If you don't know the infamous Tomatoes on the Side story, you can catch up by listening here:
Anyway, it almost happened again. Well, it actually did happen, but then it resolved.
This time it was at Jersey Mike's, not Subway.
I had gone to this location many times, and gotten tomatoes on the side each time without pushback.
Yesterday I ordered my usual sandwich, again with tomatoes on the side.
A new employee responded, "I can't do tomatoes on the side. We can't put things on the side."
I told him that this is definitely allowed, and that I've done it many times this year.
He responded, "All I know is that I was told not to put anything on the side. I'm sorry."
I asked him if this was a matter of packaging. I offered to have them use no additional packaging, and just put the tomato next to the sandwich, and I would repackage it myself to separate them. Again, he repeated that he simply can't put the tomatoes on the side at all.
Memories of the asshole Subway owner came flooding back. Was this yet another mandate from a greedy franchise owner, trying to save money by refusing people to put things on the side which ALREADY COME WITH THE SANDWICH??
I asked him the reason for the refusal. "This comes with tomato, though. I just want that on the side, not extra. It's the same tomato either way."
The guy was flustered and just kept muttering, "But... I'm just not allowed to do it....", when a longtime employee of the store (presumably the acting manager) noticed this. He asked her about the tomato, and she came over to me. I said, "You know I've done this a lot of times with no issue. Is it really true I can't have the tomato on the side anymore? Again, if it's about the packaging, I don't need extra packaging for it."
She replied, "Well, it's not really about.... ummm... Well, you see, the reason we don't allow it is for liability. If you take the side tomato home and don't refrigerate it and forget about it, and then eat it and get sick, you could sue us."
What kind of bullshit excuse was this? Eating a sandwich left out for an extended period of time is MUCH more dangerous than eating a rotten tomato, so what exactly is this policy protecting? Seemed to me she was just making it up on the spot.
"That's okay, I'll sign a waiver promising never to sue you about the tomato. If I do that, will you let me have the tomato on the side?"
Obviously I wasn't being serious here, but was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of her claim.
"Umm... welll... you know what? Just do it. Give him the tomato", she said.
So it had a happy ending.
But what's the real reason for this policy? It couldn't be liability. My guess is that the franchise owner told them to stop doing it (to save money), and she just didn't want to deal with arguing with me.