Would you still eat at a restaurant if there was vomit on the floor and door at the entry/exit?

[Anonymous]

Scenario: Going out to lunch and the restaurant has not cleaned up vomit from a customer on the pavement, entrance doorway and door itself. They are still allowing entry and exit. Coworker 1 and 3 refuse to enter. They feel it’s a sign of unsanitary conditions or bad food being served. They want to go back to the office. Coworker 2 and 4 are unphased and go in anyway, sit down, and order. Do the two colleagues who refused to enter have the right to be upset with the other two? 1 and 3 Ubered back to the office.

What would you have done?

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't have eaten there. That's gross. It's unsanitary AND an appetite-killer.

[Anonymous]

Would have left and never gone back. Made sure I told everyone I know about this restaurant and it’s unsanitary conditions.

[Anonymous]

Leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scenario: Going out to lunch and the restaurant has not cleaned up vomit from a customer on the pavement, entrance doorway and door itself. They are still allowing entry and exit. Coworker 1 and 3 refuse to enter. They feel it’s a sign of unsanitary conditions or bad food being served. They want to go back to the office. Coworker 2 and 4 are unphased and go in anyway, sit down, and order. Do the two colleagues who refused to enter have the right to be upset with the other two? 1 and 3 Ubered back to the office.

What would you have done?

Even if there were no vomit, people are allowed to change their minds about a meal. The other people ate and they had company. Why would anyone get upset if a couple people headed back instead? The reason why is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

I would not have gone in but would not have cared much about the other two. I mean normally I would think everyone would go somewhere else assuming there was an easy option but life goes on.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is a sign of unsanitary conditions or bad food. Who knows why that person vomited. But I would definitely be grossed out enough by vomit that I wouldn't have gone in. I wouldn't care about the other people choosing to do so, though.

[Anonymous]

I am pretty easygoing but I think I would leave. I might stay if this was a place where you had to drive a bit to find another equivalent place to eat, but if this was say downtown Bethesda I’d be out of there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scenario: Going out to lunch and the restaurant has not cleaned up vomit from a customer on the pavement, entrance doorway and door itself. They are still allowing entry and exit. Coworker 1 and 3 refuse to enter. They feel it’s a sign of unsanitary conditions or bad food being served. They want to go back to the office. Coworker 2 and 4 are unphased and go in anyway, sit down, and order. Do the two colleagues who refused to enter have the right to be upset with the other two? 1 and 3 Ubered back to the office.

What would you have done?

Extreme over reaction. They should have just gone some place else for lunch. All 4 didn’t HAVE to eat together.

[Anonymous]

I’d have gone in and ordered the corn chowder

[Anonymous]

I think the people who stayed were a bit rude, but it wasn’t a big deal. If you are in a group of 4 and 2 can’t eat there, find a different spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who stayed were a bit rude, but it wasn’t a big deal. If you are in a group of 4 and 2 can’t eat there, find a different spot.

+1

[Anonymous]

Why would 1 and 3 be mad? They chose to go back to work instead of somewhere else for lunch? Are y'all joined at the hip or something?

[Anonymous]

No

[Anonymous]

Why would 1 and 3 be mad? They weren’t exposed to anything, they left.

2 and 4 shouldn’t be mad, but that is not the hypo.