Among the many jobs I had in my wayward youth was bartender at a college bar. I was paid minimum wage and was damn glad to have the job. It meant I could eat the next day, and I really liked eating as opposed to, well, not eating. But college students were not known for being particularly generous with tips, all their money going to pitchers of cheap beer and the occasional mixed drink if they were buying a beverage to impress someone. So I tried my best to be accommodating to get the occasional tip. After all, it was called “hospitality” for a reason.
What I understood was that the bar didn’t exist so I had a place to make food money, but to make money for its owner who took the risk of opening it, at his expense and hoped it would produce enough revenue to survive. The way that happened was that the joint was sufficiently hospitable that people would come, bring their money and spend it there. If not, then it wouldn’t survive. Harold would be out of business and I would be out of a job.
As I needed the job and was thankful to have it, I did what I could to make Harold’s business successful. It had nothing to do with my feelings toward Harold, who was an okay guy but not someone I would have chosen to hang out with, but my understanding of how the three legs of the stool kept it from toppling over. Customers came and paid. Harold earned enough to stay in business. I had a job and could eat the next day.
In response to an op-ed by Peter Hoffman, who had the Savoy and a couple other restaurants in New York City, letter writers demonstrated what happens when the concept of hospitality is forgotten.
I was a regular at those restaurants, and I was perfectly happy to pay the premium that cost, and to understand it as a kind of donation to the cause of an ethical and environmentally responsible food system. I also understood, as I added a little something to the tip, that I was extremely fortunate to be able to afford this behavior, and that most Americans couldn’t.
It’s no wonder that some people view eating at restaurants as a charity, a social movement, or both, and how wonderful that they can afford to do so. If that’s how they choose to spend their money, so be it. But charity isn’t a viable business model. Whether “most Americans” can afford to “pay a premium” is one question. Whether they want to is another.
Would it be fair to suggest that most people who dine at a restaurant do so to eat food? If the cost/benefit assessment aligns, they go out to eat at a restaurant. If not, they go elsewhere or stay home. And if they go elsewhere or stay home, then the restaurant fails and the workers have no job.
Ah, the workers. They aren’t slaves, and they have a choice of whether to work at the restaurant. And if the conditions are unpleasant, the demands too great, the environment too hostile, the pay too paltry, they can choose to work elsewhere. This isn’t to suggest that workers should be abused, sexually assaulted or underpaid, and that’s the sort of bad management that will doom a business since no restaurant can function without staff. If the staff hate the joint and quit, the owner is screwed, so it’s in the owner’s best interest to treat his staff decently and fairly.
But what about those workers?
Mr. Hoffman discussed how customers seem to have forgotten their manners. He’s no doubt correct about that, and I was happy to read last month about the “day of kindness” approach one owner implemented for her employees following customer abuse.
That’s more like it, because the change I’ve seen in the past 50 years is that restaurant managers no longer stick up for the floor workers the way they used to. We didn’t tolerate customer abuse back then and very often exercised the “We reserve the right to refuse service” statement that was posted on the front door.
Customers can be monsters, but the only way to change their behavior is to stop tolerating it. Just throw the bums out!
No doubt there are customers who are “monsters,” and there is conduct that crosses a line of tolerance. A patron who touches a server does so. So too does a customer who calls a server a racist epithet. The question of where that line is drawn is up to the staff and owner, and since it’s the owner’s business, he gets to make the call any way he sees fit.
But are customers now worse than they once were, they ever were? Customers are us, our families and our friends. Maybe we are monsters.* Maybe the servers aren’t very good at the job, or the food wasn’t up to snuff, or the customer has a legitimate issue. Just as you can’t run a restaurant without staff, a restaurant can’t survive without customers. Restaurants don’t give patrons food because they’re nice patrons, but because they pay the check at the end of the meal.
Last week, he said, a group of diners took out their frustrations on his employees after having to wait 40 minutes for a table and even longer because of a computer problem. They asked for the food to be boxed up after it had been brought to the table and then dumped the contents of the entire to-go bag in front of the restaurant when they left, he said.
“That’s just about the worst behavior I’ve ever seen,” he said.
That seems like bad behavior, not to mention a big waste of money, but it also seems as if there might be some issue on the restaurant’s side about taking its customers for granted, as if paying patrons are an entitlement and people are under some duty to patronize a business for the benefit of the owner and staff.
Between the breakdown of norms and the rise of narcissism, it’s unsurprising if true that customers’ manners may not be what they once were. But without customers, you have no business, and the job is hospitality, to make those customers want to come to your restaurant and spend their money. No restaurant can survive if it has no one to serve.
*For those whose head will go this direction, this is not about customers who refuse to wear masks in a restaurant that requires them. If you don’t like the rule, go to another restaurant or stay home.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What you did: “To Serve Man” was only the best TZ episode not featuring Shatner or Burgess Meredith:
“The recollections of one Michael Chambers, with appropriate flashbacks and soliloquy. Or, more simply stated, the evolution of man. The cycle of going from dust to dessert. The metamorphosis from being the ruler of a planet to an ingredient in someone’s soup. It’s tonight’s bill of fare from the Twilight Zone.”
Worry not. Everything will work out. Assholishness will be forgotten when humans are no longer consumers, but just consumed.
So computer chips implanted in sous chefs have replaced cocaine?
Or is it that phone apps actually physically seat folks now?
And here I thought locally sourced slow food was still a thing?
Pro Tip: Always pack a flask if the joint doesn’t have a bar and don’t forget hostesses prefer Bushmills…
“Treating customers with the utmost respect comes with a premium. On Wednesday 20% off and we won’t spit in your food ”
It might also be noted that the “The Soup Nazi” episode is something that only New Yorkers could come up with. Just saying.
In NY, we call it ambience. It adds a snobbish air of worthiness to which certain New Yorkers aspire.
According to my experience in the land where the Trumps and Cuomos of the world come from, I might get the gist of why some New Yorkers truly aspire to that. A fascinating place to visit anyway. I’ll be back (Austrian accent)
“Rake” is a great Australian show. I had learned a lot about the Australian election system by watching its fifth season.
I learned a lot about being a cad by watching it’s first four seasons.
I’ve been in a couple places recently where, in response to likely rudeness from customers and also low tips for a variety of reasons (some people have less money to throw around due to the pandemic, rudeness or bad service from servers, people are dissatisfied with slow service due to understaffing/high turnover, etc), management have decided to automatically add a 20% gratuity to the bill, after tax. Frequently with a message of “to support our food service/restaurant industry workers, we are…”. This is an ok amount for dining out, but I’d like to the option to leave less if the service is bad or particularly slow, and I realize that 20% after tax (especially when it comes to drinks, where many people use a $1 per drink rule) is not everybody’s rule. It’s a business, not a charity, and framing your mandatory tips this way, as if only a moral brute would bump the tip down a dollar for taking 20 minutes to bring the bill instead of seven or eight, is sure to alienate all but your most loyal patrons.
As a restaurant manager, I completely understand your reasons for your frustrations. A well-run restaurant operation, during this time where people are still being paid to stay home, can plan for the best and limit occupancy based on server-to-guest ratio. Every operation is different based on experience of staff and number of staff.
But is is hard to retain staff if they do not make money if they are receiving less tips but servicing more guests. Then the vicious cycle of new hires who become dissatisfied begins.
It is also difficult during this pandemic if a staff member or more exhibits symptoms of Covid (but eventually test negative) and you must do what is right and tell them to stay home. They lose income and the business loses income. But principles of integrity come with actual responsibility. Again, the server-to-guest ratio is effected.
Another note to mention is a strange phenomenon happened during the initial period of dining outside when many were being paid to stay home than to come to work. Much more frequently than in the past there were those who were more than willing to spend money on their dining experience but then would leave the server with a gratuity percentage of 5% down to nothing.
A retort could be be that we, during this time, offered an inferior product (service). However, during this period our OpenTable rating over 60 days was a 4.9 out of 5.
My restaurant does not inflict an automatic gratuity except for parties larger than ten. I run an excellent operation when I have a full(ish) staff. But I also understand the need to keep staff and, if necessary, implement an automatic gratuity. You can not coach staff for the sake of retaining them if they do not make money for the sake of their families.
Lastly, I respect Rengit’s contributions to the comments section of Simple Justice.
Since you’re the manager and not the owner, you may be missing one critical perspective: the point of a business is to turn a profit, and the way to turn a profit is to find a viable balance between the needs/desires of staff and customers. Do employees “deserve” to earn a living wage? Absolutely, but if you pay them more than you earn from your patrons, the business fails. And if the owner is making a decent profit but not paying the staff an adequate wage, it’s not the customers’ problem. They don’t owe you patronage.
A properly staffed restaurant will have people who will depend on their income for the sake of their family. It is a career for those people who work at such places who have a view of professionalism. This is a honorable perception of such work.
If you put out a quality product, hospitality and service, then you have more demand for that service. With limited seating, supply, you may limit those who wish to cause problems from returning so that you may focus on providing better service to those who return frequently and are much more appreciative. Focusing on placating frequent problem guests and disruptive guests may have an effect on other guests who may (or may not) wish to return.
In summary, toss the jerks out because if you do not they will cost you money. If you provide an inferior product (service) this may not apply.
This begs the question: Who are “the jerks”?