Is it fair that buffet restaurants charge a fee for toddlers that eat off parent's plate?

[Liberal_in_LA]

after getting past all the outrage, I can see what the restaurant was doing. Trying to keep toddlers from eating for free or taking up restaurant space with large strollers for free. what do you think?

Moms outraged by British restaurant’s ‘baby tax’

A popular British restaurant chain sparked outrage when it charged a new mom an extra $5 for dining with her six-week-old baby.

Natasha Young, 34, asked the staff at Cosmo to remove the tax from her bill but they refused—apparently because they felt the stroller was hogging space in the 800-seat, 22,000-square-foot eatery in Croydon, the London Standard reported. The Croydon establishment is actually the UK’s largest restaurant.

---------

Fury exploded in online mom chat groups across England, and now Cosmo has become better known for its “baby tax” than for its enormous buffets piled with Asian food. The restaurant chain has apologized for the incident and explained the misunderstanding in a statement on its website.

It turns out the chain has a £3 Minimum Policy, and it slaps any diner who doesn’t meet the minimum with a $5 charge. The policy, which has been in place for 7 years, is intended for toddlers take up space and eat, but not a lot and only off a parent’s plate. Cosmo is saying the incident was simply a mistake and the employees at the Croydon location were poorly trained and unaware of the policy.

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2011/11/29/moms-outraged-by-british-restaurants-baby-tax/?tsp=1

[Poll_Blind]

1. Heh heh, Croydon. nt

PB

[Ken Burch]

3. Uh...what?

n/t.

[PeaceNikki]

2. meh.

The restaurant is free to do it and the outraged moms are free to eat elsewhere.

[Luminous Animal]

4. A 6 week old baby is not a toddler and the charge for such is bullshit.

But I see nothing wrong with charging a toddler if the kid is eating the food.

[MADem]

5. There's always the option to vote with one's wallet and not patronize the place.

Lots of places over that way have a per person minimum; in some places there's a fee for simply putting your ass on a chair in a dining establishment. In this case, the establishment said they made a mistake, as the kid was only six weeks old and not 'eating' anything off anyone's plate.

[yellowcanine]

6. Sure it is fair. And it is fair for another restaurant to advertise "kids under 2 eat free".

And I suspect that this is exactly what will happen.

[Mojambo]

11. I'm in favor of this

Everybody wins. Parents get to take their toddlers to a restaurant that welcomes them and I get to eat in a place without toddlers and strollers everywhere.

Win-Win.

[Mimosa]

7. Hmm.

In the first place, buffet restaurants are only a good deal for people who 'pig out' and eat too much. The food at such establishments isn't ever really good, is it?

A six week old baby obviously can't eat anything at a buffet restaurant. But kids over 2 years old can. It seems to me that there ought to be a smaller charge for children's plates at such an establishment.

Babies? If a person doesn't like the restaurant's policies she shouldn't patronise it.

BTW, the menus at Cosmo sound appealing.

http://www.cosmo-restaurants.co.uk/main-courses.html

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. No

Simply, no.

[pipi_k]

9. No. Most toddlers I've ever known

barely ate enough at one sitting to keep a mouse alive

[Ian David]

10. First World Problems. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

12. She should have breast feed and asked for a refund because

she was suppling the food...........