Why Am I Waiting?

Patience is a virtue, of this there can be no doubt. And in these fast-paced times, patience is in short supply. I like to think that I do my part to push back against the prevailing attitude that faster is better. And so, I am generally loathe to complain about service issues involving timing. I realize that sometimes, even in a well-run restaurant, things go awry. And I am patient. To a fault. Really, I am.

But I have my limits. Tonight I found myself at a large, well-regarded, "upscale" West Hartford seafood restaurant around 6:20 PM. The place was about 1/2 full. I was seated instantly by the hostess at a table for 2 in a central location. Then I waited. And waited. 20 full minutes passed. No water, no bread, no eye contact from any of the myriad energetic young waitstaff. I could have tried to flag someone down, but the place was noisy, there were no vigilant personnel, and I didn't feel like chasing anyone. When the waitperson appeared she clearly had no recognition of the situation.

So I decided to post to hear what those on the board with restaurant experience have to say-- what likely happened? If there was a shift change, whose responsibility was continuity of service? Or is it a question of the hostess not managing the seating pattern effectively? I'm interested in understanding this.

Josephine wrote:So I decided to post to hear what those on the board with restaurant experience have to say-- what likely happened? If there was a shift change, whose responsibility was continuity of service? Or is it a question of the hostess not managing the seating pattern effectively? I'm interested in understanding this.

This would be good to know, in order to know who to scream at.

Josephine wrote: Then I waited. And waited. 20 full minutes passed. No water, no bread, no eye contact from any of the myriad energetic young waitstaff.

FWIW, I'd never wait more than about 4 or 5 min. for some sort of contact. If no one is there in 4 or 5 min. it's doubtful that all of a sudden 19 min after you sat down they are going to rush to help you.... Yes, they are wrong but for you to sit there for 20 min.
is kind of your own fault. Sorry if that sound harsh but come on, 20 min? Why wait that long for anyone but a dear friend?

There are a lot of reasons, it could be, but when the hostess seated you at the table for two, did she remove the extra place setting or just leave you there looking like you were waiting for a date?

One of the manifestations of what I call "lone female dining syndrome" is the belief on the part of restaurant personnel that a woman alone at a table must be waiting for somebody. This can happen whether or not the extra silverware is removed, but it's more likely to happen if it's left there.

mhill95149 wrote:FWIW, I'd never wait more than about 4 or 5 min. for some sort of contact. If no one is there in 4 or 5 min. it's doubtful that all of a sudden 19 min after you sat down they are going to rush to help you.... Yes, they are wrong but for you to sit there for 20 min.
is kind of your own fault. Sorry if that sound harsh but come on, 20 min? Why wait that long for anyone but a dear friend?

My dear friends know I would wait for them as long as necessary. Patient to a fault? Yes, I think I made that clear. Here's the point: while waiting I observed. As I observed, I became more and more interested in the very complex flow of a large restaurant. So I really am curious about how these things are done. (That Rocco DiSpirito restaurant-opening show was fascinating to me.)

LAZ wrote: There are a lot of reasons, it could be, but when the hostess seated you at the table for two, did she remove the extra place setting or just leave you there looking like you were waiting for a date?

Extra silverware was removed. I frequently dine without another person and I enjoy my own company. I can't recall having this problem, though once in a while a waitperson will ask whether I am waiting for someone. Quite often, the service is doubly attentive.

So, I'm interested in how a restaurant manages the flow of diners--in a large place, how is a waitperson occupied out of the line of sight of the table to know that the hostess has just sat someone at a table in his or her section? And, after seating someone, doesn't the hostess have a role in assuring that service has been initiated?

Hi,

I have a friend who dines at the bar when alone. She says at the very least the bartender will converse with her. It never occured to me as an alternative to dining solo in the dining room.

When you dine alone, do you bring something to read or simply sit soaking in the atmosphere?

Regards,

Josephine wrote:So, I'm interested in how a restaurant manages the flow of diners--in a large place, how is a waitperson occupied out of the line of sight of the table to know that the hostess has just sat someone at a table in his or her section? And, after seating someone, doesn't the hostess have a role in assuring that service has been initiated?

I just had a similar situation in a restaurant in Door County. We were seated at a nice table and then nothing happened. Other tables around us were being attended to, but not us. This was a rather casual breakfast place, so eventually, The Chow Poodle got up and poured our own coffee. This elicited no response from the staff at the restaurant, but a minute or two later, our waiter finally came over to take our order. It turns out that he was assigned a bunch of tables in another section of the restaurant and ours was the only table in our area that was his responsibility. The service continued to suck during the entire meal simply because the waiter was swamped and we were situated out of his field of view, so we were more or less forgotten.

I don't know if this works for every restaurant, but when I hostessed, it was my job to distribute customers evenly among the wait staff: the tables were assigned to a particular waiter, and I'd seat customers in each waiter's section on a rotating basis (I think - this was 10 years ago, and I only did it for a couple months) In this scenario, it's possible that the hostess seated you and neglected to tell the waiter, although the waiter is supposed to be checking their assigned area anyway. Usually, whoever was "up" would hover near the door to see who was coming.

We've had long waits that have clearly been a communication breakdown somewhere, I must say, you were extremely patient for a restaurant that wasn't a struggling mom-and-pop operation (those, I favor with more patience, as they are more likely to be trying to do it right, as opposed to the possibility that you've got some bored student who could care less about anything but the tip)

stevez wrote:It turns out that he was assigned a bunch of tables in another section of the restaurant and ours was the only table in our area that was his responsibility.

This, of course, invites the question, "Does it not occur to management that assigning a waiter a bunch of tables in one section and one lone table in another section is a really bad idea?????"

riddlemay wrote:This, of course, invites the question, "Does it not occur to management that assigning a waiter a bunch of tables in one section and one lone table in another section is a really bad idea?????"

Evidently not.

stevez wrote:Evidently not.

Which is why it is an award-winner in the "What Are They THINKING?" sweepstakes, deserving the full force of our fury.

When I was a server at a downscale restaurant, we were assigned sections. Every table was assigned to someone. When diners sat at your table it was your job to notice that a new table sat down and attend to them. Occasionally, if you were swamped another server who was not busy would help you out. Ultimately, it was server's responsibility to make sure that every diner was happy and that diners were properly attended.

It may be that you were sat at table with no clear designation as to the responsible server. By that I mean that the servers around you thought you were some other server's responsibility (and must have no interest in teamwork).

Several times I have had this issue and flagged down a server only to be told that I am not in their "section." This usually elicits a visit with the manager because I don't think this is a proper response. I don't care about sections, diners should never be ignored. I will say that an equal number of times I have had servers come over to me, take a drink order and explain that there is a shift change or that my server is swamped and will be there in a minute (this is what I call team work).

Sometimes when we have a large party sit at my work (or one that takes up two tables) the two tables will be in different server's sections. Therefore we will swap out one of our other tables so that everyone still has an equal amount of tables. EX-- Joe has tables 33, 34, 35, Bob has tables 36, 37, 38. Party of 8 sits at tables 35 and 36. Bob takes over table 34 after the previous diners get up so that he doesn't get screwed over by having one less table than Joe.

ANYWAYS-- it sounds like maybe someone else was assigned to the table you were sitting at, and didn't pay attention to it or "forgot" that it was theirs. I've seen it happen on more than one occasion.

I would have flagged down the host.

Cinny's Mom wrote:When I was a server at a downscale restaurant, we were assigned sections. Every table was assigned to someone. When diners sat at your table it was your job to notice that a new table sat down and attend to them.

As a customer, this is always the way I have figured the system works everywhere. It seems so simple! But I guess some restaurants have brilliantly figured out a way to make something simple into something so complicated that their own servers and hosts can't understand it.

It may be that you were sat at table with no clear designation as to the responsible server.

That is probably what occured (and it is what I've assumed has occured on those occasions when my table has somehow "fallen through the cracks"), but I can't understand the reasoning behind a restaurant system that can result in no clear designation as to the responsible server. What is the upside for a restaurant in setting up such a snafu-waiting-to-happen? I guess I am asking Josephine's question in different words, since I believe her question is a good one.

Cathy2 wrote:When you dine alone, do you bring something to read or simply sit soaking in the atmosphere?

I bring a recent Wall Street Journal. I have a strict "one section" rule. If I complete the 1st section of the paper and I have not been served, I fold the newspaper and walk out. No emotion.

It has happened three or four times in the past five years.

Cathy2 wrote:I have a friend who dines at the bar when alone. She says at the very least the bartender will converse with her. It never occured to me as an alternative to dining solo in the dining room.

When you dine alone, do you bring something to read or simply sit soaking in the atmosphere?

It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to, like not wearing white shoes after Labor Day.

When I dine alone, I usually read. But I'm one of those compulsive readers who'll be reading the fine print on the sugar packets if I get caught out without a book (that rarely happens nowadays since my "book" is often in electronic form on my PDA).

LAZ wrote:But I'm one of those compulsive readers who'll be reading the fine print on the sugar packets if I get caught out without a book

So that isn't just me who does that? I never go anywhere without a book in my purse/bag, though I have resorted to reading sugar packets and the like if I get to the end of whatever book I have with me. I also fold origami flowers out of bits of paper to pass the time, but I do that dining alone or with friends (one of my impossible to break fidget habits).

LAZ wrote:It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to, like not wearing white shoes after Labor Day.

Hi,

I have to admit that is my reaction, too.

I have been at a bar where a lone male did have his dinner there. I'm still not sure I would be comfortable doing so. I am going to try it anyway sometime to see what the experience is like. I am no rush to do so.

Regards,

I have done this extremely successfully at a sushi bar, which I recognize is somewhat different than sitting at a bar...

LAZ wrote:It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to, like not wearing white shoes after Labor Day.

Perhaps we've evolved as a society, but I would never see sitting alone, eating at a bar, as an unwritten invitation for unwanted advances. In fact, I think there's an unwritten rule now that if you are eating alone, it is preferred that you eat at the bar, rather than at a table, at a semi-busy to busy restaurant. I have to travel for business on occasion but frequently enough to understand that most restaurants would much prefer a single diner to take a seat at the bar, rather than a table. I personally prefer it - there is someone to talk to, there are usually other lone business travelers, it just doesn't seem so formal of an experience as sitting down at a table is, and frankly, the service is better. Also, there are usually TVs at the bar, a business traveler's friend. To me, tables are set up for intimate conversation, and it doesn't feel right to sit at a table when you're eating alone.

LAZ wrote:It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to,

Quite honestly, most of the women that I have seen over the years sitting unaccompanied at a bar were working girls generating some business.

What I think this thread proves is that there's more than one kind of bar in this world.

jlawrence01 wrote:

LAZ wrote:It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to,

Quite honestly, most of the women that I have seen over the years sitting unaccompanied at a bar were working girls generating some business.

This rather strange comment which diverges 180 degrees from my own experience begs the question: how did you know?

jlawrence01 wrote:Quite honestly, most of the women that I have seen over the years sitting unaccompanied at a bar were working girls generating some business.

I suppose, at some places, that's true. But most of those places only offer a jar of pickled eggs to eat.

Because we're talking about eating at bars that will also serve you full meals, attached to restaurants, I think we don't need to assume that women there are working girls generating business in the year 2008.

aschie30 wrote:Because we're talking about eating at bars that will also serve you full meals, attached to restaurants, I think we don't need to assume that women there are working girls generating business in the year 2008.

Or hotel restaurants, or any casino resort in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, near any convention center ...

By the way, you see it more in 2008 than you would in past generations ...

jlawrence01 wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Because we're talking about eating at bars that will also serve you full meals, attached to restaurants, I think we don't need to assume that women there are working girls generating business in the year 2008.

Or hotel restaurants, or any casino resort in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, near any convention center ...

By the way, you see it more in 2008 than you would in past generations ...

Uh, okay . . . I'll just have to take your word for that.

Quite honestly, most of the women that I have seen over the years sitting unaccompanied at a bar were working girls generating some business.

....Quite honestly, that's a very offensive and judgmental statement.

By the way, you see it more in 2008 than you would in past generations ...

...And upon what are you basing this outlandish statement?

jlawrence01 wrote:

LAZ wrote:It would never occur to me to sit alone at the bar. Not that I'd need to worry about it these days, but when I was young, it was commonly considered that a woman seated alone at a bar was game for pickups. Perhaps that's changed, but it's one of those ingrained tenets I'm still subject to,

Quite honestly, most of the women that I have seen over the years sitting unaccompanied at a bar were working girls generating some business.

And now from left field: in Moscow in the 1980's, this was very true.

Regards,

But, but-- dining at a bar, alone or in pairs, has become much more of an alternative now. In many restaurants, it's highly accepted for walk-ins. I do it all the time when I'm alone. I even drink solo at bars while traveling, rather than sit in my hotel room. People's conclusions about that are their problem, not mine. Actually, the few pick-up attempts I've experienced were kind of funny and the guys took no for an answer.

A 20-minute wait-- agreed, it's probably a failure to get the word to a server. This has happened to me several times and each time a hostess or manager explained it was exactly that. (More often, I haven't waited for an explanation but have walked out, sometimes to a "WTF?" look from whoever is manning the door. Whatever-- I don't usually have a good experience after a start like that, so increasingly, I bail.)

bibi rose wrote:A 20-minute wait-- agreed, it's probably a failure to get the word to a server.

I think, while this is true, that we still haven't answered Josephine's question (which I share), which is, how does it happen that word fails to get to a server? Don't restaurants have systems to ensure that servers know where their tables are? Or is it just "reinventing-the-wheel land" in restaurant world every night?

(Recognizing that things work correctly most of the time...but still trying to get to the bottom of why they don't when they don't.)