The one in
> California is "pet friendly".

Good! I can take my cats to dinner. At least they won't cry.

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0527-0, 07/04/2005
Tested on: 7/6/2005 11:13:46 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Wed 06 Jul 2005 10:15:45p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:09:48 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I also have found a
>> lot of parents are so used to tantrums and screaming fits from their kids
>> they simply tune them out.
>
> I was under the impression it was an INFANT. Infants cry (and not
> very loudly) - that's the nature of the beast. If mom or dad had
> already shoved a pacifier or bottle in it's mouth, then maybe the
> problem was at the other end. In any case, the OP had his chance to
> leave but didn't - even though getting up and leaving would have been
> a clearer statement of dissatisfaction than stiffing the waiter.
>
> I have no sympathy for him.

You are cruel and without pity! :-))

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0527-0, 07/04/2005
Tested on: 7/6/2005 11:14:29 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

> wrote:

> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
> service.

Yeah, punish good service. That's the ticket. If you were unhappy at
the point when the manager told you you could move, you could have left
and spared the waitstaff the trouble of working hard and giving you
five-star service for no tip.

serene

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> It's all about setting expectations and adhering to the "If-Then"
> scenarios. My girls are consistently complimented on their manners and
> maturity. They are asked back when others are not.

On our first cross-country posting the kids were 3, 5, & 8. We were 10 days
on the road & eating in restaurants was a necessity, not a luxury. We were
already in control of our kids so before we left on the trip restaurant
rules were laid out went thus:

Sit down at the table, hands in lap.
Don't touch the cutlery until your food arrives.
You may use the colouring materials if provided.
Once the food arrives, all etiquette rules that apply at home apply here ++.
Let's talk about how the trip has gone so far.

In several restaurant our waitress approached the table to compliment the
children on their behaviour.

It took me a while to figure out, after wondering if they'd all developed
bladder problems, but I eventually caught on that when sitting quietly
became difficult for them, they excused themselves to use the restroom. It
allowed them to get up and walk, change the scenery and then return to the
table. Sometimes there were several of these trips during the wait between
ordering the meal and having it delivered, but always quietly and with no
disturbance of other patrons.

Gabby

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:25:10 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>That's not true at all, and you should know better. Bringing your own wine
>and paying a corkage fee is accepted practice at many restaurants all over
>the world.

Well, then, "all other the world" definitely does not include France,
Switzerland and Italy. Never saw any restaurant in those 3 countries
which accepted that you bring your own wine - so much so that I had
trouvle understanding the concept when I encountered it in the US. The
only exception is stuff like wedding parties: You can arrange with the
place where the party is to to bring your own wine and then you pay
corkage.

Nathalie in Switzerland

"-L." wrote:

> You were wrong not to tip the waiter if his service was good. The
> manager did what he could to accomodate you. You're being a prat.
>
> That being said, the couple should not bring young children to that
> restaurant except on "family night", if they offer one

If they must allow young children into a nice restaurant, they could at
least put the people with screaming kids in the noisy part and leave
the quiet section for those who are there for a quiet meal.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

>
> Good! I can take my cats to dinner. At least they won't cry.

LOL We were in a seafood restaurant in Paris and discovered on our way out
that there was a dog seated at the next table. We never heard a peep out of
him. He was much better behaved that the two dogs in a tavern in Switzerland
who got into a fight underneath the table, followed by an argument between
their owners.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Was I wrong or did I miss something???
>
> "The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
> romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA. After
> waiting 20 minutes past our scheduled reservation, we
> were seated at a quiet booth that was available the
> entire time. Soon (8:15pm)a family of 4 with a tired 2
> year old crying to go home was seated behind us. After
> 10 minutes of non-stop crying, we spoke with a
> waitress about the disturbance caused by the child.
> The ownercame by our table and refused to speak to the
> family and told us we could be moved to a louder part
> of the restaurant if we didn't like the noise from the
> child. Since the romance for the evening was ruined,
> we decided to move. I was too upset to accept any
> compensation offered, but still shocked that on my $86
> tab they charged me a $10 corkage fee on my bottle of
> wine. The food and service is worthy of 5 stars, but
> owner is a horrible manager and will sacrifice your
> romantic evening at the expense of a crying child.
>
> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
> service.
>
> While I think I should have walked out, my wife was
> looking forward too much to her Duck breast with a
> Lobster Tail. By that point McDonalds was good enough
> for me.
>
> I am curious as too your comments.
>

I'm not one for putting up with this kind of treatment. As soon as the
owner made the rude comment I would have been outa there.

Helen

Nathalie Chiva > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:25:10 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>>That's not true at all, and you should know better. Bringing your own
>>wine and paying a corkage fee is accepted practice at many restaurants
>>all over the world.
>
> Well, then, "all other the world" definitely does not include France,
> Switzerland and Italy. Never saw any restaurant in those 3 countries
> which accepted that you bring your own wine - so much so that I had
> trouvle understanding the concept when I encountered it in the US. The
> only exception is stuff like wedding parties: You can arrange with the
> place where the party is to to bring your own wine and then you pay
> corkage.
>

It's very common in Australia, or at least in NSW - not sure about other
states. Restaurants with BYO have been around for quite a long time. A
BYO only restaurant does not need a liquor license in NSW, so there are
plenty of small restaurants which don't want to pay for a liquor license,
but still want patrons to be able to enjoy a bottle of wine with their
dinner (or think they'll get more customers that way!)There are also
plenty of restaurants which are licensed and still allow BYO. I eat out
rarely, but I understand from reading the food section in the papers that
corkage charges vary widely.

Rhonda Anderson
Cranebrook, NSW, Australia