Comment by pfannkuchen
2 years ago
I think depending on staffing levels a restaurant at certain times does not have the capacity to handle all of its tables and so some are considered inactive. If you sit at a table that is not active it would be treated as equivalent to not sitting at a table at all.
It seems like once the bouncer types got involved they thought the reason you were ignoring their system might be because you were crazy or high and they might have to kick you out. Once they determined you weren’t either of those they accommodated you.
Chain restaurants especially seem to be very process oriented and the staff would not be as good at improvising as those at a local place.
My thinking in these kinds of situations is "Seems like one more business that thinks they make too much money", with the obvious consequence of not coming back except under extreme duress (like, someone in the party really insists or they are the only place open.)
Is there no awareness in that industry - at any level - that some rules are an excellent way to lose business?
A local place has (well, had) an outstanding, unusual pizza. We were big fans and went often. Soon they started ignoring the ingredient ratio in their own recipe, then started ignoring the (paying) "extra X" options in the order. We started pointing out the problem, then pointing out the problem at the time of the order, then making sure the staff knew what it was we wanted when we ordered... then obviously gave up. Some places just aren't cut out for staying in business.
>they thought the reason you were ignoring their system might be because you were crazy or high and they might have to kick you out
Yeah, that's exactly the kind of dining experience I want when I go out. /s
To be clear here, you were the one who broke the norms of the restaurant. If you had waited to be seated 99% chance of them treating you like you expect to be. As someone who worked in restaurants for years, you would not believe what front of house staff has to deal with from the general public. I find no fault with how they responded.
The parent does mention there was nobody at the front to greet customers. Then nobody who considered fixing the situation.
Do you feel the problem (sorry, "norm") contributed to improve or lower the bottom line of that business? Do you feel this improved or hurt the likelyhood these customers will come back? Do you feel they were the only ones to have run into this problem?