Reduced Staffing - a myth?

[TravelerThom]

I wold be extremely surprised if ever any US citizen were working in service positions on a cruise ship...

There has been at least one: http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1059 (and perhaps at most one).

 

Despite having taken ship tours many times (I am D+ [and X E+]) I still go, principally to talk to the crew. A decade ago it seemed like departments were "closed shops" and almost exclusively a single nationality - RCI Bridge Officers were Norwegian, Celebrity Bridge Officers were Greek, deck hands were Filipino, spa workers were contract employees from South Africa, Singers & Dancers were either Canadian OR US contract employees, etc. Now it seems like departments have a much broader geographical recruiting range.

 

US residents are subject to US income tax no matter where they work (there are some exceptions, but those exceptions are pretty restricted), and I THINK that many countries (Canada?) do not tax foreign wages. If I am correct on that, the cruise ship job becomes much more economically attractive to a Canadian versus a US resident. Most US resident crew members I have met were on the Cruise Director's Staff or were Entertainers, and those were almost exclusively young and doing it to see the world with little expectation of staying as "lifers". (Note that I have had very little contact with the children's program employees, and I am unable to comment on their nationalities.) One has to be promoted to Cruise Director before I'd consider it a "real job" that would entice someone to stay for many years. I am now meeting (a few) Bridge Officers who are natural born US citizens, but most of the other Officers I meet who are US residents were foreign born and moved their residency to the US AFTER being promoted to three stripes or higher. I'm sure there are exceptions to everything I have observed.

 

As an aside, on an Allure back stage tour recently someone asked the cast about how this employment looked on their resume. Their consensus was definitely a step below Broadway or West End, but for a major show (Hairspray, Chicago, etc) comparable to a National Touring Company. For those entertainers, the ship seemed to be "just another job."

 

Thom

[The_Big_M]

You continue a pattern of mis-characterizing what I have said, to the point that your misreadings seems willful, not just mistaken.

 

As per my previous response, in post 94, it is you who have been aggressively trying to argue with what I post. The only difference this time was that it was you who made the initial post in this string whereas I had made the initial post to which you felt the need to argue the first time. I don't see any doubt in the wilfulness of your responses.

 

 

I 100% stand by what I said that post (#104).

 

That's fine. I didn't say any of it was wrong so I don't see why you get so defensive. However, it did slant things by only referring to limited "upper senior and navigation" positions. I expanded on your response to point out that it is not limited to those positions.

 

While I didn't specifically mention childcare, childcare would certainly fall under the rubric of such a "cultural" post, since some parents of whatever nationality are obviously more comfortable leaving their kids with folks of the same nationality and the cruise line will respond to that preference. Similarly, posts covering such jobs as directing entertainment include the necessity to for example go out on stage and tell warmup jokes, something that requires deep involvement in the culture of the audience. So yes you will find Americans in such posts, and what I said earlier includes such employees.

 

That may be what you meant, or what you think, but it isn't clear or apparent from what you wrote. There are many nannies and other childcare personnel from other cultures, and that is not something I find uncommon, or expect to have as Australian. Similarly, on ships that serve here such as Celebrity, many of the entertainers are American, so having some from the same culture as you is not a given imo. Why you choose to take offence over my response where I clarified the above is not understandable in my view.

 

This exchange has gone on long enough, and has become rather pointless. I think it's time to stop.

 

I was thinking that at post 112, where none of the statements were personal, or directed at you, but just statement of facts about personnel operations.

 

Clearly you didn't, when you replied in post 114, as you felt the need to make statements about what I hadn't and should read.

[jan-n-john]

I don't see any doubt in the wilfulness of your responses.

 

 

 

There you go again. Of course my responses have been "willful." What they have not been, and yours have, is misreadings and mischaracterizations, as I said. Your approach now is to claim that if I didn't happen to give a particular example that you like in support of my basic point, that the basic point was wrong or that "it isn't clear." Sorry it's not clear to you. I think it's acceptably clear for most readers for the level of discourse expected in an internet forum; this isn't a courtroom. Looking at it another way, while I do appreciate your thoughtfulness in "expanding" my point to cover other categories of employees, it wasn't necessary, since they were already covered in the original statement, but unfortunately, since this was implicit and not explicit, apparently you missed it.

 

Say whatever you want. Further commentary from me is obviously futile. I'll not be responding to this line discussion any more.

Edited August 4, 2014 by jan-n-john

[Hlitner]

It can be very difficult for passengers/customers to get an accurate handle on staffing (this is who the cruise lines prefer it). The staffing of ships is actually a very complex matter since it involves several factors. Employees of the cruise line come and go based on their contracts (usually 6-9 months) so staffing can change on a routine basis. There are also an awful lot of folks working on cruise ships that do not technically work for the cruise line. These folks work for contractors and you can find them working in almost every ships department. So when the cruise lines talk about "employees" they do not necessarily count the contractors.

 

However, having cruised for nearly forty years there are some staffing changes that are very obvious on many mass market cruise lines. Cabin stewards (who now work in teams on many lines) now have more cabins assigned then they did several years ago. And in the MDR there has been an obvious reduction in so-called "Assistant Waiters" on many lines. Most cruise lines (with HAL being an exception) have done away with nearly all their wine stewards...thus putting an additional responsibility on the Assistant waiters.

 

Cut-backs in the entertainment staff (these folks are all under contract) is quite obvious on many lines. HAL got rid of the brass musicians (reducing the ship's orchestra by 2 positions) several years ago. Other lines have substituted more pre-recorded (canned) music for live music in many of the shows. String quartets have become duets on some lines and "party bands" have all but disappeared on other lines.

 

As to the question of converting crew cabins, a majority of the crew cabins are not suitable for passengers because of their location and/or size. On some ships they have been able to free-up a few cabins on passenger decks that previously had been used for entertainment staff.

 

Hank

[Christine Frances]

One minor point:). Besides HAL, Celebrity still has excellent sommeliers thank goodness!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

[The_Big_M]

What they have not been, and yours have, is misreadings and mischaracterizations, as I said.

 

 

I already gave the example of the opposite - repeated for ease. My neutral post in 112 started this exchange. Your response in 114 started with the "misreading and mischaracterisation" against me as you put it.

 

Looking at it another way, while I do appreciate your thoughtfulness in "expanding" my point to cover other categories of employees, it wasn't necessary, since they were already covered in the original statement, but unfortunately, since this was implicit and not explicit, apparently you missed it.

 

So all this web rage is because you deem my post unnecessary. I think you'll be very busy if you make such arguments with every post that could be deemed unnecessary on this forum. Although given the number of posts in this exchange as a proportion of your post account, this is where the term wilfulness comes into play again.

 

As said before, as your post only specifically mentioned senior staff, and then referred to "some slots", meant there was value adding information about other staff from an American background who work onboard.

[4774Papa]

Time to put this to rest.

[richsea]

Amen.