Family with a child not allowed to eat takeaway pizza inside a cafe. "Garage" defends itself, internet argues

Photo from the author's post thread

The story, which began with a trip to the 'Garage' cafe, quickly turned into a discussion about humane service and 'consumer terrorism'.

The girl described the situation on Threads: she and her husband pre-ordered takeaway food from the 'Garage' cafe to avoid waiting in the hall with their infant child.

"We pre-ordered so everything would be ready quicker, as we hadn't eaten all day. Our son fell asleep on the way, so we ordered for pickup. But as soon as we stopped, he woke up, and it was decided to go into the cafe. We arrived — only four tables were occupied in the hall. We chose the most secluded table so as not to disturb anyone with the child. We settled in, chose additional dishes to what we had already ordered. We were ready to place the order, and they told us that we had food that needed to be taken out," the girl describes.

On the 'Garage' website and in its advertisements, it is indeed stated: a 20% discount applies to 'takeaway' orders. This is a standard practice to encourage self-pickup and lighten the load on the dining hall. However, the rules do not clearly explain what to do if a client wishes to change the format on the spot.

"We offered to pay the full price because we were very hungry and wanted to eat quickly, but they argued that it was not allowed. We don't understand what to do in such a situation. We are hungry, but 'you can drink tea and eat what you order separately'."

I don't understand why this happened; there were very few people in the hall, we weren't disturbing anyone, it was force majeure. It became terribly unpleasant. We picked up the food and went home.

In my opinion, they could have made an exception. We had planned everything beforehand and wouldn't have eaten there with the child if the child had been asleep. It's a waste of time and money," she writes.

"Is it about rules or about people?"

Two camps quickly formed in the comments under the post.

Some believed: the establishment could have been accommodating.

"My God, everyone is so angry! If the halls are empty — what's the problem with feeding people with a discount? The quality of service in Belarus is zero."

"If the clients were willing to pay extra, the order could have been canceled and a new one made. Customer-orientation is about flexibility,' users write."

Others, however, remind: a discount for self-pickup is a mandatory condition.

"For self-pickup -20%. It's logical that you weren't allowed to eat inside," one of the commentators notes.

"I tried this myself. I decided to order breakfast through the app so it would be ready faster. There's no option to eat on-site — only self-pickup. I wasn't allowed to eat inside — I had to take it away," another user shares about their experience.

"It should have been: they could have understood the situation, canceled the discount, and let you eat. I agree here. But why didn't you mention in the post that there's a 20% discount for self-pickup? This changes the whole picture. Without this detail, it looks distorted," they note in the comments.

"Your 'problem' can be solved on the spot in 2 minutes. Add a service percentage, if applicable. If there was a takeaway discount — remove it. If the system doesn't allow it — call a manager," commentators add.

"Well, it's logical, 'Garage' has a 20% discount for self-pickup.
As an option — change the order in the app via support and pay extra. Or cancel it and make a new one in the dining hall," they write in the comments.

"Consumer terrorism" or a normal request?

Some users accused the author of trying to trick the system: getting a self-pickup discount while still using the dining hall.

"This is called consumer terrorism," one of the commentators wrote.

Павялічыць

"Most likely, you just decided to be clever — you are guests, what's the force majeure here?" they write in the comments.

Others went further, suggesting that such stories are pressure on businesses via social networks.

On the other hand, there's a counter-argument: people don't always think about 'schemes,' sometimes it's just a life situation — travel, a child, fatigue.

Official response from "Garage"

"Garage" itself reacted quite quickly in the comments.

"We regret that you found yourselves in such a situation and will try to resolve what happened as quickly as possible. We have written to you in private messages to clarify the details," they wrote.

Then, in a separate comment, they admitted that the employee acted according to instructions, but failed the 'humanity litmus test'.

"We would like to comment on the situation. Yes, we indeed have a restriction for 'takeaway' orders, and as it turns out, real-life situations can break any rules. We will definitely refine the scripts for our team so that in the pursuit of standards, the main thing — humanity and a warm attitude towards guests — is not lost.

The girl who posted helped us see where the system failed,' the cafe responded.

Павялічыць

And here, commentators split into two camps.

"You guys are great! Excellent response," "You're great, but she's wrong" — write some.

"I am against such a position. Enough of giving in," "When will the establishment start defending its rules? You took a takeaway with a promotion — eat outside. Want to eat here — pay. But have some conscience. It's unfair to the employees," wrote others.

• 0
• 0
• 0
• 2
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0