By Danielle Lattuga, 1-04-08
“We have a lot of money, and we’re never eating here again!”
They were standing on the sidewalk in front of the restaurant, scattered like dirty laundry tipped out of a basket.
“Good, that’s good.” I exhaled the words with a snicker, my arms folded across my belly, my head cocked slightly to the left, jaw set somewhere between laughter and fury. My heel rested against the door, holding it open as my co-worker tugged on my arm, trying to get me inside before things got any worse.
When I said, “Let’s take this outside,” I only meant let’s go outside and not disturb my other, polite, mostly sober and completely courteous customers. I meant, let’s not let you embarrass yourself further. She thought I meant, “Let’s rumble.”
Of course she did. She was hammered and she was furious with me for refusing to get her a glass of wine.
Between the six of them, they had ordered two salads, an appetizer and one entrée. Apparently they didn’t intend to spend their expansive riches in our packed restaurant anyway.
Intoxication is an interesting thing. Especially when it’s up to someone else to determine if you are too intoxicated. I’ve never enjoyed cutting people off. Okay, that’s not entirely true. When I worked in a bar, there were a few occasions in which I enjoyed it, only because they were people that got completely inappropriate with me, before I cut them off.
But when you work in a nicer restaurant, in which liquor is not served, and most folks come in for the whole experience of good food and a nice bottle of wine or locally brewed beer, it seems exceptionally awkward when you have to refuse to serve someone more alcohol. You don’t want to rain on their parade. Really.
On that particular night, the party in question arrived at the door clearly intoxicated. The most ornery of the bunch (a fine featured blonde, wearing tight jeans and pink lipstick) was held up by her husband on one arm and another woman on the other arm, who was a bit tipsy herself.
When they ordered a bottle of wine, I awkwardly stated, “I can’t serve you guys.” I should have been a little softer about it, in retrospect. I’ll give them that. They asked me “why?” and I responded, “Because you guys are hammered.” That was it. I could see her talons flash as tapped her fingers on the table. Her eyes narrowed.
“We’re not drunk.”
“Who’s driving tonight?” I glanced nervously around the table at a collective of unfriendly faces.
The father and the husband said they were sober, and driving. I told them I would get them a beer, if they liked, but I wouldn’t serve the table a bottle of wine. And I shouldn’t have even acquiesced to that.
“I’m sorry. I can’t, it’s my responsibility.”
And really, that’s what peeves me more than anything. It’s my responsibility and I don’t think it should be. I don’t know where you were before you were here, and I don’t know where you will go after, and I have no idea how many drinks you had outside of this establishment, what your body weight is and if you are really walking home or if you fully intend to get behind the wheel of the car that you drove downtown in. But I have to make a decision based on what I observe in a few short minutes.
Sometimes it’s crystal clear, like in the case of my table of six, but most of the time, it’s not. Someone can appear perfectly sober, and then they have a glass of wine, and all of a sudden, they are slurring their words and leaning slightly to the left.
Once, this guy came in, sat down at our pretty little bar and ordered a glass of white wine. I handed it to him, turned my back to fill another order and when I turned back, the wine was gone. He peed on the stool and had to be escorted out. He seriously seemed normal. I didn’t notice that he smelled funny from that distance. Another time, a guy came in the back door (which should have tipped me off) ordered a glass of wine and proceeded to incriminate himself as an alcoholic in a manic moment. He took one sip of wine, and all of a sudden his voice rose an octave and he was cracking jokes. Then he snuck back out the back.
Even people who aren’t alcoholics can fool you. There have been nights when really nice people come in and they have clearly had a few. In my most polite way, I’ve told them that I’d be happy to get them dinner, but I can’t serve them any more to drink and it still turns out badly. They usually end up leaving after they’ve ordered food, but before they’ve gotten it. It doesn’t matter how polite you are about it. People get mad. In reality, they are probably embarrassed, but the bottom line is, it sucks for the person that has the guts to cut you off, at least as much as it does for you, if not more.
We’re supposed to keep our customers happy. We’re supposed to make them want to come back. We’re supposed to abide by the law, which is a stupid law, by the way. It’s stupid because we are not often in a position to make that judgment, unlike the people who have spent the entire evening with you, and know you as well when you are sober, as when you are drunk. It’s also stupid because really, only the person doing the drinking knows their limitations—or should.
None of us want to contribute to a potential drunken tragedy, nor do we want to inhibit someone’s fun. It’s a conundrum that makes chickens out of most of us and bad guys out of those of us who try to do the right thing. In our Montana culture of drinking in our cars (I know, not anymore, technically) and smoking in our bars, accountability seems to become a little blurry in the eyes of the accountable. Not one person has ever thanked me for cutting them off. I always thought that having someone look out for you was a privilege worth gratitude.
The little blond got really boisterous after I refused to serve her and her family. She bitched about it, loudly. She was asked by one of my co-workers to lower her voice, and then they all decided to leave, while their meal was being prepared and our food cost increased.
The rest of the party was standing outside when she came up to the bar and asked our dishwasher for a manager. When I stepped up to the bar, she asked me again what the problem was. I told her, again. Then I looked at my other customers looking at us. Their full plates sat in front of them. I could see the pasta going cold. That’s when I said, “Let’s take this outside.” The gleefulness of her response had “cat fight” written all over it, but still I went outside.
One of the guys said to me that he liked to eat at our restaurant, and that this sucked. I said, “I’m sorry.” And I was. But the thing is, I would have been more sorry if I had knowingly served people who were already drunk and they went out and killed themselves or someone else. It happens, too much. I know. I’ve known those losses, well enough. And it seems crazy that I have to validate my decision with that sort of anecdote. Shouldn’t the fact that one person in this world has suffered that kind of loss be enough?
I know it’s hard to cut someone off, but if you think you should, then you should, in your most polite and kind way. Offering to find them a sober ride should be part of your response. And if someone cuts you off, somewhere, in that drunk brain of yours, try to recognize that they are doing you a kindness, even if you feel humiliated. If someone cuts off your friend, and they can’t see the kindness in it, be the friend that that reinforces that kindness, and rein your drunken friend in.
Service to your fellow man trumps customer service every time.
How about the edge Senator Obama now seems to hold over Senator Clinton in the wake of recent events in Iowa? Perhaps this will supercede my earlier comment in response to your "polling" questions. Nice writing, as always, D.
Jim W. Vogele
Danielle, I'm curious, what does the law say specifically in this regard?
Also, though this may sound coldhearted, I disagree with your rhetorical question/ comment "Shouldn’t the fact that one person in this world has suffered that kind of loss be enough?" Actually, no. There are all kinds of things that pose risks of varying degrees, and if the standard is "any behavior that ever results in an unnecessary death should be illegal," well, I think you can see where that goes.
That said, nice piece!
This is just a lack of decorum, pure and simple. Personally, I wish that we could evolve into a civil society full of individuals capable of taking care of themselves and respecting one another- including exercising a modicum of self-control when being told "no." In this case, the "no" was about having more alcohol, but it could have just as easily been a retail store that didn't have a particular size in stock, a traffic light that turned red before the driver could get through the intersection, or a nordic ski trail where one is expectred not to post-hole the ski track by walking on it. We have become a society plagued by takers who put the fulfillment of their own desires above all else and who treat their posession of the vehicle for that fulfillment (usually money, but also sometimes looks or youth), as carte blanche to go out and get it. It's bikes on the sidewalk, illegal traps at the trailhead, dog crap on the Kim Williams Trail, and treating a server like a serf because you can't have what you want (Which, you have a right to, because "we have a lot of money.") Uh huh. Do you have enough money to cover the settlement the restaurant gets to pay out when you drink too much and run over some kid on the way home?
Comment By Dish GRRRRL, 1-07-08Hi Jonathan,
Thank you for comment. In response to your question, I offer this:
Montana is one of 20 states that has a "Dram Shop Law," which imposes strict liability upon the seller of intoxicating beverages when the sale results in harm to a third party's person, property, or means of support. Prosecution of this law was illustrated in Missoula recently when a local bar was sued for over-serving a kid who ended up in a bad DUI wreck. The intoxicated person cannot sue the establishment, typically, but the "third party" can.
Basically, If I serve someone a glass of wine, after they have had several beverages at other establishments, I could be held liable when they go out and kill or injure someone, by the family of the deceased or the injured persons themselves.
There is documentation that these types of laws in conjunction with mandatory training of those who serve alcohol can reduce drunk driving incidents. Hey, I'm for that, but the key phrase is "in conjunction with mandatory training," in my opinion; and in my 16 years of customer service, I have yet to encounter such a training. What I know, I've taught myself, and clearly it is not enough.
Montana also has a "Social host liability statute" that imposes liability on social hosts as a result of their serving alcohol to persons or minors. This is typically prosecuted when the "host" provides alcohol to people who are clearly intoxicated or minors who then are involved in crashes or other accidents that cause death or major injury. This tends to be applied to private individuals who serve alcohol in a non-commercial venue, like parents that throw a kegger for their teenagers.
Mr. Vogele, would you care to add to any of this, since you are way more adept at legal-eez than I am?
Also, I respect that you disagree with my rhetorical question, but would like to clarify that the question was posed in relation to my personal decision to try and do a right and conscious thing, and that I don't think that should require justification- I didn't mean to imply that I think the standard should be "any behavior that ever results in an unnecessary death should be illegal," because I do see where that could go.
For me, it's more about a consciousness, and an individual choice to recognize your obvious and potential role in tragedy. For me, one of the several crosses in the Gallatin Canyon that I can put a name to is plenty, and each of those losses just brushed my soul. I think understanding the true nature of loss would make many of us think a little more deliberately about our actions. But that's because I am at times, pathetically empathic.
I don't believe you to be cold-hearted. Thank you for raising a very pertinent point.
Good write, you're right and you did right. But hey,try and be a bit more sensitive, I lean way to the left when I'm completely sober!! Please learn that while you could probably have taken the blonde, inviting six people outside is never smart, you could have been jumped, and not in a good way. =|:)=
Comment By Julie, 1-08-08Thank you Danielle for having the guts to say no and for doing the right thing. We need MORE people like you in this world.
You are right about the training. I waited tables in Oregon and was not allowed by law to serve alcohol until I earned a server's permit by attending an alcohol awareness course.
Danielle,
An intersting and difficult topic. You are right: Montana has a dram shop law. It is in the Montana Code Annotated. In applying this law, legal issues arise that go far beyond the scope of this comment (including "knowledge" of intoxication, and "causation" of injury). Without getting into the specific legal ramifications, training is a good idea.
Sorry for being so lawyerly, but the ethics and liability issues in the legal profession require me to say that, "I am not providing legal advice in this comment."
Keep up the good writing!
Thanks for your very thorough response Danielle. Very good points all. And thanks again for the fine piece, and for raising a touchy and important issue.
Comment By JAR, 2-22-08Great job with a tough subject. It's good to look at the other part of this topic. It's easy to blame the bar or restaurant and forget the aspect of personal responsibility.
JAR