Roger Ebert has written that only in movies does someone go to a bar and just order a "beer" without being more specific. He calls it the movies' "Generic Drinker Syndrome." Well, I overheard this today at brunch in Yaffa Cafe:
Customer: "I need something to drink. Alcohol."
Waiter: "Mimosa? Beer?"
Customer: "Anything."
I posted this to my Facebook wall:
Waiter/bartender at Zucco Le French Diner asked us to move from our table (where we had been sitting for a while) to the bar to have dinner, because there were only 2 of us and "there's a party of 5 here; I could lose them if I don't seat them at your table." Well, you just lost 2 customers for good.Response #1:
He should have asked nicely and offered you free drinks/desserts. It can be fun to sit at the bar. _____ and I often choose to when tables are available, but it's bad to be treated brusquely.I say:
He was definitely brusque. When we said no, we wanted to stay at the table, he didn't seem to accept this.Response #2:
Unfortunately a restaurant like that probably has enough demand they can afford to be jerks to the occasional small party. Or they are really pushing that rude-French shtick.My response:
Yeah, he probably figures his restaurant is so small, and there are so many potential customers, that he can afford to be rude whenever it will directly serve the bottom line. I don't agree with that calculus, but I understand it.To be more specific about why I said I disagree with the calculus: if they truly just wanted to maximize profits, the way to do it wouldn't be to rudely shift their already-seated customers around to try to seat as many people as possible at each table. They should try to create as much customer satisfaction and good will as possible, so more people want to go there — even if this means more people want to go there than can physically fit into their cramped Manhattan restaurant. Insofar as the demand exceeds the space, they should raise their prices just enough to tamp down demand while keeping the restaurant full.
If you're an egalitarian-minded customer, shouldn't you tip in inverse proportion to the attractiveness and charisma of the server?
A gorgeous and charming waiter is going to make above-average tips. Therefore, if you believe in redistribution of wealth as a general principle, you should give that person a low tip, and use the money you save to augment your tips for the plainer servers.
But I've never heard of anyone doing this. I also doubt if any liberals I know give larger tips to lower-wage servers to compensate for their lower wages. They have one fixed percentage, and that's what they always tip. So, if one restaurant has prices that are double the prices at another restaurant, the waiter at the pricier restaurant will make twice as much in tips. It's straightforward class stratification, freely abetted by individual customers.
I know a lot of people (including myself) who claim to be fans of redistribution of wealth, but we don't neutrally apply that principle in all contexts. We want equality, but not too much equality.
Since I'm still in the going-through-old-journal-entries phase of getting this blog started, here are a couple vignettes from old Moleskines:
1. In a cafe in Madison -- Mom’s side of phone conversation with Chris:
I’m at a cafe. But I don’t have any coffee. I have water. I ordered … water. In a bottle that they shipped here all the way from Italy. Do you think that was worth doing?
