Separate checks, please

February 25, 2008 4:13 PM

Why do some restauants resist issuing separate checks for large groups? What are the motivations at play? Does it affect the tip? Is it an issue of complexity? Politics? I'd particularly appreciate perspective from people who have worked as waiters/waitresses, or who own a restaurant.

Also, does the practice of allowing 15 different credit cards for a single bill count as separate checks or does that practice go by another name? What other alternatives exist?

posted by Jeff Howard to food & drink (48 comments total)

Complexity - it's a pain in the ass for the server, and if they had to do it for every table, they'd have to hire more servers.
posted by chrisamiller at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2008

The story I've heard from, say, the IHOP that refuses to split checks after 10pm is that it's more likely one of the sub-checks will slip under the radar and not pay.

Some restaurants are also using old POS systems that cannot easily split a check, especially after the fact.

And the tip is almost certainly affected, as you now leave it up to several individuals, instead of the collective will (wherein one intelligent individual can push for the "normal" tip.)

(IANAW.)
posted by disillusioned at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2008

Because it takes longer -- most restaurant computer or billing systems are based on the idea that one table = one ticket. Having multiple tickets per table requires opening a billion tickets, entering basic information multiple times (the table number, the server number), complicates having all the food come up at the same time, it requires calculating tax over and over, and so on.

Running multiple credit cards avoids a lot of those problems, but is still a bit of hassle.
posted by salvia at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Running multiple credit cards also means that the restraunt is paying credit card transaction costs multiple times.
posted by Diz at 4:32 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Having multiple tickets per table requires opening a billion tickets, entering basic information multiple times (the table number, the server number), complicates having all the food come up at the same time, it requires calculating tax over and over, and so on.

Yep. I used to be a server, and when it was busy, having to open more than one ticket for a table almost invariably caused a small (and occasionally major) nightmare for the servers and in the kitchen (which means the chaos spills over onto other servers/tables). I once saw an entire dinner rush come to a screeching halt over a table that insisted on 8 checks, with the effects of the chaos lasting for the rest of the night (incorrect orders, furious customers, bad tips, bitter recriminations between servers and chefs, slow descent into alcoholism, etc.)
posted by scody at 4:38 PM on February 25, 2008

As others have noted, splitting a check is operationally difficult.

Separate cards is just a pain running each one, I'm past my waiting days but I never worked any place that prevented it.

for that matter I never really cared too much about mutliple cards unless I was in the weeds, but then I'd usually just ask a host or manager to run them for me.
posted by bitdamaged at 4:50 PM on February 25, 2008

nthing the complexity/time consumption. Even with the POS systems that make it easy to split a check, or use multiple credit cards, it takes you off the floor and away from your tables for longer than you want to be. At 9:30 on a busy night, you want to print, drop, settle, and close your checks as quickly as possible and turn those tables. Losing a few seconds can start a chain reaction; next thing you know you've been triple sat, you've got wine to open on another table, an order to take on yet another, and in what seems like minutes you're deep in the weeds. Not every time, but it is probably one of the prime causes.

(10 years or so fine dining front-of-house vet, I am.)
posted by vrakatar at 4:51 PM on February 25, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Diz: I used to be a server and in my experience, the credit card charges were a percentage of the balance. Therefore, running multiple cards for one bill or splitting the bill would not result in higher credit card fees.

However, I recognize that this may vary by hosting company or part of the country.

And I echo what others have said about it being an issue of complexity & time. I worked at a restaurant that had an ancient computer system and splitting checks was almost impossible for us to do. I needed to know ahead of time & also had to come up with some clever ways of entering table "20" four times or whatever, which always confused the kitchen.
posted by crunchtopmuffin at 4:52 PM on February 25, 2008

Why do some restaruants resist issuing separate checks for large groups?

Because it's a horrible fucking pain in the ass for little recompense.

Have you ever worked in a busy restaurant? Running 8 or 12 credit cards and ensuring that every single bill is correct can take upwards of twenty or so minutes, meaning you're neglecting all of your other (10 or so) tables, therefore pissing off the rest of your prime time and f'ing up your wages for the night.

On the rare occasion I find myself in a group that large with separate checks, I make sure I tip an extra 15%.
posted by Ufez Jones at 4:55 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Hi, my name's Metroid Baby and I'll be your obnoxious 12-top's disgruntled server tonight. Now, I only have my anecdotal diner-waitress experience to speak from, but the answer is because Y'ALL ARE PAINS IN THE ASS.

You take up three whole tables in my six-table section, and you take up so much dang time. It takes longer to write down your twelve orders and punch in all the additional sides and 86'd garnishes, it takes more time and physical effort (and often a runner or busser or two) to get all your food and water and soda and beer to you, it takes time for me to dart around refilling your waters and pre-bussing your eight hundred tiny appetizer-and-side plates, which is time taken away from my other tables. You spend two hours taking up half my section, when the average party of four takes up maybe forty-five minutes, thus decreasing my revenue for the day, and sometimes you stay well after my shift's over and I've finished my sidework and need to count out. And you spend about thirty minutes of those two hours passing the bill back and forth between all y'all and doing the who's-got-change-for-a-twenty dance. And if it takes you guys half an hour, well honey, what makes you think I can do it in less time and still keep all your change and credit cards straight? The kid in booth 46 is throwing Cheerios at me, I'm tired and my feet hurt, and I just want to go home and wash the Caesar dressing splotch out of my shirt, because I've gotta wear it tomorrow. Not to mention if I spend more than thirty seconds at the register there's a line forming behind me of other servers needing to punch in orders and close out checks.

Oh, and you guys always under-tip, even though it's our policy to add gratuity to parties of six or more. (Where I worked, the added gratuity was 15%. Smaller parties routinely tip about 20%. But believe me, were that 15% not in place, the larger parties would tip even less. It's just the way large parties are.)

So why can't we split the checks for you? Because we gotta actually wait tables. We spend enough time waiting on you as it is without doing your personal finances too.

None of this is meant personally, Jeff. I'm just remembering the years of trauma of waiting on obnoxious large parties... even when they're kind and polite, they're still much more difficult than parties of 2-4. If you do take a large party to a restaurant, be as mindful of the waitstaff and other patrons as possible, and it wouldn't hurt to tip generously.

And even though y'all are all pains in the ass, we really do genuinely mean it when we say thanks and come again.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:56 PM on February 25, 2008 [9 favorites has favorites]

Most people don't understand that the job of a server is one of routines, patterns and flow. A server organizes his/her job by the "standard" flow of a table -- drink order, food order, appetizer, entree, dessert, coffee, check -- across multiple tables (e.g. greet Table A, deliver Table B's food, come back to Table A and take a drink order, check on Table B, return with drinks for Table A, greet Table C, etc, etc).

Anything that interrupts this flow has a cascading effect on every other table. If Table A wants three different checks, it means the server is a little late delivering drink refills to Table B, and little later still in greeting Table C. Now Table C is pissed at the server, which means the server has to work a little extra harder in making things right for them, which results in an opportunity cost to be nice to Table B.

The five minutes it takes to figure out the calculus in dividing a check three ways (who had what? who's paying for the appetizer that they all shared?), potentially throws a wrench into the experience of every other table. Tables that are unhappy tip less and more importantly, forgo lingering in the restaurant, where they might have ordered more drinks or dessert. This is bad for both the server and the restaurant management.

It's not just splitting checks. ANY special order or request has the potential to do this. Better restaurants can manage this. Some cannot, and know they cannot, so they react by placing restrictions on guests ("OK, we can split checks for a party of four, but for any party over eight people ... screw 'em. One check. And we'll add a tip automatically, too.")
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:56 PM on February 25, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

One place I go regularly has some new-fangled fancy computer system where they always enter the orders by seat within each ticket. Then they easily can print out the bill(s) split any way you please, even at the last minute when you request the check, or instantly change the split at any time, etc.
posted by winston at 5:06 PM on February 25, 2008

It has to do with how the computer systems work. (Although it's true even if they do things the old fashioned way on paper). It's hard to express just how much easier it is to swipe separate credit cards in than it is to do separate checks. The larger the group, the truer this is.

You have two possibilities with separate checks. One is you do it separate from the start. In that case, the kitchen has 15 different tickets to fire instead of one. All those different tickets have to fire at once, even though normally you'd use the fact that things are on the same ticket as the organizing principle for which dishes to fire together. Each ticket is an at-a-glance list of all the things the kitchen has to prepare for each table, which they use to plan how best to get everything to come out at the same time. It's a delicate, fast-paced process. Little things can trip it up. 15 different tickets for one table is more than a little thing.

The other option is that the waitress has to go back into the system and separate the checks after the fact. The more people, and the more stuff they ordered, the longer that will take. The computer systems I've used were not set up well for this, but even if they were, it would still be a much more tedious process than multiple cards.

Credit card machines, or the credit card function on the computer systems, though, are much simpler. You swipe the card, you type in how much.
posted by lampoil at 5:15 PM on February 25, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Oh, and I forgot the best separate-check nightmare of all: the table of 4 who wanted 2 separate checks (one for each couple), but ALSO wanted to use a 2-for-1 coupon (which I believe had expired) between the two checks -- i.e., the eligible first entree on Check A would make for the free eligible entree on Check B. Nothing we could say could dissuade them from this plan. After all, the customer is always right!

It created such a mess for so many tables that a customer at another table walked over and said, "oh for god's sake, I'll pay for your damn chicken breast if it means the rest of us can just get our food."

In the end, the separate check people stiffed me on the tip, and I quit at the end of my shift.
posted by scody at 5:17 PM on February 25, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

None of this is meant personally, Jeff.

I should mention that I'm not criticizing restaurants for not spliting checks. I'm just trying to get their side of the story since I've never been there myself. I would have thought four tables of two were equivalent to one table of eight, but clearly that's not the case.
posted by Jeff Howard at 5:19 PM on February 25, 2008

I would have thought four tables of two were equivalent to one table of eight, but clearly that's not the case.

It'd be closer if the table of eight really, honestly, wouldn't mind getting their food, drink, and everything else two-by-two.
posted by lampoil at 5:44 PM on February 25, 2008

I'm out with a group of 6-10 people fairly often, and we typically end up writing our names and the amount we want charged to each card on the back of the bill. Then we stack the cards in order to match our list of names & amounts, and give that to the server. We've got several ex-servers in our group of friends, and we're doing our best to make it easy on the server, given that nobody seems to carry cash anymore. Is this annoying of us? Could we be doing something better? (If the server offers to create separate checks when they take our order, we usually ask them to do whatever's easiest for them.)
posted by vytae at 5:49 PM on February 25, 2008

The restaurant critic for the SF Chronicle sort of addressed this recently on his blog. The issue was more multiple credit cards for a single bill, and not separate checks as such. The consensus in the comments - both waiters and waitees spoke up - seemed to be that 2 cards is fine, more than 4 is a pain in the ass, even if it's an equal split of the check, and not different amounts on each card.
posted by rtha at 5:58 PM on February 25, 2008

Strangely, every restaurant in my little town (Lawrence, KS) seems to have no problem whatsoever splitting tickets, even on humongous (dozen+) groups. Everywhere else I've lived you'd get the stinkeye (or worse) if you tried to split even two ways, but here splitting seems to be de rigueur.

Never been able to figure out why.
posted by jacobian at 5:59 PM on February 25, 2008

I've been seeing that lately as well, Jacobian. There are a lot of restaurants that are splitting checks for us automatically without even asking first if we want that. So my assumption was that, at least for some establishments, they must have a system worked out to make it not as much of a hassle as it used to be.
posted by litlnemo at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2008

Credit card processing companies usually charge a fixed amount per transaction plus a percentage of the total, so multiple credit cards are more expensive than one credit card in fees as well as employees' time.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:11 PM on February 25, 2008

Because servers do things lazily to begin with (ringing everything in under one seat/check) and don't want to go back later to fix it. That's pretty much it.

Having waited tables before, I can tell you that a little attention to detail at the beginning can save almost all of this "it takes too much time" later. If every server were to operate as if all seats would be separate checks, the time difference would be negligible.

I've had tables of 25+ with the most bizarre check splits, but it took very little extra time to make it happen because I had planned on it from the beginning. I have no sympathy for the "it takes too long" servers... you saved yourself 10 seconds at the beginning of the night at the expense of my convenience. Bad move.
posted by toomuchpete at 6:21 PM on February 25, 2008

Thanks toomuchpete...that is my biggest pet peeve....Just ask us how we want the checks done at the beginning of the meal.
posted by mmascolino at 6:29 PM on February 25, 2008

Because servers do things lazily to begin with (ringing everything in under one seat/check) and don't want to go back later to fix it. That's pretty much it.

And you forget that not all restaurants have new fangled computer systems that can do this so this is not always the case. Also, it can still be a pain in the ass even though you take the precautionary steps to avoid the separate check nightmare at the end. If you have a 20 top who all want separate checks, and then they each hand you a 20 dollar bill...it's going to take a long time to go change out those 20's for smaller bills and then figure out the change for every check. Even if it were 20 credit cards, some computer systems can take up to a minute for just one credit card to process...and some computer systems will only let you do one transaction at a time.

I'm out with a group of 6-10 people fairly often, and we typically end up writing our names and the amount we want charged to each card on the back of the bill. Then we stack the cards in order to match our list of names & amounts, and give that to the server. We've got several ex-servers in our group of friends, and we're doing our best to make it easy on the server, given that nobody seems to carry cash anymore. Is this annoying of us? Could we be doing something better? (If the server offers to create separate checks when they take our order, we usually ask them to do whatever's easiest for them.)

Perfectly acceptable.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:39 PM on February 25, 2008

I forgot to add, so yeah, that's not pretty much it, according to you.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:40 PM on February 25, 2008

We've got several ex-servers in our group of friends, and we're doing our best to make it easy on the server, given that nobody seems to carry cash anymore. Is this annoying of us? Could we be doing something better?

That's a good practice. Where it gets aggravating is where a table at the end is all, "Oh yea, BY THE WAY." That and when people argue about what they owed- especially with appetizers. I've seen it time and time again where nobody will claim a food item.

And I have to disagree with toomuchpete. Trying to run 25 CCs through the terminal? Ouch, there goes any attention I'd want to pay to my other tables. And even with large tables, I found they expected to be treated like a 4-top and if they didn't get their CC back in 5 minutes, they'd freak out.

However, my main gripe with individual tickets and a certain percentage would group their cash together and it would always end up short. I'm not sure why or how it happened, but it was inevitable.

In the end, the separate check people stiffed me on the tip, and I quit at the end of my shift.
Heh. Serving requires a thick skin very much a "live and let die" mentality.
posted by jmd82 at 6:42 PM on February 25, 2008

This is one thing I noticed when I travelled through Texas last year. Almost every restaurant asked us if we wanted separate checks (there were three of us) prior to taking our order. It was a small detail, but it was incredibly thoughtful and it is something I wish more restaurants would do.
posted by purephase at 6:46 PM on February 25, 2008

If you want to lessen the load on the server when you ask for separate checks, bring cash and bring cash broken up into smaller bills so you don't require any change. And if you do, tell them how much you want back. For instance, if your bill is $38.23 and you hand them three $20 bills, and you plan on tipping $8, just tell them you want $13 back. That takes a lot less time than having to break up the change into small bills and bring back the exact difference.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:51 PM on February 25, 2008

Purephase, separate checks for small groups is fairly quick and easy to do, even with the most archaic of systems. It's large groups that is the issue.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 6:52 PM on February 25, 2008

There's some jargon here that I don't understand:

"treated like a 4-top" or "obnoxious 12-top"
I get that this is number of people; I just don't understand the "top" part...

"POS systems"
Point of sale, or piece of sh#t?

And a couple things that just interest me:

"print, drop, settle, and close"
Is this the industry-standard terminology for the flow?

"in the weeds"
Does this have an industry-specific meaning, or does it mean the same thing it means in a Sorkin drama?
posted by Jeff Howard at 7:13 PM on February 25, 2008

I get that this is number of people; I just don't understand the "top" part...

You know, I don't even know where that comes from...it's really of no consequence. 4-top just means a table of 4. And if someone says 4-top table, it means a table that can seat 4.

Point of sale, or piece of sh#t?

It's a point of sale until the computer decides to start being slow, or crash. Which always happen in the middle of the rush...then it becomes a piece of shit.

"print, drop, settle, and close"
Is this the industry-standard terminology for the flow?

Print the check
Drop the check (at the table)
Settle means the table pays you
Close means you close out the check, which you can do after the table is already gone. It's just a matter of punching the information into the computer, like the tip amount. It just gets the table off your screen.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 7:24 PM on February 25, 2008

Oh and in the weeds doesn't just mean that you're busy, it means that you're busier than you can handle.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 7:25 PM on February 25, 2008

Wow - pretty much nobody in Australia will split a check (ahem - the bill), even if there are only a few of you. They have signs that say as much. I'm amazed that it's still allowed in the US.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:51 PM on February 25, 2008

"4-top" or "12-top" doesn't mean how many people, exactly; it means how many places to set on the tabletop. Reservation for 11 = 11-top = 11 customers.

Just ask us how we want the checks done at the beginning of the meal.

Oh God, that's tacky. The better the restaurant, the less obtrusive the payment details. This is for you to say to the server, not for the server to suggest to you.

servers do things lazily to begin with (ringing everything in under one seat/check)

That's really not necessarily lazy. As someone pointed out upthread, the check isn't just your bill. With POS systems, as soon as the first order is placed, the server opens up what is essentially a database for your table. In it the server enters everything you've ordered from drinks to soups to appetizers to entrees to desserts. The prices of these are in the system, as (often) are adjustment commands like "1/2 order," "no butter," etc. This is all entered via touchscreen keypad that is customized to the restaurant.

The items entered are then transmitted to the kitchen printer and printed out on the line. The expediter in the kitchen reads the ticket and then makes a set of standard assumptions. For instance, if the ticket has a soup, 3 apps, and 4 entrees, the expediter is going to send the soup out first (or assume the server is taking care of it), allow about 10 minutes for it to be eaten, then prepare and send the apps, and after another interval, heat and serve the entrees. That's what's called "firing," -- you "fire" when it's time to get the entrees ready and get them to the table hot. When the 3 apps are all on the same ticket, the expediter/chef knows they're going to the same table.

When you split the 3 apps and soup and 4 entrees onto 4 separate tickets, the chef no longer is necessarily aware that they are all the same table and all need to be timed together. So you might have weirdnesses like soup + apps going out together, one entree fired before the other 3, etc. These timing errors are anathema to the server, screwing up your whole order of service.

So when someone wants to split checks and you begin the order by entering them separately, you need to allow more time to go into the kitchen and inform the line that "Tables 2, 3, and 4 are really one table and need to be timed together," which you can imagine might cause you to meet with some irritation on a busy night. The expediter has enough to remember without remembering that three tickets, normally separate tables, are supposed to be bundled. You've also given them three flimsy light small slips of paper rather than a single long substantial one organized by course with comprehensive info about the table. So you may also take some abuse from the kitchen, who like things orderly-like. This kitchen negotiation comes out of the valuable time you need to stay current with all your tables.

I was a waitress before POS existed and after POS. Before POS, it was a wicked pain to split checks because you usually did the math by hand, then went to the table and were told "Oh, we want to split!," and then had to go RE-figure it by hand, tax and all. The early POSes were not very good about splitting and were highly prone to error, so we avoided it like the plague. It went from pain in the ass to high-tech pain in the ass.

The current generation of POSs make splitting far easier; you can look at the entire 'database' of what a table ordered and move it by touchpad from one check to the next. But it is still a deviation from a tightly timed system, which always requires a little more attention to manage and carries a little more risk of a screwup, either in the kitchen, in the computer, or by the server. Since every screwup costs bigtime, servers are still generally wary of splitting despite the fact that it is now a bit easier.

I've noticed that in cities where there is a lot of business travel, particularly in the chain/tourist restaurants of those big cities, they are a lot more amenable to splitting because everyone's pretty much on an expense account and needs their own receipt.

I think some general protocol for people who want a smooth dining experience:
1. If you're going out in a big group, stop for cash beforehand.
2. If you can't get cash, and your group is small enough (3 or 4 couples, max), try to agree that you can all split the dinner evenly even if Krista had wine and Sheila just drank club soda and Bob had dessert and Andy skipped the salad. Doing a lot of added accounting for a check difference of $5 is kind of nuts.
3. If you can't get cash and your group doesn't want to split evenly, tell your server before you order anything that you'll be wanting separate checks, and how many, and who will be on what check.
4. Order your stuff, and when you get your check, look it over to make sure it's the right one. Put your credit card with your check instead of piling them all together; the server will try to keep them that way.
posted by Miko at 8:01 PM on February 25, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Just ask us how we want the checks done at the beginning of the meal.

@Miko:Oh God, that's tacky. The better the restaurant, the less obtrusive the payment details. This is for you to say to the server, not for the server to suggest to you.

Sure discretion can be had at places with much more formal of level of service but I think the wait staff should be the ones seeking out this information whether before the meal starts or afterwards. If splitting headaches are common I would think that that the waitstaff would want to make sure that steps were taken to avoid the pain in the first place.
posted by mmascolino at 8:50 PM on February 25, 2008

(spent a couple college years as a cocktail/bar waitress)

Does it affect the tip?

Have to disagree with someone above who implied that it positively affects the tip. In my experience, if you have, say, a table of 10 that splits a $500 tab evenly, it's likely that each individual will add to their $50 bill the standard 20% tip of $10, leaving the server with a total of $100. Without splitting, the same large party is more likely to leave a sub-20% gratuity - psychologically, $70 or $80 seems like a "big enough" tip. That's partly why large parties often get the autogratuity add-on.

Because servers do things lazily to begin with (ringing everything in under one seat/check) and don't want to go back later to fix it.

That's a pretty cynical assumption. Even with reasonably modern POS systems, trying to charge by seat is an extremely flawed process and a major pain in the ass. Besides the timing factor, the major issue is that so many items during a meal are shared.

With your average large party it's pretty common to have a scenario like this: Everyone shares 2 appetizers; two individuals share a third appetizer. 5 people share bottles of sparkling water; the others prefer plain tap water. The whole table splits 4 bottles of wine - except for the woman who doesn't drink, the kids (who can't drink), and the man who drank 3 gin and tonics instead of wine. Two unrelated children split an adult entree. One couple orders a dessert, but everyone at the table takes a few bites.

Really, a server would spend the whole evening asking to whom each ordered item should be charged.
posted by lalex at 8:56 PM on February 25, 2008

As a server, it takes foreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever to split checks. Even if its just four people. You have to go in, remember who ordered what, decide where the appitizer goes, who ordered the third martini and whether or not you should split the bottle of wine between all of the checks.

And then you have to wait for a computer, sort it all out in there, and then find four check cases (of which there are never enough) and get them back to the table in a reasonable time. Then sometimes you have to correct it. Then you need four pens.

Seriously. Its a pain in the ass.
posted by thebrokenmuse at 9:11 PM on February 25, 2008

Couple reasons: it's difficult if the computer isn't set up to do it, large parties tend to stiff servers on tips, and each credit transaction costs a fee + a percentage.
posted by TomMelee at 9:34 PM on February 25, 2008

I am lucky because at steak n shake, you ring everything in by seat. So at the end, if a table wants the check split, I just print out the checks seat by seat. However, if there happens to be a table of 20, I automatically give them all separate checks, unless they specify that they are all together. Either way I usually get pretty decent tips, unless that 20-top are from a local high school.
Thankfully check splitting isn't a total hardship for me.
posted by d13t_p3ps1 at 7:35 AM on February 26, 2008

Heh. Going to a table in even a one star straunt here in the city and asking about method of payment at the beginning of service could be grounds for termination. And even when you order by seat, which you most often do so the runners or another server can serve without "auctioning off" food, even with the best, most state-of-the-art POS systems, it still takes a server longer to process those checks. Someone above mentioned timing and flow, and the seperate check thing is easily in the top 5 of flow distruptors on the floor. Not impossible. But a pain in the ass. The best way to handle this, I think, is for one person to pay the check. Everyone else at the table, pay that person. Later, preferably. When they are no longer camped at a table the manager has been asking be turned for a half hour already and people are three deep at the bar waiting to be sat.
posted by vrakatar at 6:14 PM on February 26, 2008

"As a server, it takes foreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever to split checks. Even if its just four people."

My waiting/bussing work was 10-12 years ago. Every place I worked had the ability to easily split a table's check by seat (as long as they were entered that way). On the off chance that there exists any large number of restaurants that don't have 10+ year old technology, then that ought to be made clear so that arrangements can be made ahead of time.

I understand when servers can't split one item onto 2+ seats. I understand when a server needs to confirm, at the end of the night (or when ordered), who's getting what appetizer/bottle of wine. But to say that you have to go back and "figure out" what everyone ordered is just silly. You were standing at the table listening to them order. Make a note of it then instead of trying to figure it out 90 minutes later when they're ready to leave, in the hopes that they'll just engage in the awkward "well, I'll give you cash, sally can just pay me back later, etc" discussion. Simply put: it's rude. You're trying to save yourself time at my expense. (and not even very much time)

That said: the more difficult your system is to work out the separate checks, the more sure a server should make at the beginning that one check would be okay.

It's not complicated (or hard) and, frankly, any server who can't handle it probably needs to find different work.
posted by toomuchpete at 2:25 PM on February 28, 2008

On the off chance that there exists any large number of restaurants that don't have 10+ year old technology,

It's not an off chance. Chain restaurants are the most likely to have up-to-date technology; economy of scale coupled with maximum profit potential from fast table turns. Bistros, owner-operated places, unique one-off restaurants, and mom-and-pops rarely have the best-designed, lastest, or easiest-to-use POS systems.

At least in an upscale-to-fine-dining environment, starting off the meal, as a server, by asking about the check would cost you more than it would gain you.

Most restaurant systems still assume one payer per party. I'm sure that will gradually change as social norms change, but splitting is still the exception to the general rule and flow of service.

If it isn't at least a bit of a disruption to a server's work flow, that server could probably be carrying more tables.
posted by Miko at 3:02 PM on February 28, 2008

I would think that that the waitstaff would want to make sure that steps were taken to avoid the pain in the first place.

Sure the waitstaff would want this. The thing with upscale/fine dining restaurants, though, is that it's not about what the waitstaff wants. It's about setting an atmosphere and performing to the guest's expectations for his or her party, which usually do not include a financial negotation before the first cocktail or bread basket hits the table. That principle of guest expectation, and its implied inconvenience to the server, underlies most restaurant protocal and tradition.
posted by Miko at 10:44 PM on February 28, 2008

Indeed if it too gauche for the waitstaff to ask up front, then they should be making steps to ensure that they can provide the bill or bills as desired at the end of the meal without too much hassle. Otherwise it is an inconvenience to guest.
posted by mmascolino at 7:24 AM on February 29, 2008

Of course, but the waitstaff is not the person in a position to decide how the kitchen works nor to set up the computer system. Those things are not only functions of management and important points of inventory control for loss prevention, but are also deeply influenced by longstanding cultural traditions of restaurant operations that go back more than 100 years.

The chief difficulty, in my mind, is the kitchen/timing one, and in most (non-chain*) restaurants it is no easier to change the behavior of kitchen staff on a systemic level than it is to change the behavior of surgeons in an operating room. It can happen, but only slowly and with intent, and entrenched behaviors, systems, and assumptions developed over long experience in a profession hold sway.

There is time lost in arranging separate checks at the end of a meal, which is a secondary concern. If all is going smoothly, it can managed, but time spent on this is time costing others. The more time servers spend on 'housekeeping' or customizing the check presentation or any other non-service function, the fewer small attentions, extra cares, and amenities will be available for other guests. This is one of the things that can contribute to guest frustrations when your water glass or wine glass runs dry and no one is to be found; when you have dropped your fork and need another; when you just remembered that you're allergic to walnuts and need to ask the server to have them left off the salad; when you'd like another bowl of olive oil for dipping... it shouldn't be hard to see that a server's time is generally the most limited resource, and that spending time on functions more distantly related to your dining experience comes out of time available for careful attention to your table's meal.

This gets to a much larger question that I think about a lot. The consumer culture we have developed that the 'customer is always right' does clash, at times, with restaurant protocol. Going to dinner at a restaurant is a nothing less than a cultural ritual, and there are as many expectations around it as people bring to a church service. And everyone is sure that their expectations should be the ones which are met. The old-school, lordly host entertaining his business client or old college friend does not want you to even mention money; he doesn't want the check to even come to the table - he's picking up the whole tab, no arguments, and he slips you the credit card as he sits down to completely obviate the need. Meanwhile, the casual couple dining with friends wants to prevent arguments over who's taking advantage of who, and wants checks separate so that Joe can have his $10 bourbon and enjoy it without worrying that he's spending Bob's money. Both of these sorts of customers expect to be treated a certain way with regard to the check, and they want it to be taken care of without fuss.

So which protocol is to rule? Personally, I'm a traditionalist. A restaurant experience - especially at the $20-entree-and-up level - is a very particular and scripted experience. Much thought and systems development has gone into the crafting of the operational model, which works smoothly, gracefully, and beautifully when people use it as designed. When customers try to take on the experience design themselves, there is a disruption to this operational model and it requires accommodation by the server, who must do it anyway if possible because of the need to please the customer. But it is not standard, and it does change the flow of the usual experience. A great restaurant experience minimizes paperwork, logistics, fuss, and bother; everything happens smoothly and right on time, and negotiations about anything at all, be it vinaigrette or coat-hanging or check presentation, are graceful and unobtrusive. Our culture has become a lot more casual, and consumers also feel a lot more empowered by the fact that they're spending money, so much of this grace and smoothness is being lost. Some restaurants, surely, shrug their shoulders and adapt. But I still believe there are ways to behave, as a diner, that contribute to and improve the overall 'performance' you are taking part in. Knowing and using standard protocol just creates a better experience all round, for the restaurant and for the diners, in a feedback loop that benefits both.

*Chain restaurants are a different animal entirely, run by organizational-psychology/management principles designed to make them highly replicatable and to work with any personnel whatsoever regardless of talent or experience. Most operations are prescribed and many restaurant conventions are not observed.
posted by Miko at 9:17 AM on February 29, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

Oh, awesome. I found a very interesting blog entry that indicates some of the historical underpinnings that lie beneath the classic restaurant check protocol of "a single host pays."
posted by Miko at 9:38 AM on February 29, 2008

i'm pretty sure everyone else's answers pretty much covered it, but i'll just throw this out there: i'm a waitress, and with smallish groups (say, up to 6 people) i don't have a problem splitting things up since at that point, i can still remember what each person had. bigger than that, and I will probably have trouble sorting out who had what to drink, and it's pretty inelegant to ask each customer, pen in hand. i completely agree with assuming the check will be paid as a whole, unless otherwise directed by the customer. and for the most part, i really don't mind splitting checks as long as the customer asks kindly and is patient.
oh! i just remembered something. once the bill has been separated, running several different credit cards is much simpler than making change for a bunch of people paying with cash. i used to work at a lunch place where the average meal cost about $10, and of course most people had a $20 they wanted to pay with. making sure each person got a five and five ones ("i need the ones so i can tip you!" they chirped) was a bigass time-sucker.
posted by pieliza at 6:36 PM on March 1, 2008

Great posts Miko. I guess we can all agree that there is a lack of consistency between places that causes confusion. This coupled with different diners goals (your mention of the "Host" and the "Couples" is very accurate). Personally I hate explicitly asking for separate checks because it feels like I am putting the waitstaff out, but if they ask me then I don't feel bad in saying yes.
posted by mmascolino at 11:17 AM on March 6, 2008