Jump to content

Lets talk about tipping


shooie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Removing is the best way to help the crews, the lines will not change the game as long as it works. So you keep trying to get people to leave in place and I will keep stating the truth.

 

Your opinion is not necessarily the truth, just sayin'. Must say, your ego is amazing though.

 

The end, I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing is the best way to help the crews, the lines will not change the game as long as it works. So you keep trying to get people to leave in place and I will keep stating the truth.

 

So, in your view, starving something will make it stronger? :rolleyes:

 

The truth is that the system as it stands works for the staff and for the vast majority of cruise passengers who truly care about the staff's well being and not about their own financial gain in the guise of some imaginary altruistic endeavour.

 

Just because you don't like it doesn't make your opinion the truth. In one of your early posts you said you HATE the gratuity policies. If you were being honest about trying to help the staff, you wouldn't be using such a word to describe your intentions. Admit it. It is all about you and not about the staff at all. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Auto gratuities provide certain benefits. It relieves me of all tipping issues including when, to whom and how much. It also means no need to carry cash around on the ship. I've never been on a cruise where I'd considered the service substandard to the point I would cancel them.

 

I will tip over and above as an incentive to provide improved service. I've found a few dollars strategically placed early in the cruise (e.g. to bartenders) can result in priority service for the remainder of the cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is really upsetting is that some people are like a system of good to great service that cruise lines are providing and they use all this nice service. Yet they feel that they don’t have to participate in paying for this. Nice logic.

 

To add additional tips for an exceptional service is a personal thing, but auto gratuities aren’t really unless service was really bad. Just because cruise lines offer this choice to remove auto gratuities they shouldn’t be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I agree cruise lines should make it a service charge, if they want this fee "The only way around this is for the cruise companies to just up the total price of the trip for each passenger and give the staff a better salary." But it will never happen on the mainstay lines, the only reason they use this daily fee program is to save money. ...

 

Then you'll love what NCL did in the US last year. They call it a "service charge" and it cannot be removed on board. A passenger who claims that they should not have to pay it must request a form from the purser. They then fill it out and explain what was the specific service failure and how was in not resolved on board. The form is then imaged and emailed to a shoreside NCL office for a refund request. Absolutely brilliant. NCL now has a centralized, digitized file - in the passenger's own handwritting - of real and alleged service failures.

 

 

I'd like to see all cruise lines adopt that policy. Then the "smart people" who want to remove them will have to think of a new excuse each time they sail. If every sailing has "service failures" then they perhaps NCL can tell that customer they are sorry that they cannot fulfill their expectations and they will be happier sailing on another line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because cruise lines offer this choice to remove auto gratuities they shouldn’t be removed.

 

The cruise lines do not offer this option out of generosity. They do it because it is a legal requirement in order to keep separate staff gratuity income from company revenue. This was explained a while back by chengkp75, a cruise industry insider who has been a purser on cruise ships during his vast maritime career. While they are not legally able to prevent the paying customer from reducing or removing gratuities, they can, as in NCLs example, make it as inconvenient and burdensome as possible.

 

Kudos to NCL for making it harder for people to stiff the staff. I also wish all cruise lines would do something similar, minimizing this selfish money grab by certain passengers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that I've ever disputed that. You think that your removal of gratuities will somehow, eventually improve the lot of the crew, but that's not the case at all.

 

But isn't it just wonderful that (s)he can take a principled stand against the Man, screw 3rd world workers, and put money in their own pocket all at the same time? You really have to admire the selflessness that makes these folks not only do it themselves, but try to convince other people to do it.(yn) Sadly for them, most people have this stupid integrity gene that prevents them from adopting such cynical behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets talk about tipping

 

 

No. There are more than enough threads on here about tipping. I'd like to propose a new thread. I'm appalled that no one has ever brought this up. Why are there no Cocoa Puffs on the breakfast buffet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me see if we are clear here. First you say cruise lines are " charging you to avoid additional taxes,..." so you want to be part of a conspiracy to defraud the Government also know as tax evasion? Sorry I may push the edges of the law to the line but will not cross is.
Rest assured, this tax shelter is perfectly legal, in the same way tax loss harvesting is legal.

 

You also said "Auto gratuities are not something really additional...." by definition they are always optional if not they are service fees.
Again, you're choosing to give the dictionary more weight than it deserves. Other dictionaries recognize the definitional rupture inherent in M-W, and offer far more accurate definitions: "a gift of money, over and above payment..." and "something given without demand or claim". If you must slave yourself to dictionary definitions for "gratuity," you're better off doing so with regard to these definitions for it.

 

In practice, the word "discretionary" is more accurate than "optional" or "voluntary" when describing the control that the give-er has in these circumstances. It communicates the actual obligation of hospitality that applies: Service is given by a serve-er, and in return the recipient of the service applies discernment to determine how much to give. That "how much" might be nothing, if the quality of service given is so bad as to substantiate that determination, but there is nothing about gratuities in our society that make them something that patrons can morally decide to simply opt-out-of.

 

And my contract as guest says the daily service fee are at my discretion .
Precisely: Discretion. The question is how could discretion result in a determination of $0 for having received great service?

 

So you or no one else has any say over what other guest do when we are following the contract.
That goes without saying. What people are "having say over" is what is right and wrong - not what another guest actually does.

 

 

Not going to get into the debate, ...
Well, actually, you did. <shrug>

 

Just want to pass along, I spoke quite a bit with one of the bar waiters just this week and ....
Up-thread it was made clear why we cannot rely on this kind of information coming from someone who is hoping to spur-on your generosity. You need to get this kind of information either from someone more objective or someone for whom there is a big risk if misinformation is discovered, such as a company official who could bring a substantial amount of bad PR to the company were they to be caught in a lie. Having said that, I think you've misunderstood what people said earlier in the thread. You seem to think people were saying that the crew's base salary is substantially larger than what they could earn in their home country. That's not the case. People were talking about their total income, i.e., base salary plus the gratuities they do receive.

 

I'm not sure how much the Indonesian, Filipino, etc., crew members make in excess of what they could make at home, but from all I've read about it and from the logic of the situation it is surely a prodigious amount.

 

This is a business constructed the way it suites everybody.
To be fair, while the arrangement is perfectly legal, it doesn't "suit everybody". There is actually a spectrum of perspective on this issue, with some passengers and cruise lines on one extreme saying that they should be able to service American ports, even one way journeys between two American ports, without having to comply with any American labor laws, much less such laws as they pertain to compensation. On the other extreme you'll find some people saying that the American market is so valuable that any ship that makes port at any American port should be compelled to comply with American labor laws, thereby fostering the opportunities Americans have to work in the industry without having to accept such heavily discounted wages.

 

It works because of this structure. It still works if some (small %) removed tips. It will not work if everybody or even majority will do this. So this small percentage of cruisers is simply using this situation where majority is paying.
Subsidization is a big problem within pricing models, and we can see myriad examples of where, for one reason or another, sellers are working to remove such subsidization. All the surcharging we see is a reflection of this: We see premium-quality, fine-dining, full-service meals shifted into specialty restaurants with a surcharge, so that John and Jane who want that extra increment of quality bear the extra cost of it themselves, rather than having it subsidized by folks like Jim and Jan who would be satisfied with standard-quality, fine-dining, full-service meals in the main dining room.

 

If percentage of smarty pants increases companies will be forced to make a change, because in some reason people who choose to use their services don’t agree with their business model.
I think many of those people would say that that's fine with them. Of course, when you point out how it would actually cost them more to have the cost of stateroom and dining service fully baked into the cruise fare, since the cost of the extra taxes the cruise line would have to pay would be passed along to passengers to keep the change revenue-neutral, they try to evade addressing that reality.

 

But isn't it just wonderful that (s)he can take a principled stand against the Man, screw 3rd world workers, and put money in their own pocket all at the same time? You really have to admire the selflessness that makes these folks not only do it themselves, but try to convince other people to do it.(yn)
I think that's really the thread underlying all these threads. It offends moral sensibilities to see people rationalize offensive behavior sometimes as much as it offends moral sensibilities to see people engage in offensive behavior. Edited by bUU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure we need yet another tipping thread. If you look on the individual cruise line boards you will find thousands of posts already. Perhaps you could contribute to those instead.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Forums mobile app

 

So why did you bother posting:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rest assured, this tax shelter is perfectly legal, in the same way tax loss harvesting is legal.

 

Again, you're choosing to give the dictionary more weight than it deserves. Other dictionaries recognize the definitional rupture inherent in M-W, and offer far more accurate definitions: "a gift of money, over and above payment..." and "something given without demand or claim". If you must slave yourself to dictionary definitions for "gratuity," you're better off doing so with regard to these definitions for it.

 

In practice, the word "discretionary" is more accurate than "optional" or "voluntary" when describing the control that the give-er has in these circumstances. It communicates the actual obligation of hospitality that applies: Service is given by a serve-er, and in return the recipient of the service applies discernment to determine how much to give. That "how much" might be nothing, if the quality of service given is so bad as to substantiate that determination, but there is nothing about gratuities in our society that make them something that patrons can morally decide to simply opt-out-of.

 

Precisely: Discretion. The question is how could discretion result in a determination of $0 for having received great service?

 

That goes without saying. What people are "having say over" is what is right and wrong - not what another guest actually does.

 

 

Well, actually, you did. <shrug>

 

Up-thread it was made clear why we cannot rely on this kind of information coming from someone who is hoping to spur-on your generosity. You need to get this kind of information either from someone more objective or someone for whom there is a big risk if misinformation is discovered, such as a company official who could bring a substantial amount of bad PR to the company were they to be caught in a lie. Having said that, I think you've misunderstood what people said earlier in the thread. You seem to think people were saying that the crew's base salary is substantially larger than what they could earn in their home country. That's not the case. People were talking about their total income, i.e., base salary plus the gratuities they do receive.

 

I'm not sure how much the Indonesian, Filipino, etc., crew members make in excess of what they could make at home, but from all I've read about it and from the logic of the situation it is surely a prodigious amount.

 

To be fair, while the arrangement is perfectly legal, it doesn't "suit everybody". There is actually a spectrum of perspective on this issue, with some passengers and cruise lines on one extreme saying that they should be able to service American ports, even one way journeys between two American ports, without having to comply with any American labor laws, much less such laws as they pertain to compensation. On the other extreme you'll find some people saying that the American market is so valuable that any ship that makes port at any American port should be compelled to comply with American labor laws, thereby fostering the opportunities Americans have to work in the industry without having to accept such heavily discounted wages.

 

Subsidization is a big problem within pricing models, and we can see myriad examples of where, for one reason or another, sellers are working to remove such subsidization. All the surcharging we see is a reflection of this: We see premium-quality, fine-dining, full-service meals shifted into specialty restaurants with a surcharge, so that John and Jane who want that extra increment of quality bear the extra cost of it themselves, rather than having it subsidized by folks like Jim and Jan who would be satisfied with standard-quality, fine-dining, full-service meals in the main dining room.

 

I think many of those people would say that that's fine with them. Of course, when you point out how it would actually cost them more to have the cost of stateroom and dining service fully baked into the cruise fare, since the cost of the extra taxes the cruise line would have to pay would be passed along to passengers to keep the change revenue-neutral, they try to evade addressing that reality.

 

I think that's really the thread underlying all these threads. It offends moral sensibilities to see people rationalize offensive behavior sometimes as much as it offends moral sensibilities to see people engage in offensive behavior.

Another very interesting post answering several questions from other posters eloquently.

 

Sent from my Kestrel using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another very interesting post answering several questions from other posters eloquently.

 

Sent from my Kestrel using Forums mobile app

 

But in the end after several hundred words posted nothing changes, the fees still can be removed or left in place because it is not a require fee and the option is 100% with the guest.

 

So

 

Those who want to remove and not tip at all will do that

 

Those who want to remove and tip in cash will do that

 

Those who want to leave in place and tip no more will

 

Those that want to leave in place and tip more will

 

Those who want to remove and say no ones business what we do as guest will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lets talk about tipping" was the title of my original post.

Well, we have certainly done that in the last few days.

 

Many points of view, eloquently expressed, informative and well considered (mostly), as one would expect from C.C. contributors.

Thank you for your comments.

 

If I may, I would broadly summarise your response thus; contributors fall broadly, into two main camps.

 

1. People who don't pre pay are cheap.

2. People who pre pay are gullible.

 

Just to stir the pot a little more, let me tell you why I fall into camp 2.

 

I think the truth of the matter lies in the curious amount of effort and expensive administration manhours which the Cruise companies devote to this issue.

Their dedication to their apparent crusade to get tips for their staff, is as far as I can see, unique as a business model.

 

As I see it we can look at this in one of two ways.

 

1. It is an admirable example of the altruism and dedication of these companies to the financial welfare of their employees.

and the fact they claim to give it all to the employees shows that, for the Cruise Companies, profit is not the bottom line.

 

2. This massive effort by the Cruise Companies to ensure pre paying is not altruistic, it is a great revenue earner. If any of the tips are paid out, they always have strings attached.

 

You may have noticed recently that when booking on line, if you do not tick "pre pay gratuities", then further on, you will find that you are blocked from "dinearound". So, they are pressurising even the customer to prepay! Why?, for the sake of the staff?.

 

Perhaps some of you will remember the scandal of the letter posted in the crews' quarters by Celebrity Splendour which listed those passengers who had not prepaid tips.

It's still available to see online.

Celebrity apologised humbly and blamed "administrative error"

Passengers later described it as the " spit in your food" list

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the end after several hundred words posted nothing changes, the fees still can be removed or left in place because it is not a require fee and the option is 100% with the guest.

 

So

 

Those who want to remove and not tip at all will do that

 

Those who want to remove and tip in cash will do that

 

Those who want to leave in place and tip no more will

 

Those that want to leave in place and tip more will

 

Those who want to remove and say no ones business what we do as guest will.

Thats true.

 

Sent from my Kestrel using Forums mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...