Tipping now more important than ever

[glojo]

Tipping is now more important than ever!!

 

A topic raised by one of the editors of Cruise Critic

 

I accept that tipping is a hot chesnut with both sides of the debate feeling they are right but..

 

Surely an editor should really be trying to improve the standard wage of those employees hired by agencies that treat their workers like cattle!!!  Why should tipping be more important now??

 

I say this because I have personal experience of knowing an excellent stewardess who had served on Cunard ships for thirty years and she was about to retire.

 

What pension will you get I naïvely asked?  We are all aware of the extraordinarily long hours they work and whether we agree or not with tipping, they do rely on tips\gratuities to make up their wage.  But what about a pension or even a farewell gift from the agency??

 

"There's the door close it on the way out!!!!"  Nothing... Zilch.  Not even a thank you and even though they work for a specific cruise line, that counts for nothing.

 

My point to this editor is should they not be vigorously campaigning for better pay for these agency workers??  Let's all try to shame the cruise industry into paying a fair days pay for a fair days work.  Campaign for the cruise industry to register with countries that support a minimum wage and employee protection legislation.  Disregard the rubbish about registering with certain countries so that a captain can perform weddings!!  Poppycock.

 

Let's see and hear the staff of this site getting vocal about the pay of the extremely hardworking members of the crew. do NOT put the onus on passengers to subsidise their poor pay, NO........  Let us see Carnival and EVERY other cruise line take on their books every crew member serving on their ships.

 

Let us put the onus on the cruise line to pay these workers a decent wage instead of relying on passengers to subsidise the wages of these dedicated, hard working agency workers.

 

Suffice it to say I disagree with the point raised by CruiseCritic

 

regards

John     

[chengkp75]

So, lets see.  We reflag Cunard to UK so all mariners are entitled to a pension under the national insurance.  Who pays into this?  Lets see.  The mariner has to pay 12% into this, so in order to keep their current wage level, the line has to pay 12% more.  Then, the line has to pay 13.8% into the national insurance.  Who covers that expense?  So, crew compensation would go up by 25%, is the line expected to swallow that cost?  Nope, they will pass it to the customer, as all businesses do, so are you willing to continue to cruise and keep those crew members employed if the fare rises by 15-10%?

 

Not many of the 1.9 million seafarers in the world get a pension (cruse ship crew account for about 10% of that total).

 

By the way, your country is signatory to the Maritime Labor Convention of the IMO, which sets the minimum wage of all merchant mariners (including cruise ship crew) at $683/month.  Perhaps you should lobby the government to lobby the ILO to raise the wages?

 

Most cruise ship crew welcome the pay they currently get, as it provides a better than middle income salary in their home countries.  I know the realities of life aboard a ship, having worked on merchant ships for 46 years, including cruise ships.  While I am not a fan of the DSC (they are not "tips" or "gratuities", regardless of what the line calls them) form of pay, it is there, and it does provide a good living wage for the crew.

28 minutes ago, glojo said:

Let us put the onus on the cruise line to pay these workers a decent wage instead of relying on passengers to subsidise the wages of these dedicated, hard working agency workers.

Do you really think that if the cruise line eliminated the DSC, that your cruise fare would remain the same?  Nope, the fare would increase by the same amount.

 

And let's look at the last part of this sentence:  "hard working agency workers".  Here is where your argument truly fails.  The cruise line contracts for labor from a crewing agency.  That agency and the cruise line agree to the terms of employment, like salary.  It is really the fault of the crewing agency if the wages are too low, not the cruise line.

 

I am fully in agreement that the crew is entitled to what they receive.  But, whose standard of "living wage" do you raise them to?  The UK?  The US?  The US Maritime Administration, the agency assigned to promote the US maritime industry, has done studies that show that it costs nearly 5 times as much, just in crew costs, to operate a US flag ship over a foreign flag ship.  Again, who is going to absorb that cost?  The passengers.

[sparks1093]

Well said Chengkp75. 

[MBP&O2/O]

For what it’s worth, from the other side of the coin.

I spent several years at sea, starting out as a cadet and leaving as Chief Officer. We had European crewed ships and we had Indian crewed ships.

Were the Indians paid less than the Europeans? Yes.

Were they paid more than they could have earned at home? 

Absolutely! 

Several stated that at home there wasn’t even a job to earn money!

The wage they got was poor in comparison to the officers, better than, but not that different to the cadets paltry wage but certainly far more than the earnings of the unemployed people back at home. 

They were offered overtime but many frequently refused it as the extra money was not needed.

Some earned extra by offering haircuts, laundry services, etc.

Did they have to come to sea to be away from their families? 

No .... but neither did anyone else on board. It was a fact of life.

In those days there was no internet, no social media ... in fact there were no computers. The height of hi-tech was a scientific calculator!

Our cargo calculator was ‘manumatic’ and needed two people to lift it.

Competition for a place on board was fierce!

Most were on contract and as such had perks that were not offered to non contract staff

Were they ‘poor’? 

No. They were rich .... especially when they went home.

Did they receive a basic living wage? No ... it was far better.

[Hlitner]

Oh my, please save me from the "do gooders" who think it is their place in life to spend everyone else's money (I recall a great PM once said some similar words).   I think the OP fails to mention that cruise ships are NOT slave ships.  The members of the crew have made their own decision to work on ships and most have gone through security checks, training, repeated medical checks, etc.  Would I want to work on cruise ships is most jobs?  No way.  We have made a few friends among cruise ship crew (not surprising tafter more than 1200 days as a passenger) and they all told us they were working on the ship because it is what they wanted to do.  Some do it for the adventure and travel and others do it because they are able to send enough money home to support their families.  But what is important to remember is nobody is forcing the crew to work on that ship although economic circumstances certainly drive some to seek those jobs.

 

We know (and appreciate) that ChengKP 75 takes the time to post on CC and add the benefit of his first-hand knowledge as a mariner.  I suspect that many would be shocked if they knew the amount of training, testing, continuing education, etc. that has gone along with his chosen career.  I assume he could find a decent job on land but he has "chosen" to work in Marine Engineering.  Others on ships in different departments have also made that "choice" to work on ships be it as a cabin steward, cook, laundry worker, etc.   We know one bar tender (Princess cruise lines) who has spent much of his adult life working on Princess (always as a bar tender).  He happens to be from England,  told us he has turned down numerous promotions to supervisory jobs, and is just a happy guy who loves being a bar tender.  He could easily find a decent bar tender job on land but he loves being on a ship.   Folks have their own reasons for choosing a profession but what should be remembered is that it is their CHOICE.  It is not my place to tell them how to make their living and it is not my place to set their wage.  

 

Hank

[alc13]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Again, who is going to absorb that cost?  The passengers.

Good post; it is a complicated situation and there is no single solution for the cruise industry.  But your final sentence is the real point.  Consumers - that includes me, too - are ultimately responsible for underpaid workers.  I think we all prefer not to think about how that bargain purchase is available so cheaply.  

 

Personally, I loathe tipping.  It is now essentially mandatory here in the US.  But attempts by restaurants to eliminate tips and raise prices haven't fared well.  That's a shame.  

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, MBP&O2/O said:

We had European crewed ships and we had Indian crewed ships.

Were the Indians paid less than the Europeans? Yes.

Were they paid more than they could have earned at home? 

Absolutely! 

Several stated that at home there wasn’t even a job to earn money!

 

I'm not going to wade into the tipping discussion. However, your post above just smacks of a tacit approval of inequality.

 

How can you say with a straight face that someone has a "choice" to take a job at sea when in the next sentence you point out that they had NO choice as there were NO jobs at home?

 

In what world is it acceptable to pay people a different wage to do the same job just because they are "getting more than they would be paid at home"?

 

It's rather like those saying (in past decades -- and in some cases still are), we can pay women less than men to do the same job, after all, up until now they are used to getting paid secretarial wages....

 

 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, MBP&O2/O said:

For what it’s worth, from the other side of the coin.

I spent several years at sea, starting out as a cadet and leaving as Chief Officer. We had European crewed ships and we had Indian crewed ships.

Were the Indians paid less than the Europeans? Yes.

Were they paid more than they could have earned at home? 

Absolutely! 

Several stated that at home there wasn’t even a job to earn money!

The wage they got was poor in comparison to the officers, better than, but not that different to the cadets paltry wage but certainly far more than the earnings of the unemployed people back at home. 

They were offered overtime but many frequently refused it as the extra money was not needed.

Some earned extra by offering haircuts, laundry services, etc.

Did they have to come to sea to be away from their families? 

No .... but neither did anyone else on board. It was a fact of life.

In those days there was no internet, no social media ... in fact there were no computers. The height of hi-tech was a scientific calculator!

Our cargo calculator was ‘manumatic’ and needed two people to lift it.

Competition for a place on board was fierce!

Most were on contract and as such had perks that were not offered to non contract staff

Were they ‘poor’? 

No. They were rich .... especially when they went home.

Did they receive a basic living wage? No ... it was far better.

 

Even as a 3rd Officer, I recall chatting with the Indian deck crew and our officer's stewards and most of them they had a significantly higher standard of living than I did. Did they make as much money as me - Not even close.

 

However, their cost of living at home was a fraction of the cost of living in the UK.

[navybankerteacher]

As long as standards of living differ among countries there will be inequality.  While it is not “fair”, the cruise industry does provide an “exchange” - where people with disposable income (generally those from wealthy economies) are able to dispose of that income for the benefit of people from poorer economies - who have few options at home.

 

Attempting to “level the playing field” - by making cruising unaffordable to the overwhelming majority of cruisers may make some folks feel good — but it would simply destroy the industry that actually does provide a mechanism for transferring some wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

 

A serious advocate for that attitude should simply try  to address the root problem — by pushing for taxes on residents of wealthy countries to allow for the transfer of that wealth to residents of poorer countries.   Trying to make the cruise industry serve that noble, global cause would simply fail.

[ovccruiser]

I think the problem lies with the daily charge added to your bill and the percentage also added to your drinks. The latter is, IMO the one that grates most. Why does it cost more to open a $100 bottle of wine than a $40 bottle. Cunard for example charge 15% so the above example is $15 to $6 to open a bottle, ridiculous. The daily charge could easily be incorporated into the fare, 2 people on 14 day cruise at $11.50 per day, again Cunard rates, $161 on the cruise per person or about £124. I don't think this slight increase would put people off cruising it would still be good value for money imo. Also, if the daily charge was incorporated in the fare it would stop the people who cancel it at the Pursurs desk.

 

Now, on all the cruises I have been on, I have always been impressed by one or two crew members who have gone well above my level of expectations and I will tip them additionally to my daily rate charged in cash usually at the end of the cruise with a thank you note.

Edited February 6, 2022 by ovccruiser

[Pyrate13]

One of our MDR waiters told us he loves the work and had been working on cruise ships for over 20 years. Leads me to believe it may not be as bad as some folks seem to think.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

I'm not going to wade into the tipping discussion. However, your post above just smacks of a tacit approval of inequality.

I remember a time when I was working in Australia.  The Seaman's and Longshoreman's unions had struck against unloading a ship with Indian crew.  They wanted the crew to be paid Australian wages (which would have been in the top 1% of Indian wages, but upper middle class Australian wages).  When the court sided with the unions, the shipping company folded, and all the mariners were out of a job, because the company could not make money paying Australian wages.  So, instead of "low" wages by Australian standards, they are getting no wages.  And this would hold today, and all across the maritime industry.  Over 80% of the world's total economy moves by sea, so would the world economy survive if shipping costs rose by 100-200%?  I doubt it.  Your comparison to the gender gap in wages is false, as that is comparing a woman's wage to a man's wage, in the same country, and with the same standard of living.  Again, I say, whose standard do you raise all mariners' wages to?  Canada?  US?  Or should we reduce Canadian mariners' wages to Indian wages?

1 hour ago, ovccruiser said:

The daily charge could easily be incorporated into the fare, 2 people on 14 day cruise at $11.50 per day, again Cunard rates, $161 on the cruise per person or about £124.

While this is quite true, the DSC model has benefits for the cruise lines, which is why it is used.  First, it allows them to advertise the lowest possible fare.  Secondly, it provides a "carrot and stick" model of personnel management that makes up for poor first line managers, by devolving the incentive to provide better customer service onto the pool of workers themselves ("if one of you does poorly, the DSC will be reduced, affecting you all).

Edited February 6, 2022 by chengkp75
'

[navybankerteacher]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

…

 

Secondly, it provides a "carrot and stick" model of personnel management that makes up for poor first line managers, by devolving the incentive to provide better customer service onto the pool of workers themselves ("if one of you does poorly, the DSC will be reduced, affecting you all).

Simply put:  incentive pay works.

Edited February 6, 2022 by navybankerteacher

[alc13]

1 hour ago, ovccruiser said:

Cunard for example charge 15% so the above example is $15 to $6 to open a bottle, ridiculous. The daily charge could easily be incorporated into the fare, 2 people on 14 day cruise at $11.50 per day, again Cunard rates, $161 on the cruise per person or about £124. I don't think this slight increase would put people off cruising it would still be good value for money imo.

You can be sure the bean counters have considered this.  

 

There are broadly speaking 2 categories of cruise fares - all-inclusive and pay-as-you-go.  Cruise lines are constantly tinkering with these.  The question they seek to answer - for x number of passengers we lose with each revision, how many do we gain?   

 

And regarding crew compensation, they tinker with that as well.  The question there - how  little can we pay them before they go to another line?  Can we offer other compensation to offset inadequate pay?  Etc, etc.

 

It's capitalism.

 

[alc13]

11 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

....the DSC model has benefits for the cruise lines, which is why it is used.  

What is DSC?  Sorry if I missed it above.

[njhorseman]

Just now, alc13 said:

What is DSC?  Sorry if I missed it above.

Daily Service Charge.

[Flatbush Flyer]

FWIW: Although the unlikeliness of a new cruise ship being built in the US makes this only academic, I would like to see at least one or two US flagged small premium/luxury ocean cruise ships in service. And, I’m betting there are enough other folks like me who would pay the increased fare to keep them afloat.

[cruisemom42]

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Your comparison to the gender gap in wages is false, as that is comparing a woman's wage to a man's wage, in the same country, and with the same standard of living.

 

On the other hand, it would stick in my craw to pay two people a different wage for doing the exact same work under the exact same circumstances; no other consideration should be applied.

 

How about this:  Would you pay a woman 3/4 of the wages of a man if you knew the man had to support his stay-at-home wife and two kids versus a woman who was a second wage-earner in a two-income household?  It happens. I had a boss tell me this as a justification for not giving me a salary increase despite a superb review. He told me that the man in the same position as I was "needed it more." 

 

It is a slippery slope.

 

[Joebucks]

Typical nonsensical internet opinion. Checks all of the boxes. Virtuous. Someone else should pay for something. I just realized it, so now it's important. Etc.

 

I always enjoy a good virtue signal from people who complain about the worker's pay, especially to a point where they refuse to cruise. Meanwhile, they will purchase products from other countries. Where workers the workers are in worse conditions and making less. All to avoid cruisers, which could have ended up with some more money in the worker's pockets.

 

Do we all want better conditions for workers? I'm sure we do. Let's be real about how it actually works though. Let's be consistent with what we think. These arguments usually end with "it should come from the corporation". Does not work that way. If anything though, the OP post a great reminder as to why we should treat our cruise crew with respect. 

 

25 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

I remember a time when I was working in Australia.  The Seaman's and Longshoreman's unions had struck against unloading a ship with Indian crew.  They wanted the crew to be paid Australian wages (which would have been in the top 1% of Indian wages, but upper middle class Australian wages).  When the court sided with the unions, the shipping company folded, and all the mariners were out of a job, because the company could not make money paying Australian wages.  So, instead of "low" wages by Australian standards, they are getting no wages.  And this would hold today, and all across the maritime industry.  Over 80% of the world's total economy moves by sea, so would the world economy survive if shipping costs rose by 100-200%?  I doubt it.  Your comparison to the gender gap in wages is false, as that is comparing a woman's wage to a man's wage, in the same country, and with the same standard of living.  Again, I say, whose standard do you raise all mariners' wages to?  Canada?  US?  Or should we reduce Canadian mariners' wages to Indian wages?

While this is quite true, the DSC model has benefits for the cruise lines, which is why it is used.  First, it allows them to advertise the lowest possible fare.  Secondly, it provides a "carrot and stick" model of personnel management that makes up for poor first line managers, by devolving the incentive to provide better customer service onto the pool of workers themselves ("if one of you does poorly, the DSC will be reduced, affecting you all).

 

Excellent example. There are countless other examples like it. Where virtuous Liberals think they have everyone's best interests in mind. Then when it backfires, and the person they were trying to help, is now worse off, the Liberal gets to scratch their head and restate their virtuous thinking.

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

On the other hand, it would stick in my craw to pay two people a different wage for doing the exact same work under the exact same circumstances; no other consideration should be applied.

 

How about this:  Would you pay a woman 3/4 of the wages of a man if you knew the man had to support his stay-at-home wife and two kids versus a woman who was a second wage-earner in a two-income household?  It happens. I had a boss tell me this as a justification for not giving me a salary increase despite a superb review. He told me that the man in the same position as I was "needed it more." 

 

It is a slippery slope.

 

I'm well aware of the gender gap, and I don't like it any more than you do.  But, again, do we raise the world to our standard of living?  Or do we pay industrial workers in our countries the lowest possible wage in the world?  Hardly a slippery slope when you are comparing apples to oxcarts, using two different standards of living.

[navybankerteacher]

16 minutes ago, Flatbush Flyer said:

FWIW: Although the unlikeliness of a new cruise ship being built in the US makes this only academic, I would like to see at least one or two US flagged small premium/luxury ocean cruise ships in service. And, I’m betting there are enough other folks like me who would pay the increased fare to keep them afloat.

 Other things (type and size of ship, quality of service, itineraries, etc.) being equal, it would be “nice” to “buy American” - but you are kidding yourself if you think it is remotely possible without fares being so astronomical that a market could not exist.  Folks with the disposable resources necessary already have an alternative: their own mega yacht.

Edited February 6, 2022 by navybankerteacher

[Flatbush Flyer]

15 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Other things (type and size of ship, quality of service, itineraries, etc.) being equal, it would be “nice” to “buy American” - but you are kidding yourself if you think it is remotely possible without fares being so astronomical that a market could not exist.  Folks with the disposable resources necessary already have an alternative: their own mega yacht.

As I said - academic. 

[navybankerteacher]

37 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

On the other hand, it would stick in my craw to pay two people a different wage for doing the exact same work under the exact same circumstances; no other consideration should be applied.

 

How about this:  Would you pay a woman 3/4 of the wages of a man if you knew the man had to support his stay-at-home wife and two kids versus a woman who was a second wage-earner in a two-income household?  It happens. I had a boss tell me this as a justification for not giving me a salary increase despite a superb review. He told me that the man in the same position as I was "needed it more." 

 

It is a slippery slope.

 

It is, indeed, a slippery slope.  But the whole, real world lacks the sort of “traction” needed for idealized fairness to exist.  The employer tries to hold down costs —- he knows that the man who’s income has to support the wife and two children as well as himself is more likely to leave for higher pay elsewhere than the second wage earner in a household.  The same problem would face him if it were a woman supporting a stay-at-home husband and two children  vs. a male employee whose wife was employed.

 

The manager owes it to his senior management and, ultimately the stockholders, to retain necessary staff as economically as possible.

 

When you refer to the “exact same circumstances” have you contemplated the needs each employee feels must be met for him/her to stay with the employer? When the PERCEIVED needs differ, how can you say the circumstances are exactly the same?

Edited February 6, 2022 by navybankerteacher

[cruisemom42]

10 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

he knows that the man who’s income has to support the wife and two children as well as himself is more likely to leave for higher pay elsewhere than the second wage earner in a household.

 

I would say your reasoning is faulty. 

 

Trust me -- I left that employer as soon as I was able to find an equivalent job elsewhere and I never looked back.  From more than 30 years in the workforce I have talked to literally dozens of female colleagues who did the same...

[sparks1093]

53 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

On the other hand, it would stick in my craw to pay two people a different wage for doing the exact same work under the exact same circumstances; no other consideration should be applied.

 

How about this:  Would you pay a woman 3/4 of the wages of a man if you knew the man had to support his stay-at-home wife and two kids versus a woman who was a second wage-earner in a two-income household?  It happens. I had a boss tell me this as a justification for not giving me a salary increase despite a superb review. He told me that the man in the same position as I was "needed it more." 

 

It is a slippery slope.

 

One would need to find out if the referenced European crewmember and Indian crewmember are actually performing the same job. My guess is they aren't. (But if they are it does stick in the craw if they are paid differently. )