large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

AubreyMac

It'll be easier to clear up the paying issue first before accepting invites but this is rarely done I think.


When dining in groups I find that if everyone pays for themselves it usually never really adds up and it's usually the organiser footing the difference or having the argument with the waiting staff while others deny paying short.


For that reason my work has decided the bill will be split by the amount of diners regardless who ate more or less and if you don't agree to it then don't go.


I know someone people will only pay what they ate and will work out a percentage of the service charge based on their own bill.


I think the one who feel the injustice of paying more than what they ate should be the one to speak up and say they are only paying their part.


I have known people to fall out over food bills!


When I went to Australia, some restaurants clearly state they do not split bills so for parties of any size they will only take 1 payment and not individual ones.

Pollycat

AubreyMac wrote: »

It'll be easier to clear up the paying issue first before accepting invites but this is rarely done I think.

When dining in groups I find that if everyone pays for themselves it usually never really adds up and it's usually the organiser footing the difference or having the argument with the waiting staff while others deny paying short.

My experience with my ex-work colleagues too.

They'd get the calculators out (pre-mobiles) and calculate to the penny but quite often they'd forget that they'd said 'yes please' to the coffee which wasn't free.

So we'd sit round the table and redo the bill and redo it again.

Tip? No, they'd not include that.

It was so embarrassing and just not a pleasant experience that after a few times, I was always 'busy' when they were planning an evening out.

duchy

BarryBlue wrote: »

Y We do different things with different groups of friends. For instance, we have friends who we only see at music gigs which are generally about 50 miles away. We don't dine with them, we just listen to music over a few drinks. And we don't take other friends, it is a different social circle. Maybe some people have very limited groups of friends.

I don't think it is limited so much as whether you keep them in compartments ! If you mixed your friends up together rather than keep to more insular groups (not using insular in a bad way - just can't think of another word to describe it-) then you will get different expectations.

I have one group of friends who although we keep in touch and meet up occasionally otherwise concerts are a main focus and we are a very diverse bunch. Income differences are vast so when in a largish group the bill is always calculated per person's consumption as we all know there is a massive disparity in spending power and no-one would chide anyone else for choosing a cheaper dish/fewer courses. When we break out into smaller groups for meals it can be a split but that's less usual. Often the issue is with people who it simply doesn't occur to that their companions won't be as comfortable with eating out financially and if you eat out on a regular basis it is easy to forget that for some people it's a rare and budgeted for treat rather than part of usual spending.

One size doesn't fit all but some people don't want to say socially "I'm on a budget" and others don't want to hear it ...... Which considering the focus of MSE it does seem strange we have so many who "don't want to hear it".

pollypenny

onlyroz wrote: »

Shouldn't it be obvious from this thread that "friends" do often take advantage of each other? Just because you are utterly unable to imagine a scenario where one of your party is unhappy to pay for more than they have eaten doesn't mean that it never happens.


How about if one of your friends of 20+ years contracted an illness that massively reduced their appetite and meant that they couldn't drink alcohol. If they joined you for a group dinner and only ordered a small main dish and a glass of orange juice, would you still then expect them to contribute as if they'd eaten a full three-course meal plus wine and cocktails?

We had this with one guy. He didn't eat as little as in your example, but not his normal tucking in, plus three red wines!

He didn't hesitate about splitting the bill. Maybe it was because we, his friends, we're driving him to hospital appointments, doing jobs for him etc.

It's what friends do, as Barry said.

Edit to add: now he's recovered, he still eats and drinks the most. Am I subsiding him? No, he's a good friend.

duchy

I think this is where the division starts ......
Miss Biggles has been stating her case from the assumption that everyone dines out routinely as couples whereas for many people that simply isn't the case. I eat out with my partner, we eat out as a couple with friends sometimes but we don't have a joined at the hip social life and both have seperate as well as a joint social life. I was chatting with friends last night and making plans to see some concerts -My partner would rather stick pins in his eyes than see this artist Most of my friend's husbands and partners feel the same so we are often a bunch of single women with the occassional man in the group. The dynamic is simply very different when we dine as a group. In the same way that dining with a group of work colleagues is different again. The reason why so many people disagree is because often they are comparing different social situations at a meal.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I don't even think it's just that because I certainly have a very limited group of friends.:o

For many people in a relationship, the most common option is to do things as a couple, occasionally adding others in where the sociability factor is high, like going for a drink. Personally, I don't think it ever occurred to us to suggest going to a film, theatre or gig with anybody else because (apart from 15 minute interval) you aren't actually socialising, you're just staring straight ahead at the film, stage or music.

ETA
Just reread your post. I can see it might be different if you were going to some kind of music club or venue - I was thinking more along the lines of a concert rather than a club gig.:)

Person_one

pollypenny wrote: »

Maybe it was because we, his friends, we're driving him to hospital appointments, doing jobs for him etc.

It's what friends do, as Barry said.

I agree that driving to hospital appointments etc. Is what friends do when other friends are unwell.

Expecting to be paid back for it in cash though? Is that really what friends do?

ChemistDude

Lol why do people go in big groups for meals if you're going to cheap out and pay for you're own only. If you can't afford to socialise (in big groups) then don't

There's no shame in not going because you can't afford (or not smart enough to order more so its all relatively fair - I'll seal it off with a coffee, dersert and a night cap) .

duchy

pollypenny wrote: »

We had this with one guy. He didn't eat as little as in your example, but not his normal tucking in, plus three red wines!

He didn't hesitate about splitting the bill. Maybe it was because we, his friends, we're driving him to hospital appointments, doing jobs for him etc.

It's what friends do, as Barry said.

Edit to add: now he's recovered, he still eats and drinks the most. Am I subsiding him? No, he's a good friend.

So there was a trade off -because you helped him in other ways in your eyes it balanced out - but what if there was nothing to trade it off with ? Someone eats less for medical reasons but is independent of needing any assistance from you in any aspect of their life ? Should they pay more just because it grants them your company ?

Jagraf

Person_one wrote: »

I agree that driving to hospital appointments etc. Is what friends do when other friends are unwell.

Expecting to be paid back for it in cash though? Is that really what friends do?

My MIL has a really lovely friend who drives her to hospital appointments and in return my MIL buys her lunch. Taking people to hospital costs money (probably more than the difference in meal consumption).

She would still take her to hospital though.

missbiggles1

Jagraf wrote: »

I can't speak for everyone else but if I was the one who had caught an illness / didn't drink alcohol / had a small plate etc I would still expect to pay the same as everyone else. That has been my experience too (and what I have been most comfortable with).

If someone offered that I pay less then I would say no.

Please don't say it is "sad" as it has in no way affected my friendship circles or my relationships with my relatives or my colleagues.

In my experience all my friends / colleagues / relatives have done exactly the same if they have eaten less or haven't had a drink. It's something that just doesn't happen, in my experience.

I think exactly the same as you do and I'm surprised nobody's said this earlier.