What's a phrase for a compromise in which both sides are unhappy?

I feel like I've heard a phrase like "so-and-so's deal" or "such-and-such agreement" that describes an arrangement/deal/compromise that leaves all sides unhappy. Like "pyrrhic victory", but for agreements.

Anyone know anything like this?

EDIT: As a fictional example... two people are getting married. One has family in New York, the other in LA. Rather than have one family have to fly across the country while the other stays put, they decide to meet in the middle and hold the wedding in Oscar, Kansas. No one, including the couple, has any connection to Kansas, and no one in the situation is happy. (Nothing against Kansas, but it's not a resolution that satisfies anyone in this situation.)

N.B.: Thanks for the Abilene paradox - not what I'm looking for, but a cool thing to learn about.

Solution 1:

This is sometimes called splitting the baby. A related term that connotes a compromise acceptable to both sides is split the difference, and some use “split the baby” as a synonym for this while others consider that an error. The original story was about an ostensible compromise so horrible that it was really a ploy to test who cared the most, but the meaning has changed over time—and not everyone accepts the newer usage.

The story from the Hebrew Bible (1 Kings 3) goes that two prostitutes both claimed to be the mother of the same baby boy, and King Solomon was called to judge the case. He ordered that the baby be chopped in two, and each woman get half. The legend says that one woman begged that he let her baby live, even if she couldn’t keep him, but the other then told Solomon she’d rather he killed the baby so neither could have him. Solomon then declared that the woman who tried to save the baby must be the real mother.

In the slang of American lawyers, though, it’s come to mean something different: if a negotiation is stalled, and the two parties cannot agree on a fair amount of money, but they both agree that it’s somewhere within a certain range and want to come to an agreement quickly, a “split-the-baby” negotiation is one where they meet in the middle (to some, exactly in the middle).

A different opinion, and one that makes it a perfect answer, is that “split the baby” should only be used like in the original story, as an alternative that’s so bad for both parties that it forces them to abandon their hard lines. To those people, if the mother of the bride wanted to invite a hundred people and the groom’s family only wanted to invite fifty, inviting seventy-five would be “splitting the difference” but they would not call it “splitting the baby.” Proposing to make both families travel to Kansas because the bride and groom can’t decide between New York and California might be “splitting the baby” even to them, but only if it’s such a bad alternative that it’s supposed to motivate them to give in a little.

Examples

Several people in the comments say that they have not heard one or more of these usages, so here are some real-world examples. Here are the top search-engine hits that weren’t about Solomon.

In economic disputes, the phrase “splitting the baby” is often used to describe a compromise somewhere in the middle of the opposing parties’ requested demands. [...] In arbitration or litigation splitting the baby is looked at as a very undesirable result. [...] On the other hand, in mediation the parties do not want a decision from a third party[;] they merely want assistance.

The term “to split the baby” is an idiomatic expression for what seems like an unreasonable decision but is actually a ploy to flush out the truth.

Legal disputes are often resolved with a “split the baby” negotiation approach, having a very different meaning than the old King Solomon story. In this context, if a dispute (typically already reduced to a money issue) is within a reasonable range of reaching a solution but both parties are still fairly well dug into their positions, one or the other might suggest that they split the difference, agreeing at a near exact middle ground, without either party making a concession on the validity of their position, merely to get the dispute resolved to avoid incurring further costs of negotiating or litigating the dispute.

An example that’s literally about determining who gets custody of small children:

This is where we get the term “splitting the baby.” It references the equitable act of giving some to each side. However, is splitting the baby the proper way we should consider custody cases? [...] While we often say we want to split the baby, do we really like such a result?

One person who says that he thinks the term should only be used in situations like you asked about, but also says that’s not how American lawyers do commonly use it:

So should you ever say “split the baby?” Sure. Here are two examples:

• The court grants your oppressive motion to compel, but makes discovery mutual, and you then negotiate a reasonable scope for discovery, or
• The court issues a final judgment that is adverse to both parties, so you settle the case.

In those situations, the court’s orders force the parties to reveal information—how much discovery was really needed and what the parties were willing to settle for—that the court couldn’t determine itself.

But if you’re just describing a compromise, do our profession a favor and use “split the difference.” It is a much better option.

Observe that all of these examples have some connotation that “splitting the baby” is bad for both sides: “a very undesirable result,” “an unreasonable decision [...] actually a ploy,” “merely to get the dispute resolved to avoid incurring further costs,” etc.

Solution 2:

If both sides are happy we call it a "win-win situation". The opposite would be a "lose-lose situation".

Cambridge Dictionary

A lose-lose situation or result is one that is bad for everyone who is involved:
He said that going ahead with the strike would be a lose-lose situation for all concerned.

Solution 3:

Since a compromise usually involves both side conceding some things, there will logically be degrees of happiness. However, a compromise can also be uneasy and liable to fail because it satisfies neither side. Basically, both sides walk away from the agreement unhappy from the start.

uneasy compromise

The solution sought by the Antall government, with the FKGP as a junior coalition partner, was an uneasy compromise between the two positions, which satisfied no-one and played a big part in the MDF's election defeat in 1994. Eastern Europe: Newsletter—Volumes 12-13.

Several months of uneasy compromise between the council and the syndicate ensured. ... Yet the compromise satisfied neither faction. As it broke down, the councilors repeatedly tendered their resignations only to have the governor insist that they remain in office... Starr and Collier; History and Power in the Study of Law.

We stand today in an uneasy compromise if not an impossible contradiction. The Aims of Education.

As a result of the marathon EEC Council session... an uneasy compromise was reached on procurement prices... Internal Affairs — Issues 1-6.

So both men agreed to an uneasy compromise which satisfied neither of them. Frank Daly; The New Frontier.

With regard to the OP's recent edit about a Wedding Compromise, I suggest that this would likely be one of a series of compromises involving both sides. Usually we can say Side 1 came away with A, C, D, and E; Side 2 got B, F, and G. For some points, like the venue, something (the distance in this case) can be split in half. True, this choice of the venue may satisfy no one, but perhaps many are less unsatisfied than they would be having to travel twice the distance. (Personally, I'd pick one location or the other and "make it up" to the other side of the family with other parts of the overall compromise or something involving the cost of tickets or hotel accommodations.)