What's a skipper's obligation to voluntary crew?

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That would not be untreatable verbal diarrhea, that would be untreatable keyboard diarrhea. A pretty common problem.

I resemble that remark!

I freely admit I am a chatterbox. It's an absolute asset where I live, because all my neighbours are, and if you haven't seen them for ages (even as far back as yesterday morning!) there's so much to catch up on.

eta: But even we call Mrs Harris in the next village "The News of the World" (with great affection, I may add).

It's a main reason why I really hated living in Towns and Cities - nobody REALLY talks to anybody else. It's all meaningless trivialities and Blah! Blah! Freaking! Blaaaah!
When I get to America, I'm going to find out where to apply to become an honorary Redneck.

By the way, Antonio Banderas plays a fantastic chatterbox in The Expendables 3.

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

IMO to avoid situation like that it would probably be best if the unpaid crew ask the captain to provide for at least a one way ticket to the boat and in case of non boarding that would be the end of it. But if the crew is boarded than they would reimburse the captain for that ticket.

So what happens when the crew arrives and decides that the skipper/boat don't measure up to his expectations? Or just decides to do something else after arriving? That leaves the skipper out of pocket. Having had crew walk away without paying their (agreed) share of costs at the end of a week-long cruise to the San Juans/Gulf Islands I am not inclined to consider crew any more trustworthy than skippers, and most likely less so. (Thinking about it, two other crew also stiffed me substantially. I'm not putting my money up front for their benefit...)

It seems to me that the lesson of this is to agree before travel who will pay the costs with each of the possible outcomes (complete the trip, crew declines, skipper declines). It is all part of a negotiation, which has a lot to do with the nature of the trip, how desperate the crew is to get a cruise, and how desperate the skipper is for crew. Being able to single-hand is definitely an advantage in the negotiation.

My own take on it is that the crew will take care of transportation to/from the boat. I no longer expect crew to contribute towards expenses, but nor will I pay them.

Greg

[JPA Cate]

In all honesty, let's not get too rigid about this. The range of crewing situations is huge, ranging from "we're mates, let's go somewhere", to "I'm going to "x", who wants to come and pay expenses".....and those are huge differences.

There are risks both ways, being crew and taking on crew. 'Nuff said.

Ann

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

So what happens when the crew arrives and decides that the skipper/boat don't measure up to his expectations? Or just decides to do something else after arriving? That leaves the skipper out of pocket. Having had crew walk away without paying their (agreed) share of costs at the end of a week-long cruise to the San Juans/Gulf Islands I am not inclined to consider crew any more trustworthy than skippers, and most likely less so. (Thinking about it, two other crew also stiffed me substantially. I'm not putting my money up front for their benefit...)

It seems to me that the lesson of this is to agree before travel who will pay the costs with each of the possible outcomes (complete the trip, crew declines, skipper declines). It is all part of a negotiation, which has a lot to do with the nature of the trip, how desperate the crew is to get a cruise, and how desperate the skipper is for crew. Being able to single-hand is definitely an advantage in the negotiation.

My own take on it is that the crew will take care of transportation to/from the boat. I no longer expect crew to contribute towards expenses, but nor will I pay them.

Greg

All valid points. And they only confirm what I said before - the better solution would be some sort of paid crew under a well written contract or short handed crew, possibly solo, with anyone who shows up and is acceptable to be looked upon as a welcomed bonus.

After 10 years and numerous invitations to my buddies or their friends I have come to the conclusion that the only reliable persons to show up 95% of the time would be myself and my g/f. There are buddies and boaties who I can count on 3/4 of the time and some only 1/4-1/2 of the time. So I usually plan our trips accordingly. And this is the main reason I have not yet committed myself to a lengthy trip from New England to Florida Keys. Don't feel ready to do it solo, my g/f can't take all this time off from work and all of my boating buddies are gun ho about it until I press them on firm dates and arrangements. Nor do I envision spending days, never mind weeks, with some unknown people in a 300sf tight space. May 25-30 years ago but definitely not today.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

All valid points. And they only confirm what I said before - the better solution would be some sort of paid crew under a well written contract or short handed crew, possibly solo, with anyone who shows up and is acceptable to be looked upon as a welcomed bonus.

After 10 years and numerous invitations to my buddies or their friends I have come to the conclusion that the only reliable persons to show up 95% of the time would be myself and my g/f. There are buddies and boaties who I can count on 3/4 of the time and some only 1/4-1/2 of the time. So I usually plan our trips accordingly. And this is the main reason I have not yet committed myself to a lengthy trip from New England to Florida Keys. Don't feel ready to do it solo, my g/f can't take all this time off from work and all of my boating buddies are gun ho about it until I press them on firm dates and arrangements. Nor do I envision spending days, never mind weeks, with some unknown people in a 300sf tight space. May 25-30 years ago but definitely not today.

"Paid crew" is problematic in ways that so far have not been considered. Paid crew makes it a commercial enterprise which means an appropriately registered (we call it 'in surevey') vessel for commercial operations and it also means the skipper must have a suitable marine qualification. Very problematic with insurance, the law etc.

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Paid crew" is problematic in ways that so far have not been considered. Paid crew makes it a commercial enterprise which means an appropriately registered (we call it 'in surevey') vessel for commercial operations and it also means the skipper must have a suitable marine qualification. Very problematic with insurance, the law etc.

I absolutely agree. In the other direction, until fairly recently even sharing expenses in the US could change the status. That is now allowed, but care is still needed not to cross the line. Completely aside from the legal issues, when crew contribute money the expectations can change - does sharing costs mean sharing decisions? I prefer to just pay as I would if I were solo, and consider the extra costs (primarily food) the price of having company and assistance.

Greg

[contrail]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Paid crew" is problematic in ways that so far have not been considered. Paid crew makes it a commercial enterprise which means an appropriately registered (we call it 'in surevey') vessel for commercial operations and it also means the skipper must have a suitable marine qualification. Very problematic with insurance, the law etc.

Do you not mean "paying" crew, when you are talking about licenses? "Paid crew", however has Jones Act implications, another hassle. Both involve insurance. Funny how few of these issues come up in the highly theoretical bashing of singlehanders, doublehanders, those who are accused of being unable to stand a good watch! At least, they do tend to know what they are doing, and their intensity has often been motivated by exactly the problems we have been talking about her, ad nauseam! While I much prefer to do things in company, I have long been wary of getting in a position where I am dependent upon others.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

In all honesty, let's not get too rigid about this. The range of crewing situations is huge, ranging from "we're mates, let's go somewhere", to "I'm going to "x", who wants to come and pay expenses".....and those are huge differences.

There are risks both ways, being crew and taking on crew. 'Nuff said.

Ann

+A1...

[rognvald]

308 posts and no one has asked the OP what was the extent of his medical condition? It seems like that's the place to start. So, OP, what's your medical condition? Respectfully, Rognvald

P.S. Why am I having flashbacks to our 8th grade dances? The boys sat on one side of the gymnasium; the girls on the other. For some boys, it was a hop, skip and a jump. For others, it was a long walk to the other side of the gym. And, then there were some that never made it. Good luck and good dancing.
Captain Rognvald--deep in Freudian analysis.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by rognvald

So, OP, what's your medical condition?

You seem to have missed the fact that the OP abandoned his thread shortly after it was revealed a medical condition was the cause -- on page two

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

You seem to have missed the fact that the OP abandoned his thread shortly after it was revealed a medical condition was the cause -- on page two

Brilliant, Lizzy! Just simply brilliant retort! What was his condition? All else is pure conjecture. Good luck and good detective work. Dr. Holmes A.K.A. Rognvald the Dancer.

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by rognvald

All else is pure conjecture.

Indeed Which is all I was trying to say.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by rognvald

308 posts and no one has asked the OP what was the extent of his medical condition? It seems like that's the place to start. So, OP, what's your medical condition? Respectfully, Rognvald

P.S. Why am I having flashbacks to our 8th grade dances? The boys sat on one side of the gymnasium; the girls on the other. For some boys, it was a hop, skip and a jump. For others, it was a long walk to the other side of the gym. And, then there were some that never made it. Good luck and good dancing.
Captain Rognvald--deep in Freudian analysis.

YOU should start reading those 308 posts from the 1st OP post and you will find others certainly did beginning with my own first response to the OP on page two.. But oddly enough, when it was pointed out to the OP that we really need the full picture to make informed comment, he ditched the thread.

And your dance flashback makes zero sense.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

YOU should start reading those 308 posts from the 1st OP post and you will find others certainly did beginning with my own first response to the OP on page two.. But oddly enough, when it was pointed out to the OP that we really need the full picture to make informed comment, he ditched the thread.

And your dance flashback makes zero sense.

Maybe it's a jeopardy issue. The are at least a dozen alluding to the fact we can't support the theory that the Captain is unreasonable without knowing what the affliction is. Maybe we need to answer in the form of a question.

PS: glad it wasn't just me. Not a clue what the dance metaphor was about.

[JPA Cate]

rognvald should correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the "Shall we Dance?" metaphor had to do with the two sides on the extremes of this discussion. There were those who felt the OP was ill done by, being turned away when he had invested in time off and scheduled airplane flights, and was only handed what the skipper had in his pockets. In the mean time, the skipper turned back the OP, on a medical basis. Whether or not that was a polite knockback for another reason, basically that is what has been reported.

There were some supporters of the OP because at first the knockback seemed without cause, which is very hard for landlubbers to get their heads around, but not so much for ocean passage makers, and professionals, who then chimed in, these people believing that it matters not why the skipper knocks back a possible crew person--if skippy is not comfy, it mattereth not. I am on that side. To me the crew would be coming into my home, and if I don't want s/him, that's it, no questions whatsoever. As a skipper, if there were a trust issue, for sure I would knock him back, again, and again! One cannot have someone aboard a shorthanded boat whom one cannot trust; that's really a recipe for disaster, and one i've seen played out by couples taking on crew who were, let us say, "incompletely disclosing."

There was a hint that the OP's problem was related to or was schizophrenia, which is a condition which renders its sufferers non compos mendi from time to time. In some cases it is kept in control by oral medication, taken by the sufferer, who usually doesn't like the side effets, so that the sufferer is likely to discontinue medications without telling the skipper..

Now, our OP is a bright guy. For whatever reason, upon having a face to face meeting with the skipper, the skipper decided to not take him as crew, despite his credentials.

There must have been some reason for that, but as the skipper has not posted his poiint of view, we do not know what he saw or felt., so it may or may not have been a rational judgement.

Since then, there has been a lot of chat about what the skippers' responsibilities are, and so far, it seems that there is agreement that the skipper should give appropriate safety instructions for aboard his boat, and that the skipper should make a reasonable attempt to solicit information regarding pre-existing medical conditions prior to taking on crew.

I would add that especially when going offshore, but not limited to that, the skipper must hold the welfare of the vessel and the whole crew at the top of his list of responsibilities. Therefore, he must knock back anyone with whom he does not feel comfortable. And for those guys who think this might be unfair, I say, suck it up, 'cause it isn't a game, and the ocean is powerful, and we are weak, and we need to stack the deck in our own favour.

After that, consensus disappears, and chaos reigns.

a.