Below Deck: Filipinos make up nearly a third of all cruise ship workers
story.californiasunday.com
story.californiasunday.com
I worked as an independent Google contractor before for less than $11 an hour with very stringent rules, ever increasing performance requirements, no holidays, no sick pay, no nothing.
If you're poor and uneducated you're disposable dirt anywhere these days, even though people would like you to think otherwise and it's obviously even worse in 3rd world countries, where people looking for relatively unskilled jobs far outnumber available positions.
I'm not saying your job isn't though, but I find it silly to use it to dismiss the point of the article which is that US companies should be held responsible under US laws.
I'm also living in a first world country where costs of living are fairly expensive and where I don't have free housing (and food I presume), so I was living hand to mouth without health insurance.
I worked for outsourcers before as well doing support type jobs. Bad pay, ever increasing performance pressure, no benefits (no sick pay or health insurance), so if you got sick you were shit out of luck and healthcare was prohibitively expensive. Private insurance was available of course but these were all angle shooting companies in the affordable range that are barely better than having no insurance at all. The gap to the 3rd world is quickly closing in a lot of places these days unfortunately. (and not in a good way)
This was in western Europe.
Most western Europe has socialized medicine. Was health insurance as essential as in the USA?
A colleague of mine got diagnosed with a serious heart condition, was away for a month or so without sick pay, got fired as a result and went bankrupt from medical bills.
Maybe this is supposed to be an easy question, but as an American, I have no idea which western European country doesn't have socialized medicine, and Wikipedia is not helping me out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...
Some medical card for the destitute exists but if you're working you don't qualify.
The whole medical system is a nightmare, but it's a very small country as well.
Ireland is a weird (and sometimes nightmarish) mix of European and American culture. For some reason we decided that some of the dumbest ideas of the US simply had to be implemented, at great cost to the average citizen.
There's always loopholes in socialized medicine usually only affecting the poor.
I pay for my own health insurance (because I own my own company) and while not cheap, it's affordable. I think I pay around $250 US/month. I get regular checkups included (most prescriptions cost me $10 or less) and I had a colonoscopy last year and it cost me less that $50.
If I had major surgery, I would be out a couple of grand. While it does have problems, it's nowhere near as bad as many would like you to think.
So no I cannot go bankrupt with health insurance in the US.
Also, many people aren't able to work when they are sick.
When I actually post my real experiences, I get down voted to -2.
....and we wonder why there are so many broken systems in the US.
[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/food-stam...
Again, I will have to disagree. Do you have any actual experience with this or are you going to just give me more talking points....
My wife's sister went through stage 2 breast cancer over the past 2 years and she had her own insurance plan as well. After 4 major surgeries and 1 year of chemo, her total expenses are $10K.
You can negotiate with hospitals and they almost always have payment plans with 0 interest for a few years. She negotiate it down to $5K, which is pretty reasonable, considering the amount of time she spent in the hospital.
My Aunt lives in Canada and she had thyroid cancer a couple of years ago. Because it wasn't considered 'life threatening', she had to go before a health board to determine when she should actually receive surgery.
They determined that she could have surgery in 2 years. This was unacceptable, so she went over the border to the US and got it done in a month.
I would much rather have the option of actually getting the surgery done in a timely fashion than having to go before a board (IE: the 'death panels' that everyone talks about) to determine my fate.
The US healthcare system does need work, but many people use hyperbole and have never experienced it first-hand.
There are millions of Americans who can't afford $250/mo on top of food, rent, and transportation costs, working more than full-time hours spread across several jobs, all of which pay minimum wage in poor conditions that are bad for their bodies and with unpredictable scheduling.
In light of the reality of many, many people's experiences in the healthcare system that are contrary to your own, which are NOT hard to find, your comments comes across quite poorly.
Sure there is. There aren't that many private insurance companies in the US and they all work similarly.
"I take you haven't experienced the system as someone, say, making less than $25k/yr, in every single state, at various times of year (say 2 months before your deductible rolls over) with various kinds of conditions (acute, chronic, extremely rare, etc?), at various points in their careers (if they can even claim to use that word)? And you've experienced this in a range of personal contexts?"
I feel like this is the 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy creeping into the conversation. You could say the same thing about every single healthcare system (or any large system) in the world: it's not the same for everyone.
..and by the way, my wife's sister makes $35K/year. Money has little to do with it.
"There are millions of Americans who can't afford $250/mo on top of food, rent, and transportation costs, working more than full-time hours spread across several jobs, all of which pay minimum wage in poor conditions that are bad for their bodies and with unpredictable scheduling."
You say that, but many people I know won't pay for healthcare, but pay more in booze, weed, and expensive electronics and services.
When I was single, I got bare-bones care for $75/month. This is as cheap as a cellphone plan. My premiums were high, but I wouldn't go bankrupt if I had major surgery. Many people can easily afford healthcare in this country. They choose to spend their money elsewhere.
I've traveled the world and the US has the richest poor people I've ever seen. Try living on less than $2/day with starving children.
Hospitals can't refuse anyone by law. We also have lots of systems, paid for by the taxpayers, to help people on low incomes get the care they need.
"In light of the reality of many, many people's experiences in the healthcare system that are contrary to your own, which are NOT hard to find, your comments comes across quite poorly."
Your comments come off as rather naive. No system is perfect and I can point to many instances of people getting terrible care in every other healthcare system as well.
You want to paint a hyperbolic picture that the US healthcare system will make you go bankrupt and you need to be rich to get care.
My point is that this just isn't true. It needs work, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.
> "Money has little to do with it."
Again, you are severely out of touch with the existence of many Americans if you think money has nothing to do with it. I guess the poor ones aren't actually poor if they would just stop spending money on vices? You would do well for yourself if you stop looking at anecdotes of people you know, and start looking at the generalized case of the hundreds of millions Americans across socioeconomic classes.
The disappointing truth is that there are indeed many hard-working Americans (many of them immigrants...) who bust ass all year long, and they don't have money to pay for even a high deductible plan. They can barely make rent. And if they did, those plans still result in many tens of thousands of $s in the event of a severe hospital stay. These are the people where a single chain of events can push them into severe poverty with no easy way out.
If you read HN then you'll know this stuff is happening, and a lot of people are talking about just how hard it is to climb these days for the bottom %s of America. Just a few months ago, we're now at the point where potential to climb, social mobility is lower than our grandfather's generation?
I would like to invite you to read some of the work done by David Belk MD and see if that changes your seemingly cavalier attitude that it's "not that bad". Here's a former comment of mine with some links. The system is very inefficient, with a lot of corruption, and people like you are genuinely hurting people by fighting as if it's otherwise.
Keep in mind that many people would be bankrupted by a $5k expense.
The original poster says claims Ireland doesn't and whilst I'd assume they know more than I do, http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Find_a_Service/eligibility.ht... makes it sound substantially free or heavily subsidised ("comprehensive, government funded public healthcare system").
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/medical_cards_an...
Sounds comprehensive to you?
The income threshold is so low that only unemployed people qualify.
What? No. In Germany you have public health insurance and private health insurance.
Private is only an option if you make over ~55,000€ or are self employed. Of course there are many private insurance companies happy to sell you insurance. They're in it to make money. Just be prepared for the premiums to increase as you get older.
Public health insurance [0] is available from several different providers, all which basically offer the same thing: you get sick and go the doctor, you are treated without charge.
> When things go bad, you bet the insurance company won't be on your side.
I have never been seriously ill, but for all the minor things (flu, infection) I just went to the doctor and gave them my health card.
I do know people who have been seriously I'll, requiring hospitalisation, and I haven't heard many complaints from them. They're still alive, and not financially ruined or suing the Krakenkasse.
So how exactly will they not be "on your side" ?
The public health system in Germany, and other European countries from what my friends say, is not the most luxurious or expedient, but you get the care you need and without paying extravagant amounts as one would in America.
I know people in America on ACA who pay thousands per year and still have a deductable of thousands. Sure, I pay ~4,000€ to the Krakenkasse through the mandatory salary deductions each year, but I have no deductable for care.
As a young and healthy person it doesn't cost the German government that much each year to keep me alive, but this money goes toward keeping other people healthy and alive. I consider that a worthwhile goal (though I do strongly want them to ban tobacco advertising).
[0] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetzliche_Krankenversicher...
You're making some other point.
Either way there's nothing inherently wrong with a job that requires you to drive around all day. Work is work regardless of if you look down your nose at it as "menial".
i think they were simply remarking that someone had an advanced degree and it wasn't being put to use.
this point is really about the system/world/situation and not so much about individuals.
> there's nothing inherently wrong with a job that requires you to drive around all day
seems like a red herring.
Restated: If you spend 8+ years and tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn something, not putting it to use is a colossal waste of resources for everyone involved. It's not just you. It's the seat you took from another student who would have appreciated it more.
Knowledge itself doesn't contain any inherent value, it's free if you want to learn it all yourself without depriving anyone else of it. What you're paying for is the academic environment, resources and tutoring of a person. That's a business exchange like any other and everyone is free to spend their money on that, whether they do anything with the results or not.
I am not against the viewpoint you present for anything other than what I see as pragmatic reasons. If we lived in a post-scarcity economy, I would agree with you.
But we don't, and we aren't going to be there anytime soon, either. The system we have now loads crippling debt on to students, and one of the reasons it can do so is because of the constraints of supply and demand. Thus, in my opinion, to not do anything with an advanced degree is deeply selfish.
while i agree with your sentiment about not at all utilizing the potential of an advanced education, i'm not sure how google is "at fault" here...
assuming this resume requirement is real: is it google's fault there is a sufficient supply of master's holders willing to drive for minimum wage, such that they're content having the requirement?
Please note that I am not talking about learning in general. Lifelong learning is fundamental. But there are other paths to knowledge beyond a 4-year college.
If there are enough geographers with graduate degrees applying for the gig even at minimum wage pay, you pay them minimum wage.
In the US (and let's be real, most of the world), capitalism trumps altruism (paying someone more than their market value because you're nice).
We exploit our own kind - it's always been that way, and there have always been a sufficient number of justifications (whether you agree with them or not) to keep up the practice.
I'm not against all of it. I just appreciate viewing things from as many perspectives as possible, uncomfortable or not.
To people who say "What's my passion in life and the rest of the world should subsidize it," not so much.
Your bar for sympathy may be a bit high.
So what? I'm sure there's things you benefit from thanks to the Nazis.
Personally I prefer to not encourage bad behaviour and change the world in a positive way than worry about philosophical arguments.
Most single millenial guys that aren't in tech or another high paying career are already living in shared housing indefinetely if they're in a big city.
An excess of people having no purpose in society will result in such conditions unless there is a revolution and a technologically disadvantaged north korea where everybody has stuff to do suddenly doesn't look that bad anymore.
Did you ever stop think about how weird that arrangement was? Do you know anyone who owns, operates, or lives in a boarding house?
And yet it's not really all that weird by historical standards. It's only in fairly recent times that cities decided to get all Moralistic about how Home, Family and Neighborhoods Should Be Structured and started imposing zoning restrictions with super emphasis on homes, waging war against boarding houses and residential hotels and flophouses and other haunts of the poor and lower classes in the name of Progress and Class Warfare. Can't quite afford a place that meets the minimum square footage requirements independently? Well, don't worry, we can find a place for you in the crime-ridden public housing projects or on the streets. Kiss your remaining independence goodbye and welcome to the Bureaucracy, because you're never going to be able to get on the bus to a new town with $100 in your pocket and find a place to crash for a few nights until you get a new job. Who would rent you a place like that anymore? There's the YMCA... and that's about it, _period_.
(Hell, a lot of the debates about AirBnB "abuse" end up rehashing these same problems.)
Shared housing isn't all that bad if done right
Humans are selfish by nature driven by financial rewards.
And abundant evidence indicates that (most) corporations will do everything within their power to take advantage of this fact, unless very strongly regulated.
In fact, they even have a name for this strategy:
Self improvement is fine and necessary and honorable and all, but ultimately living together in society is necessarily political.
Note also that a lot of what is taught in undergrad/MBA economics 101 distracts from that, and (even while aspiring to be value neutral) implicitly promotes a trust in markets and corporations that is naive and misguided.
James Kwak's book "Economism" is a nice antidote to that:
https://www.amazon.com/Economism-Bad-Economics-Rise-Inequali...
I think the pressure from consumers can be even stronger force than regulation. It can act faster and it is not so susceptible to lobbying and loopholes.
Yes, 'it stinks' to have low wages because one might not have much of an education - but there's absolutely no reason on earth not to have 'basic worker protections'.
I generally don't like Unions, especially those that are entrenched - but we wouldn't need them if people were not so greedy.
Google does this a lot, and I find it despicable that they take the 'moral high ground' on so many issues, but then treat people as commodities.
Google is massively rich, there's no reason they can't offer 'decent pay' with 'regular paid holidays' and 'sick days' and to ensure that their contractors are doing the same.
High tech has this weird duplicity: they want to 'save the world' and 'end disease' - when they fail to realize that the world would be a pretty good place to begin with if all of the actors - people and companies - just behaved conscientiously - and that they have a role to play in this.
Steve Jobs for example - with one single sentence, in one single email, could have ensured basic worker protections for every worker in his entire supply chain.
And I'm not talking about 'gold plated retirement packages' and 'can't get fired no matter what' - I just mean '2 weeks vacay, basic healthcare, 40 hours a week max' and 'actual bathroom breaks'.
We talk about intellectual things like UBI, heyzeus, we could make big inroads with just some basic things.
Agreed. They fail to realize this and saving the world and ending disease is far more glamorous than actually treating your employees well. Its much the same with organizations that focus on helping people in other countries while ignoring the fact that there are starving, homeless people in their own backyard.
Pikkety's seminal "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" is the famous, but somewhat dry exposition on that.
Branko Milanovic's "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization" is a relatively slender volume that gives a great overview (on this question in chapter 2).
TL;DR: In "the West", 1950-1980
But as the article pointed out, that choice of where you work can make a huge difference if anything goes wrong like an injury, and that's where none of the lines are really all that great. Even there while there are always new people they can hire, word does get out who to work for, and if your rep takes a fall because you treat people like crap, you won't be able to hire good people, and the guests will see the quality drop to point where revenue gets hit. Cruise ships are enormously expensive to run, and competition is strong. But my family has been on enough cruises to know who we would rather be on, and how decently they treat the employees is a good indication of whether you should spend a little more and get a better experience.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1991-04-16/business/9101190...
In the early 90s, Carnival bought Premier Cruise Lines (or most them, at least). They were supposed to assumed Premier's role as provider of "Disney" cruises, though I can't confirm that happened.
Disney started running its own cruise line in 1998. TIL
And to be fair, Carnival did buy Disney cruises, though things have changed in the years since.
Disclaimer: have friends working on RCCL ships.
What surprises me to this day is how little it costs to buy American congress. 1,000,000$ lobbying costs? That's less than a lot of houses in SF or NYC.
Shouldn't it cost more to buy American congress decisions? Like 50 - 100 million USD price range? 1 billion perhaps? Why American politicians are so cheap? Raising lobbying prices would seem a logical conclusion Here :)
I'm not doubting your sincerity and principles but I'd like to go beyond this particular injustice of cruise workers and understand how consumers reconcile all the "slave" inputs for the other products they buy.
In the USA, many fruits and veggies are collected by cheap labor from Mexico.[1] In UK, the analogous group is Africans. Those strawberries in the supermarket are not collected by white middle-class teenagers working the field as a fun summer job. It's back-breaking work with terrible pay. Similar situation for many foods like coffee beans, beef/poultry/pork processing.
Or the shoes for your kid to run or play soccer in. Made by sweatshops (many staffed with children) in Asia.
Or how about smartphones?[2] This includes kids mining for minerals so we can have iPhones.[3]
Yes, some of these happen because many consumers are oblivious to how products are made. (You mean the strawberries don't come from a magical strawberry fairy?!?)
Or maybe why we tolerate many of these scenarios is "The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics"[4] which has been discussed by HN before. If I don't physically have to touch or lay my eyes on that child labor in Africa, my iPhone is fine.
What would a lifestyle that avoided all use of "tainted" products used look like? (No iPhone, no cheap produce from the supermarket, no affordable shoes or clothing. etc.)
I've not seen a really good essay discussing all the inconsistencies of ethics applied above and advising us how to live guilt free without retreating to a remote monastery and minimizing oneself to an ascetic life like a monk. Refusing cruise ships is easy -- a lot of HN readers don't like them in the first place. Giving up smartphones is hard. Relevant to this moment, the ability to type up comments on HN means I'm taking advantage of the global supply of "slave labor" around the world. There's no way I could have the luxury to do that if I had to harvest my own strawberries or pay a white person $20/hour to do it for me.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8_JWuWSSLQ
[2] http://www.androidcentral.com/child-labor-allegations-surfac...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3280872/iPhone-miner...
[4] https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action - otherwise we get paralysis and inaction and nothing gets done at all. CP is perfectly able to reconcile voting with his or her feet on this and accepting that in other areas he or she is tacitly accepting slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negros
Being a hypocrite on these issues is basicly unavoidable in the modern world, but the critical point here is that does not make you wrong, nor is it a refutation that such things are bad and should be changed.
Its just an easy trite dismissal to avoid examining the situation.
I wasn't dismissing the Filipino worker. I was trying to expand the discussion to other areas similar to the cruise worker. People may be unaware how many other workers in other industries the "slavery" criteria applies to. Or they are aware and don't care. I haven't taken a survey and don't know.
I've heard a few people say, "America First," recently. I think everyone is at least mildly aware of suffering internationally. Refugees are big news.
That may be true but it's not relevant to my comment. I was focusing on the rationale given ("knowing the guy is a slave") and not the severity.
>However one should never turn moral consistency into a prerequisite for action
I'm also not advocating or justifying continuation of any economic evils just because one cannot have perfection of morals. Your last sentence finally gets what I wanted to discuss: "CP is perfectly able to reconcile [...] tacitly accepting slavery."
Yes, obviously millions of people _do_ reconcile the inconsistencies that but it would still be interesting to dissect how people really think.
If one is to loudly and publicly say that "I won't buy X because of slavery" but there are lots of other instances where "slavery didn't stop me from enjoying Y", doesn't that mean the more complete moral rationale would actually be:
- "I won't by X because of economic slavery -- unless my desire for X is more important than the slavery."
Doesn't the extra conditional clause at the end makes the public morality stance somewhat empty?
Filipinos who work these jobs are better off with them, not without. That's what counts imo.
We pay 1000s for a car and don't complain. But we need cheap portable supercomputers?
What the price of something should be is as much psychology than anything else. Diamonds and gold are a case in point.
Food, clothes, energy ... The human slavery did not stop with the abolition almost 200 years ago.
What do you want to do about it? You want to put them all out of jobs so that companies are forced to spend more money developing robots? What? What is that going to solve? You act like people would rather not work. That's probably true but I hope you have a backup plan for them.
I say we change the trajectory of the future instead of embracing a nightmare of our own invention as an inevitability.
Progress is bringing us closer meeting needs for everyone, instead dying in a cave when the snow got too high to hunter-gather.
The world is rife with stories of menial workers who were lured to international job roles that turned out to be lies. One common one is subcontinental workers lured to the gulf states to work on construction, and when they arrive they have their passports confiscated and a treated like slaves. Another common one is southeast Asian women lured to first-world countries and similarly tricked, but into sex slavery. These are the worst-case scenarios, but there's plenty of versions without the idea of 'slavery' - the international 'maid' industry, for example. A lot of south east Asians go to other countries and become maids, where they are frequently abused - and it's hard to get home when you haven't been paid since you arrived, may not have your passport, may be physically isolated, and don't speak the local language.
Ah, but no, "it's a job and someone's doing it, so clearly they were fully informed before they went in and no-one is exerting undue leverage over them"...
http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/04/17/health-and-fam...
I bet you very much could relax, considering there's almost no way you have problem typing on your computer made by "slave" labor, while wearing your "slave" labor generated clothing, eating your "slave" labor trafficked food, etc.
Some very poor people live their lives because you bought the stuff in the room you're in now, there are no two ways around that.
It's interesting that as our bases shut down and we left that our cruise lines started picking people up.
I think this article should be a cautionary tail to those who would think that large businesses can be trusted to treat people properly on their own.
The cruise ship guys, comparatively, have it good. There are innumerable stories of entire freighter crews being marooned in third world ports by shipowners who didn't want to pay them.
The global shipping industry is, unfortunately, a race to the bottom. Every time that John McCain proposes the repeal of the Jones Act, I cringe with the thought of what it would do to what's left of the American merchant marine.
I saw those ships turn over ~3,000 people every 5 - 7 days and according to Carnival that would be the first and only cruise for 75% of those guests! That's across a fleet of 25 ships! Needless to say it cured my number numbness for conceptualizing the size of the 'masses.'
I wonder why they do this. The $$$ savings for the lesser hours are peanuts given the low wages. Only reason I can think of is to break the will of the workers. If they feel powerless to complain about the hours they've worked, they're less likely to complain about the rest of their conditions.
> But arbitration in the Philippines is nothing like the American judicial system. In the United States, seamen can file for damages on the basis of dangerous working conditions or shoddy medical care, for example. They can receive payments that cover any future loss of wages and ongoing medical expenses, which can span a lifetime. In the Philippines, on the other hand, seamen are offered payouts based on a predetermined compensation chart, in which each body part has a price tag. If there’s a spinal injury and the company-sponsored doctor says a seafarer’s back has lost a third of its mobility, it’s valued at $7,465. If a crew member loses his penis, he’s paid $20,900. If a worker dies: $50,000. The maximum payout, for permanent disability, is capped at $60,000. Unionized workers can receive more, but Carnival Cruise Line crew members are nonunion.
I'm not sure how one "loses his penis" but I'm damn sure I'd demand more than $20,900 in compensation from the party responsible.
> Recently, the cruise industry has pushed to pass a law that would prevent all foreign cruise workers in U.S. waters — not just Filipinos — from any protection under U.S. law.
Sounds like they want it both ways. If you're docking at US ports and picking up US customers, you should be expected to follow some level of US law. It's hard to say what protections should apply though as it's possible they could conflict with foreign laws as well. My internal sense of justice says it should be something though.
It's more about regulations I believe, if management can "prove" that you did not work more than the allowed hours, they cannot be fined for it.
"Rest hours: rest hours should be implemented in national legislation. The maximum hours of work in that legislation should not exceed 14 hours in any 24-hour period and 72 hours in any seven-day period, or: at least ten hours of rest in any 24-hour period and 77 hours (rest) in any seven-day period. Furthermore, the daily hours of rest may not be divided into more than two periods and, at least six hours of rest should be given consecutively in one of those two periods."
7*24-77 = 91
Managers and supervisors always work for achievements, which are usually made on the back of the lower rungs by saving money and increasing performance by any means necessary.
When I was an assistant manager at a little food place in the mall. We'd get a stern talking to by the corporate office in the sky if there was >15 minutes of overtime. That meant that either we didn't finish cleaning or I wouldn't count the drawers and safe. So I didn't get paid to count.
They would reward you with a $50 bonus if you had no OT on your shifts for a month. The odd part is that for 90s teenage mall workers, that occasionally exceeded the value of payroll saved.
Having rules is meaningless if you aren't trying to enforce them.
The biggest issue I have seen is that they can be naive. I have had to talk a few of my Filipino friends out of some scams.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...
Carnival, and all their princess subsidiaries should be boycotted
About 13 years ago I took my first cruise, and from that point forward, about yearly or more, I cruise (though it's been two years since my last). I prefer Royal Caribbean (and Carnival is low on my list, though I've cruised with them many times). I always joke that it's the perfect vacation for geek decompression: it's on a ship where getting in contact with me is very difficult and expensive. Internet is expensive and only somewhat works on board. You don't have to think much -- very little upfront planning is required -- and there's a lot of time spent being left alone with your thoughts. It's very uncomfortable, at first, having to wait in lines without being able to pull out your smart phone and be distracted by Facebook/Reddit/Twitter, but after a day of it, you're forced into a form of relaxation that's missing from life these days.
The biggest reason I love cruising is the staff. Reading an article like this, you'd expect the staff to appear unhappy or otherwise be less than stellar. And while this is anecdata, at best, in the 15 or so cruises I've taken, I've not only never encountered a member of staff that had a bad attitude, I've never encountered a member of staff that was willing to ride an elevator with me without smiling and asking how my vacation was going. It's been impossible for me to find a member of staff who appears, at all, to not be having fun, even though we know full well that they're very underpaid and treated poorly by the western standards that almost all of their guests come from. I've stayed in high-class hotels in specialty suites for work and haven't experienced the quality of staff that I've received staying in an interior, windowless state-room in a small ship. This very personal interaction, with unbelievable attention to detail[0], is why I keep cruising.
These men and women not only work hard under poor conditions, they do so with a work ethic that you'd be hard pressed to find in the best paying jobs in the US. Part of this was pointed out in the article -- in a lot of cases, this is the best job they can get to support their family back home. My wife and I are very extroverted and a ship filled with people who, at worst, are pretending to want to get to know you and make your vacation better is a guarantee that we're going to make friends (genuine or not, though I've never gotten the sense that it was anything but genuine). We got to know a few members of maintenance staff (one of them broke several rules[1] to show us parts of the ship that were off limits, including crew quarters, pre-9/11). These folks know the best places to visit on the islands and where to go to get goods and services inexpensively[2]. One point that was made is if you want to reward a member of staff, cash is king and conceal cash tips from view. They do everything they can to make extra money on the side (and I chuckled because our guy was "a Christian who rented DVDs" and DVD players though I doubt it was the same guy from the article). On one of the cruises we took, we were told that the mandatory tips that are included in your bill (it wasn't always this way) are pooled and your room steward/waiter aren't going to be rewarded directly from any extra generosity you offer[3].
[0] My daughter once worried that the towel animals were not comfortable sleeping in the room because they were placed on the covers -- this was said to us within earshot of the room steward. The next time we arrived in our stateroom, the towel animal was snuggled into the bed with its head on the pillow. Seriously.
[1] We were told that many of these rules can be broken without consequences if they're being broken at the wishes of the guest.
[2] We ended up on a tour on St. Thomas, paid for with a ten dollar bill for the two of us, that was filled with Royal Caribbean customers who had dropped $55/ticket for the same tour. We were told, wait until the afternoon and show up when they're loading customers on. Someone will be standing outside selling off the rest of the seats. Our "bus" was half-empty, to boot. In another case, we were pointed in the direction of a restaurant off the beaten path, filled with locals, where we were fed two large meals with appetizers and bottomless drinks for about $7.50 and it was the best food and drink we'd had off-ship that week.
[3] We learned some more disturbing things, as well. Casual sex is rampant. We were told of several stories that made the lower decks sound like they have a frat house/orgy atmosphere (this is something I've heard from folks who work at Disney and other resorts).
The point I was making there is that it's really impressive and a testament to the work ethic of the staff that it's done so well. You'd expect someone working under the condition of fear to do this "just well enough to not get fired" but I've never detected even the slightest hint that the attitudes of staff are not genuine (I'm not saying they are genuine, just that they're quite good at hiding that fact). The work ethic is, in a word, impressive.
As for tipping - I suggest catching them in the hallway on their way between shifts/responsibilities. Palm a sizeable bill and give it to them in a hand-shake. Do this on the day before debarkation, otherwise you risk obligating that person to feel like they need to "work it off" for you[0].
As for me, I cruise because it's inexpensive, but I plan for a big budget vacation[1]. I'm frugal by nature (4 kids, one income), so we end up way under budget without trying. After we had a long chat with a member of maintenance staff, we were touched by his kindness and circumstances, so we decided from that cruise forward to come home with the budget surplus spent this way and found it had a great effect of adding to the joy of our vacation.
[0] A gratuity is for something that was done, not something that is expected, later. The latter is a bribe. :o)
[1] Vacations are to fill a "need" to relax and it's hard to relax if you're spending your time worrying about how much you're spending, so we don't vacation until we have enough money to exceed what we expect to spend.
For someone working on a cruise ship to make 2x to 8x that and have a substantial portion of their living expenses covered is not at all "terrible" by their home country's standards, IMO.
For some perspective, in a report from recent (last 2 months) research that I read this morning, the very lowest household income amongst Myanmar migrant workers (largely factory workers) interviewed in Thailand was almost exactly this figure (7kTHB), whereas 2-5x this figure (~20-35kTHB) was common.
Similarly, relocating Chinese villagers I met last month reported being given 290元 (~$42)/head/month + lifetime generous monthly rice/oil allowance + initial bulk hardship payment + free housing when relocated to facilitate a new hydropower project. A family of four Chinese farmers in this situation essentially receive this income forever without the need to work at all.
How does a dishwasher make tips?
I made a typo in my above comment. As a dishwasher, you get $450/month - fixed and without tips.
I assume also room and board are "free".
I have about 6 cousins from the Philippines that are all around the world on various cruise ships, tankers, and cargo ships. Each one sending money back home, each one happy, they all love their jobs, and go back for reassignment.
I think that's an absurd attitude to maintain.
No, I'm not. That's called 'disagreement' and it can happen.
The only thing I note is that you don't know what options this man has available to him since you are not in his shoes and you can simply assume that he's trying his level best to do the best he can - just like everybody else. So unless you wish to increase the number of options available to him I don't think you should be telling him what to do, just as he wouldn't have any standing to tell you what to do.
None of your other assumptions are relevant to this and besides I wasn't making them.
Filipino employees are exploited because they have very little in terms options to resist signing such contracts. It's akin to victim blaming.
Most of the Filipinos sees working overseas a special opportunity to bring good fortune to their families. But sometimes reality strikes hard for some and are lured into abusive employers. This is one of the reasons why we have a government body to handle such cases. Most of these problems happen on non-specialized jobs such as domestic helpers, waiter and care givers since they are the most vulnerable to abuses compared to engineers and nurses.
(Shout out to ISM Bearcats!)
Now imagine you were raised in a bamboo shack living hand-to-mouth in a cash economy.
We're talking about a country that was governed by a prolific kleptocrat (Ferdinand Marcos) for 20 years, and where the currency halved in value against the USD over the course of a few years during the asian financial crisis. Beyond that, there's generally a weak rule of law, and poor regulation of the financial sector.
In this environment, a more traditional Asian approach of spending money on housing, land, gifts to relatives to build up some social credit with them for times of need, makes a lot more sense.
They don't exist in most of the western world (e.g. Europe).
Please don't call that "western financial planning"
Vanguard, which is the gold standard, almost exclusively operates in the USA. (even though it's registered as a UK company and based in the UK).
As far as I could find in the UK, the closest local equivalent is L&G (Legal and General).
In the rest of Europe, for the few countries I checked, there is nothing comparable whatsoever.
I am not sure whether you are European making fun of the financial system of the USA or an American thinking Europe somehow lives in the stone age.
Of course we have those things. Also there are these things called stock exchanges, were even people from poor, underdeveloped nations like Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands or Germany are allowed to buy stocks. Even fancy American ones.
I am an European who is sad that Vanguard doesn't exist there, and there is no comparable local equivalent.
And no, an European either cannot and/or should not buy American stock.
1) Some stocks are simply not available for trades by your local brokers
2) You cannot use some remote products/brokers because they require you to be an US citizen or resident
3) There are taxations and constraints that makes international stock worthless. For instance, American stocks are taxed by the USA (by USA law) then taxed again by your home EU country (local country law).
P.S. I am sure there are loopholes to get it done if you have more than 10M€ to invest but that's not the case of the majority of people.
What kind of stocks do you need for your personal financial planning, that you cannot get in Europe? I have heard nice things about Vanguard on HN, but so far have not had any troubles with iShares and the like.
But there's very little stopping Europeans from buying Vanguard funds or ETFs, so this is a cultural phenomenon, not because of any legal barriers.
http://jlcollinsnh.com/2014/01/27/stocks-part-xxi-investing-...
It confirm that you need 100k€ to deal with Vanguard Europe directly, that you get double taxation (USA tax then home country tax) on your returns, and you take all the risks on the currency exchange, and that's just the beginning of the article...
So, I'll repeat it again, the USA investments are NOT available in Europe and the equivalents are mostly non existent or sub-par.