The Jazz Kitchen Bill Cluster Fornication

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

As a former waiter, I'm going to guess that the restaurant's policy not to add a gratuity on is because the park is an international tourist destination and folks from other countries have different views on the matter.

Except that all of the other restaurants in DTD DO add gratuity for large parties.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

My personal rule is to take the bottom line total and add 20%. 20% is easier to figure than 25% (IMO - 10% is easiest and just double that) and it keeps things safe. Again, I know not everyone agrees with this, but it is my policy.

Wait wait wait.

That's a 22% tip.

When we're talking #s like $730-$800, a few percent is pretty important.

It's clear that not enough money was left. But based on that, $120 I think is somewhat exaggerated. I just looked more closely at your math above. You did 20% of the nearly $800 AFTER TAX amount, coming up with $160 - the $40 in change.

Well, the before tax amount would have been $730. That would mean a tip of between $109-$146 (15-20% of $730). Figuring that everyone's fudge factors are a little different, $125 would be a reasonable tip assumption. Take away the $40 that was there, and it's $85 of shortage.

That's a fair bit different than $120 and is approaching a range that looks more like collective and bad estimation than incompetence and/or thievery.

Again, it's still egregiously under paid, but it's far from as bad as your decision to leave a more-generous-than-societally-agreed-upon tip makes it seem. I'm not saying that a 22% tip is unreasonable, especially considering the lengths they went to to accomodate us, I'm just saying that it's unlikely that most people had 22% in mind when doing their math.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I'm going to guess that the restaurant's policy not to add a gratuity on is because the park is an international tourist destination and folks from other countries have different views on the matter.

Good enough assumption, but this just happens to be a restaurant with cool policies. For their first year of operation, there were no children allowed. Certainly this had nothing to do with the Disney International Tourist Destination. It was just awesomeness for its own sake.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I wasn't there, and if you're offended by my attitude, I'm sorry in advance.

I'm not offended by the concept. Many people swear by it. I will not abide.

Many people in our "group" are on, shall we say, a "fixed income." At my end of the table, Isaac ordered a side of mashed potatoes for dinner. Keith and Omar split their entree. I'm not even suggesting any of them did this for financial reasons, but there's no way I'll sit by and let any of my friends pay some kind of equal share for the meager amount of food they ordered.

Conversely, I don't expect anyone to share in my bar tab. And it would curtail what I order from the bar and the kitchen if I knew everyone would be splitting the tab equally.


On the occassion when I've been part of a group that happened to notice we've all ordered substantially similar amounts of food and drink, we've agreed to split the bill for convenience sake. But in most real-world situations I've found myself in, this would be grossly unfair.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm not offended by the concept. Many people swear by it. I will not abide.

But in most real-world situations I've found myself in, this would be grossly unfair.

Rather than curtail your excessive drinking, why don't you turn to the people that you see ordered mashed potatoes as their entree and slip them some cash? That way, two friends have figured out a way to correct the imbalance of wealth without creating a headache for the group?

I would argue that trying to do it in an "honest, pay for what you eat" method creates situations like this more often than not. In other circumstances, a pot luck dinner for example, the "only take the equivalent of what you bring" attitude would be considered tasteless. So why is it OK here?

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, I would slip Isaac some cash for his mashed potatoes, but please forgive me for indelicately saying I've already slipped Isaac enough cash for approximately 368,493 Jazz Kitchen full course dinners (and, contrary to popular opinion, not in return for what he's slipped me.)



Everyone's got different experiences. Kevy might also argue the 'pay for your own meal' system has bad results more often than not. My fairly extensive group restaurant experience has this happening 1 time in 50.


I know we're all being a bit pithy here (certainly I am), but I hardly think figuring out what you've paid for, adding tax and a better than average tip for being part of a large group causes a "headache." Order aspirin with your meal if it hurts your head to figure out what you owe, and order the mashed potatoes if you can't pay for what you'd like to order.

[Strangler Lewis]

Because the amounts and the atmosphere differ. At a potluck, each person or familiy's contribution will reasonably fall between about $5 to $20. People mill about, and nobody pays too much attention to what anyone else eats or drinks (unless they get drunk). At a restaurant, every time the server comes by to take an order, a little cash register can go off in everybody's head. Drinks, more drinks, appetizers, entrees, dessert. It adds up.

MP, I would also bet that when you go out for dinner with friends, there's a lot of signaling going on about who's having what, splitting appetizers, dessert/no dessert, etc., so that at the end of the day, splitting the bill seems within the realm of reasonableness.

[mousepod]

I hear ya, iSm. I never doubt my own ability to figure out how much I owe, particularly because I never drink and rarely leave early. However, as much as I have my own issues about money, I really don't want to get into conversations about other people's money, which tends to happen when the 'pay for your own meal' process falls apart.

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

MP, I would also bet that when you go out for dinner with friends, there's a lot of signaling going on about who's having what, splitting appetizers, dessert/no dessert, etc., so that at the end of the day, splitting the bill seems within the realm of reasonableness.

No, actually. I often go out with groups of friends and there's no overt 'signaling' going on. The conversation about cost tends to take place beforehand, in our choice of restaurants.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I wasn't there, and if you're offended by my attitude, I'm sorry in advance...

After reading close to 100 posts about this dinner, it strikes me that this is precisely why I loathe these kinds of situations.

When I'm out with friends, I find that there's nothing easier than getting one bill, adding the tip, and dividing it by the number of people in attendance. Sure, there might be one person who only ate the bean dip appetizer and another who had 10 mixed drinks, but over time with a group of friends these things tend to balance out. If someone's short on cash, there's generally someone else who will cover for them, and if someone needs to leave before the check arrives, they will leave what their estimated cut is and then will owe or be reimbursed shortly. No headaches, no hassle.

If I'm in a situation where I need to watch my budget now, evening out later won't matter and I'm not comfortable with someone else slipping me some money to cover, so I'd just as well not attend the meal. If I am in a group and we all order similarly priced items then sure. But in a group where some people had a side and some people had a $30 entree + a $15 dessert + drinks there is no way I'd be remotely comfortable splitting that bill evenly. Especially right now where I am watching my dollars. Yes, I can go out, but I budget accordingly for myself, not for what the group orders.