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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:26:20 GMT, Jeanne Ketterer wrote:

> 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

Split the check evenly.... appetizers, dessert and wine included. One
person puts it on their card and collects cash from the others ON THE
SPOT. How hard is that? The alternative is to entertain at home.

In article >,
sfpipeline_at_gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:26:20 GMT, Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
(snip)
> > 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
>
> Split the check evenly.... appetizers, dessert and wine included. One
> person puts it on their card and collects cash from the others ON THE
> SPOT. How hard is that? The alternative is to entertain at home.

?? 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.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 8/3/05 New York-Vermont tab (a
couple pictures added to the 7/29 note on 8/5)

In article >, "Jeanne
Ketterer" > wrote:

> 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

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. :-/
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 8/3/05 New York-Vermont tab (a
couple pictures added to the 7/29 note on 8/5)

One time on Usenet, "Jeanne Ketterer" > said:

Note: please turn off the HTML -- Usenet is mostly a text-only
format, thanks.

<snip>

> 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? =

Taking each check plus the accompanying payment is time consuming for
the restaurant, and time is money in any business. The real issue here
not individual checks; it's the person who wants to simply split the
check into equal amounts. My friends and I don't play that game...

--
Jani in WA (S'mee)
~ mom, VidGamer, novice cook, dieter ~

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:26:20 GMT, Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> Split the check evenly.... appetizers, dessert and wine included. One
> person puts it on their card and collects cash from the others ON THE
> SPOT. How hard is that? The alternative is to entertain at home.

That makes me crazy. I have gotten stuck eating with people who divide
the check evenly when I had water and a salad and they had a drink,
entree and dessert. That is a method for ripping off your friends and
getting them to buy half your lunch.

Why is it so difficult for people to do basic math and add up what they
purchased, their share of tax and tip?

marcella

Jeanne Ketterer 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. 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.
>
(major snippage)
> Jeanne

I've never encountered a problem like this. I used to go out to lunch with
as many as 10 co-workers at a time. In fact, we often found another couple
of co-workers at the same place and said, "Hey, join us!" The restaurants
never had a problem issuing separate checks. I'm with you on this one.
Some people order drinks (I drink water, others ordered tea or soda); some
people order appetizers (shared or not). Some people order desserts. Why
pay for something you didn't partake of? But I don't find it's ever been a
problem asking for separate checks.

As a former server, it's a bit of a PITA, because you need all the food to
come out at once. But if you're a GOOD server, you know to tell the line
this is all for table X (we used to staple the tickets together). So the
food comes out together. It's not rocket science. And then you collect the
tabs; some pay cash, others pay by credit. The server has to keep up, but
again, if you're a GOOD server it's not a problem.

Jill

Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
> 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?


Really quite simple, how much trouble is it to remember your own tab...
simply hand the group's loud egotistical ******* (and there is always
one) who insists on being in charge of paying, your portion plus tip
and then just sit there and not say another word like the naive fool
they think you are.

Easy, eh?

There's no reason you should have to pay for others extravagances.

Sheldon

jmcquown wrote:
> Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
>> Splitting a check among 8 or more, IMO and experience, leaves one or
>> two paying for way more than their own selection.
>> Jeanne
>
> As a former server, it's a bit of a PITA, because you need all the
> food to come out at once. But if you're a GOOD server, you know to
> tell the line this is all for table X (we used to staple the tickets
> together). So the food comes out together. It's not rocket science.
> And then you collect the tabs; some pay cash, others pay by credit.
> The server has to keep up, but again, if you're a GOOD server it's
> not a problem.
>
If the Expo (expeditor, or in the case of Gordon Ramsay the head chef LOL)
is any good he will inform the cooks on the line these meals are all for a
specific table. That way the food comes out together. The server doesn't
walk the food to the table until everything is set. Separate checks should
be no difference in quality of service.

Jill

sf wrote:

> >
> > So, why no split checks? Computer registers track every little detail, why so much trouble?
> >
> > Jeanne
>
> Split the check evenly.... appetizers, dessert and wine included. One
> person puts it on their card and collects cash from the others ON THE
> SPOT. How hard is that? The alternative is to entertain at home.

That leaves the billing service to one or more of the customers. Some will suggest that everyone throw in the same amount to add up to enough for the bill plus a tip. It seems that men are more likely to just split a bill than women. Maybe they have the right idea. The problem is that some people will have more expensive meals than others and end up paying more than their share. Then there is the drink bill, and some people drink a lot more than others. I used to go out for a lot of meals with my co-workers, and there were a few who were cheap buggers who would order more than the rest and
it was tough even to get an even share of the bill out them, never mind that their personal bill would be the highest.

Sheldon wrote:

>
> Really quite simple, how much trouble is it to remember your own tab...
> simply hand the group's loud egotistical ******* (and there is always
> one) who insists on being in charge of paying, your portion plus tip
> and then just sit there and not say another word like the naive fool
> they think you are.
>

Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like there is someone willing to take on the responsibility to collect the money, not necessarily an egotistical *******, there is likely to be someone who is a cheap ******* who will conveniently forget that he had an expensive appetizer, or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate. It also leaves the collector to sort out the change.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like >there is someone
willing to take on the responsibility to >collect the money, not necessarily
an egotistical *******, >there is likely to be someone who is a cheap
******* who >will conveniently forget that he had an expensive >appetizer,
or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate.


Simple solution to that problem:

"Uh, excuse me, you had the more expensive menu item(s), so you need to put
in some more dough...".

And then you make a point never to dine with them again.

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like >there is someone
> willing to take on the responsibility to >collect the money, not necessarily
> an egotistical *******, >there is likely to be someone who is a cheap
> ******* who >will conveniently forget that he had an expensive >appetizer,
> or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate.
>
> Simple solution to that problem:
>
> "Uh, excuse me, you had the more expensive menu item(s), so you need to put
> in some more dough...".

I'd be more inclined to say "Pay up you cheap *******", but it's not my job to
extract payment from a customer just because he is sitting at my table. That is
the job of a paid employee of the restaurant.

> And then you make a point never to dine with them again.

There a number of people who are on my list of people not to dine with again.
Right at the top of the list is a former co-worker who had a habit of announcing
that he had no money when the check came. To make matters worse, he would put
the meal of his expense account, get the money and still not pay as promised.
Next on the list is a former neighbour and his wife who had 5 glasses of Gran
Marnier in an expensive restaurant where we were splitting the bill. Their
after dinner drinks were a lot more than their dinners.

On Mon 15 Aug 2005 06:52:48p, jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Jeanne Ketterer 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. 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.
>>
> (major snippage)
>> Jeanne
>
> I've never encountered a problem like this. I used to go out to lunch
> with as many as 10 co-workers at a time. In fact, we often found
> another couple of co-workers at the same place and said, "Hey, join us!"
> The restaurants never had a problem issuing separate checks. I'm with
> you on this one. Some people order drinks (I drink water, others ordered
> tea or soda); some people order appetizers (shared or not). Some people
> order desserts. Why pay for something you didn't partake of? But I
> don't find it's ever been a problem asking for separate checks.
>
> As a former server, it's a bit of a PITA, because you need all the food
> to come out at once. But if you're a GOOD server, you know to tell the
> line this is all for table X (we used to staple the tickets together).
> So the food comes out together. It's not rocket science. And then you
> collect the tabs; some pay cash, others pay by credit. The server has
> to keep up, but again, if you're a GOOD server it's not a problem.
>
> Jill

Some restaurants will not write separate checks. Lunch groups from work
I've been with have never been a problem with dividing the check according
to what people ordered.

A more current problem exists today when some want to pay cash, some want
to pay by debit and/or credit cards. This is an impossible situation for
the usual splitting of a check.

--
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): 0533-0, 08/15/2005
Tested on: 8/15/2005 8:27:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Melba's Jammin'" > 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 -- it's 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. :-/
> --
> -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 8/3/05 New York-Vermont tab (a
> couple pictures added to the 7/29 note on 8/5)

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

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.

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.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:50:11 -0700, Marcella Peek wrote:


>
> That makes me crazy. I have gotten stuck eating with people who divide
> the check evenly when I had water and a salad and they had a drink,
> entree and dessert. That is a method for ripping off your friends and
> getting them to buy half your lunch.
>
> Why is it so difficult for people to do basic math and add up what they
> purchased, their share of tax and tip?
>
> marcella

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.

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!

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:33:35 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So, why no split checks? Computer registers track every little detail, why so much trouble?
> > >
> > > Jeanne
> >
> > Split the check evenly.... appetizers, dessert and wine included. One
> > person puts it on their card and collects cash from the others ON THE
> > SPOT. How hard is that? The alternative is to entertain at home.
>
> That leaves the billing service to one or more of the customers.

Duh!

> Some will suggest that everyone throw in the same amount to add up
> to enough for the bill plus a tip.

I do.

> It seems that men are more likely to just split a bill than women.
> Maybe they have the right idea. The problem is that some people
> will have more expensive meals than others and end up paying more
> than their share. Then there is the drink bill, and some people drink
> a lot more than others. I used to go out for a lot of meals with my
> co-workers, and there were a few who were cheap buggers who
> would order more than the rest and it was tough even to get an even
> share of the bill out them, never mind that their personal bill would
> be the highest.
>
I'm unclear about your situation.... saying that you couldn't get an
even share out of people who ordered more than others even though
their share was more doesn't sound right... If it's the truth, then
you'd be a fool to go out more than once with them. My own situation
has been someone who ordered significantly less than anyone else and
wanted a discount on the meal. NO WAY! That happened 20 year ago and
he's still a very good friend.

Getting back to reality: If money is an issue... ASK (or tell).
Otherwise, you went into the situation with your eyes open. If you
don't want to play the equality game, don't go. Act like a grown up
and don't whine about it after you accept.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:50:11 -0700, Marcella Peek wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That makes me crazy. I have gotten stuck eating with people who divide
>> the check evenly when I had water and a salad and they had a drink,
>> entree and dessert. That is a method for ripping off your friends and
>> getting them to buy half your lunch.
>>
>> Why is it so difficult for people to do basic math and add up what they
>> purchased, their share of tax and tip?
>>
>> marcella
>
> 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.
>
> 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!
>
>

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

Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
> "Melba's Jammin'" > 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. I do this after we've left the table, by the way; I go get change,
walk back and leave the tip, so don't anyone say she does it because she
knows I'll cover the rest. She has no clue. I'd feel bad too, though,
telling her I think she should tip more. It's tantamount to telling her
she's a cheapskate (she pays for her meal & drinks). Anyone else?

Jill

Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> >
> > Really quite simple, how much trouble is it to remember your own tab...
> > simply hand the group's loud egotistical ******* (and there is always
> > one) who insists on being in charge of paying, your portion plus tip
> > and then just sit there and not say another word like the naive fool
> > they think you are.
> >
>
> Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like there is someone willing to take on the responsibility to collect the money, not necessarily an egotistical *******, there is likely to be someone who is a cheap ******* who will conveniently forget that he had an expensive appetizer, or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate. It also leaves the collector to sort out the change.

Huh? The prerequisite for cheap ******* is EGOTISTICAL *******...
_conveniently forget_... HellllOOOO! How about self absorbed cheap
*******. Hows 'bout self centered selfish little prick/****... never
met a cheap ******* wasn't. And then of course there's the *pitiful
cheap ********, those who go through life with the perpetual crying
towel, so everyone should feel sorry for them and pay their way.. well
those are egotistcal *******s as well, they ain't poor, their
priorities are just different. Btw, cheap ******* is a manifestation
of a mental disorder.

Sheldon

jmcquown wrote:
> Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
> > "Melba's Jammin'" > 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. I do this after we've left the table, by the way; I go get change,
> walk back and leave the tip, so don't anyone say she does it because she
> knows I'll cover the rest. She has no clue. I'd feel bad too, though,
> telling her I think she should tip more. It's tantamount to telling her
> she's a cheapskate (she pays for her meal & drinks). Anyone else?

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

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.


Cindy Hamilton

Sheldon wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
>>> "Melba's Jammin'" > 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

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| 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.
|
|
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.

Debbie

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!

--
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): 0533-0, 08/15/2005
Tested on: 8/16/2005 6:08:26 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like >there is someone
> willing to take on the responsibility to collect the money, not necessarily
> an egotistical *******, there is likely to be someone who is a cheap
> ******* who will conveniently forget that he had an expensive appetizer,
> or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate.
>
>
> Simple solution to that problem:
>
> "Uh, excuse me, you had the more expensive menu item(s), so you need to put
> in some more dough...".
>
> And then you make a point never to dine with them again.

Excellent!

When someone *conveniently* forgets they are a self absorbed
(egotistical) *******... convenient forgetfulness is a conscious act,
in hopes others won't remember... these are scammers, pure and simple,
not anyone to maintain a relationship with, not unless you're a scammer
too, with an ego so huge you believe you can outscam them. Why any
decent person would want to asssociate with such dreck never ceases to
amaze, but they do, because they're not only stupid, they also have no
common sense. Yoose gotta be a pretty lonely loser to feel a need to
associate with dreck, and call them "friend" no less; "Meet my friend
Shithead" .

Anyone on this planet who can count more friends than they have fingers
on one hand IS by definition an egotistical *******.

Sheldon

sf wrote:

>
> I'm unclear about your situation.... saying that you couldn't get an
> even share out of people who ordered more than others even though
> their share was more doesn't sound right... If it's the truth, then
> you'd be a fool to go out more than once with them.

I would indeed be a fool to go out with again, but when it is work you don't always have the choice. I
used to go away on a lot of training courses for a week or two at a time and there would be groups of us
who would go out together. As a member of the group, it wasn't up to me to decide who could come
along. Then there is the issue of transportation. We were often traveling together too.


> My own situation
> has been someone who ordered significantly less than anyone else and
> wanted a discount on the meal. NO WAY! That happened 20 year ago and
> he's still a very good friend.

He ordered significantly less than others, but he was expected to an equal share of the bill. It sounds
like he was expected to pay for significantly more than he ate. You should go out drinking with my beer
guzzling brothers and split the tab with them. That will help you understand his point. The last time I
was in a bar with my brothers my oldest brother had at least two beers for everyone I had, and the
younger one had 4. I had a total of 2 beers, in the time one consumed 8 and the other had 4, round it
off to 15..... leaves me paying for 5 beers, more than double what I drank.

> Getting back to reality: If money is an issue... ASK (or tell).
> Otherwise, you went into the situation with your eyes open. If you
> don't want to play the equality game, don't go. Act like a grown up
> and don't whine about it after you accept.

Acting like a grown does not involve knuckling under to whatever makes you unable to stand up for
yourself. It can involve having the brains to figure out what you owe and paying your share. If I go
out for dinner and order the least expensive entree and have a glass of wine while my friend has the
most expensive appetizer, most expensive entree dessert and a bottle of wine, there is no way I am
splitting the bill evenly. I suppose I could be like some people who figure they are going to be
splitting the bill regardless so you might as well get the most expensive so that someone else will be
paying.

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.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Sure it's easy to remember your own tab, but just like >there is someone
> > willing to take on the responsibility to >collect the money, not necessarily
> > an egotistical *******, >there is likely to be someone who is a cheap
> > ******* who >will conveniently forget that he had an expensive >appetizer,
> > or underestimate the value of the dishes he ate.
> >
> > Simple solution to that problem:
> >
> > "Uh, excuse me, you had the more expensive menu item(s), so you need to put
> > in some more dough...".
>
> I'd be more inclined to say "Pay up you cheap *******", but it's not my job to
> extract payment from a customer just because he is sitting at my table. That is
> the job of a paid employee of the restaurant.

Actually everyone seated at the table is *equally* responsible for the
*entire* tab... you came in their company, you ate in their company,
you are ALL one customer... you can't *conveniently* disassociate
yourself when it's time to pay... next time sit at the counter.

> > And then you make a point never to dine with them again.
>
> There a number of people who are on my list of people not to dine with again.
> Right at the top of the list is a former co-worker who had a habit of announcing
> that he had no money when the check came. To make matters worse, he would put
> the meal of his expense account, get the money and still not pay as promised.
> Next on the list is a former neighbour and his wife who had 5 glasses of Gran
> Marnier in an expensive restaurant where we were splitting the bill. Their
> after dinner drinks were a lot more than their dinners.

And I bet you refer to these dreck as your *friends*... what do you
think that makes you. Low.

Sheldon

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. 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.

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 .

Sheldon wrote:

>
> > I'd be more inclined to say "Pay up you cheap *******", but it's not my job to
> > extract payment from a customer just because he is sitting at my table. That is
> > the job of a paid employee of the restaurant.
>
> Actually everyone seated at the table is *equally* responsible for the
> *entire* tab... you came in their company, you ate in their company,
> you are ALL one customer... you can't *conveniently* disassociate
> yourself when it's time to pay... next time sit at the counter.

Bullshit. By that twisted logic, everyone else in the restaurant is responsible for my
bill. Give our bill to the people at the next table.

I am a customer. They are customers. I order what I want. I pay for what I order. If
I am out in social situations I will pick up the bill or split it, but it is at my
discretion. When I am out with co-workers or part of a large group, I am still an
individual customer.

> > > And then you make a point never to dine with them again.
> >
> > There a number of people who are on my list of people not to dine with again.
> > Right at the top of the list is a former co-worker who had a habit of announcing
> > that he had no money when the check came. To make matters worse, he would put
> > the meal of his expense account, get the money and still not pay as promised.
> > Next on the list is a former neighbour and his wife who had 5 glasses of Gran
> > Marnier in an expensive restaurant where we were splitting the bill. Their
> > after dinner drinks were a lot more than their dinners.
>
> And I bet you refer to these dreck as your *friends*... what do you
> think that makes you. Low.

I trust that you noticed the words "former co-worker" and "former neighbors" and the
list of people not to dine with again.

Havn't you ever heard the story about Fr. Guido Sarducci, when he went
to the Holy Lands on vacation?

When he got there, he said "they hada lotta nice'a antique shops"!

So, he says as he's rummaging around looking at the items, he ran into a
couple of real treasures.

One, was the Menu for the "Last Supper", but the Father said "it was'a
nice, but they'a wanted a $2,000, so I could no afford", but I found'a
real gem, it was'a the "Check" for "The Last Breakfast", and the father
said, "I gotta real a good deal on'a this one, it was'a only $200".

"It was'a really neat, you could see on the check, a 12 orders of Eggs,
and'a Bacon, 12 Glasses of Orange Juice, 12 cup'sa coffee, and'a One
Soft Boiled Egg, and'a Cup of Tea."

'And it was'a really neat! You could'a see on the bottom a little bit
of Division, where they'a divided 13 into the Bill".

"But wait, this aint'a right, you mean the 12 Apostles had'a Eggs, a
Bacon, Orange'a Juice, Coffee, and'a all Jesus had was a Soft Boiled
Egg, and a Cup Of Tea?" And'a then they divided the check a 13 ways?"

Hmmm, The Apostles, they'a ripped a Jesus off!!!!

"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

I always thought it depended on what you told the waiter when you gave
the order.

If nothing is said, only one bill will be presented at the end of the
meal.

If you specify, "Separate Checks, please", that is the way the order
is taken and the checks made out.

As for which way to split the shared check, that is something that
should be clear when you go out with others and not come up for
discussion when it is time to pay and leave the restaurant.

Since I missed the beginning of this thread, the above has probably
been posted before by others.

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.
>>
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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.

Agreed, Dave. I love sf but I think she's beating a dead horse here. Equal
shares isn't necessarily fair. And dining out in a group doesn't
necessarily mean with "friends".

The OP was actually asking about why [some] restaurants won't do separate
checks. Unless it's a large party (say 15+) I don't see any reason for not
allowing separate checks. When I was a server, it was simple enough to keep
the tickets straight. First off, you start at the head of the table and go
clockwise around it, so the tickets are in order. Also, IIRC, the table
number and ticket number (1 of 12, 2 of 12) is noted on the ticket. The
helps not only the server but the kitchen staff when sending out the food.

I don't know about anyone else but when I'm in the mood I can drink a hell
of a lot of wine. Not that I did this when I was out with business
associates! But I sure wouldn't expect anyone, even a friend, to pay for my
wine if they only had a glass or two and I had 6 (call me a lush, I can take
it! LOL)

Jill

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:50:11 -0700, Marcella Peek wrote:
>
>
> >
> > That makes me crazy. I have gotten stuck eating with people who divide
> > the check evenly when I had water and a salad and they had a drink,
> > entree and dessert. That is a method for ripping off your friends and
> > getting them to buy half your lunch.
> >
> > Why is it so difficult for people to do basic math and add up what they
> > purchased, their share of tax and tip?
> >
> > marcella
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

marcella

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.

> 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. 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.

Sheldon

In the US a waitress/waiter pays taxes based on a percentage of total checks
they server. For example a $100 check they will pay taxes to the Feds that
figures they made $10. Most wait staff makes less than min. wage nation
wide. A hard way to make a living for anyone.

--

Joe Cilinceon

jmcquown wrote:

> Jeanne Ketterer wrote:
>
>>"Melba's Jammin'" > 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. I do this after we've left the table, by the way; I go get change,
> walk back and leave the tip, so don't anyone say she does it because she
> knows I'll cover the rest. She has no clue. I'd feel bad too, though,
> telling her I think she should tip more. It's tantamount to telling her
> she's a cheapskate (she pays for her meal & drinks). Anyone else?
>
> Jill
>
>
Our personal feeling on tipping is to reward good service and not the
quality of the food. The server has no control over food quality but
does have control over friendly and prompt service. We've been married
28 years. In that time we have actually confronted a server once for
not performing the duties he should have. At the end of the meal DH
calmly called him aside and told him he didn't deserve any tip because
of his shoddy service then told him he would make an exception this time
if the server promised to do better. DH is a nice guy. We never went
back to the restaurant but we did hear that particular server was fired
shortly after our visit. We are pretty easy going people though so a
lot of things just don't bother us especially when the food is good

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.
>
> 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.


Is it cheap to resent paying $22 for a $10 lunch
because a few of the members of the group treated
themselves to appetizers, wine, dessert, capucchino
and liqueur when the majority were happy with an entree
and iced tea?

gloria p
The Resentful