"Waiter, I ordered salmon, not salmonella!"

[muckefuck]

Thunderstorm of no, I'm off to 8 p.m. showing of "Kings" at the FilmCenter tonight. I wish I could burnish my Irish in the meantime, but I'm on the front desk so headphones are a no-no.

Hopefully, if the undercooked chicken I ate last night was going to lay me low, it would've done so by now. (I'm contrarian enough to order pork medium rare, but poultry is where I draw the line.) Only one piece made it down my gullet before I realised my--or, rather, their mistake--but it was a big'un. On that note, how about a low-tech poll?

Dilemma: You are dining at a low-cost (~$10/€6 per entree) eatery when you discover that your chicken is dangerously underdone. What do you expect the staff to do about it? [Choose all that apply.]

1. Apologise profusely.
2. Take the chicken out of your dish (if possible), cook it to proper doneness, and replace it.
3. Recook your entire entree from scratch.
4. Offer you an alternative at the same price point.
5. Comp you a smaller item, such as a drink or dessert.
6. Comp you the entree.
7. Comp you the entire meal.

What would be the minimum response you would have to see in order to consider eating at that restaurant again?

Comments

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

Minimum response: 1&2 or 1&3. 7 would baffle me and ensure my repeat patronage.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

yes, what you said.

[hkitsune.livejournal.com]

3, at the very least, maybe 5 as well.

[marnanel.livejournal.com]

1 (profusely or not), and at least one of 2 or 3 or 4.

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

I would expect no less than 1 and 2. 3 or 4 would be less-desirable but acceptable alternatives to 2. 5 would be a nice additional touch. 6 would seem a bit unnecessary, but acceptable. 7 would push me over into uncomfortable excess.

[itchwoot.livejournal.com]

3 or 4, plus 1 of course

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

Chicken tartare!

I'd say I'd expect 1 and 2 at least. 3-6 are in the realm of expectations, and 7 would be unexpected, unless the restaurant was less than 6 months old.

I don't think I'd have poultry at that restaurant again no matter what for a few months. I wouldn't come back if it wasn't at least 1 and 2.

[graeco-celt.livejournal.com]

Hi, I have a question that I thought it would be better to ask here, rather than over on the translation post in linguaphiles, which is getting a bit tense - basically, because it's something I've been wondering about for a few days but, being gender related, would be almost bound to be taken as directly related to the discussion over there, by some member or another and that would be irritating for all.

You are, of course, free to tell me it's none of my business or delete this comment, if you do not wish to answer - I do not wish to intrude.

Anyway, it's really quite simple: a few posts back (I actually can't remember exactly which one), a discussion started up, regarding online versus real names and what you would call someone if you met them in person (or something along those lines).

The bit that interested me was that, at one point, a couple of people were referring to you and did so in the masculine. I found that quite curious, as I've always thought you were female.

Whilst trying to work out exactly why I've always made that assumption, I'd be interested to know if I'm right or not.
If, as I said, you don't mind.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I've had a fair number of people assume I was female after I made reference to "my boyfriend"--this even in groups where I use the alias "linguoboy"! I'd be more surprised if I didn't find myself occasionally making the same mistake with regard to queer women.

[graeco-celt.livejournal.com]

Interesting.
I've never seen you refer to your boyfriend - it was based purely on the way you write.

However, I'm not overly shocked myself - though I am interested in the multitude of subconscious connections and assumptions we all make about things and people.

My husband and I first met online (in a Livejournal community, in fact) and spent the first several months of our friendship with him thinking I was male and me thinking he was female. We were both terribly amused when we found out the truth (which was after the attraction started).

Anyway, thank you for answering.

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

Da's all man, baby.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Aber soviel du weisst, nehm ich's wie 'ne Zicke!

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

Suddenly, it's like I'm watching Myra Breckenridge all over again...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You watched it in German?

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

No, but I did watch Kentucky Fried Movie in Dutch. Same diff.

I've read it. I can't unread it.

[itchwoot.livejournal.com]

Ich weiß natürlich nicht, was genau Du aussagen wolltest, aber Zicke wird mittlerweile auch für "zickige" Männer verwendet. Manche werden allerdings behaupten, dass das ein wenig schwul klingt. ;)

[thesilia.livejournal.com]

2, 3, or 6 would be bare minimum.

i'd be totally thrilled with 7 and that would guarantee my loyalty unless this turned out to be a frequent occurence.

i wasn't sure of the meaning of your option 4... if they offered me an alternative dish at no additional charge, i'd take that, especially if accompanied with the profuse apology. i'd expect at least mild apology accompanying any of those options.

[keyne.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm in this camp.

[stephe.livejournal.com]

You are dining at a low-cost (~$10/€6 per entree) eatery when you discover that your chicken is dangerously underdone.

Actually, this highlights one of the aspects of the basic difference between how my parents approach food. My mother isn't happy until everything -- including bones and the cookware itself -- has been boiled into mush, while my dad a few years ago was in Paris and was presented with what was, basically, duck tartare, and his response was the classic "nomnomnomnomnom."

As for me, I tend to like poultry and pork to be fully cooked without any doubt whatsoever -- so I would ask for the whole dish to be redone -- but I am happy with very, very, very, veryveryvery raw beef and, of course, sushi. Thoroughly irrational, I know, but that's how I (California) roll.

[stephe.livejournal.com]

Also, being married to former diswasher/waitress, and being the son of someone who waited tables to pay her way through college, I am not inclined to ask for discounts and/or compensation. In the words of the wise man: "Shit happens, and sometimes it happens to you." I only get cranky when the management doesn't seem to care, which is a very rare occurrence indeed. So, three or four. Five through seven would make me inclined to a) come back and b) tip heavily.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

As I said, I'm not scared of rare food in general. Trichinosis hasn't been an issue in USDA pork in this country for longer than my lifetime, so I feel on pretty safe ground with my less-than-well pork chops. But, if anything, salmonella and e. coli seem to be a bigger problem now, which is what makes the chicken a health issue rather than a simple matter of preference. If I order my burger medium and it comes out well-done, well, that's a simply misunderstanding and I don't expect more than (2). But if that happens with chicken breast, then there's more wrong in the kitchen than just miscommunication.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

1 + their choice of 2-4, I don't really care which so long as the meal is acknowledged to be inedible and replaced somehow. Any of the comp stuff would be nice but I'd probably go back whether they did any of that or not (so long as they got the apology and the replacement right, I mean).

[cruiser.livejournal.com]

This is about where I sit, although I'd hope they'd offer your choice of 2-4. I might expect some level of 5-7 in a fancy-schmancy place with lots of credibility to lose (and for $lots/entree, one expects that they should be willing to compensate you heavily for a critical failure of this type), but in a low-cost eatery such as you've described, not so much, since they're likely to have enough patronage even if they lose a few customers to mistakes like this.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

2 is unacceptable-- if the chicken isn't safe, then the dish it's been sitting on and the food it's been in contact with isn't either. I'm easy, so assuming 1, anything from 3-7 is fine (though if they're going to do 3, they might as well do 4-- and they get points for comping something for introducing the delay and health risk in the first place.)

[kutsuwamushi.livejournal.com]

I would go back if they started with 1, and then offered to do 3,4,6, or 7.

I wouldn't go back if they did 5. If I paid for $5.75 worth of food, they owe me $5.75 worth of food. (Unsafe food is worthless.)

If they offered to do 2, I would leave and tell my friends and family not to eat there. That would tell me that the staff either is unaware of basic food safety, or that they're aware but are willing to serve unsafe food in order to save a buck.

Not serving food that has been in contact with raw or undercooked chicken (if it's not being cooked) is incredibly basic food safety. I'm surprised that people think that 2 is okay.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

ditto. It's got to be safe. People do also make mistakes, so if they brought me safe food and apologised, I'd be fine with that, though wary in future.

I've always found the whole comping thing strange. On one level I get it as a form of apology, but comping as a substitution for the thing I ordered? No.

[gorkabear.livejournal.com]

Mmm...
Here in Spain, replacing the dish completely would be polite enough.