Restaurant offers a 5% discount if you eat without your phone on the table
money.cnn.com
money.cnn.com
One of the most enjoyable aspects of dining with other people is the conversation over dinner. I would hate to miss out on that for telephone calls that I can answer later. Voice mail for the win.
AFTER EDIT:
Other comments here mention using phones in movie theaters. The response of the Austin Drafthouse theater in Austin, Texas is famous. The theater's video with a recorded comment from an ejected customer became a viral video on YouTube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
reported on in various news outlets. (The language of the video is rather crude, but it makes the theater's point that it doesn't want customers who use their phones in the theater.)
I'd much rather go to a restaurant where phone use is discouraged as it seems to have become socially acceptable to fuck around with phones even during face-to-face conversation with someone.
Regarding ROI: if I were to run the restaurant, I'd have opaquely added the same charge to all the menu items and remove it for good behaviour. I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?
I can see how just putting it there could send the wrong message, though, that I'm open to distractions. Argh. Just one more reason to get a "european carry all", I guess. Or maybe I'll just wear a jacket.
Funny, I didn't realize until just know that I was doing this.
But now that I'm aware that it might send the wrong message, I'll try to keep just my phone in my pocket (the first Galaxy S, it's not very big) if I have lunch with some I do not know very well.
Edit: As others have commented, I do always leave it face down on top of my wallet which hopefully always comes across as "I'm just leaving my crap here."
A purse ? (or "man purse")
Jerry: Hey! Officer! Someone took my European carryall!
Cop: Your what?
Jerry: The...black, leather...thing with a strap.
Cop: You mean a purse?
Jerry: Yes, a purse. I carry a purse!
If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal.
It doesn't make me more important than them, though maybe it means that I have different values.
I generally veer away from these sorts of conversations because they tend to be dominated by angry people who are essentially trying to control other people ("you should do this and you should do that and I will forever be judging and disapproving or approving". You don't hear people living in the real world declaring that everyone must check their phone constantly)
Their post was littered with resentment and anger.
I just avoid going out with them as much as possible
Good for you. Those are the choices you get to make, controlling yourself instead of controlling others. It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
> It's probably a welcome gesture by the other party, given that they've clearly indicated that you are less important to them regardless.
So, which is it (way to keep it classy, by the way)?
If I'm at dinner with a casual friend or workplace peer, my family and even critical professional activities are more important than them to me. That doesn't make me more important than them, though, which is what enrages so many people, sure that they need to put people in their place.
I think it is a confusion of expectations that creates the conflict. You expect it to be understood that this is how you prioritize. Others may not have expected the same priorities.
No matter what subtleties you wrap the difference in, relative importance is what you're communicating to everyone else at the table whether you intend to or not. If that's your priority then so be it, but don't be surprised if people who prioritized being present at dinner aren't fond of your choice.
I'm not trying to change you though. Like I said before, I just wouldn't want to eat dinner with you if you couldn't leave the phone alone.
I love putting my phone away at meals, it's a good time to be social and set aside the demands of professional life.
Browsing Facebook while having dinner with someone is very offensive, I agree. It is also offensive to get "angry" because I took a call from my neighbor telling me that my grandma fell on the stairs, my work because the servers imploded and we're loosing thousands of dollars a minute, or my brother calling to tell me his girlfriend said yes to his marriage proposal.
My family, livelihood, and friends are all going to be more important to me than someone's arbitrary definition of table/movie-theater manners. I'll take steps to minimize the amount of inconvenience caused by having to be reachable during such events, but I will not apologize (actually I will as a courtesy, apples to oranges I guess) to having to interrupt whatever small talk I'm having because I got a call I deem more important.
It's your prerogative to not go out with people like me I suppose, but guess what, it would be mine to not go out with people that believe they're so much more important than other people's needs and wants.
It doesn't work, though. What you're proposing essentially allows the lowest common denominator to impose a low standard of basic courtesy on everyone else.
Can you think of anything you wouldn't want someone else doing at the table, even in exchange for your own right to do it?
It isn't the lowest common denominator. It is the evolution of society, empowered by new communication methods. I need to know if the nanny has an issue, just as I need to react to critical professional demands, as quickly as possible. Modern technology has made that possible. If someone is personally offended because I keep my smartphone with me and check if I receive priority messages, that's rather quaint and traditionalist, but it doesn't blend with the real world.
I guess the big difference is that I don't say "deal with it". I actually felt I owed my colleagues a quick explanation and apology.
Think of how different the reaction would have been if instead of writing this:
"If I am at dinner and I decide that I want to keep on top of my device (I have four children and a very busy professional life), those with me have to deal with it. Most of the time my phone is more important than the discardable conversation happening over a meal."
you'd written something like this instead:
"Because I have four children and I want to be reachable in an emergency, I do keep an eye on my phone and occasionally take a call outside. But I try to do this in a way that minimizes the disruption to the people at the table. I hope that people can understand the distinction between putting your phone on the table and fielding casual conversations."
People are generally pretty nice and understanding if you're respectful rather than telling them to deal with it.
How often has this situation happen?
Id say it means that you generally don't value the time spent with the person you are in the physical presence of. There are always exceptions, but if you agree to meet me for lunch or dinner it is because I value that interaction. If you blow me off for some routine call or SMS/MMS, expect me not to invite you or accept an invitation in the future.
Sure I agree it's distasteful to answer a random sms while we're having a beer, and I would never do such a thing - but it's also very distasteful to voice concerns/annoyance about the value of any current interaction versus whatever inherent need a person has to be reachable for communication.
If you tell me that a I'm a jerk for answering a random call and interrupting for 5 minutes while talking to my girlfriend about trivial or banal stuff, I would totally agree. But that kind of sentiment should generally be saved for when you realize someone is being a jerk, not to immediately label a person for having his phone reachable or before an explanation of the reason for taking a call or message.
Part of basic courtesy (for me) is to pay attention to the person that you're eating with; if you don't want to be here, then don't accept or offer an invitation. There's nothing wrong with that, but if we're out at a restaurant together then it's because I want to be there with you...not because I need to consume a meal. I won't watch television, read a book or do routine paperwork during dinner with someone. I consider messing with texts, checking email or taking a phone call to be similar activities.
For what it's worth, with close friends over a snack, I really don't mind. But with new acquaintances, I do expect a certain level of formality and table manners. There is a large swathe of people who would not watch TV, read a book or do paperwork at a table over dinner but they would mess with a phone.
I'd have absolutely no problems whatsoever with geebee's behaviour as described in this thread; (s)he seems polite, considerate and like someone it'd be nice to share a meal with. Noticing that you've got a potentially important message and leaving the table to check would be fine to me! Fiddling with facebook, taking routine calls or texts would seem inconsiderate. Having the phone on the table, but firmly ignored, isn't all that bad, I guess...but I'd rather leave it in a jacket pocket and not have the potential distraction personally.
If that comes over as controlling, well fair enough. Horses for courses, etc. But if my behaviour comes across as controlling and judging, I must say that yours comes across as self-absorbed and somewhat arrogant. But like I said at the start, that may just be a cultural thing.
If the people you dine with are "getting angry" and trying to "control" your actions, the likely reason is that you're being offensively rude, and are missing the social signals of people's frustration and displeasure.
There's a time and place for everything, and much like farts and taking a piss, using your phone should only follow an "Excuse me" as you leave the dinner table.
Ever turn your phone off for the duration of a movie, concert, or show? You only use your phone in the lobby, or at the more casual bookends of an event. This isn't rocket science.
Folks who dine with someone who is constantly dropping the conversation of a shared meal to look down at their phone will indeed "deal with it". They'll simply think of you as overwhelmed and rude, and will hesitate to invite you again.
I am very aware of social nuances and cues. I have no lack of people who want to repeatedly go to dinner with me. I also have a busy life, however, so simplified caricatures of the utility of modern conveniences give me a little chuckle, hence my original post. This story is a restaurant capitalizing on the resentment of the few.
I put my phone on the table b/c I'm not 100% comfortable (rationally or not) with a device emitting radiation near my genitals for hours at a time.
<rant type="indignant" intensity="105%">
If my phone rings, there's a high likelihood I won't be there for long anyways. And in the meantime, if me texting at my own table bothers you, or a couple of low volume buzzes bother you, I highly suggest you disinvolve yourself in the actions of other people's personal lives. Failing that, I invite you to attempt airborne fornication with a gyrating piece of pastry.
</rant>
In this case, the owners want to create a world in which dining is a more sacrosanct activity. If you don't like it then you don't have to dine there thus it is, in fact, none of your business.
I'm a little shocked that people seem okay with this on a site full of people that regularly berate companies for privacy gaffes.
But the small chance of losing my phone and personal data (which is something I can easily mitigate) is the price of admission that I'm eager to pay.
I'm not sure where you're from, but in the united states, employers can pay an hourly rate of $2-ish to people who are expected to collect tips. The stereotypical fast food kid actually has a better hourly rate.
Since when is the definition of a restaurant worker someone who does not make much money? Especially those not working fast food?
Naturally this only applies to the waiting staff, but then again, the chefs aren't going to be the ones handling your phone.
This is usually true, but my experience with people who have naturally loud voices is that they have no clue how loud their voice is even when lowering their volume.
I very very rarely use my phone during dinner, but it's always on the table.
This isn't because I want to use it, it's because it's relatively uncomfortable to keep it in my pocket.
But when my phone is on the table, it is always face down, muted, and off to the side somewhere. Mostly to show whoever I'm with that I'm not watching it, reading messages, or otherwise fiddling with it. I'd have no issue with getting the mentioned discount.
People really have a highly selective ability to be annoyed by things that they are judgmental about/think that they are better than -- or even worse that they think make people better than them -- especially if it triggers their jealousy/resentment. If someone is getting texts or calls, that's incredibly annoying to someone who gets no texts or calls for obvious reasons.
Some years back we took our young children out with their grandparents to a family restaurant. It was mid evening on a Saturday night and the place was full and very loud, with escalating conversations, people having fun, etc.
My infant daughter dropped her fork. I happened to catch a woman nearby -- likely barren and fervently vengeful -- giving the most hateful, glaring look I've ever seen, and I would imagine she went forth to declare how her night was ruined by our much quieter than average table. I recall this experience whenever I hear some railing about children on airplanes, etc -- I imagine that much of it is selective, desperate clutching for offense, and it's much the same regarding people and their anti-smartphone spiels.
Admit it you are already wondering what restaurant this is and what they serve. If that it is the case, they have done their job well.
But taken at face value, it is about the principle. It will push people who like to talk on the phone and disregard everyone around them to either not show up (or it will prompt them to assert themselves and they'll show up and pay 5% but in return will make sure to talk constantly on their phone, so, could backfire).
The apparent intended benefit is to attract many who have been around annoying customers and who would also visit the restaurant out of principle.
It would certainly be interesting. Also, wonder why they can't just ask someone to leave...?
Less than half. So most of their customers are willing to pay 4-5% more in order to keep their phones during the meal. Amazing.
Interesting idea though. They know what sort of atmosphere they would like to have, and they're incentivizing people to make it happen.
I keep my phone in my purse...if I get a notification (email/text), I'll glance at it and act on it only if it's important. If it's a phone call, I'll only answer if it's my mom (who only calls if it's something important) or my husband. Every one else goes to voice mail.
I don't use it while walking, but I surely use it when I don't have anything else to do(waiting for bus/cab, in a cab/bus...). I can keep it in my pocket, but I would rather listen to music, browse news, read articles, blogs, check facebook, twitter etc etc rather than sitting on a bus and waiting for my destination.
To each his own. For me, the choice between "sitting on a bus impatiently waiting for my destination" and "browsing on my phone" is a no brainer. FWIW, it doesn't have to be the internet. I have offline books and video clips on my phone as well.
But that's tangential. Your original post was about people bent in their gadgets. I was outlining why I am bent into my gadget. If you are into leaning into the window of the bus and watching traffic, birds, landscapes, roadkills or whatever, good for you. I would rather be looking at my phone.
Here I have a machine that grants two of my wishes, I use it very often, and using it is very compelling. I dont think its ridiculous to say that when you carry such a powerful and easy to use machine, you start to think of it as being part of yourself, and "why can't you keep it in your pocket" becomes as strange and unanswerable a question as "why can't you keep your hands in your pocket", or "why can't you keep your eyes closed".
You can argue this is an unhealthy trend in culture, and an unhealthy propensity for people who live in an increasingly technological world, but it's unfair - I think so - to judge/condemn/pity people who have the addiction.
I am of the persuasion that phone use during certain times (dinner for example) is to be looked down upon. I even go so far as to consider those with headphones on in the street as not existing in my world. They are ignored. It is great to hear the other side of the argument.
As a side note...I also love my phone and am eager for the day they are implanted in our bodies and seemingly telepathic communication becomes reality. I guess at that point this issue become moot.