But a restaurant in Croydon, England, is apparently turning that idea on its head [h/t Eater]. Cosmo, an Asian buffet, is now charging a baby plate fee of 3 pounds (about $4.67 in U.S. dollars). Should parents be made to pay for a baby at the table, the same way a plate-sharing fee might apply? Would you go to a restaurant that charged a baby fee?
Showing 1-25 of 25
Every restaurant has their own policies....if you don't like the policies tell them and choose somewhere else to spend your money if they don't fit your needs.
As for me, if I go to a upscale restuarant and they try to seat me next to a family with little kids, I ask for another location. If they can't accomodate I leave. If I'm eating and kids nearby are behaving badly I ask the Mgr to control the situation or cancel my food order. I'm paying upscale prices for an upscale atmosphere and screaming kids doesn't qualify. If I get invited to a Chucky Cheese for someone's kid's party, I know what I'm signing up for and I bring lots of money to spend on games and pour extra sodas for the kids....everything has it's place.
The title of the article is a a bit misleading. If I understand correctly, it is not a charge for a baby to enter the restaurant as much as a charge for them eating (from a buffet, as apposed to from there parents plates). If the parents have brought the baby their own food, it is probably against health regulations, if they didn't, it will be eating something. It is a business designed to make money & provide a livelihood for the owners & employees. It doesn't seem like a penalty for bringing a baby (as the title sounds), as much as a perfectly reasonable, nominal, fee for food consumed. The behavior of babies in public is a whole different article.
I am one of the self-conscious parents who never let my kid get out of hand in public places, I'd rather pack up and leave. I never left a mess for someone else to clean up. So I don't automatically discriminate against children and/or babies, only those whose parents can't make them shut the fuck up in a reasonable time. There is nothing wrong with a normally-behaving child at a restaurant, it's only when you insist that I need to listen to your kid screaming for 30 minutes straight,I start wishing that you, your whole family including your far-removed relatives would burn in hell, where these sounds are moreappropriate.Same goes for the annoying babies at a movie theatre. I didn't even take my kid to the movies until I knew she could be quiet for 2 hours and even then only brought her over to children's movies.
As someone else pointed out, it's not the kid who is at fault. But a kid cannot drive himself out of a public place, he has to wait for his douchey parents to finish stuffing their faces. Also if someone told you that a child freely running around a restaurant is cute, that person is a moron. It's not cute, it's annoying and dangerous.
To summarize- restrain your child and keep him quiet and you will be OK. If you leave a dirty diaper on a chair you will go to hell.
Lastly, fatcity should give Chimpotle some prize for the comment of the year.
I'm with SUFC, Faith, and others. I didn't realize that by choosing not to have children, that automatically makes me an a-hole. I think I'm doing society and the earth a favor by not adding to the population. And it sure seems to me that there's plenty of catering in general to children and families, in many different arenas. Many children are well behaved and many adults are not. But if one simply doesn't care much for children and would like to generally avoid them, especially when dining out, why does that make that person an a-hole? Are we morally obligated to automatically adore children? I avoid going to Waldo Pizza much anymore, because there are so many kids, but I don't cry about it or hate all the families that go there. But maybe I've got it all wrong--I guess I'm a childless a-hole and others are a-holes with children. Right?
Actually Christene being attacked shouldn't surprise anyone. I as well have tried to go places like Waldo Pizza at night and experienced the same problem. I will admit that going to a restaurant means giving up some rights of having a quiet dinner but at least keep the bar area available for people who want the option of not having a small baby screaming next them. Plenty of parents seem to believe that they are entitled to special consideration when going out to eat, not just WP but plenty of more upscale restaraunts. If I pay money to go out and eat I would like it to be in an atmosphere that I find enjoyable. Sorry to all the parents out there but I do not find screaming children enjoyable. You can pick on and attack Christene all you want but the bottom line is that just because you decided to have children doesn't mean that the rest of us have.
Jeez -- I like kids. But, based on my experience waiting tables, some adults do make a giant mess, but all babies make a giant mess. And most messy adults tend to confine their messes to the table top, whereas babies get stuff all over. I'm not saying they shouldn't be there. But they are more work and it does take longer to clean up. And if I'm working a buffet restaurant, many people don't tip at all, forget about tipping more.
In the case of the restaurant in the story, they're not charging a baby fee. They are charging a fee for everyone in the restaurant, and they didn't want to hassle with working out a minimum age. We all know about the folks that lie at Disneyland to get their 4-foot-tall 2-year-old in. They didn't want to have their staff have to ask for ID.
"Chimpo, it's pretty pointless to argue with Faith about these things as she has commented before that she is offended by children laughing in a restaurant. If you're against hearing children laughing, you're a pretty self involved ridiculous human being."
Um, nooo. I've never commented about being offended by children laughing at a restaurant. Getting out of control, yes. But simply laughing? C'mon man. Don't make me out to be a bigger douchebag than I really am!
Also, I wasn't arguing with anyone in this post's comments. I pointed out that Chimpo was being a bit judgemental in an unneccessary manner about something that had little to do with the original point being made. I thought he was being kind of rude, is all. But I forgot that that's really his MO, so maybe I just shoulda kept it to myself. ::shrugs::
Christene shared her opinion (which, I'll remind you, in an effort to sound as little like a self involved ridiculous human being as possible, was the point of posting a comment here in the first place), and got attacked for it. I thought it was a bit much.
Parents hate all of us non-parents...I get it. We'll just crawl back into our little hermit holes now, and try to behave ourselves according to your rules of society. Jeezy...
Congratulations MC!
Does he still have that 'new baby' smell?
As a new parent with a baby -- and a frequenter of Waldo Pizza -- I'm so grateful to have a place my husband and I can go to get a quick bite with our son. No, I'm not feeding him from my buffet plate. I'm sick of getting dirty looks from people when I stop somewhere with my baby to get a bite to eat. I need to eat, too, and I also clean up after him as much as I can, and I tip more to compensate for any mess. It's ridiculous that I have anxiety about going out to eat because I fear people like Christene giving me dirty looks for having the nerve to take my son out in public.
I nominate Christene for the "Baby sitter of the year" award.
Chimpo, it's pretty pointless to argue with Faith about these things as she has commented before that she is offended by children laughing in a restaurant. If you're against hearing children laughing, you're a pretty self involved ridiculous human being.
As for Christene, it's pretty obvious she is childless because only the childless complain about Waldo Pizza being a kid friendly place (and how fucking dare they choose to cater to families). For you to think that someone is overeating seems odd to me, but to Christene's point, maybe restaurants should have a surcharge for those with less of an appetite or cooking skills and add a couple of bucks to the ticket if you don't get a full 4 course meal.
This was a rather silly little post to get all huffy about anyway. A buffet is different than a regular restaurant where you pay for an entree. What you do with an entree after you order it is your business, but a buffet implies that you're going to go back for more food, or in Christene's case 5 or 6 trips, it makes sense to charge per person.
Just to be clear though, I fully respect any restaurant that don't offer kids meals or don't cater to kids. It's completely up to the restauranteur what kind of experience they want their diners to have.
Just to clarify, I called you all child-less a-holes. I only called Christene out on saying she orders way more than families, even though she orders way more than pretty much any regular couple eats...although the spelling of Christene would lead me to believe at least her parents were a-holes.
Also, where are all of these places where kids eat for free? I would love to know where they are so I can stop paying money for a meal and drink, plus dessert I never let my kids have.
When people start posting articles about restaurants not allowing access to people without children, maybe I'll be a little more civil with my responses.
It's one thing to base your 'yes' on the idea of a buffet restaurant wanting to make sure that food eaten by a child is paid for.
But saying that restaurants should charge a baby fee solely on the fact that children CAN be loud and messy is absurd. Because quite frankly, I've encountered plenty of adults in my time that are sloppy, annoying and irritating to be around at restaurants. So do they get charged a fee for their behavior?
I have a 2 year old, and when she makes a mess, I clean it up as much as possible, because that's my child, and I feel responsible to make sure I'm not leaving a disaster. So what about the grown-ups that can't seem to keep food in their mouths that leave piles of crap on the floor below them? Where's their fee?
When my daughter gets upset at a restaurant or starts to be loud, I leave with her to calm her down until its appropriate for her to return. So what about the drunk idiot at the table next to me? Or, forget the drunk part, because some adults are just loud assholes and have no concept of what's a socially acceptable volume. Do they get charged a fee?
As someone whose kids are grown - and the grandkids are nearly there too - I can see both sides of this issue. I agree with those who would distinguish between "fine dining" and "casual dining" establishments. It's not unreasonable to charge a "baby fee" if the child requires extra silverware, plates, glasses, etc. and/or makes for extra cleanup after the meal. I'm sympathetic to young parents who don't have much money and there are plenty of kid-friendly restaurants that probably would not and/or should not charge a child fee, but for a nicer place I think it's OK. I don't think it can be a blanket judgement but has to be case by case.
If your baby is very cute and wears a bow-tie, then I wouldn't charge a fee.
How bout adding a fee at the end if the baby cries and disrupts the dining room?
Also, charge a fee to black people who don't ever tip.
It's too much food to eat a salad, a couple of bites of an appetizer, and a piece of pizza for a meal? We take home the rest and eat it for lunches, as mentioned in my post and by another poster. Sometimes we get a dessert to go to eat another day. That's not too much food. I am just pointing out that we spend more than most of the families with small kids, and that places ought to not assume that they will break even when they allow kids to eat for free (or close to it, by eating off of parents' plates). From what I have seen, they do not and cannot break even that way. And I didn't say anything that would lead you to believe that I hate children or whatever, nor did I insult parents or kids or call anyone names, and since you're a parent, it's concerning that you would immediately start throwing insults around when someone has a different opinion--hopefully you will teach your children better reasoning and debating skills. I'm saying that from an economic point of view, many of the families I have seen do not spend as much on their meals out, so restaurants ought to do what they can to make up for that, like this baby fee, just like they would charge your table if you got one buffet meal and used it to feed others or whatever.
Hey Chimpotle, you know how you just judged Christene as being a "childless a-hole"? Ok, well, she was doing nothing more than what you did in your comment. Except she's judging from the other side.
It was kind of beside the point to comment on how much food she and her husband are eating. You don't know how long those leftovers last them...they could be eating pizza for lunch and dinner for several days!
It's totally ok for her to have her own opinion of all the parental assholes that eat out with their kids on a regular basis. Just the same as you feel it's apparently ok to call those without children "childless a-holes". If parents would make better choices these days, and have better behaved kids, they wouldn't give all the totally awesome parents and kids such a bad rap. KWIM?
This is stupid. If I am getting food for a kid above what I order, then yes, I should pay for it. These child-less a-holes make it sound like restaurants are enticing us parents with their awesome child menus of boxed mac & cheese or mini corn dogs.
To Christine's point above, it just sounds like you eat way too much crap. My wife and I never ordered close to that amount of food when we were kid-free. Every couple does not indulge in the way it sounds like you do. So actually, adding mouths to my family has increased my bills because I have to order an appetizer so everyone has enough.
Also, on a number of occasions, we have wait staff not working our table come over and talk and play with our kids because they like the interaction. Dealing with insufferable pricks (like some of the people who comment on these posts) for most of the day would make me want to be around the happy innocence of a child, too.
--The "shitty chain restaurants" should have a baby symbol next to their signs which means the restaurant is baby/small child friendly. The nicer restaurants should have a caricature of a baby with a slash mark through it (this image alone, cracks me up!) barring children 12 and under. Can you imagine the uproar from the JO CO soccer mom crowd??!!
Yes, yes, yes. They ought to charge a fee for small children. I don't think these places can break even otherwise, and it just doesn't make economic sense to lure in families with kids with these free or cheap kids' meal deals in the false hope that they will spend enough to make up for it. They don't.
When my husband and I go out, even to a casual restaurant, we buy appetizers, drinks, and a dessert. We tip generously. We don't leave a mess behind. We don't disturb other customers. We're spending a lot more money than the family with kids that's drinking water and ordering off the kid menu.
For example, we used to eat dinner at Waldo Pizza about once per week. We'd buy two large specialty pizzas and take home the leftovers, and we'd get salads and beers, too. We often eat with another couple, too, and we share a few appetizers and get desserts to take home. Even at a cheaper, casual restaurant, we're spending more money (and we have more money to spend on eating out than most people with kids). But lately, we haven't been eating there because it's always full of families with little kids, even later in the evening. I mean, I'd expect that at, say, 5:30, but not at 7:30 or 8:00. If half of the restaurant isn't closed for a private party, then they have kids in the bar. And the families with kids are never ordering appetizers and desserts or more than just one beer (if that). They're splitting one pizza and making a mess. I guarantee that the bill for me and my husband is three times what they are spending. I don't understand why restaurants want to make it difficult or unpleasant for families of two to eat there. It also doesn't make sense for places like this to try to sell themselves as a hip neighborhood place with a great beer selection if they're going to bend over backwards welcoming families with little kids and suburban people. Catering to families with kids costs more, takes more time for the staff, and isn't sensible economically--especially since there are more childfree adults and couples now than ever before. This is less of a problem at nicer restaurants, where they frequently do not offer "kids eat free/cheap" deals, so we find that we eat out a those fancier places instead of our formerly favorite neighborhood pizza place.
For fine dining and buffets probably it's not a bad idea. I have children and grand children and no doubt about it, it's always messier with the kids.
If it's somewhere shitty like chilis or old Chicago, no.
If it's somewhere kids shouldn't be like the Bristol or Capital Grille, then yes.
There's also the disaster that most dining babies wreak on all surrounding surfaces. Cleaning up after them always takes twice as long as a non-baby table.
In that case, it totally makes sense to me that adults are being charged for the food they're giving their children. Especially if it's an all-you-can-eat type of buffet.
In a standard restaurant, if an adult is sharing a few vegetables, some potatoes, and a piece of meat from their plate they ordered with their baby, that's on them. But if they're at a *buffet*, grabbing enough food for the both of them to eat heartily, they should have to pay for the child's meal.
like
dislike
