Trouble with paying crew?

[denverd0n]

As has been pointed out, the laws vary from country to country. Perhaps more importantly, the way the wording of a law is interpreted ALSO varies from country to country. Hence, "voluntary" might -- in fact, almost certainly would -- be interpreted differently in the UK than in the US.


I think an equally important point here, relative to the OPs original intent, is that if you require someone to pay in order to come along on your journey, they are going to think of themselves more as "passengers" than as "crew." That is, they are in no way going to have the expectation that they are working for you. They are mostly along for the ride. They are most certainly going to look at any work they do as being voluntary (there's that word again!) on their part.


If you want crew that is going to work for you like crew should, you are going to have to pay them. Not the other way around.

[valhalla360]

As someone else mentioned, if you ask for a "voluntary" contribution after they got off the boat, you are fine. Nothing says they won't shrug and give you nothing as that's the nature of voluntary contributions but at least in the USA, that likely covers you...plus if there is an incident, you can forget to ask for the contribution and stay completely clear of the issue as there was no compensation involved.

If you have a website and it lists, the price is $x per day, that isn't going to fly as voluntary from a legal perspective. Yes, it's voluntary to use a commercial service. It's not voluntary to pay once you decide to use the commercial service. The second one is what the CG clarification is referring to.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

As someone else mentioned, if you ask for a "voluntary" contribution after they got off the boat, you are fine. Nothing says they won't shrug and give you nothing as that's the nature of voluntary contributions but at least in the USA, that likely covers you...plus if there is an incident, you can forget to ask for the contribution and stay completely clear of the issue as there was no compensation involved.

If you have a website and it lists, the price is $x per day, that isn't going to fly as voluntary from a legal perspective. Yes, it's voluntary to use a commercial service. It's not voluntary to pay once you decide to use the commercial service. The second one is what the CG clarification is referring to.

That's your own logic, but you can't read the regulation that way, and that's not what "voluntary" means legally in this context.



I would be happy to be shown to be wrong if you can point to any single case which held any one of the thousands of "shared contribution" crew arrangements offered on Crewseekers every day on U.S. boats, to be a charter. If you can, in fact, I'll buy you a beer

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's your own logic, but you can't read the regulation that way, and that's not what "voluntary" means legally in this context.

I would be happy to be shown to be wrong if you can point to any single case which held any one of the thousands of "shared contribution" crew arrangements offered on Crewseekers every day on U.S. boats, to be a charter. If you can, in fact, I'll buy you a beer

Lawyers are famous for reading the same sentence and coming up with a dozen interpretations, so yours is just another interpretation but one that is inconsistent with the context.

The problem with the "show me" argument is the vast majority of the time there is no incident and the authorities don't know that an illegal charter was in operation...so there is no case to refer to. And even if I did come up with an example, any good lawyer would nitpick how it's different...so not going to play that game.

I just wouldn't want to be the test case when it's pretty clear cut from the OP's post that he is running a paid charter since he specifically excluded operating expenses from the price.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Lawyers are famous for reading the same sentence and coming up with a dozen interpretations, so yours is just another interpretation but one that is inconsistent with the context.

The problem with the "show me" argument is the vast majority of the time there is no incident and the authorities don't know that an illegal charter was in operation...so there is no case to refer to. And even if I did come up with an example, any good lawyer would nitpick how it's different...so not going to play that game.

I just wouldn't want to be the test case when it's pretty clear cut from the OP's post that he is running a paid charter since he specifically excluded operating expenses from the price.

"Vast majority" means that there is "some minority" where the law would be enforced the way you say it means. So could we see just one, please?



It seems to lay people that lawyers can argue about anything and that words don't have any fixed meaning for them, but this is not true. Yes, we nitpick, and yes, sometimes the real meaning is debatable (how would we earn a living otherwise ), but most times it's pretty clear what a regulation means, which is the case here. Which is why the thousands of "shared contribution" crew ads on Crewseekers and many others are perfectly legal.




As to the OP's case -- here I think you may be right. $15-20 a day ON TOP of food and berthing is not obviously "shared direct costs", and I would not advertise like that. What is obvious to you and me is that you can't run a boat on $15-20 a day P.P. so this still isn't really commercial. So in my opinion, the OP will be ok if instead of quoting a fixed price per day, he make a budget for direct expenses like food, fuel and berthing, get the crew to sign up to this, and pay a share himself. This the would meet the spirit and the letter of the law. And it never hurts to double check everything with the CG.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

that's not what "voluntary" means legally in this context.

I'm usually quite good at interpreting legal language ... but perhaps you could explain once again to us laymen exactly what "voluntary" does mean in this context.

As I understand everyday English ... a "condition of carriage" is the opposite of "voluntary", one I don't have to pay, and the other I do.

You can't claim that it's "voluntary" because I didn't have to get on the boat in the first place ... because that's what "condition of carriage" means ... if I don't want to pay then I don't get to go.

If it meant that any "sharing of actual expenses" was not "consideration" then surely it would just leave out the word "voluntary".

I still can't read it as any way other than: you can ask me to pay up to, but no more than, an actual share of expenses, but at the end of the day I can walk away without paying.

I suppose that if I'm not paying any "consideration" for my "carriage", then the skipper is under no obligation to take me on board, so if I choose not to contribute up front to any actual pre-paid expenses, or voluntarily put money in a kitty for anticipated future expenses ... then the skipper is free to choose not to have me on board ... making it effectively a "condition of carriage." ... but if you wait til the end of the cruise to ask for a "voluntary" contribution I can choose not to pay, but you can't unchoose to take me.

I think I've just talked myself round to your point of view ... I make a lousy devil's advocate.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

I'm usually quite good at interpreting legal language ... but perhaps you could explain once again to us laymen exactly what "voluntary" does mean in this context.

As I understand everyday English ... a "condition of carriage" is the opposite of "voluntary", one I don't have to pay, and the other I do.

You can't claim that it's "voluntary" because I didn't have to get on the boat in the first place ... because that's what "condition of carriage" means ... if I don't want to pay then I don't get to go.

If it meant that any "sharing of actual expenses" was not "consideration" then surely it would just leave out the word "voluntary".

I still can't read it as any way other than: you can ask me to pay up to, but no more than, an actual share of expenses, but at the end of the day I can walk away without paying.

I suppose that if I'm not paying any "consideration" for my "carriage", then the skipper is under no obligation to take me on board, so if I choose not to contribute up front to any actual pre-paid expenses, or voluntarily put money in a kitty for anticipated future expenses ... then the skipper is free to choose not to have me on board ... making it effectively a "condition of carriage." ... but if you wait til the end of the cruise to ask for a "voluntary" contribution I can choose not to pay, but you can't unchoose to take me.

I think I've just talked myself round to your point of view ... I make a lousy devil's advocate.

A good way to consider this is what makes it different from a commercial operation?

If it's friends or family, the CG guidance will generally give you the presumption that it's voluntary unless proven otherwise. But that is a simplification for convenience of the authorities that applies to typical non-commercial relationships. If you make the payment mandatory, you just moved into a commercial operation with the rules that it entails.

The problem with the OP's idea is the presumption by the CG that it's non profit goes out he window if there is no prior relationship other than an ad asking for paying passengers. If the skipper is "choosing" not to take someone onboard based on willingness to pay up, clearly it is not a voluntary contribution. It's clearly a commercial operation just an unprofitable commercial operation but there is no requirement for commercial operations to be profitable.

Again, if nothing goes wrong, it's possible to fly under the radar as the CG won't know you aren't really friends.

Not buying Dockhead's argument that "pay up or you don't get onboard" still qualifies as "voluntary". By that logic, I could run a dayhead boat and save the cost of complying with the charter rules. Just claim they all voluntarily gave me $50 per head...it's just convenient that I didn't let those who didn't pay get onboard.

[john61ct]

I believe the authorities are allowing these paid crew deals to slide, even if they could be forbidden.

Just like many AirBNB transaction wrt local zoning.

They just don't care.

But in the event of disaster, insurance issues, you may find out the interpretation of your circumstances goes against you.

You roll the dice you take your chances.

But only way to truly be secure is take the strict interpretations, and accept that having crew aboard will cost you a bit more than if you're willing to take chances.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Not buying Dockhead's argument that "pay up or you don't get onboard" still qualifies as "voluntary". By that logic, I could run a dayhead boat and save the cost of complying with the charter rules. Just claim they all voluntarily gave me $50 per head...it's just convenient that I didn't let those who didn't pay get onboard.

But only if the voyage genuinely incurred expenses (food, fuel, docking etc) greater than $50 per head (including you) ... if your expenses are added up by a bean-counting official and only amount to $49 and you didn't refund the extra dollar, then you're running a charter operation.

A good way to consider this is what makes it different from a commercial operation?

Given that this guarantees you will make an operating loss (your share of the expenses) it is different from a commercial operation, which intends to make a profit.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

But only if the voyage genuinely incurred expenses (food, fuel, docking etc) greater than $50 per head (including you) ... if your expenses are added up by a bean-counting official and only amount to $49 and you didn't refund the extra dollar, then you're running a charter operation.
Given that this guarantees you will make an operating loss (your share) it is different from a commercial operation, which intends to make a profit.

But of course, that can be manipulated. I'll can come up with all kinds of "expenses". If I'm just trying to cover my cruising costs, I can collect quite a bit of money and I don't have to turn a profit (at least officially).

There is no requirement for commercial operation to make a profit. The only time the govt has issue with that is if you try to deduct business losses on a regular basis on your tax return. As long as your losses don't exceed income on your tax return, they are happy to let you take losses year after year on a commercial operation.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

But only if the voyage genuinely incurred expenses (food, fuel, docking etc) greater than $50 per head (including you) ... if your expenses are added up by a bean-counting official and only amount to $49 and you didn't refund the extra dollar, then you're running a charter operation.
Given that this guarantees you will make an operating loss (your share of the expenses) it is different from a commercial operation, which intends to make a profit.

No, whether or not the operation makes a profit is 100% irrelevant.

Defraying your expenses is still in exchange for consideration.

What is your **motivation** your reason intention for taking additional people on board.

Because you need them to make a journey safer?

Because you're entertaining family or true friends as guests?

No problem.

Because you are looking to defray your costs, earn some income?

That's a problem.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Defraying your expenses is still in exchange for consideration.

But it's not my expenses being defrayed ... I'm paying my share ... why shouldn't you? Just because I'm skipper doesn't mean I should bankroll your trip. It's a pleasure cruise remember, you're not on board as a passenger, nor as an employee ... but for your pleasure and mine.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

But of course, that can be manipulated. I'll can come up with all kinds of "expenses".

And those expenses had better match the expenses come up with by the official who's trying to bust you.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

But it's not my expenses being defrayed ... I'm paying my share ... why shouldn't you? Just because I'm skipper doesn't mean I should bankroll your trip.

If that is your intention it's risky, likely illegal.

Nothing to do with fair, if you can't afford to pay for all your boat's expenses maybe you should downsize.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by john61ct

If that is your intention it's risky, likely illegal.

Nothing to do with fair, if you can't afford to pay for all your boat's expenses maybe you should downsize.

If a friend of mine comes up to me and says "Hey, how about we take a road-trip?"
I reply "good idea, how far can we afford to go?"
His response "I dunno - it's your car, you buy the gas ... and feed me three meals a day ... and pay for my motel room."
Do you think I'm going to take that trip with him? Downsizing to a bike won't change my mind.


Edit: it's not the boat's expenses we're discussing ... it's the voyage's expenses."