Ask George: Why do some restaurants not allow guests to split the bill? —Kay F., St. Louis
Oh, I hear you, but there are reasons for the "one check per table" policy... although it can be problematic when the reimburser isn’t carrying a load of cash, Venmo isn’t an option, and we all know that personal checks are as last century as Chicken à la King.
For the server, processing one check is easier than three, although not that much easier. But when it's a 12-top, I feel their pain. Now, when tables start asking for separate checks—that is, itemizing the guest checks per couple or per person—that's a far bigger task, although many establishments do accommodate such requests. With modern point-of-sale software, splitting checks is far easier than it used to be, except in the case of sharable items that need to be split up. (See where this is going?)
Another downside to separate checks is that some guests might rightfully assume their tablemates are bigger tippers and back off their contribution. Then the server suffers (similar to how the “banker” guest often suffers when their tablemates throw money in the communal pot at the end of a meal).
On the flip side, remember that restaurants pay a per-transaction fee, so fewer transactions saves them money. Another possible reason for one check is so the restaurant can post "20 percent gratuity will be added to parties of six or more," assuring the server of a decent tip.
Given the current climate, however, I think the biggest reason for one check per table is labor: Restaurant owners are being forced to do anything in their power to save a server time, steps, and stress. We’ve all read that restaurant employees are quitting the business in record numbers. So naturally, owners are doing anything and everything to keep them in the game.
If you have a question for George, email him at gmahe@stlmag.com. You can also follow him on Twitter @stlmag_dining. For more from SLM, subscribe or follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.