Tipping now more important than ever

[KBs mum]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

You are reading more into my post than it meant. All it said was with your system of remuneration for crew members the cruise lines may have felt the necessity to hire less of them with lower capacity cruises that have been sailing. In other words, beware of the law of unintended consequences.

Why shouldn't cruise lines or any other hospitality based business employ only the amount of staff they need? 

Given that there is now a staff shortage in the sector it would seem to make sense

[KBs mum]

2 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

Perception trumps reality.  I get it.   

No, you don't, 'get it'. You are trying to argue against a point I am not trying to make. 

At the time I was explaining my reply to Chengkp75, not you. I have conversed with him before, on the Viking boards. I accept as accurate any technical nautical information he provides. 

Go back and read all the posts in that thread diversion before accusing me of being unaware of reality. 

[KBs mum]

1 hour ago, LGW59 said:

Do you spend as much time on trying to eliminate the welfare program your royal family live off of?  Seems to me would be far more valiant than your "crusade" on eliminating tipping of cruise crews. 

Debate and discussion relating to the civil list is valid, but it is not a welfare programme or tips, and so is not relevant to this discussion. I do not intend to waste discussion time explaining first principles to people who haven't bothered to do basic research, particularly when the topic is not the one being discussed. 

The thought does occur though, given the current situation in the Ukraine, that a head of state who joined the army and drove an ambulance through rocket attacks might be useful, as may be the next in line who has commanded a warship, or the next who joined the forces and flew air sea rescue and a civilian air ambulance for several years. 

I am aware that Peter Lanky and myself will likely disagree about the civil list and royalty in general, however, I also think that we could have an intelligent debate, and either reach areas of agreement, or agree to disagree, having enjoyed the exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But this is neither the time or place for said debate. 

Edited March 1, 2022 by KBs mum

[ldubs]

45 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

In the UK those unable to work because Covid legislation had prevented their work had 80% of their wages guaranteed by the government. Gardeners were allowed to work, as was anyone unable to work from home. The people affected were primarily bar and restaurant staff when the establishments were not allowed to operate. Those salaries do not usually include tips, so they got at least 80% of usual income

 

I'm impressed.   Here, relief payments to individuals and businesses were not available on day one of the pandemic and those impacted were not limited to restnt and bar staff.   I was simply acknowledging those of means helping those less fortunate.   Similar to the OP's original intent.  

[KBs mum]

3 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I'm impressed.   Here, relief payments to individuals and businesses were not available on day one of the pandemic and those impacted were not limited to restnt and bar staff.   I was simply acknowledging those of means helping those less fortunate.   Similar to the OP's original intent.  

Thing is, nobody had to guess what their income was, payroll and bacs records existed to prove it. 

[ldubs]

25 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

No, you don't, 'get it'. You are trying to argue against a point I am not trying to make. 

At the time I was explaining my reply to Chengkp75, not you. I have conversed with him before, on the Viking boards. I accept as accurate any technical nautical information he provides. 

Go back and read all the posts in that thread diversion before accusing me of being unaware of reality. 

 

Sorry you feel defensive.   I was responding to what you said when you quoted my post.  Was I supposed to know about other conversations you have had on other boards.   

[KBs mum]

2 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Sorry you feel defensive.   I was responding to what you said when you quoted my post.  Was I supposed to know about other conversations you have had on other boards.   

No, but I do expect you to quote in context, and to have a reasonable recall of the conversation to date. I dislike having to reiterate  things allready covered

[ldubs]

4 minutes ago, KBs mum said:

Thing is, nobody had to guess what their income was, payroll and bacs records existed to prove it. 

 

Those 5% and 10% tips left are reported as salary and on the record?  Here legally all tips are supposed to be reported.   In practice, I suspect they are only partially reported.   

[ldubs]

Just now, KBs mum said:

No, but I do expect you to quote in context, and to have a reasonable recall of the conversation to date. I dislike having to reiterate  things allready covered

 

You quoted my post.  I confirmed what you said.  Sorry you didn't like it.  

[KBs mum]

Just now, ldubs said:

 

Those 5% and 10% tips left are reported as salary and on the record?  Here legally all tips are supposed to be reported.   In practice, I suspect they are only partially reported.   

Tips are not usual in the UK. They are not considered to form part of salary, if received they are a thank you gift, in the same way that you might buy a drink for a friend who had helped you out. Not all the affected personell were in the sectors usually tipped in the US, and would certainly not expect to get tips in the UK

[KBs mum]

1 minute ago, ldubs said:

 

You quoted my post.  I confirmed what you said.  Sorry you didn't like it.  

As you obviously had no idea who had said what to whom in the side discussion between Chengkp75 and I, I will move on from this red herring

[ldubs]

Just now, KBs mum said:

As you obviously had no idea who had said what to whom in the side discussion between Chengkp75 and I, I will move on from this red herring

 

And yet you felt the need to say this.   

[Peter Lanky]

2 hours ago, LGW59 said:

Do you spend as much time on trying to eliminate the welfare program your royal family live off of?  Seems to me would be far more valiant than your "crusade" on eliminating tipping of cruise crews. 

I feel we've been here before.

[KBs mum]

1 minute ago, Peter Lanky said:

I feel we've been here before.

If you've read my post #708, this allready gives us one area of agreement! 😂

[ilikeanswers]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

You are reading more into my post than it meant. All it said was with your system of remuneration for crew members the cruise lines may have felt the necessity to hire less of them with lower capacity cruises that have been sailing. In other words, beware of the law of unintended consequences.

 

I'm a little confused. If there are less passengers wouldn't they lower the number of crew despite renumeration systems? At the end of the day even with DSC the cruise lines still pay some wage and if there is less passengers why would cruise lines be willing to incur that additional cost for crew they don't need? 

[Peter Lanky]

Let's take a step back and summarise where us anti tippers stand, with the rider that none of us are unanimous in our approach to this. Let us also realise that we are supposed to be discussing the topic of tipping and occasionally drifting into other issues, but not discussing the perceived personalities of the people posting the opinions.

 

I am accused of wanting to deprive staff of tips, despite saying numerous times of my desire is to have the uncertain element of their income (tipping) replaced by a guaranteed income (realistic salary). How can that be bad? So that's the social responsibility part covered.

 

Then there is the idea that reducing salary and dangling the carrot of something extra will produce a better performance from the staff, yet many people have said they have noticed no difference in the quality of service whether the staff are paid full salary, a share of auto tips or direct tipping. Counter that with the people who simply want the staff to do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability, just like any other job. I don't want servers fawning over me and pestering me numerous times, but just want my meal delivered correctly or my room to be clean and tidy when I return to it.

 

Further to this, if people believe that serving staff should get the same guaranteed salary as other similar skill level professions and still be entitled to extra, what makes people think that servers are more worthy than those in jobs where tipping doesn't exist? I have used healthcare as a good example, namely the staff who do the legwork for the qualified nurses.

 

Finally for those who like the idea of handing out money for whatever reason, then why not continue to do so? However is it not possible to do this without trying to look down on those who do not wish to do it? If it was purely a voluntary and personal thing, and not excessive, and there was no expectation from staff for everyone to do it, then the world would be a happy place, but life just doesn't work like that.

 

 

 

 

[chengkp75]

23 hours ago, Peter Lanky said:

Of course we don't expect it to remain the same, and yes we would expect the advertised fare to raise by the same amount. In fact it wouldn't be a problem for me if it was higher, as long as I knew that nobody was going to ask for more money after having paid for my cruise.

I vowed not to post here again, but reading this has caused me to think about this, and the more I think about this quote, the more I find it, and the poster's entire position to be humorous.

 

So, you object to a cruise fare of $150/day with a $15/day DSC, since the cruise fare does not "pay the crew a decent wage", but "asks for more money".  But, by your quote above, you are fine with a $165/day fare (same amount) as this "pays the crew a decent wage".  This shows that your problem is not with "tipping" or "gratuities", or "paying the crew a decent wage".  Your entire problem is that you don't want to do simple 5th grade arithmetic to figure out how much your cruise is going to cost.

 

Probably shouldn't come to the US, as you will be asked to pay more for virtually every purchase you make, as sales tax is not included in the marked price.  May be another custom that needs your attention to change.

Edited March 2, 2022 by chengkp75

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, KBs mum said:

Why shouldn't cruise lines or any other hospitality based business employ only the amount of staff they need? 

Given that there is now a staff shortage in the sector it would seem to make sense

Have you ever heard of Covid? They needed extra crew in case some were not available due to the need to quarantine. In fact some cruises were cancelled because there was not enough crew after some needed to be quarantined.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I'm a little confused. If there are less passengers wouldn't they lower the number of crew despite renumeration systems? At the end of the day even with DSC the cruise lines still pay some wage and if there is less passengers why would cruise lines be willing to incur that additional cost for crew they don't need? 

See my post above this---Covid. They had to have extra to be able to operate if crew members needed to be quarantined.

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, Peter Lanky said:

 

The theory is a very good and honourable one. However I suspect that the cruise lines will simply see it as a way to absolve themselves of even more of their obligations, and it will come back to bite people on the bum at some later stage.

At least you see the theory in the article originally referred to at the beginning of this long thread as "good and honourable".

[Peter Lanky]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

I vowed not to post here again, but reading this has caused me to think about this, and the more I think about this quote, the more I find it, and the poster's entire position to be humorous.

 

So, you object to a cruise fare of $150/day with a $15/day DSC, since the cruise fare does not "pay the crew a decent wage", but "asks for more money".  But, by your quote above, you are fine with a $165/day fare (same amount) as this "pays the crew a decent wage".  This shows that your problem is not with "tipping" or "gratuities", or "paying the crew a decent wage".  Your entire problem is that you don't want to do simple 5th grade arithmetic to figure out how much your cruise is going to cost.

 

Probably shouldn't come to the US, as you will be asked to pay more for virtually every purchase you make, as sales tax is not included in the marked price.  May be another custom that needs your attention to change.

Again another completely incorrect assumption. I am confident that my mental arithmetic skills are well above the average, and simple calculations are most certainly not an issue.

 

If I pay $165 a day, the transaction is complete. It is done before I leave home and I can forget about it. Had I paid $150 not only will the cruise company have advertised to me an incorrect price, but I then have to pay another $15 a day, which in my case I would be well aware of and it would bug me, but in a few case people would not be aware of it and get a shock. Exactly how is this useful or helpful? What does it achieve? If you are going to charge $165 a day, why not just do it up front?

 

I am aware also of this sales tax thing, because they do it in Costco which seems to believe it has the right to operate a non UK payment procedures, and gets away with it. I find it irritating and avoid shopping at Costco. I have avoided and will continue to avoid visiting the USA, not because I am prejudice against Americans which would be yet another incorrect assumption, but I can't be bothered with all the hassles that a visit entails, when there are so many other places in the world that don't have them, and these problems start immediately on arrival at immigration control.

 

 

[KBs mum]

42 minutes ago, Peter Lanky said:

I am aware also of this sales tax thing, because they do it in Costco which seems to believe it has the right to operate a non UK payment procedures, and gets away with it. I find it irritating and avoid shopping at Costco. 

Costco are set up as a business to business wholesale supplier, it's usual practice for VAT not to be included in the prices of these and then be calculated and listed separately, this enables the tax refunds and offsets where applicable. They allow public to shop there alongside the trade customers, but on trade terms. Business to business sales regulations and procedures  are different from business to  consumer regulations and procedures. 

I deal with lots of different wholesale suppliers at work, they all do this. Its not an American thing, its an accounting taxation refund thing. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by KBs mum

[KBs mum]

16 hours ago, KBs mum said:

Why shouldn't cruise lines or any other hospitality based business employ only the amount of staff they need? 

Given that there is now a staff shortage in the sector it would seem to make sense

 

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Have you ever heard of Covid? They needed extra crew in case some were not available due to the need to quarantine. In fact some cruises were cancelled because there was not enough crew after some needed to be quarantined.

These quotes are not contradictory, I was referring to a suggestion that  cruise lines should have more staff than needed given low passenger numbers. 

If they need these extra staff because of Covid, then they are included in the 'only the amount of staff' I mentioned. The line should hire them on a mutually agreed fair wage, then fluctuations in passenger numbers won't affect the person's income. The line may have to put prices up to cover the extra operating costs, but it would be better for the crew as they would have a reliable level of income. 

 

The non tipping lines have all put their prices up to cover the rise in staff costs (as well as the increased fuel costs) this is a normal part of operating a business. 

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

See my post above this---Covid. They had to have extra to be able to operate if crew members needed to be quarantined.

 

But again I don't see how this is determined by style of renumeration. I can't see how tipping affects how many crew members are hired. If it takes a hundred crew members to run a cruise ship then they have to hire the required numbers regardless of whether the pay comes from the employer or the customer. 

[LGW59]

16 hours ago, Peter Lanky said:

I feel we've been here before.

LOL, yes like a broken record, something you know all about