Charged for an empty plate?!

[sandwichh]

I recently went to a greene king pub for a carvery. After plating up my dinner, I asked for a plate for my 10 month old, not to take any extra food but to take it off my plate to give to him. They wanted to charge me for it! Never had this issue before, AIBU?

@Reallyneedsaholiday its not unilateral though is it - there are equally as many people saying its fine - I worked at a pub (with a carvery) for over a decade and I wouldn't have given a shiny shit about this, it is totally normal behaviour - and yeah people often had big portions but I have never once seen any of the mental behaviour described on this thread - the matterhorn of roasts split between a family of four etc.

Equally these days we love a carvery, probably go once a month to various brands and not once has a fuss been made to my daughter sharing with me and DH and she is 3 now, even though we always get her an empty plate

So why should OP accept it when there are plenty of mixed views and last time I checked mumsnet posters are not the ~ International Carvery Police.

Would we be having this same debate if OP was describing ordering a fixed portion plate? Would it still be an issue for her to cut up some bits and pieces for her little girl - and either requesting or bringing along her own little plate then?

Again that would be fine.

As I said above

Its like the difference between ordering a pint of lager and sharing it, and refillable coke where you keep getting more.

With the lager its a fixed amount - say £5 per pint (yes showing my age) no matter who drinks which ever part of it, the cost to the business is fixed.

Refillable - say you normally drink a pint of coke £3 cost (and say cost to business 50p for the drink only not staff rent etc) - now you're sharing and you both drink 2 pints - which should have been £6, but you only pay £3, but the cost to the business is £1.

And also, if op normally eats 3 potatoes, and picks up 4 to feed child, that's extra food....

And also, if op normally eats 3 potatoes, and picks up 4 to feed child, that's extra food....

But OP didn’t say anywhere she got extra food or a larger portion….this is all just assumptions.

So how is it better for the restaurant's bottom line if Big Barry takes a huge plateful - whether he eats it all or wastes half of it - than if a mum takes a reasonable amount and an extra potato and a dozen peas?

I think it's very different if it's an adult rather than a baby. Even though the baby obviously won't be paying for their food themselves, it's normal to make allowances for babies; just like 5yo children pay a reduced fare on the bus, even though it's their parent paying anyway.

Another factor is that the adult who is invited to a high-priced AYCE meal, but who can barely eat anything, has the agency to decline and sit this one out. Babies just go wherever their parent takes them.

Because mum is setting the precedent that if you don't eat a lot, you don't have to pay for your food.
There was an option for her to have a baby bowl, and rather than paying a small sum for the food she was going to feed her child, she decided that she wanted the use of the crockery and the food for free.
Carvery is paid by the person, not the amount. If you don't like those terms, pay for a fixed amount dinner and feed child off that plate instead

'Whataboutery' arguments don't excuse people from paying from what they are consuming/using - it's really not that hard. If there is a baby rate, pay the baby rate. Or go somewhere else. Or eat at home.

Also sounds to me like Big Barry would finish his meal - the meal that he paid for.

You could argue that it IS a fixed portion meal - if it's a single-visit carvery: the fixed portion being as much food as anybody can possibly cram on to a plate; so if they price it accordingly, every single person who willingly has less than that is voluntarily overpaying!!

Also, it's obviously socially awkward - and likely seen as grabby - but I've never been to a carvery where they've stipulated that the food has to be eaten on the premises.

Taken simply, you could argue that the price you pay is for a full plateful, so if you only want to eat half of it there, you can quite legitimately take the other half home and heat it up tomorrow.

Yes, it's seen as very poor form if you do so; but some people with small appetites might see it as perfectly fair to pay the same price for the same amount as a large person with a very big appetite.

It's 'only' a social contact that dictates you don't take more than you can eat there (and yet many people still do just that, and waste loads).

I was purely responding to the argument about affordability for the restaurant of the quantity of food.

A potato costs them the same regardless of who eats it (or bins it).

I didn't make an argument about quantity of food. That's a reductive argument.

Reminds me of Alan Partridge’s scam he had going with a big plate.

Most buffets I've been to charge per person, cheaper for kids and babies free...this would be a lot easier surfly

Not to mention that she wanted an extra plate ie twice the washing up. Imagine asking if you could share a refillable drink, but wanted 2 glasses to put it in 😂

Very good response - I think some people don't understand that they need to pay for things they use/consume the dire state of the hospitality sector.

Maybe I'm thick, but I construed this (including the said-not-said crossed-out bit) to be referring to the costs incurred by the restaurant vs their income.

Or are you suggesting that costs to them of supplying their product have no bearing on viability in the sector?

If you're talking about perceived fairness of 'paying your way', then I get what you're driving at; but I don't see how that actually affects the bottom line of the restaurant in the same way that quantity of food supplied would.

True re the refillable glass; but even then, most places will differentiate between an adult/older child and a baby.

Many places will happily heat up baby food for free if customers have brought it with them; but they most certainly would not gladly enable fully-functioning customers (i.e. those who have come out of choice and/or will enjoy and benefit from the experience, as opposed to those who have been brought along by parents only because they can't leave them home alone) to actively use their facilities but without buying anything from them.

It's the plate that attracts the charge. O ce you've paid for a plate you can pile it with food - or not. But they don't give out free plates, because that's not how they operate. If you don't like it, go to a pub or restaurant where they charge for the actual meal and you can have extra empty plates if you like.

In future just pop a plastic plate or dish in a plastic bag in your handbag, no need to even ask then. But tbh by asking for an extra plate they probably thought you would put food on it for free or put extra on your own plate, which I expect you would do anyway.

Omg the responses on here are absolutely crazy. WTF. OP, you are NOT being unreasonable! The person who said their 10 month old ate a full plate of roast dinner, I mean, what?! Surely they’re mostly on milk and trying out a bit of veg at the moment.
mumsnet is weird.

Buffets and carverys charge by the plate. You cant share those.

You wouldnt have asked for a plate for DH to take food from you.

If DS wants a carvery, pay for it

Yes perceived fairness and what elements go into that perception. That’s it exactly.

I agree the responses are crazy - the number of people justifying theft of food because ‘babyyyyyy’ when the OP herself states the menu has a ‘baby bowl’ price (which means the business has chosen to not allow children under a certain age to eat free) is astonishing.

Out of interest, what other things are acceptable for a parent to steal because they don’t feel like paying for their child?

Feeding a roastie and carrot off your plate to your baby is hardly theft.
This has really riled you though with the ‘out of interest’ bit.

Well yes, blatant theft does rile me. Apparently you think it’s OK to steal if it’s just ‘a roastie and carrot’ but you haven’t said where your limits are. What level of theft would you say isn’t acceptable?

Clearly you think some level of dishonesty is reasonable since the OP had to (eventually) admit this restaurant sells a baby bowl (i.e. makes it explicitly clear babies don’t eat for free) but where is your line?

Knocking an old lady out and taking her handbag. I draw the line there.