NCL Gratuities/Service Charges & Cabin Steward

[graphicguy]

I think we all agree that the Steward was out of line.  Personally, I would have told her a curt “no” and not discussed it further.  I also would have had a chat with her Housekeeping Manager.  

 

Even those areas where tipping is an essential part of a person’s compensation (hotels, restaurant waitstaff, bartenders, etc), I’ve never been approached by the service personnel to stiff everyone else and give all the tips to them.  Can you imagine going to a nice restaurant and having the busboy state they wanted you to just give all the tips to them instead of the Waitress?  This is a similar situation.

 

 As far as tipping or service charges?  I’m of the mind unless someone on the cruise is downright awful (which has never happened on a cruise ship, on any line), I’m not messing with the DSCs.  I also find that tipping (especially to bartenders) nets me some great service over and above the good service I already receive.

 

 

[Sam Ting]

We always remove the DSC and tip as we go.  The cruiseline agreed to this option in the contract so they apparently don’t have a problem with people doing so as it is part of their business model.  

[sjbdtz]

19 minutes ago, Sam Ting said:

We always remove the DSC and tip as we go.  The cruiseline agreed to this option in the contract so they apparently don’t have a problem with people doing so as it is part of their business model.  

 

No, they absolutely did not agree to this.   Their business model says the charge is required, however IF there is a service issue, WHICH they cann'ot resolve,  THEN the charge can be adjusted.

 

.

 

[MotownVoice]

Honest to god I'm so tired of being made to feel responsible for a corporation not paying their staff a living wage.  My tip is supposed to be a reward for "over and above", and I'm supposed to decide what that sum is.

Management (of every company that imposes service fees, not just cruise lines) have somehow wheedled their way in to the tipping culture, that used to be a transaction directly between the customer and the service worker, and weaponized it to becoming some godawful carrot stick to keep their employees from complaining about how greedy and cheap their company is for not sharing their gigantic wealth with the labor that made it for them.

Seems to me customer bases like people who can afford to take luxurious cruises would be a great place to start an insurrection against both the scourge of inadequate wage, as well as the abuse of this private contract between us and our care takers.

Edited April 8, 2019 by MotownVoice

[Sam Ting]

Deleted

Edited April 8, 2019 by Sam Ting
Error in posting

[Sam Ting]

45 minutes ago, sjbdtz said:

 

No, they absolutely did not agree to this.   Their business model says the charge is required, however IF there is a service issue, WHICH they cann'ot resolve,  THEN the charge can be adjusted.

 

.

 

 

The contract says sothing about service issues whatsoever 

 

c) Service Charges: Certain members of Carrier’s crew are compensated by a combination of salary and incentive programs that are funded in part by the service charge paid by each Guest. The charge , which is automatically added to your onboard account and subject to adjustment at your discretion, is intended to reward service provided in all departments and job categories and is distributed to employees according to Carrier's evaluation of job performance. A portion of the service charge collected by Carrier is also used for fleet-wide crew welfare programs.

 

they agree at your discretion. Period. 

 

 

[sjbdtz]

13 minutes ago, Sam Ting said:

 

The contract says sothing about service issues whatsoever 

 

c) Service Charges: Certain members of Carrier’s crew are compensated by a combination of salary and incentive programs that are funded in part by the service charge paid by each Guest. The charge , which is automatically added to your onboard account and subject to adjustment at your discretion, is intended to reward service provided in all departments and job categories and is distributed to employees according to Carrier's evaluation of job performance. A portion of the service charge collected by Carrier is also used for fleet-wide crew welfare programs.

 

they agree at your discretion. Period. 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ncl.com/ca/en/faq#what-is-onboard-service-charge   "Should your concerns not be met with satisfaction you can adjust the charges."

 

 

I agree that the contract is what is bound,  however most people would read the FAQ and not the legalese, so you can interpret that the 'intended' message is from the FAQ, notwithstanding that the contract language removes the pre-requisite. 

 

 

.

 

 

[sjbdtz]

39 minutes ago, MotownVoice said:

Honest to god I'm so tired of being made to feel responsible for a corporation not paying their staff a living wage.  My tip is supposed to be a reward for "over and above", and I'm supposed to decide what that sum is.

Management (of every company that imposes service fees, not just cruise lines) have somehow wheedled their way in to the tipping culture, that used to be a transaction directly between the customer and the service worker, and weaponized it to becoming some godawful carrot stick to keep their employees from complaining about how greedy and cheap their company is for not sharing their gigantic wealth with the labor that made it for them.

Seems to me customer bases like people who can afford to take luxurious cruises would be a great place to start an insurrection against both the scourge of inadequate wage, as well as the abuse of this private contract between us and our care takers.

 

Gratuities remain at your absolute discretion.   What isn't intended to be voluntary is the Service Charge, which eliminates the need for gratuities - unless you truly feel you'd like to reward somebody.   

 

I'm not sure what inadequate wages you're talking about?    Many many many of the crew sign up for multiple 8-9 month stretches away from their families, to work 12-14 hour days without a break.... voluntarily.    Most people don't do that, unless they're satisfied with the wages they are receiving.

 

In my full-time job I am compensated by both a base salary, and a variable compensation component based on performance of my team.   Together, I am generally satisfied with my income.  However if customers started trying to negotiate that the Variable Comp. portion of my income is somehow something that they should get to decide, based on my personal interactions with them (rather than through my team, or my activities affecting customers globally), then I may quickly become disenchanted.   

 

The arrangement was struck between all of the parties:   the resources we represent have a certain cost-basis, from which I am compensated an amount that is satisfactory, which my employer finds keeps the business sustainable, and which the customers accept as a reasonable price for the value they obtain.

 

Why that upsets some people, is completely mind-boggling to me.

 

 

 

Stephen

 

 

.

 

[chengkp75]

3 hours ago, fshagan said:

 

Here's an interesting "well, actually" for you. In the US, the cruise line does not pay any federal corporate income tax, so the majority of the line's business is not taxed at all, at least for US bookings. Foreign flagged vessels do not pay our income tax. If the cruise line WERE subject to income tax on its shipboard operations, I believe the daily service charge would be taxed under US law because the employer collects it and then distributes it.

 

NCL is taxed by other governments, so it might hold true that tax considerations are at the top of the list for state and non-US country taxes (they pay tax on UK operations, for instance).

 

I think it's for the benefit of the employees, actually. Some countries do not tax tip income. This isn't a "tax dodge" but a tax policy intended to help their citizens. For instance, the Philippines has a very progressive income tax, but excludes tip income. That helps the cabin steward support his whole family on his NCL income with an inflow of foreign dollars.

 

Philippines' law says that whatever you call it, wage, salary, gratuity, if it does not come directly from the customer to the employee, it is not a "gratuity" and is therefore taxable in the Philippines.  Any payment from the employer is considered to be "income".

[purplecow15]

What I find most mind boggling is people who can afford multiple cruises -a year in many cases- as noted in their histories quibbling over a couple of hundred dollars. 

41 minutes ago, sjbdtz said:

 

 

Why that upsets some people, is completely mind-boggling to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

[ColinIllinois]

48 minutes ago, sjbdtz said:

 

(snip)

I'm not sure what inadequate wages you're talking about?    Many many many of the crew sign up for multiple 8-9 month stretches away from their families, to work 12-14 hour days without a break.... voluntarily.    Most people don't do that, unless they're satisfied with the wages they are receiving.

 

 

 

Why that upsets some people, is completely mind-boggling to me.

 

 

 

 

 

You mean that they aren't really indentured servants who have been shanghaied from their home countries?

 

Edited April 8, 2019 by ColinIllinois

[Greenpea2]

It is what it is, people. If it upsets you, either take it up with the CEO or don't buy the product. For heaven's sakes, enough already with the complaints! Jeez.

 

[willsears94]

46 minutes ago, Greenpea2 said:

It is what it is, people. If it upsets you, either take it up with the CEO or don't buy the product. For heaven's sakes, enough already with the complaints! Jeez.

 

You are definitely right.

 

Here is another alternative that I have started practicing: Only go on cruises where the Gratuity is covered, either by a promo or TA. My 3 upcoming cruises are this way, sadly only one with NCL.

[luv2kroooz]

12 hours ago, sjbdtz said:

 

No, they absolutely did not agree to this.   Their business model says the charge is required, however IF there is a service issue, WHICH they cann'ot resolve,  THEN the charge can be adjusted.

 

.

 

 

If it can be adjusted, it can't be a service charge. It can only be a gratuity, which is not required, but rather, discretionary.

[luv2kroooz]

10 hours ago, purplecow15 said:

What I find most mind boggling is people who can afford multiple cruises -a year in many cases- as noted in their histories quibbling over a couple of hundred dollars. 

 

And this is why NCL continues to increase their fees. There is always someone who will pay it and say, well, it's only a couple bucks and I can afford it. It is an easy cash grab for corporate. 

 

So, as long as the increase is less than a hundred dollars and I can afford it, I should just pay it? Interesting theory.

Edited April 9, 2019 by blcruising

[fshagan]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Philippines' law says that whatever you call it, wage, salary, gratuity, if it does not come directly from the customer to the employee, it is not a "gratuity" and is therefore taxable in the Philippines.  Any payment from the employer is considered to be "income".

 

Thanks for your comment. That wasn't my reading from the tax site, but I could certainly be wrong.

 

However, tips are often paid on the paycheck to the employee. In the US, all tips must be declared to the employer, who puts that amount on the paycheck. Then, the payroll and income taxes are calculated on the total, and the tip income backed out to the extent that the employee took a "tip out" in cash. Tips are still tips, even though they are included on the paycheck for bookkeeping (and in the US, tax withholding).

 

I haven't seen a crew member's paycheck, but if they have the notation "tips" for the line that makes up a gratuity portion of the check like US firms do, then it could still be tax exempt tips. BTW - my understanding is that Germany and some eastern Euro countries also do not tax tip income (Romania comes to mind, but it's been a while since I did any research).

 

[MotownVoice]

On 4/8/2019 at 12:10 PM, sjbdtz said:

 

Gratuities remain at your absolute discretion.   What isn't intended to be voluntary is the Service Charge, which eliminates the need for gratuities - unless you truly feel you'd like to reward somebody.   

 

I'm not sure what inadequate wages you're talking about?    Many many many of the crew sign up for multiple 8-9 month stretches away from their families, to work 12-14 hour days without a break.... voluntarily.    Most people don't do that, unless they're satisfied with the wages they are receiving.

 

In my full-time job I am compensated by both a base salary, and a variable compensation component based on performance of my team.   Together, I am generally satisfied with my income.  However if customers started trying to negotiate that the Variable Comp. portion of my income is somehow something that they should get to decide, based on my personal interactions with them (rather than through my team, or my activities affecting customers globally), then I may quickly become disenchanted.   

 

The arrangement was struck between all of the parties:   the resources we represent have a certain cost-basis, from which I am compensated an amount that is satisfactory, which my employer finds keeps the business sustainable, and which the customers accept as a reasonable price for the value they obtain.

 

Why that upsets some people, is completely mind-boggling to me.

 

 

 

Stephen

 

 

.

 

Spoken like a true representative of the corporate community.
Your tone deafness as to why someone would work a hundred hours a week without breaks just so they can send home to their entire family what you make in two or three days is an insult to the middle class.
 

[sjbdtz]

3 minutes ago, MotownVoice said:

Spoken like a true representative of the corporate community.
Your tone deafness as to why someone would work a hundred hours a week without breaks just so they can send home to their entire family what you make in two or three days is an insult to the middle class.
 

 

Wow, way to completely miss the point of that paragraph.

 

 

People choose to work these hours.   If they didn't, the cruise lines would be forced to provide additional accommodations and food for additional personnel.   I would have all of the same opinions I currently hold, even under this alternative scenario.

 

My point was that nobody forces people into this labor situation.    However, working 100 hours / week for 8 months and earning upper-middle-class wages for my jurisdiction, and then being able to take 4 month-long vacations would amount to a lifestyle choice.    If I recall, ChengKP75 mentioned a weekly hours cap of 77 hours, which over a 35 week contract would be 2695 hours per year. 

 

Re-framed over the typical 50 week year (2 weeks paid vacation), that would be 54 hours / week which is probably in-line with what I put in. 

 

I wasn't advocating for it.  I was saying people sign up for this compressed schedule (and in fact I was suggesting in my note that it was onerous), voluntarily. 

 

 

Stephen

 

 

[MotownVoice]

32 minutes ago, sjbdtz said:

 

Wow, way to completely miss the point of that paragraph.

 

 

People choose to work these hours.   If they didn't, the cruise lines would be forced to provide additional accommodations and food for additional personnel.   I would have all of the same opinions I currently hold, even under this alternative scenario.

 

My point was that nobody forces people into this labor situation.    However, working 100 hours / week for 8 months and earning upper-middle-class wages for my jurisdiction, and then being able to take 4 month-long vacations would amount to a lifestyle choice.    If I recall, ChengKP75 mentioned a weekly hours cap of 77 hours, which over a 35 week contract would be 2695 hours per year. 

 

Re-framed over the typical 50 week year (2 weeks paid vacation), that would be 54 hours / week which is probably in-line with what I put in. 

 

I wasn't advocating for it.  I was saying people sign up for this compressed schedule (and in fact I was suggesting in my note that it was onerous), voluntarily. 

 

 

Stephen

 

 

In other words, "let them eat cake."

[sjbdtz]

37 minutes ago, MotownVoice said:

In other words, "let them eat cake."

 

 

Umm....as originally stated,  "Most people don't do that, unless they're satisfied with the wages they are receiving".

 

Far be it from me to tell them NOT to be satisfied.   I'm not going to prevent person A from accepting what Person B (or organization B) is offering. 

 

 

[rugerdog]

On 4/7/2019 at 3:37 PM, erdoran said:

There’s a lot of flaming about people who have an issue with tips or DSC not going 100% over and above to staff.  IMHO if an employer is asking me to pay an OPTIONAL charge and STATES it is a gratuity, I am within my rights to want to know that’s the truth.  I am 100% willing to tip employees where appropriate, based on the quality of their service.  OTOH I am NOT willing to voluntarily increase the amount I pay for a product/service that’s advertised for one price if that increase is a higher profit for the business/owner/corporation.  My intent in paying a gratuity is to directly compensate the EMPLOYEE.

This entire post is well written and I agree with the contents 100%.

[IrieBajan54]

On 4/8/2019 at 11:53 AM, purplecow15 said:

What I find most mind boggling is people who can afford multiple cruises -a year in many cases- as noted in their histories quibbling over a couple of hundred dollars. 

 

 

 

Why do you concern yourself with how another cruiser handles their money? Why do you feel the need to redistribute a person's wealth based on your beliefs and the antiquated tipping culture? Wouldn't it be best to brag like a segment of cruisers on CC who say "I am a generous tipper" and be satisfied at that?

 

Cruise lines are the employers and should be the only ones compensating their employees.

Edited April 9, 2019 by IrieBajan54
word

[sjbdtz]

17 hours ago, IrieBajan54 said:

 

 

Why do you concern yourself with how another cruiser handles their money? Why do you feel the need to redistribute a person's wealth based on your beliefs and the antiquated tipping culture? Wouldn't it be best to brag like a segment of cruisers on CC who say "I am a generous tipper" and be satisfied at that?

 

Cruise lines are the employers and should be the only ones compensating their employees.

 

 

Have you not read the rest of the thread, which seems to be based around people objecting to the cruiseline compensating their employees in the manner they have chosen to do so?

 

 

[erdoran]

2 hours ago, sjbdtz said:

 

 

Have you not read the rest of the thread, which seems to be based around people objecting to the cruiseline compensating their employees in the manner they have chosen to do so?

 

 

My take on the thread is positioning DISCRETIONARY charges as money going to employees—issue being that there’s a body of evidence that these DISCRETIONARY charges may not actually translate into additional compensation for employees, and may instead be a sneaky way for a company to charge more for a service than advertised as the actual price.

[sjbdtz]

34 minutes ago, erdoran said:

My take on the thread is positioning DISCRETIONARY charges as money going to employees—issue being that there’s a body of evidence that these DISCRETIONARY charges may not actually translate into additional compensation for employees, and may instead be a sneaky way for a company to charge more for a service than advertised as the actual price.

 

 

But if the end-game is that the employees are being compensated adequately (at or beyond the minimum required), and sufficiently that they voluntarily return to do it again - then, so what?   

 

If you've ever run a business, you'll be familiar with the term fully-loaded, when referring to an employee.   There's the cost of the employee (what you pay them), and then there's the fully-loaded cost (pay, health contributions, employer taxes, retirement contributions / pension, desk, perks, etc.).   

 

If NCL is saying that the DSC is used to fund the fully-loaded costs of their employees, then it's quite possible that not 100% of it is salary, but some are the ancillary costs of maintaining those employees. 

 

At the end of the day, the company requires $X to operate and pay for staffing.  If the competitive market dictates that the sum be broken into component parts, and that uniting it all into a lump sum would put the company out of business due to being perceived as uncompetitive, then why not just let them go with the market?