Crew Fund

Mark,

Many SS customers welcome the opportunity of thanking SS crew for the great experience they work hard to provide. Although tipping is neither requested or required, many still like to show their appreciation. You will agree that the customer facing people are the “tip of the ice-berg” and that it is a team effort where the people behind the scenes offten receive insufficient appreciation from customers. Some feel however that the Crew Fund lacks a degree of clarity and is opaque and I'd like to suggest an enhancement.

Currently SS presumes that all customers are content to contribute to a charity unless they opt out. This post isn't about discussing the merits or demerits of that, but it does indicate that SS is open to accepting customer contributions to good causes direct from on-baord accounts, and many feel that the crew is a more attractive home for contributions. I'd like to suggest a replacement to the Crew Fund that is both clear, good for SS in providing better pay and conditions to staff, and will give SS's customer's a better way of saying thanks to all SS staff. It is after all teamwork.

The proposal is a note in passengers suites a couple of says before the end of the cruise from the captain that after all the “niceties” reminds customers that tips are neither required or expected, but they may if they wish contribute to the Crew Excellence Bonus Scheme. The scheme in essence is a contribution to a "tronc" fund (you basically ask the passengers how much they would like to contribute making clear it is both anonymous and completely optional) but that the fund is distributed a bit like the tronc system. To be clear the communication will be finessed to ensure it is being done to reflect customers' desire to contribute ... and is not "expected". I visualise the distribution for this as being in very simple terms, that if the amount collected at the end of a 7 days cruise represents say 5% of that ships weekly non-management wage bill then all non-management staff have their wages uplifted by 5% for that week in other words distributed in the ratio of their earnings.

I have suggested that management levels are excluded from the scheme because I simply believe that is the way it should be. I also believe it would be easy to administer and becomes an incentive for all staff to do better and is an indication to them of genuine and more tangible customer appreciation.

This suggestion does have upsides and downsides and I offer it by way of starting the discussion about what is best for SS, it's staff and customers.

I'd appreciate your views on this idea.

This is a matter dear to my heart. The tronc fund idea is interesting, but I fear for a number of reasons that it won't fly.

However, I just came upon an item about the Europa 2 (Hapag-Llloyd). On at least one cruise that was being reviewed, they had a raffle with all proceeds going to the crew welfare fund. The prizes were modest but special -- a crew towel signed by crew members, etc.

A raffle would provide a way of advertising and encouraging contributions to the Crew Welfare Fund. The drawing could take place at the end of cruise associated with the crew parade. Participation would be entirely voluntary. One would buy tickets at reception ($25 per?). If management really wanted to support this idea it could make the prizes more significant -- e.g.

$5000 raised in that raffle = first prize of 10% off future cruise

$7500 raised = first prize of 15% off future cruise

etc.

That would be a shame.

It would give SS customers an opportunity to give small amounts that would be shared amongst all crew. I think if explained properly many customers would like and welcome the idea and collectively the incremental amounts to basic earnings - The Bonus - would clearly be welcomed by every non-management member of the crew. The marginal effect of small increases to low earnings can have a disproportionate effect. It would also be an incentive and in time make the product even better, paid for by customers and not an additional overhead for SS.

Clearly if the response to the idea is negative then it won't happen. If however it is supported by customers and as a result SS managment, then we could collectively be instrumental in improving the tough and demanding lives of the very people possibly ... what .. around 1500 people (?) we purpotedly and regularly say that we most wish to help.

To be honest, I wouldn't give cash to a raffle, because I'd want to give the cash to the fund. It just doesn't sit right with me because it implies that I will only do this through self-interest and if there is a chance of a benefit to myself. and that the crew fund is a bi-product, and that I wouldn't do it otherwise. This in my view dilutes the concept of genuine appreciation. The fund should be seen clearly by staff as customers saying they appreciate the staff, not that they want knick-knacks.

Just an opinion ....

That would be a shame.

 

It would give SS customers an opportunity to give small amounts that would be shared amongst all crew. I think if explained properly many customers would like and welcome the idea and collectively the incremental amounts to basic earnings - The Bonus - would clearly be welcomed by every non-management member of the crew. The marginal effect of small increases to low earnings can have a disproportionate effect. It would also be an incentive and in time make the product even better, paid for by customers and not an additional overhead for SS.

 

Clearly if the response to the idea is negative then it won't happen. If however it is supported by customers and as a result SS managment, then we could collectively be instrumental in improving the tough and demanding lives of the very people possibly ... what .. around 1500 people (?) we purpotedly and regularly say that we most wish to help.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't give cash to a raffle, because I'd want to give the cash to the fund. It just doesn't sit right with me because it implies that I will only do this through self-interest and if there is a chance of a benefit to myself. and that the crew fund is a bi-product, and that I wouldn't do it otherwise. This in my view dilutes the concept of genuine appreciation. The fund should be seen clearly by staff as customers saying they appreciate the staff, not that they want knick-knacks.

 

Just an opinion ....

And, of course, your opinion is informed, well-stated, and important.

I see the raffle as a way of advertising the (currently under-patronized) fund. Nothing more. All money raised via the raffle would go directly to the fund. All of it! I had assumed that any cruise discounts for winners would be provided by management.

I had not anticipated your self-interest argument, but I understand it. Perhaps that is why Hapag-Lloyd gave only items of modest monetary value (e.g., crew towel) and why a discount on a future cruise might be off-putting to some.

I can imagine many guests protesting that they do not want to increase wages by way of a bonus. If crew want/need more money, the argument might go, Silversea should provide it. I am paying top dollar (or pound) for my fare, and I should not be asked to pay more. That's an argument I can anticipate (though I do not subscribe to it).

I thought that providing extras to the crew (crew bars, coaches to beaches, extra internet access, time on the phone to family, etc.) might be less objectionable to guests -- understanding that these are extras, not part of a standard compensation package Silversea should provide.

I think we have the same goal, Jeff: How do we get significant tokens of our appreciation to the guy washing our soiled bedsheets in the laundry, the guy scrubbing the pots in the galley, etc. I saw the raffle as a non-coercive way of increasing participation in the crew welfare fund.

O,

If your idea is intended to be in addition to any contributions I am converted! Between us we have increased participation. :)

With respect to direct contribution participation. Even if 90% didn't participate I suspect the amounts would still be significant.

If for the sake of argument there was one junior member of staff for each cabin, then if each person earned say £100 per week, and 10% of cabins tipped £100 for a weeks cruise, my maths are shakey but doesn't that produce a £10 bonus for each qualifying crew member? 10% increase of earnings from a very low cruise participation rate.

It's late .... or more accurately early ... so please correct me!

O,

 

If your idea is intended to be in addition to any contributions I am converted! Between us we have increased participation. :)

 

With respect to direct contribution participation. Even if 90% didn't participate I suspect the amounts would still be significant.

 

If for the sake of argument there was one junior member of staff for each cabin, then if each person earned say £100 per week, and 10% of cabins tipped £100 for a weeks cruise, my maths are shakey but doesn't that produce a £10 bonus for each qualifying crew member? 10% increase of earnings from a very low cruise participation rate.

 

It's late .... or more accurately early ... so please correct me!

I think your calculation is correct. And you really do need to get to bed! :)

My idea is, of course, in addition to the current fund. But my sense is that that fund has very few contributions. I see the raffle as a vehicle for advertising the fund in a non-coercive manner, celebrating at the crew parade final reception the amount raised, and encouraging participation. My primary goal is to increase participation and thus the amount in the pot.

I think we still differ regarding the issue of bonus vs. other forms of recognition. I wholly agree with you that crew would much prefer the bonus. But I fear that some guests would resist topping up salaries on an all inclusive cruise line.

Sleep well!

I find this discussion of a making changes to a fund that isn't even recognized formally fascinating. I would think the risks to the brand's promise (personal service on a high plane for the fare paid) could be substantial if Silversea were to formalize the fund as suggested above, however well-intended, since gratuities are not expected.

When one considers that most likely the vast majority of the Silversea passengers are not even aware that such a fund exists, I therefore wonder if it is even necessary to change?

I find this discussion of a making changes to a fund that isn't even recognized formally fascinating. I would think the risks to the brand's promise (personal service on a high plane for the fare paid) could be substantial if Silversea were to formalize the fund as suggested above, however well-intended, since gratuities are not expected.

 

When one considers that most likely the vast majority of the Silversea passengers are not even aware that such a fund exists, I therefore wonder if it is even necessary to change?

Sadly, I entirely understand where you are coming from.

I think that the fund exists on all luxury lines. But you are correct that (IME) none has advertised it.

I can understand that there might be push-back from some guests. But Silversea must have some experience of this phenomenon. I think it is unique among luxury cruise lines in having an opt-out program of contributing to a charity I still do not fully understand. :)

I'm not clear that that is true.

Firstly I think it well within the capability of clever people to form the letter as simply informative. Most people know that people tip, many would have contributed to the crew fund if they simply knew. That is often what is said here. I see no downsides to simply the provision of decent information.

I also don't think SS would share your scoping of the risk. There is quite a lot of opaqueness with respect to the exact meaning of the all inclusive nature of the product. Extra for better wine, caviar, wifi, excusrsions, premium restaurant, treatments etc I do not think it likely a single customer would decide not to rebook simply because this information was provided. SS already impose without asking first a contribution to the Chairman's wife's pet charity .....

 

Most people know that people tip, many would have contributed to the crew fund if they simply knew. That is often what is said here. I see no downsides to simply the provision of decent information.

 

.

I hope you are correct here. The raffle proposal was simply a means of publicizing the fund and encouraging contributions. I also think that having a drawing in conjunction with the end-of-cruise crew parade might encourage people to contribute when they are next on Silversea. If a letter to guests or a couple of notices in the daily Chronicles would do the trick, let's do it.

I hope you are correct here. The raffle proposal was simply a means of publicizing the fund and encouraging contributions. I also think that having a drawing in conjunction with the end-of-cruise crew parade might encourage people to contribute when they are next on Silversea. If a letter to guests or a couple of notices in the daily Chronicles would do the trick, let's do it.

:)

One doesn't need to be correct for all people, just a minority. In the overall ying and yang of life I don't think a potentialy helpful experiment that is potentially decent and positive should be abandoned simply through fear of annoying a mean dispirited, grumpy stone-hearted minority.

a mean dispirited, grumpy stone-hearted minority.

The message from which this phrase has been extracted must have been posted to the wrong board. Silversea does not permit such people on its ships, and there are certainly none on this forum.

The message from which this phrase has been extracted must have been posted to the wrong board. Silversea does not permit such people on its ships, and there are certainly none on this forum.

I stand corrected O! :D

...SS already impose without asking first a contribution to the Chairman's wife's pet charity .....

This has always bugged me a bit, but it is small enough that I never did anything about it. But after substantial consideration and Observer's comment about choosing to not participate in the charity, but at the same time making a donation to the Crew Fund and making it clear that you're doing one in place of the other finally moved me over.

I went down to reception yesterday and backed out of the Children's Project and instead, made a donation to the Crew Fund. It felt right. This is in addition to my usual direct donations, as Observer suggested a while back. Yes, I did get a nice letter from the HR lady.