NOTAS A LOS BALANCES DE SITUACIÓN CONSOLIDADOS
17. Fondos propios
The core of the first alignment theme is composed of three consensus statements which suggest an overall assessment of the current company as a good employer. Here, the term company relates to either the crewing agency (s21) they work with to secure a contract or the cruise principal (s19) who owns the ship they work in. Participants gave varied reasons for their view of their current employers as ‘good’ including a personalised approach to contract negotiation, provisions for safety and security, not being overly monitored at work (s37), the presence of programs benefitting workers, and an assessment of the rules implemented as generally fair.
6.1.1 The ‘good’ crewing agency
The participants explained in the interview that their positive stance towards the crewing agency (s21) stemmed from practices that benefited their welfare. For example, the agency managers and staff were reportedly easy to talk to and treated them as 'family members'. The participants observed that the agency showed understanding when cruise ship workers extended their vacation and were not able to report in time to start a new contract. The participants added that their agency tried their best to match them to a suitable contract so that they could continue to be employed. There were instances too when employees married to each other said they could request to work on the same ship so that they could remain together for the duration of their contract. For example, Victoria and her husband were on the same ship before they had children. Subsequently, however, when the children arrived the husband and wife alternated their routines so that one parent would always be at home with the children.
Two points can be raised towards the view that participants were ‘happy with their current crewing agency’. Firstly, the consensus rating of ‘+2’ confirms a general endorsement of the statement but its placement in a Q-sort grid indicates that nine other work-life issues/cards were assigned a stronger +3, +4 or +5 rating score. This means that whilst cruise ship workers agreed that their current crewing agency was by and large ‘good’, this was not the matter which they felt most strongly about.
Secondly, agreement to Statement-21 should not be taken as a sweeping endorsement that crewing agency’s performance was satisfactory. To be sure, these companies are not always the best work organisations to work for. For example, Freya raised the issue of the delayed remittance of her pay while Roberto mentioned the non-payment of social security dues. Under Philippine laws, 80% of a seafarer’s basic salary is earmarked as ‘home’ allotment and is remitted to a designated family member monthly (POEA 2010). At one time, Freya’s family in the Philippines received their allotted payment a week or more after the expected date.
In the Philippines, overseas workers also have the right to universal health and social security contributions (Battistela and Asis 2013). In the case of seafarers, the cruise principal paid the company contribution through the crewing agency whilst the employee contribution was deducted from the monthly home allotment. Seafarers were entitled to monthly contributions for the duration of their contract. Seafarers could opt to pay a voluntary contribution for the months that they were off contract. When Roberto checked his record of contributions with the local office of the Social Security System (SSS), he found that his crewing agency had not yet paid his SSS dues for his recently completed six-month contract.
Unlike most participants, Freya and Roberto were interviewed in their own households and did not hesitate to share their complaints. Participants interviewed at the premises of crewing agencies were understandably reluctant59 during the interview to voice any
current problem/issues they were dealing with. However, the complaints do not necessarily invalidate the ‘agree opinion’ for statement about crewing agencies. The
59 However, it must be reported that participants were more vocal about their complaints towards their managers/supervisors and how day-to-day activities were run on-board. One reason could be that the crewing agency was a personal and more ‘permanent’ contact whilst the ship management was largely impersonal, temporary and fluid. A positive working relationship with the crewing agency potentially means sustained employment. Complaining about certain supervisors, managers or co-workers they encountered on a certain ship is potentially useless as these individuals may no longer be on the ship the participant is assigned next.
positive view towards the crewing agency can be understood in so far as the agency serves as a vital intermediary for an employment opportunity that can improve seafarers’ economic circumstances. There seemed to be a debt of gratitude owed because, without a crewing agency, working on a ship would not be possible. Antagonising one’s crewing agency could further make an already insecure employment more uncertain.
6.1.2 The ‘good’ principal
Safety and security. In general, participants declined to characterise their cruise company as favouring profit at the expense of employee welfare. Instead, participants saw the cruise principal as adequately addressing the basic needs of workers (s19). In their interviews, participants said that they felt that the ship’s safety practices in place were the most tangible expression of the cruise principal's concern for seafarers. Ensuring the safety of everyone on the ship - the crew and passengers alike - is of great importance to the company. It is possible that cruise ship accidents in the past such as the Costa Concordia disaster in 2012 served to highlight the need for cruise companies to pay more attention to health and safety at sea. They continued that insurance coverage is another means by which seafarers feel that their welfare is overseen by the employer. Rhonel, who has worked for two years as a waiter, reported that in his company employees receive additional insurance cover and wages whenever the ship transited a high-risk piracy area.
Not under the lens. Whilst others may view the ship as a highly constraining workplace similar to a prison (s48), life on-board was not conducted completely under surveillance (s37) according to the participants. Contrary to popular perception (e.g. Hullinger 2016), close circuit TVs are installed only in public and work spaces and not in private spaces such as cabins. One participant commented that CCTVs were only examined when accidents happen and were not used to scrutinise employee behaviour. Participants observed that personal monitoring from supervisors was expected but was only likely for new entrants who needed direction in performing tasks. According to Lambert, 38, a waiter of nine years, supervisors eventually allow employees to work
independently and without close supervision after proving their ability to carry out tasks. Some of the participants further stressed that life on-board was 'normal' compared to land-based jobs as the company respected their off-duty hours and they were free to use that time as they wished inside the ship or if the opportunity arose outside the ship. They were also provided recreational spaces such as a crew bar and gym.
Pro-crew policies. More practically, the presence of actual benefits on-board strengthened the ‘good’ employer image. Freya cited that her cruise principal started providing maternity benefit of $1000 to pregnant employees to assist in childbirth expenses. The Good-fit, Ambivalent and Professional participants also affirmed that there was a strict policy against sexual harassment in the workplace (s6), a point often emphasised in company narratives (e.g. NCL 2017).
Rufo, who elaborated on why he felt proud of his cruise principal in the previous chapter further added:
I am proud to say that our German principal has a policy for respect and equality in the workplace. For example, they really provide good accommodation and food to the crew. They abide by whatever is written in the POEA contract.
The programmes Rufo cited were commonly coordinated under a single office on- board. The presence of a Human Resources Office helped in promoting employee well-being. Reynaldo, 43, a storekeeper of 17 years said:
We have an HR coordinator and not every company has that on-board. Without the HR, officers can just shout at us. They treat you differently especially when you are a Filipino. HR keeps harassment at bay by implementing rules and regulations. They also have a Crew Welfare Committee that handles events so employees can also enjoy some time.
Respecting justifiable rules. Participants in three groups maintained that company policies were acceptable and justified (s40: Good-fit, Troubled, Professional). For example, as with other cruise ship workers (Kobus 2012c), participants found that weekly emergency and fire drills were repetitive, could be an 'added burden' and even annoying when you had just finished a day's shift or when you were having a rest time.
However, they all agreed that this practice was fundamental in making everyone prepared for any untoward incident leading to an emergency evacuation. Adherence and obedience to these policies were a consequence of seeing rules as serving some function:
Company policy is company policy. These rules are in place for your own good. There are no rules created just for one guy so he can suffer. Rules are there for everybody's benefit. [Elmerado, 44, Sanitation supervisor, 14]
Doubting the ‘good’
The 'good employer' image explored in this section should not be taken to mean that employers were ‘perfect’ in every respect. This stance must be scrutinised especially because most of the interviews were conducted in the offices of the crewing agencies participants were supposedly describing. The participants’ positive views towards the crewing agency or the cruise principal could initially be interpreted as an example of social desirability response bias (Bryman 2012). When the employment relationship between the worker and employer is temporary and indirect, workers are unlikely to antagonise employers by giving critical comments as these may be detrimental to their future chances of work. Such situation may result into a tendency of participants to over-report the ‘positive’ and under-report the ‘negative’ aspects of their employers. It could also be that a negative view towards the company was unlikely from workers who were already keen to do the job such as the Good-fit and the Ambivalent participants whose ambition were to work on a cruise ship (s33). Their determination to pursue career goals could make them more tolerant towards difficulties presented by the job as well as other unpleasant practices in the workplace. However, whilst there was a consensus positive characterisation of the employer it must be recognised that there were some criticisms too. The ‘Troubled’ group which showed greater likelihood in taking a negative stance towards company-related issues was an example this contrary stance position. For example, the Troubleds did not feel that the company recognised the services they provided (s18) and they were undecided about being proud of the cruise principal (s17) (see Section 5.2.2, pp.132-143). The identification of this dissenting stance suggests that instead of a ‘socially desirable’ representation of ‘employers’ a more nuanced and diverse set of views are present among participants.