This seem like a case of taking a set of facts, or observations and creating a plausible scenario. Just because a plausible scenario doesn’t contradict any know facts doesn’t mean that it’s correct.
This is why you need a good experienced person at company personnel. When a crewmember has a beef and he gets the first story in to an inexperienced personnel department ,that narrative then has to be countered. What a good personal department does is it waits till it has both sides of the story before prejudging the situation. In this case we have not heard the other side of the story. In fact we haven’t heard either side of the story as none of the people involved has posted here.
It doesn’t seem plausible that the only two choices here are abandon the mariners or have them stay aboard. There is no agent, no hotels, no cell phones?
Some implicit assumptions being made here, that abandoning the mariners is the honest intent of the captain and MSC and that the captain are giving the travel situation of these crewmembers their full and undivided attention, there is no miss-communication involved and that the OP is aware of all the pertinent facts.
I think it very likely that if the story was told from the captain and pursers point of view the situation would seem completely different.
If they did not have credit cards and could not arrange and put up their own credit for their own travel nail reimbursed, that would be one thing. A terrible thing.
I frequently make my own travel arrangements and buy my own tickets, that are then reimbursed by the employer. Never underestimate the ability of office staff to screw up travel arrangements or send you on a very roundabout route in poor seats with long layovers. The office forgets to give the airline my frequent flyer number and TSA Pre-Check number most of the time. I prefer to select my own most direct flights with good seats.
There is a law about US employers abandoning employees in foreign countries. I cannot quote the USC but someone I know had to go to the hospital for a few days in a foreign country that required a visa of US citizens. He was discharged from the hospital after the ship left and the company was dragging their feet getting him transportation home. He went to ACS at the US Embassy and explained his plight. They did some checking and told him if his company did not have transportation arrangements for him by the next day they would arrange for transportation be it economy or first class as it made no difference since they would go after the company for double costs plus administrative expenses. They called his company, explained this to them and shortly thereafter he got delivered to the airport directly from the embassy.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;169633]If they did not have credit cards and could not arrange and put up their own credit for their own travel nail reimbursed, that would be one thing. A terrible thing.
I frequently make my own travel arrangements and buy my own tickets, that are then reimbursed by the employer. Never underestimate the ability of office staff to screw up travel arrangements or send you on a very roundabout route in poor seats with long layovers. The office forgets to give the airline my frequent flyer number and TSA Pre-Check number most of the time. I prefer to select my own most direct flights with good seats.[/QUOTE]
Often the senior officers prefer to make their own arrangements, dealing with the office can be a hassle but most of the time they get it right. However likely some new wrinkle like this “Fly American” law would completely throw the office for a loop.
For me the less involvement I have in travel the better. I am often very busy in port. One person with a problem can turn into a serious time suck. I don’t have time to get involved in every off-signing crewmembers details. It would not be an exaggeration to say at some point attention paid starts to interfer with the safe operation and navigation of the ship. And it’s the job of the office, not the captain. How much should the captain be willing to compromise the safety of the ship by putting his full attention on something that is someone else’s responsibilty? Granted you want to see off-signing mariners treated right but there’s a limit on how much time and attention it’s prudent to give these matters.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;169653]Often the senior officers prefer to make their own arrangements, dealing with the office can be a hassle but most of the time they get it right. However likely some new wrinkle like this “Fly American” law would completely throw the office for a loop.
For me the less involvement I have in travel the better. I am often very busy in port. One person with a problem can turn into a serious time suck. I don’t have time to get involved in every off-signing crewmembers details. It would not be an exaggeration to say at some point attention paid starts to interfer with the safe operation and navigation of the ship. And it’s the job of the office, not the captain. How much should the captain be willing to compromise the safety of the ship by putting his full attention on something that is someone else’s responsibilty? Granted you want to see off-signing mariners treated right but there’s a limit on how much time and attention it’s prudent to give these matters.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know all the facts in this case but if one is indeed master of the ship I do not see how he/she can be forced by the “office” to put a couple of mariners off in a foreign port with no transportation home unless they committed some egregious offense, even then arrangements should be made so that one does not cast ashore one’s problem on another country’s shore for them to deal with. It brings into question of who has overriding responsibility for the vessel and its crew. The “office” or the master?
[QUOTE=tengineer1;169656]I don’t know all the facts in this case but if one is indeed master of the ship I do not see how he/she can be forced by the “office” to put a couple of mariners off in a foreign port with no transportation home unless they committed some egregious offense, even then arrangements should be made so that one does not cast ashore one’s problem on another country’s shore for them to deal with. It brings into question of who has overriding responsibility for the vessel and its crew. The “office” or the master?[/QUOTE]
The important point here, in my view, is that we don’t have all the facts (and likely never will). But this very much does remind me of the role playing exercise we did (many years ago) in personnel management class. Class members were given a role, captain, C/E etc and then we were each given a different crew’s narrative of an incident involving other crewmembers but from one point of view much like this one. Then we had to discuss it with the others.
It was irritating that the other role players refused to listen and to see that the narrative each of us had in our heads, based on the single point of vew we had read, was correct. It’s the five blind men and the elephant. It was a real eye-opener at the end of the exercise to read the point of view given other participants. All the points of view individually could be seen as describing the same incident but they did not match the narritive we had each imagined with from reading a single point of view.
This is why it so difficult to deal with an inexperienced personel department. One disgruntled crewmember can send in, it’s usually three pages or more, his manifesto, someone at the office reads it and gets outraged and demands that head roll. Once a narrative is set in someones head it very difficult to disloge.
I certainly agree that I do not want to be involved in making travel arrangements for crewmen.
I usually research my own travel options and tell the office what flights and seats I want. This makes it easy for the office. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn’t. Some companies put a lot of effort into finding the cheapest flights with long layovers and travel time, especially if they are not paying the day rate during travel. The better companies that pay day rate plus per diem door to door also provide better travel arrangements.
Another factor likely in play here is the point I was trying to make about the difference in perceptions of the captain’s authority and reality. Crewmembers sometimes have problems they want solved, the one person they believe has the power to solve their problem and that they have access to is the captain. In this case perhaps it seems that all the captain has to do is make a single call to the agent and the crewmembers problem is solved. But what incentive does the agent have to do what the captain wants him to do? Maybe little or none. What’s the captain going to do if the agent blows him off? Send an email in all caps?
Of course it is true in a sense that the captain can solve this type of problem assuming nothing else on the agenda and if each problem alone is given the captain’s complete and full attention. But some judgement has to be made as to which problem is given priority. And as badly as each crewmember may want his problem to have priority the captain has to set the agenda as he sees fit.
If there is a navigation incident everyone will be flabbergasted as to why the captain was futzing with travel arrangements that are someone else’s responsibility when he should have been checking to see if the track-line was drawn in safe waters.
This is the kind of situation that good reliable department heads can help avoid. Crewmembers with a beef that is not being addressed in the way they think it should often quickly assign motives to who they see as failing to do their jobs they way they think it should be done. If there is a high level of trust between captain and department heads sometimes the department heads can talk the crewmember off the ledge.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;169656]I don’t know all the facts in this case but if one is indeed master of the ship I do not see how he/she can be forced by the “office” to put a couple of mariners off in a foreign port with no transportation home unless they committed some egregious offense, even then arrangements should be made so that one does not cast ashore one’s problem on another country’s shore for them to deal with. It brings into question of who has overriding responsibility for the vessel and its crew. The “office” or the master?[/QUOTE]
I believe that the story is that there was a crew change, two crew joined and two signed off. But as of sign-off time, due to a hitch with new MSC requirements, the off-signers did not have travel arrangements and there was some uncertainty as to when and how they would be able travel and how things would get paid for. The two off-signers wanted to remain on board and travel to the next port.
The bottom line is that MSC is responsible for the repatriation and travel of the off-signers. Normally the way the company discharges this obligation, at least where I work, is the company purchases tickets and sends the ship the details, the company makes arrangements for hotel rooms as needed usually through an agent. The company also arranges for transportation from the ship to the airport, the agent does this or sometimes money for a cab is paid at payoff. If there are any other payable expenses the receipts can be turned in for reimbursement.
In this case the ship evidently had to sail before the company has time to make those arrangements but that in no way causes the responsibility for repatriation to shift from the company to the master. Once the crew member has been paid off and is off the ship that crew member is no longer the responsibly of the master.
As far as crew that had been paid-off remaining aboard, they are no longer crew members and as such are not allowed aboard the ship without the master’s permission. In addition generally it’s company policy that the master has to get company permission to carry non-crew members aboard. If MSC did not want the off-signers to remain aboard the master would have had to disregard company instructions and policy if he let them remain aboard.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;169673]I believe that the story is that there was a crew change, two crew joined and two signed off. But as of sign-off time, due to a hitch with new MSC requirements, the off-signers did not have travel arrangements and there was some uncertainty as to when and how they would be able travel and how things would get paid for. The two off-signers wanted to remain on board and travel to the next port.
The bottom line is that MSC is responsible for the repatriation and travel of the off-signers. Normally the way the company discharges this obligation, at least where I work, is the company purchases tickets and sends the ship the details, the company makes arrangements for hotel rooms as needed usually through an agent. The company also arranges for transportation from the ship to the airport, the agent does this or sometimes money for a cab is paid at payoff. If there are any other payable expenses the receipts can be turned in for reimbursement.
In this case the ship evidently had to sail before the company has time to make those arrangements but that in no way causes the responsibility for repatriation to shift from the company to the master. Once the crew member has been paid off and is off the ship that crew member is no longer the responsibly of the master.
As far as crew that had been paid-off remaining aboard, they are no longer crew members and as such are not allowed aboard the ship without the master’s permission. In addition generally it’s company policy that the master has to get company permission to carry non-crew members aboard. If MSC did not want the off-signers to remain aboard the master would have had to disregard company instructions and policy if he let them remain aboard.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense. Assuming hotel accommodations were available they could have sat in port and made an adventure of it while waiting for plane tickets, sea stories are made in situations like this. Sailors are an odd lot. They sail to see the world but as soon as they set foot on foreign soil a lot of them want to go home as fast as possible. Nowadays sailors see the world’s airports but not a lot of the world.
The one caveat that comes to mind is that the captain is responsible to look out for the owners interests so if putting the off-signers ashore is obviously not in MSC’s interests then the master is obligated to inform them. However if the captain is going to disregard the owners instructions it would be best to be on firm ground. It would depend on the specific circumstances.
As far as some sailors not liking adventure, I think that’s true. I’ve noticed that some crew members that have been aboard for a long time tend to get anxious as pay-off approaches. Sometimes that anxiety manifest itself in weird ways, like obsessing over arrival times or travel arrangements.
This is what Conrad said about sailors generally being stay-at-home types, this is from Heart of Darkness:
He was a seaman, but he was a wanderer, too, while most seamen lead, if one may so express it, a sedentary life. Their minds are of the stay-at-home order, and their home is always with them—the ship; and so is their country—the sea. One ship is very much like another, and the sea is always the same. In the immutability of their surroundings the foreign shores, the foreign faces, the changing immensity of life, glide past, veiled not by a sense of mystery but by a slightly disdainful ignorance; for there is nothing mysterious to a seaman unless it be the sea itself, which is the mistress of his existence and as inscrutable as Destiny. For the rest, after his hours of work, a casual stroll or a casual spree on shore suffices to unfold for him the secret of a whole continent, and generally he finds the secret not worth knowing
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;169673]that in no way causes the responsibility for repatriation to shift from the company to the master.[/QUOTE]
There’s a difference between the master being responsible for repatriation and him being guilty of abandonment. I’m going by the only story we currently have which is, the mates were forced to sign off against their will, no money was advanced out hotel/flight arrangements provided. They were told to pay for it themselves them file for reimbursement.
Unless that is allowed by the employment contract then it is illegal, correct?
[B]ALSO[/B], the master who signed these mates off against their will is guilty of abandonment. Legally he was required to refuse to sign off the mates unless the company provided travel arrangements.
18 USC 2195: Abandonment of sailors
Whoever, being master or commander of a vessel of the United States, while abroad, maliciously and without justifiable cause forces any officer or mariner of such vessel on shore, in order to leave him behind in any foreign port or place, or refuses to bring home again all such officers and mariners of such vessel whom he carried out with him, as are in a condition to return and willing to return, when he is ready to proceed on his homeward voyage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
It appears there was a SNAFU, the lads could have gotten off and made their way either to US embassy or a hotel to weight their options, make some pones calls etc, It was not as if they were cast ashore without pay, They could get home pretty quickly on their own devices and file for payment or lolly gag around Port x and have a good time until the company got them out of their, I don’t see the big deal.
[QUOTE=tengineer1;169698]It appears there was a SNAFU, the lads could have gotten off and made their way either to US embassy or a hotel to weight their options, make some pones calls etc, It was not as if they were cast ashore without pay, They could get home pretty quickly on their own devices and file for payment or lolly gag around Port x and have a good time until the company got them out of their, I don’t see the big deal.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn’t have been a problem for me.