Babies/Children in Restaurants (merged topic)

[Katherine]

This sounds like a good idea, but may be difficult to achieve diplomatically. One may not care if the offending parents get pissed, but those may be the very children who otherwise would have been fine and patrons (perhaps good patrons) may have been po'ed unnecessarily.

I still think that the best approach is to have a policy toward any unruly diner that is consistent. A fine dinner can cefrtainly be ruined by an unruly child at the next table, but it also can be ruined by cellphones or obnoxious people in general including someone who may assume that a child may become unruly and act accordingly (I have never actually seen this happen).

It's all well and good to say you have a general policy that is intended to cover everything that might possibly be offensive, but unless you have itemized unacceptable behaviors, people with no common sense will not be able to figure out what they aren't supposed to be doing. If you have mentioned previously that children should not be on the floor ("We remind parents of who bring their young children of our policy about children in the dining room...We request that children remain in their seats at all times..."), the parents (like the ones in the original example) will have the option of choosing to comply, or opting to eat elsewhere, before their dinner begins and it is too late to change their minds. They clearly won't be able to get out the toybox and set the children on the floor for the duration.

Everyone knows what a restaurant's policy on cellphones would probably be. The only way to have a consistent policy on children in dining rooms is to have it in writing, available in advance. Otherwise, they are going to think you made this up on the spot, and you did, so they would probably be right.

Mark's problem is that they had no specific rules or guidelines when they suddenly realized they needed them, and the parents were clearly people who needed guidance.

[beans]

It's all well and good to say you have a general policy that is intended to cover everything that might possibly be offensive, but unless you have itemized unacceptable behaviors, people with no common sense will not be able to figure out what they aren't supposed to be doing.

I've chatted about this with many of my co-workers and it has been quite an examined issue tonight at my residence -- serving as this year's holiday open house for many in the biz to stop by.....

I'm beginning to think this may be generational issue. For example, I state this because I am not the sole observer of the younger, newer servers that need to be told outright, flattly, that cell phones, while on duty and serving others on the timeclock, on the whole are not permitted.

What may appear to be common sense, in fact may not be as obvious anymore. Although maybe not entirely generational, but as far as upbringing, another bartender I've worked with (a former server, and I've trained on mixology issues), still in her 20's, has noticed a decline in "common sense" with patrons progressively as the years pass.

I dunno.

Just an observation.

But something our managers (especially our GM that has worked for this retaurant for 15 years in every possible position -- starting as a busboy!!!!) have observed and commented on, too.

hmmmm.

edit: wine is affecting typing skills.... uh oh

Edited December 28, 2003 by beans (log)

[fifi]

I'm beginning to think this may be generational issue. For example, I state this because I am not the sole observer of the younger, newer servers that need to be told outright, flattly, that cell phones, while on duty and serving others on the timeclock, on the whole are not permitted.

What may appear to be common sense, in fact may not be as obvious anymore. Although maybe not entirely generational, but as far as upbringing, another bartender I've worked with (a former server, and I've trained on mixology issues), still in her 20's, has noticed a decline in "common sense" with patrons progressively as the years pass.

I dunno.

Just an observation.

But something our managers (especially our GM that has worked for this retaurant for 15 years in every possible position -- starting as a busboy!!!!) have observed and commented on, too.

hmmmm.

edit: wine is affecting typing skills.... uh oh

I think you are correct about this. I have seen, over the years, a real change in the way kids are raised. When I was brought up, I knew I was loved and cared for. But I also knew that I wasn't the center of the universe. Mom and Dad didn't spend their whole life taking care of my sister and me. They had a life, too. I was also taught respect for other people. The concept of letting a child "be themselves" and "not cramping their creativity" were unknown concepts. Children were expected to behave themselves WHEREVER they were. And if you didn't abide by the rules, the consequences were swift and sure. When you are raised thinking that the world revolves around you and that you can do no wrong without consideration for those around you it would probably never occur to you that that cell phone conversation or the bratty kid might be annoying to someone else.

Gee... It is too bad that I was raised that way and had my "creativity" stifled.

[tommy]

I'm beginning to think this may be generational issue.

having an open mind and being able to understand this is a good start, and, in fact, might be a generational issue in and of itself.

[Katherine]

What may appear to be common sense, in fact may not be as obvious anymore. 

I've always felt that "common sense" is a misnomer. If it were truly "common", then it wouldn't be so uncommon.

When I was a kid, they were railing about permissive parents raising their kids without standards, and those kids are now grandparents. So it's not a new thing.

[tommy]

What may appear to be common sense, in fact may not be as obvious anymore. 

When I was a kid, they were railing about permissive parents raising their kids without standards, and those kids are now grandparents. So it's not a new thing.

but isn't that part of the point?

[jhlurie]

I know this is somewhat off topic (bad forum host, bad!), but I can't resist stating that as I predicted earlier in this thread, when I went to Return of the King tonight, there were indeed several noisy crying babies present. For a 3 1/2 hour long VERY noisy film (not to mention scary, if some of the babies were closer to toddler-hood and actually watching).

But getting this back to discussion actually occuring in this topic, this is all part of the fact that, in reality, very few people have as much common sense as we'd like, and when you get 100 or more people together in a restaurant or movie theater, regardless of economic level, statistically chances are that you will wind up with two or three dumbasses, as well as the poor babies they've dragged along for the ride. In other words, people are not going to self-regulate in large groups, at least not without mob-rule and clubs and torches and stuff, and that would be really bad for the babies involved.

Hey, reality may make me seem a cynic, but its really just reality. Then again, I'm still assuming 97 or 98 non-dumbasses out of that 100, so is that really all that negative?

[bloviatrix]

I've been trying to come up with a way for restaurants to manage the kid issue, and the one thing I keep coming back to is a "kid service charge." Just like some restaurants reserve the right to charge a "service charge" for groups over a certain number, what about saying that "we reserve the right to charge an additional X% (percentage of your choice) to the bill for kids under the age of x (your choice). " This way, if the kids are miserable, and make a mess that requires extra clean-up, the restaurant is compensated. Maybe the charge can be used towards comping the other guests for dessert. Plus it sends a message that kids aren't really welcome, and we're going to charge you for it.

Of course, if the kid is an angel, the restaurant doesn't have to apply the charge.

[bleachboy]

That's really not a bad idea.

Also worth noting:

I have a friend that works at a very nice upper-range-type restaurant. The type that has an actual chef and at least a seasonal menu. Anyhow, my friend works there and says, yes, there are "chicken fingers" and hot dogs in the freezer for the kids that come and just won't eat anything on the menu.

So children are causing at least a small impact on the bottom line of one or more upscale eateries, in terms of having to stock menu items to satisfy their immature palates.

[balex]

Well you can combine these two approaches -- have a kid's menu with hotdogs at $150.

Hey maybe that's what that Daniel Boulud burger is really for!

[Mark Sommelier]

It's all well and good to say you have a general policy that is intended to cover everything that might possibly be offensive, but unless you have itemized unacceptable behaviors, people with no common sense will not be able to figure out what they aren't supposed to be doing.

I've chatted about this with many of my co-workers and it has been quite an examined issue tonight at my residence -- serving as this year's holiday open house for many in the biz to stop by.....

I'm beginning to think this may be generational issue. For example, I state this because I am not the sole observer of the younger, newer servers that need to be told outright, flattly, that cell phones, while on duty and serving others on the timeclock, on the whole are not permitted.

What may appear to be common sense, in fact may not be as obvious anymore. Although maybe not entirely generational, but as far as upbringing, another bartender I've worked with (a former server, and I've trained on mixology issues), still in her 20's, has noticed a decline in "common sense" with patrons progressively as the years pass.

I dunno.

Just an observation.

But something our managers (especially our GM that has worked for this retaurant for 15 years in every possible position -- starting as a busboy!!!!) have observed and commented on, too.

hmmmm.

edit: wine is affecting typing skills.... uh oh

Beans,

Last year here in Washington, the alternate reviewer for the Washington Post reviewed an Indian restaurant in the suburbs. During one of his meals, the server took a cell phone call in the middle of taking this guy's order. It made for great copy!!

[Mark Sommelier]

Well you can combine these two approaches -- have a kid's menu with hotdogs at $150.

Hey maybe that's what that Daniel Boulud burger is really for!

Alex, I like the way you think!!

[Mayhaw Man]

I know this is a bit off topic and I won't belabor my point ( as I tend to hammer it in usually ) but I have about 200 people working directly under me and the average age is about 24. These people are cut across all lines, social, economic, religious, sexual orientation, etc. We have the Rainbow Coalition marching around here everyday. So I can pretty safely generalize about this statement and feel like I am safe-

Manners have gone to hell in a handbasket and that is the reason that we are even having this discussion.

People these days do not seem to even know what rude is, much less how to be polite and well mannered. I am hiring out of the same exact pool of labor that would likely end up in the restaurant industry (actually, a number of people here are in the business and use this a second job). Cell phone abuse, undependability, inability to listen to instructions and carry them out without giving their two cents worth at every turn, general rudeness.

If people don't know how to behave (or care enough to try) personally how can we ever expect them to know how to behave professionally? It is getting more and more difficult to find people who have the ability to be polite. I run a large customer service and sales oriented call center. Ever wonder how those people can get away with being so rude? They can't. They get fired regularly, but it is a empty gesture because someone just like the one who got fired is coming in right behind them. The basic problem is that they just don't have the basic training to be polite. "Yes, I will be glad to help you with that" is not so difficult (in my mind anyway). And it is only going to get worse, as these people are now beginning to raise families. Boors begetting boors begetting boors ad infinitum.

Anyway, back to the topic- These same people cannot be expected to know or care about any of us as they are completely absorbed in their own little spheres of life. People are generally kind, but that is not the same thing as being concerned with the welfare of others and how personal behavior can affect those around you.

The only way that these people can be dealt with is hard and fast rules. It is all they understand.

I like eating with my kids. I did not start doing it until they were both well ready. Period. Did I skip a good meal or two? Sure, so what? Did I have to shell out for a babysitter more often than I would have liked? Yes. In reality, though, I really don't want my kids along on "date night" or when we are dropping a big wad on a meal. Once in a while on a special occasion is fine, but not regularly and certainly not when they were very young. It would not have been fun for ANYONE concerned and I would never have inflicted that on the other diners.

Now-Do you want me to get started on diners who don't seem to know how to dress for the occasion?

[docsconz]

Brooks,

You make many good points. My wife and I certainly don't take our kids with us every time we go out - mostly for special occassions, which they have been trained for (so far the two oldest - the youngest is still in training but making admirable progress) and which they wish to attend. They have come to appreciate fine cuisine and look forward to these dinners (mostly while traveling). While I understand, fully appreciate and share the concerns everyone has about unruly children and obnoxious parents, I would hate to see any blanket rule imposed eliminating children from fine dining altogether. When it works right it is too special for all concerned. My boys have received some wonderful attention from chefs like Susur Lee and waitstaff who have appreciated not only their behavior, but their interest in the food. For my boys this started to blossom around the age of ten. For others it might be earlier or later.

[balex]

I think this is so right -- but people always have thought that the young have no manners. Read Seneca, the ancient Roman stoic philosopher, and you hear the same thing. Emotionally I want to say, but this time manners really have got a lot worse, but intellectually I know I am just being an old fart (and I am only 37!).

Back on topic, I have certainly taken my children to fancy restaurants when I felt it was appropriate and in general it has worked out. I think there is a window of opportunity when they are babes in arms -- less than 1 year, that then closes and doesn't open until they are about 8-12 years old, depending on the child, and on the formality of the restaurant. It also depends if the child has any experience in behaving properly in formal situations (going to the opera or concerts, serving at mass, being introduced to royalty, having to make conversation with old and important people). Which most don't.

For a few data points, I took my daughter to lunch at Arpege aged 12, and Passard came out and squeezed her cheek and gave her a menu, and made a fuss of her, and everyone was happy. And at a bit younger we went to Comme chez Soi, and they were very snooty to us. But then friends who ate there twice a year for 15 years said they were always snooty to them (probably on racial grounds).

[fifi]

And at a bit younger we went to Comme chez Soi, and they were very snooty to us. But then friends who ate there twice a year for 15 years said they were always snooty to them (probably on racial grounds).

Now it is the "grown ups" that have no manners.

There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour from a proprietor... EVER. Why would anyone go back?

I agree on the age ranges some of you have given. And the fact that maturity and interest will vary. My daughter liked to do the "ladies who lunch" thing in nice restaurants at about age 9. My son wasn't ready for finer dining until about 11. Then he jumped into it with a vengeance, and still does. Of course, you don't just flip a switch that says "ready NOW". They had been taught manners from the beginning so I think it was more of a developed interest level that determined their readiness. I never had a bad experience. There is nothing quite so much fun as watching an interested child enjoy a new experience.

[Mabelline]

My "beloved" SIL's kids are 14 (girl) and (17) boy, and I would not be seen with them at a hog wallow. They would embaress the pigs.

[Mayhaw Man]

It also depends if the child has any experience in behaving properly in formal situations (going to the opera or concerts, serving at mass, being introduced to royalty, having to make conversation with old and important people).

Opera-check

Concerts-check (these kids have seen more music in all kinds of settings than most of the adults who are reading this)

Mass (Episcopalian)-check

Royalty- check (if U.S. Senators count, and sadly I believe that they do)

Old and Important-check

I guess they were ready (roughly age nine for each of them). They like to eat out, but both of them, when given a choice, head for a Sushi bar any time they have a special occasion and can choose for themselves, although they both like Galitoire's (but I can argue that the dining room downstairs may serve great food well, but that the social interaction occuring there is more like a very expensive and fancy diner. It is loud and fun, not quiet and stuffy. Hence, it is a great place to take kids).

And I am relatively proud of their manners. They do seem to behave well when they are in public, and the reports on them when they are not around us seem to be reasonably glowing as well.

[balex]

I think that is one of the great satisfactions of life.

(edited to add: I mean raising children well in general, rather than good manners in particular which are not of primary importance)

I left out the most important experience -- eating regularly together as a family, seated around a table without a TV on.

Edited December 28, 2003 by balex (log)

[ggglimpopo]

I think that the idea of the family sitting down and eating together and the children learning from the adults hits the nail on the head. Here in France you often see very very young children at the smart tables and most often they are there as part of an extended family group. Also, the main meal is lunch and the children are less likely to be tired and cranky and the meal is a long and relaxed affair. They are surrounded by adults - grandparents, aunts, older cousins, who all admonish, guide and help the child as necessary and the children generally behave astonishingly well for incredibly long periods. I think it is a cultural thing. Manners are taught at school where even the very little ones have sit down 3/4 course lunches where they are expected to behave or they go home for lunch where they sit down and eat with their parents and eat correctly. On the whole, when we eat out, the only kids we see running around in restaurants are not yelling in French...

[fifi]

My "beloved" SIL's kids are 14 (girl) and (17) boy, and I would not be seen with them at a hog wallow. They would embaress the pigs.

Just out of curiosity and to add a note of contrast... Where did "beloved" SIL go wrong?

BTW... I know more kids like that than I like to think about. What a waste.

[greenfield]

Refusing service due to age (race, gender, etc) is probably not legal in the US.

I believe this is mostly true in New York City. At the NYC Commission on Human Rights website, there is the following description of public accomodations:

Anyone who provides goods and services to the general public is considered a public accommodation. It is against the law for a public accommodation to withhold or refuse to provide those goods or services; charge a different amount for the same goods or services; set different terms for obtaining those goods or services; discourage certain people from using them; or advertise or make statements that would make you feel unwelcome because of your race, color, creed, age, national origin, alienage or citizenship status, gender (including gender identity), sexual orientation, disability, marital status. Please note that there are limited exemptions from the provisions of this law based upon gender and age.

[emphasis added]

It goes on to say, "Some examples of public accommodations include [...] restaurants [...]"

The rules page regarding public accommodations lists some exemptions. Some explicit exemptions are for locations that display MPAA movies, and the right to not enter into contracts with infants. Finally, there is an out for facilities that do not want to allow children at all:

The owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent or agent of a place or provider of public accommodation may make an application for exemption of an age-based restriction on access to or services [...] The application shall set forth the specific basis for the exemption sought together with any supporting evidence. The Chair may grant such exemption if he or she determines that the exemption promotes the health, safety or well-being of the public, or prevents physical harm to the property or premises of a place of public accommodation, or undue disruption of the quiet enjoyment of a place of public accommodation and is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City Human Rights Law. [...]

[emphasis added]

Does this mean you have to apply for an exemption before not allowing children? Or can you apply when someone decides to bring action before the Commission on Human Rights? Would ejecting a family with children who are behaving poorly and disturbing other guests be grounds for legal action on the part of the family? What happens if you allow some children but not others?

Of course, please note that I AM NOT A LAWYER, and before taking or not taking any action CONSULT A LAWYER FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Finally, the law differs in each city, county, and state.

[Pan]

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to know that an establishment has the right to eject any person who misbehaves. Can the people who were thrown out try to sue? Sure they can. Will it go to court? I don't know. This society is very litigious, as we all know. But the idea that a person who is making a complete ass out of himself/herself and disturbing the peace can't be expelled from a restaurant is nonsense.

[Bux]

For waht it's worth, Daniel Boulud doesn't serve a burger, not even with foie gras, at this four star restaurant. It is only served at his least formal restaurant and it's not at all designed to please or attract kids.

As far as the idea of having a $150 prix fix kid's menu with hot dogs, I think that would be precisely the wrong strategy. I'm sorry I've misplaced the URL for a small restaurant in the French provinces. On its site, there was a kid's menu featuring smaller portions of such things as foie gras and steack frites. A fine multistarred restaurant should not discourage children by providing an overpriced kid's menu. That will only attract the most spoiled offspring of the least responsible, albeit wealthy, clientele. A fine restaurant should have but one menu offering the type of food it does best and is best proud of offering. It's really up to parents to determine the appropriate time and place to bring their children as it's up to all diners to dress and behave themselves appropriately. There's nothing inherently wrong with restaurants setting up their own codes for these things either. The rough part is how to interpret them and how to enforce them.

[Katherine]

The owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent or agent of a place or provider of public accommodation may make an application for exemption of an age-based restriction on access to or services [...] The application shall set forth the specific basis for the exemption sought together with any supporting evidence. The Chair may grant such exemption if he or she determines that the exemption promotes the health, safety or well-being of the public, or prevents physical harm to the property or premises of a place of public accommodation, or undue disruption of the quiet enjoyment of a place of public accommodation and is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City Human Rights Law. [...]

[emphasis added]

Does this mean you have to apply for an exemption before not allowing children? Or can you apply when someone decides to bring action before the Commission on Human Rights? Would ejecting a family with children who are behaving poorly and disturbing other guests be grounds for legal action on the part of the family? What happens if you allow some children but not others?

Of course, please note that I AM NOT A LAWYER, and before taking or not taking any action CONSULT A LAWYER FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Finally, the law differs in each city, county, and state.

It looks pretty clear to me that the only way you could CYA in using this law would be to apply in advance, stating the exact reasons why the presence of all children would be inappropriate, and it would need to be justifiable. So saying that you can't have any children because some well-behaved child might disturb another diner who doesn't like to be in the presence of children wouldn't stand up. And it's pretty tough to find an instance where no children would ever be able to fit into the situation.

Ejecting a family would be best done if you can point at the rule they broke, and show the people they disturbed. Easier to let them know in advance what is expected, so they can decide if it's something they can live with, rather than planning on ejecting people and figuring out how to deal with the fallout.

I see no reason that a high-priced restaurant should not have a child's menu on par with its adult food in quality and pricing. Not overpiced, but certainly not a bargain for the people whose kids want to throw spaghetti and crush crackers.