Interesting move by the UK. After a major ferry operator decided to switch to foreign labor last year, the UK had no good option to protect the jobs because they lack a Jones Act equivalent - even though these seafarers had a union. Instead policy makers came up with the idea of requiring all vessels to pay UK minimum wage if they make a certain number of port calls in the country.
By the way it seems like it’s a global theme lately for countries to realize the need to to protect their seafarers. Last year Australia put together a task force to look into protecting their coastal trade, including tankers, general cargo, and roros. Of course there were complaints that it would “more expensive to operate under the Australian Flag”. But perhaps they are attacking this the wrong way.
This move by the UK is similar to the new thinking on how the US could ensure our wind farm jobs can be built with Americans (requiring the vessels to use crew from the US, or the country the vessel is flagged in).
Is the way forward for nation’s looking to strengthen their cabotage laws to avoid traditional cabotage law, and instead put financial pressure on vessel owners regarding crewing?
It is about time someone put pressure on the owners and operators.
Last year some of our regular crew members were stuck in the Ukraine due to the hostilities and were replaced with agency staff from other eastern European countries; they were on significantly more pay so we put an MLC grievance in as everyone should be paid the same for the doing same job.
In theory.
However, the company rejected the grievance as, I think, the word ‘should’ is used instead of ‘must’ therefore giving them a way of weaseling out of their moral responsibilities.
However, the regular crew did get a pay rise for some reason; want to know how much?
300%.
Just goes to show how long for and how much these operators have been profiteering off the backs of their crews.
This is nonsense. The UK does, in fact, have restrictions on ships sailing coastal trade as well as crewing restrictions. And if they had something identical to the Jones Act, the outcomes would have been the same. The reason P&O was able to replace the UK crew was that the ferries were international, rather than coastwise.
So how is tha Jones Act doing in protecting US jobs on the cruise ships coming into US ports? Well, other than that money loser in Hawaii.
Well I guess we’ll see if this actually makes any difference to those British P&O workers. According to the article, the minimum wage in UK is 10.42 GBP per hour. I read that some of the Indian ratings brought in as replacements were only making 1.80 GBP. But were the original Brits making more than 10.42? If so, then the company will still have an incentive to use replacements.
If the US implemented a similar law, it couldn’t possibly make a difference except to give foreign mariners a little extra change in their pockets. The US federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. I don’t know any American mariners working for less than twice that amount.
Wasn’t that to find a way to restart coastal trade under Australian flag?
Australia has had some form of cabotage laws in place since way back.
The present Coastal Trading Act came into force in 2012
Because of militant Maritime Union (MUA) the majority of coastal freight is now moved by foreign flag ships under exemption: