Another Restaurant Fight

[PSUDSL08]

After re-reading the initial post and some of the subsequent posts made here, I've realized that this whole issue is nothing more than an exercise in practicing common sense.

Rick attempts to justify his actions on the basis that (1) the food wasn't that good and (2) he wasn't really on a date, so it's ok to contest marginal bill increases. If I'm a single guy and I'm out to eat with a girl who I have no sexual interest in, the last thing I would want is for her to tell her friends about how I started an issue over $2.50 on a restaurant bill...regardless of how reasonable I thought I was in handling the situation. If he absolutely had to know why the fish sandwich was $2.50 more expensive, the situation should have come to an end when the server mentioned that a side order substitution was the likely reason. This would have put Rick on future notice of the following: (1) to check future menus for substitution costs and (2) that servers aren't going to volunteer this information. Rick allowed the server to go "see what she could do." Most people who aren't from the great depression era would have enough common sense to say "don't worry about it," learn from the situation, and move on. Even assuming Rick's interaction was as honest as he portrays it (Rick being completely respectful, the manager being completely accusatory), it should have never gotten to that point to begin with.

On the other hand, the manager was faced with two situations: (1) prove the point that the $2.50 charge was noted in the menu, make the extra $1 or so in profit, and potentially lose two customers or (2) take the $2.50 off the bill without making an appearance and instruct the wait staff to inform customers about substitution charges as a substitution is requested. To me, an extra buck or so in profits is not worth losing substantial future profits.

[jeffislouie]

Define 'ruckus'.  Because asking the waitress if there was a mistake isn't a ruckus.  The waitress escalated it to a manager, with whom Rick spoke.  This is also not a ruckus.
There was no hissyfit.  There was no ruckus.  Your 'hate' is self-created.  And deplorable.

Wow...so do you always think EVERYTHING EVERYONE says is 100% true and accurate?  There's 2 sides to every story, and you know only what "ricky" wrote about it.  It's very likely that how he remembers and reports the story isn't exactly accurate.

It's nice to see that assuming someone behaves reasonable is stupid and assuming people behave unreasonably is perfectly okay.
I don't think EVERYTHING people say is true and accurate, but I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.  Apparently, that sort of thing is looked down on around here.  Instead, what appears to be a majority of LSD regulars seem to believe that we should be highly suspicious of an LSD members story and automatically beleive something else to be true without any information from the other parties.
For the record, the restaurant's waitress and manager did not behave too far outside of the norm.  Having run restaurants for about a decade and trained more manager than I can count with my hands and feet, I can tell you that this sounds like a pissy waitress and an untalented, undertrained manager.  This sort of thing happens all the time, every day, across the country.  Waitresses either know or don't know the proper way to deal with a complaint like this.  This one clearly did not, as she indicated that she was going to see what she could do and clearly ran straight to a manager to tell him that she wasn't dealing with it.  The manager then behaved as many young, inexperienced and undertrained managers do - he argued, proved to the customer how right he was, then in the end did what the customer wanted anyway (which, by the way, appears to be the only thing he did correctly).
That said, the proper procedure (or best practice) in this situation is to apologize for the miscommunication (the waitress not pointing out the upcharge), show the customer that the menu does state the charge, tell the customer that you will take it off the bill this time, thank the customer for the business, then train the waitress to inform her customers when an upcharge is necessary for a substitution.  That way the customer is happy, the waitress gets training, and you've earned repeat business.
I've had people yell at me over a few missing peas in a recipe where there was no peas.  Instead of making the customer feel stupid, I apologized, explained that our recipe was likely different than what they thought they were ordering, and comped his meal.  He came back frequently and we never had a problem again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - as a former GM I WANT my customers to tell me if they feel any aspect of their meal was less than positive.  You cannot improve unless you hear what you do wrong.  Your customers are your best source for this.  While I have had people flip out over what appears to be no big deal, my staff, from busboy to me, were all very good at turning the situation around from a negative to a positive.  The way this was handled was wrong from start to finish.  Should Rick have read the menu more carefully to see if there was an upcharge?  Perhaps.  Am I willing to condemn him for it?  No.  The waitress could have prevented this situation by informing him when he ordered that there was an upcharge for substitutions.  When I was a waiter and someone ordered a well done steak, I would tell them that we can't guarantee that it will be good because well done, culinarily speaking, means overcooked.  If they wanted it well done, I'd still give it to them but try to warn them that it may be dry and take longer to cook.  That way, they couldn't complain that their meal took a long time to get to them or that it was dry.
Perhaps it's the optimist in me, but I prefer to hear someone's story and assume they are telling me the truth.  I'm sure Rick left small things out, but I can't believe that he would be the sort of person to lose it, yell about things, throw a fit, or be completely unreasonable.  And I wouldn't expect him to leave that part out if he had.
That's the thing about Rick - if you read enough of what he writes, you can get a sense about him.  Most of you haven't bothered to read anything he's written and have chosen to make snap judgments based on your own angry little perceptions.   Perhaps you feel that this is how attorney's behave, that they are judgmental pricks who decide the truth based on their perceptions instead of the facts presented.  Most professors find a way to politely remind these sort of people to consider only the facts, as presented, as being truthful and accurate and warn them not to interject their own beliefs, experience and values into the problem at hand.  Since so few of you have bothered to get to know anything about Rick, I find it a little disturbing that you feel that you are in a position to judge his behaviors based on what you think you know.
Keep on drinking the haterade.  It makes you all seem so smart and wise and in no way makes you appear stupid, shallow, or insipid.

[vjm]

Do you personally know Rick? Or do you just "feel that you are in a position to judge his behaviors based on what you think you know"?

It sounds like you two know each other IRL.

[ouffha]

I think ricklax has a stalker. Do you have a ricklax hair doll jeffislouie?

Jeffi=RickLax or his siamese twin.

[dsetterl]

I really think this whole thing is hilarious and has been blown waaaay out of proportion.

[LawyerToe]

 I agree with the above post. You people need to stop this bashing of a man success. You only look like you are jeolous of the man.

[jeffislouie]

I agree with the above post. You people need to stop this bashing of a man success. You only look like you are jeolous of the man.

Hi, RickLax.

 

[PSUDSL08]

Define 'ruckus'.  Because asking the waitress if there was a mistake isn't a ruckus.  The waitress escalated it to a manager, with whom Rick spoke.  This is also not a ruckus.
There was no hissyfit.  There was no ruckus.  Your 'hate' is self-created.  And deplorable.

Wow...so do you always think EVERYTHING EVERYONE says is 100% true and accurate?  There's 2 sides to every story, and you know only what "ricky" wrote about it.  It's very likely that how he remembers and reports the story isn't exactly accurate.

It's nice to see that assuming someone behaves reasonable is stupid and assuming people behave unreasonably is perfectly okay.
I don't think EVERYTHING people say is true and accurate, but I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt.  Apparently, that sort of thing is looked down on around here.  Instead, what appears to be a majority of LSD regulars seem to believe that we should be highly suspicious of an LSD members story and automatically beleive something else to be true without any information from the other parties.
For the record, the restaurant's waitress and manager did not behave too far outside of the norm.  Having run restaurants for about a decade and trained more manager than I can count with my hands and feet, I can tell you that this sounds like a pissy waitress and an untalented, undertrained manager.  This sort of thing happens all the time, every day, across the country.  Waitresses either know or don't know the proper way to deal with a complaint like this.  This one clearly did not, as she indicated that she was going to see what she could do and clearly ran straight to a manager to tell him that she wasn't dealing with it.  The manager then behaved as many young, inexperienced and undertrained managers do - he argued, proved to the customer how right he was, then in the end did what the customer wanted anyway (which, by the way, appears to be the only thing he did correctly).
That said, the proper procedure (or best practice) in this situation is to apologize for the miscommunication (the waitress not pointing out the upcharge), show the customer that the menu does state the charge, tell the customer that you will take it off the bill this time, thank the customer for the business, then train the waitress to inform her customers when an upcharge is necessary for a substitution.  That way the customer is happy, the waitress gets training, and you've earned repeat business.
I've had people yell at me over a few missing peas in a recipe where there was no peas.  Instead of making the customer feel stupid, I apologized, explained that our recipe was likely different than what they thought they were ordering, and comped his meal.  He came back frequently and we never had a problem again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - as a former GM I WANT my customers to tell me if they feel any aspect of their meal was less than positive.  You cannot improve unless you hear what you do wrong.  Your customers are your best source for this.  While I have had people flip out over what appears to be no big deal, my staff, from busboy to me, were all very good at turning the situation around from a negative to a positive.  The way this was handled was wrong from start to finish.  Should Rick have read the menu more carefully to see if there was an upcharge?  Perhaps.  Am I willing to condemn him for it?  No.  The waitress could have prevented this situation by informing him when he ordered that there was an upcharge for substitutions.  When I was a waiter and someone ordered a well done steak, I would tell them that we can't guarantee that it will be good because well done, culinarily speaking, means overcooked.  If they wanted it well done, I'd still give it to them but try to warn them that it may be dry and take longer to cook.  That way, they couldn't complain that their meal took a long time to get to them or that it was dry.
Perhaps it's the optimist in me, but I prefer to hear someone's story and assume they are telling me the truth.  I'm sure Rick left small things out, but I can't believe that he would be the sort of person to lose it, yell about things, throw a fit, or be completely unreasonable.  And I wouldn't expect him to leave that part out if he had.
That's the thing about Rick - if you read enough of what he writes, you can get a sense about him.  Most of you haven't bothered to read anything he's written and have chosen to make snap judgments based on your own angry little perceptions.   Perhaps you feel that this is how attorney's behave, that they are judgmental pricks who decide the truth based on their perceptions instead of the facts presented.  Most professors find a way to politely remind these sort of people to consider only the facts, as presented, as being truthful and accurate and warn them not to interject their own beliefs, experience and values into the problem at hand.  Since so few of you have bothered to get to know anything about Rick, I find it a little disturbing that you feel that you are in a position to judge his behaviors based on what you think you know.
Keep on drinking the haterade.  It makes you all seem so smart and wise and in no way makes you appear stupid, shallow, or insipid.

An important part of being a lawyer is issue spotting, the two main issues being (1) whether Rick handled himself appropriately in addressing the additional charge and (2) whether the restaurant, through its employees, handled the situation appropriately. You have argued issue #2 ad nauseum, and most rational people would agree that the manager did not handle himself properly, from a PR or business sense.

The issue that is of debate is whether or not Rick's handling of the situation was appropriate. The conclusions that people seem to be debating are: (1) whether Rick's description of the overall encounter was truly accurate (2) whether Rick should have even addressed the $2.50 charge to begin with (3) if it was appropriate to inquire about the $2.50 charge, at what point should Rick have cut off the encounter altogether. Some people have expressed that even if all the facts are accurate, $2.50 isn't worth even inquiring into. Given the context of the situation, I wouldn't even ask about the $2.50 if I was a single guy out to eat with a female friend for fear of looking like a cheap feminine hygiene product that no woman would want to date.

However, I tend to fall into the (3) camp...I think asking about the additional charge was appropriate, but I would have stopped the conversation once I became aware of the substitution as the reason for the charge. This would have been the point where the reasonable person would have paid the $2.50, and learned to cautious about substituting side orders without reading the menu in the future...thus eliminating the future awkward encounter and likely awkward silence between him and his friend while he waited for the waitress to return. But the minute he blurted out "I wouldn't have ordered the spud if I had known it would cost $2.50" and allowed the waitress to go "see what she could do"...it transformed the situation from one of information gathering to one where he was hellbent on having the $2.50 taken off the bill.

[jacy85]

Can we just stop the fighting. Ricklax is going to keep posting his stories and people are going to be free to think he is obnoxious; jeffislouie will always be a champion feminine hygiene product and master of all things mundane.  Let us not forget about his excellent restaurant  management/waiting/training skills, long-windedness, and his battle for respect and self-assurance.

fabulous.   

[pig floyd]

Nor am I familiar with you, your book or your blog, RickLax. I dislike you because you raised a ruckus in a public place over a substitution charge which was clearly itemized on the menu. You were willing to pay $15 for a goddamn fish sandwich, but pitched a hissyfit over an additional $2.50 which, with your substitution request, you were obligated to pay.

And then, when some absolute asshat antagonizes countless people on this board while coming to your dubious defense, you sidle up to him and thank him for defending your honor. Birds of a feather.

I like you.