Captains are not supervisors, NLRB says


#41

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;164929]HOLY SHEEIT!!! We have a sea lawyer in our midst! Well said councilor![/QUOTE]

my brain is melting trying to decipher all the legal mumbo jumbo

please, someone tell me how Spentonbush vs. NLRB ended? Was it a KO or was in won on points?


#42

It was by the patented stunner…


#43

[QUOTE=Fraqrat;164934]It was by the patented stunner…[/QUOTE]

MY FUCKING GOD! Now you just had to remind me of WWF and that part of the country which just loves it to SHIT. THE FUCKING STOOPID SOUTH!

you people are lower than morons…you’re ULTRAMORONS!


#44

so…
Captain of the exxon valdez should have said the vessel was not safe due to the office management, I suggested that the crew navigate properly but they didnt.
and the NLRB’s view would have been?


#45

[QUOTE=powerabout;164946]so…
Captain of the exxon valdez should have said the vessel was not safe due to the office management, I suggested that the crew navigate properly but they didnt.
and the NLRB’s view would have been?[/QUOTE]

That’s exactly the point.

An even better example is the case of Prestige. Before sailing the capt told the owner/operator that the vessel was unsafe and not seaworth and also sent a letter to the ABS. The owner told him sail or take a hike so he walked off and the company found someone else to sail the ship. Once at sea the ship starting breaking up, the captain was refused safe harbor in Spain, the tanker broke apart. Spain attempted to jail the captain.

Of course lawyers can deploy mirrors and blow up copious amounts of smoke as needed, what matters to the people putting their licenses on the line at sea is actual authority, not some bullshit from a lawyer attempting to obfuscate the issue.

The fact is that ship captains are not part of company management. It’s ironic that the claim that the “master’s overriding authority”, shows that the master is part of management in an attempt to try undermine and weaken that authority while also denying the captain “the genuine prerogatives of management”.

Two dissenting members of the NLRB decried the decision. They wrote, “Today’s decision threatens to create a new class of workers under Federal labor law: workers who have neither the genuine prerogatives of management, nor the statutory rights of ordinary employees.”

Company lawyers work the courts so that captains will jump when told or risk getting fired, don’t doubt which side those same lawyers will be on when that leads to disaster.


#46

[QUOTE=c.captain;164937]MY FUCKING GOD! Now you just had to remind me of WWF and that part of the country which just loves it to SHIT. THE FUCKING STOOPID SOUTH!

you people are lower than morons…you’re ULTRAMORONS![/QUOTE]

Does this mean you don’t like Southern people, Scooter?


#47

[QUOTE=AHTS Master;164967]Does this mean you don’t like Southern people, Scooter?[/QUOTE]


#48

[QUOTE=AHTS Master;164821]I am a Master so that means I’m a supervisor, Scooter.[/QUOTE]

Nope, it means you are a Captain. Under the NLRB definition of “Supervisor” on a tug, you are not a supervisor.

Any Captain worth his/her salt can motivate crew-members to do their job. If you need some “Label” from the NLRB to accomplish that task, than you are playing right into the owners/bosses hands. The Boss wants you to be a considered a “Supervisor” so he can keep you powerless at work and under his thumb to do with as he pleases, whenever he pleases. If Unions come knocking, with you designated a Supervisor under the NLRB definition, the Boss knows he can force you to train the replacements for your entire deck crew.

Divide and Conquer, it’s how the rich have ruled the masses for century’s. It doesn’t matter what labels the lawyers want to put on us! Wake the F$%K up, put your ego aside, engage the brain, because we are all working-class out here, from the Captains on down to OS level.

If you want a label, stick with the one that has been around for many years longer than the NLRB itself; “Captain”.


#49

[QUOTE=Lookout;165015]Nope, it means you are a Captain. Under the NLRB definition of “Supervisor” on a tug, you are not a supervisor.

Any Captain worth his/her salt can motivate crew-members to do their job. If you need some “Label” from the NLRB to accomplish that task, than you are playing right into the owners/bosses hands. The Boss wants you to be a considered a “Supervisor” so he can keep you powerless at work and under his thumb to do with as he pleases, whenever he pleases. If Unions come knocking, with you designated a Supervisor under the NLRB definition, the Boss knows he can force you to train the replacements for your entire deck crew.

Divide and Conquer, it’s how the rich have ruled the masses for century’s. It doesn’t matter what labels the lawyers want to put on us! Wake the F$%K up, put your ego aside, engage the brain, because we are all working-class out here, from the Captains on down to OS level.

If you want a label, stick with the one that has been around for many years longer than the NLRB itself; “Captain”.[/QUOTE]

Well said. 40 years of anti working folks, anti union propaganda from the oligarchs and their partners in congress and the presidency has so skewed peoples thinking that they believe fact is fiction and Joe Boss knows what is best for his minions. Look at how real inflation adjusted wages for most citizens have NOT gone up over the last 30 years and tech jobs outsourced to foreign companies or foreign workers imported to the USA to take away jobs to see how things have been working out,. With this new Trans Pacific Trade Program, which is really a bill of rights for multi-national corporations passes expect to lose millions more jobs and Jones Act to be gutted eventually. Of course Joe Boss and the Wall St crooks are doing all this for your own good.
But the people out of jobs or with pay cuts and working part time will vote the same criminals back in and blame all the falling wages, less employment and fewer individual rights on “welfare” AKA as n**girs, gays, Mexicans ,Isis and the War on Christmas !


#50

Some employers seek to deny the right of workers to collective bargain. However the right to collective bargaining is too deeply entrenched for an employer’s lawyer to attack head on. But if a company can’t take away the right to collectively bargain directly, the obvious thing to do, from a lawyers point of view, is to prove that employees are management. If you call a dog’s tail a leg a dog has five legs and if tug mate is not an employee then they don’t have the right to collectively bargain.

It’s true tugs can’t operate without supervision but that’s just the tip of the absurdity iceberg. It’s about taking away worker’s rights.


#51

[QUOTE=c.captain;164933]please, someone tell me how Spentonbush vs. NLRB ended? Was it a KO or was in won on points?[/QUOTE]

It was decided 20 years ago. Surely someone with such finely honed search skills who can find countless ridiculous pictures on just about anything could find this out.

[QUOTE=c.captain;164933]my brain is melting trying to decipher all the legal mumbo jumbo…[/QUOTE]

Perhaps consider the words of Ted Williams, “if you don’t think too good, don’t think too much”


#52

[QUOTE=jdcavo;165024]It was decided 20 years ago. Surely someone with such finely honed search skills who can find countless ridiculous pictures on just about anything could find this out.[/QUOTE]

As someone that lived through that Strike, Hess basically ignored everything that they were told to do. They never put ONE union member back to work and moved their Hiring Office down to Louisiana and to them that was the end of it.

I was the First Man put back to work for my company under the NLRB. After reading what was sent to me by the NLRB, I was owed right around $50,000 in back wages. they started mailing out checks for a couple Hundred Dollars a month. After I had received around $2,500.00 the checks stopped. When I called the NLRB agent that was assigned to this case, I was told that they allowed them to pay out pennies on the dollar because they CLAIMED Hardship! This same company purchased two towing companies during the Strike but as for as the NLRB was concerned the case was closed.

Also, the Longshoreman Union Sold 333 out and did jack shit to help us. The guys on the docks were told not to help us in any way as what “Is Happening to 333 could happen to them next”. This was told to me personally by several different dock workers at different docks on different days.


#53

And people wonder why I don’t like the overpaid Longshoremen’s Union, which has thrown Mariners under the bus every time, the worthless NLRB, which always has an excuse why companies don’t have to actually pay, or the totally worthless near coastal maritime unions. It’s all a big farce and a fraud.


#54

I love when longshoremen then come in and fuck up work for themselves, AND mariners, not to mention all the “trickle down” economics with line handlers, agents, tugs, welders, chandleries etc. some of its unbelievable when they run a customer out of town.

I hear shit come out of their mouths at a port luncheon so ridiculous and fake I struggle to not vomit.


#56

IBU is weak? Which union do you sail with? Let me guess you are under that awesome SIU Jacksonville contract or one of those dogshit MMP contracts.

I guarantee IBU has some of the best contracts in the country.

Do you even know IBU contracts or just speculating?


#57

I am curious. The NLRB has been pro corporate anti labor for many years, Do you have a specific case in mind to use as an example?


#58

A little old but when the 333 strike was “settled” they allowed the companies to payoff Pennies on the Dollar. I know this because I was one of those that got screwed!

I called them to ask why the back pay was cut and was told that the company proved a Hardship. I worked for Turecamo and they had purchased two or three companies during the strike, When I pointed out this fact to the NLRB, I was told we have already made our ruling!


#59

The NLRB told me that as a tugboat captain, I was a “supervisor” for purposes of labor law. Thus, I had no enforceable right to the overtime and vacation pay specified in the collective bargaining agreement.


#60

At the rate we are going it is starting to feel a lot less like I am supervising much of anything. Gettin close to having to clear it with the office to use the head. :neutral_face:


#61

This lunacy is precisely the main reason I decided to leave the industry (OK, after 23 years I’m getting cranky too). I’d always said I would stay in until it wasn’t fun. It ain’t fun anymore.

But as far as the supervisorial chain, let me see if I have this right in the deck department:
OS’s somewhat supervised by AB’s. OS’s & AB’s supervised by Bos’n. OS’s & AB’s & Bos’n and Mates supervised by C/M. C/M supervised by the Capt. Capt supervised by Port Capt. Port Capt supervised by (pick the title). (Pick the title) supervised by someone else. Someone else supervised by Company president. Company President supervised by CEO. And so on, and so on.
I’ll defer posting the engineering side, but you get the idea.