It’s from the COTP to the owners and master.
I don’t see anything about licenses, to me it looks like civil penalties against the owners and master.
1 Like
A master ordering a crewman to work without pay is not a lawful order. The second that crewman says he resigns, he’s no longer subject to any orders. Of course I’m sure both sides could be argued in court, like alluded to above, but I think the legal courts and the court of public opinion, would be against servitude.
2 Likes
The order says the owner and master must make arrangements to be adequately manned with credentialed mariners, What’s being said here is if the crewmembers refuse to stay aboard without pay then they will be in violation of the law?
Say an AB on board paid someone to take his place. Paid him cash up front for a months’s work. After a month who is then responsible for the safety of the vessel? The new guy or the one at home?
i sure hope some poor deckhand on one of those vessels does not listen to some of the advice hear and believe that as a required Mariner (by COI and/or COTP order) serving under the authority of thier MMC onboard a vessel at anchor deemed to be a safety concern he/she can leave the vessel without relief. Yes there are pay issues and that might be a mitigating factor by the USCG IO but will not erase the offense.
With the vessel being at anchor (currently operating) and deemed a safety concern if they leave, yes.
Whoever is serving under the authority of their MMC… the new guy.
They should bring press gangs back.
2 Likes
Wrong letter. Look at no. 4 in this one, it’s way up at the top of this discussion:
1 Like
That one I didn’t read, too small. But I see the abandonment part.
Bouchard was given 24 hrs to come up with a plan. I wonder if the CG would find a plan to hold crew without pay to be satisfactory?
And if a deckhand does resign, gives the office say 72 hours to find him a relief after 45+ days with no pay, and then calls a launch to come get him from the anchorage after that time has elapsed with no relief is the captain supposed to detain him? Is the captain supposed to handcuff the deckhand to the rail?
This my opinion. As a practical matter,
A crewman cannot lawfully quit and refuse lawful orders while a vessel is at sea, and subject to the perils of the sea, regardless of whether or not he has been paid.
Once the vessel is secure in a safe berth, an unpaid seaman can quit and demand to immediately go ashore.
That is my unqualified legal forecast of what I think a court would require.
The fact that the COTP letters are addressed to the owners and Master, does not mean that they don’t also apply to the crew. I think the order also applies to the crew.
2 Likes
I agree, to a point. The crew has rights too.
Presumably it would come down to if Bouchard’s plan was reasonable or not. If the crew needs to be held for 24 or 48 hrs before the vessels can be safely moored that would be one thing. But if Bouchard submits a plan to hold the crew much beyond that I’d say it was unreasonable.
2 Likes
The thing that makes me most angry about this Bouchard situation is that instead of protecting the crew and bringing the matter to a prompt and safe resolution, the USCG is threatening and intimidating the crew to remain in an unsafe situation indefinitely without pay. Which is in effect conscripting them into government service and imprisoning them on vessels in an unsafe situation. This is not right. It’s not right at all. What kind of a third world banana republic are we?
The USCG’s working assumption must be that Bouchard has repeatedly demonstrated that it lacks the financial ability to execute any reasonable plan to safeguard the vessels and the crew.
The USCG has authority (under the statutes and regulations cited in the COTP letter) to assist the crews by making arrangements for safe berths, escorting the Bouchard vessels to those safe berths, seeing to it that they are properly secured, obtaining a custodian to watch and care for the vessels, and escorting the unpaid crew safely ashore to onward transportation.
That is what the USCG should be doing.
5 Likes
What a surrealistic discussion. If people don’t understand the benefits of a union after this shit show they are to stupid to work at sea.
8 Likes
American maritime unions don’t seem to do much to get the crew paid, or back ashore either.
MEBA is the “best” American maritime union, but they didn’t do a very impressive job for their pledges in the Transatlantic crews a couple years ago. After hearing about that debacle with unpaid crew stranded onboard, I would not wipe my ass with a MEBA pledge card.
30 odd years ago, MMP Inland did not do much to help us get paid. What a pathetic excuse for a union.
I am beginning to think that the best solution for us might be to expand license insurance to also cover unpaid wages, including when pressed into involuntary servitude by the USCG.
1 Like
Bouchard crews should sign pledge cards first thing Monday morning.
5 Likes
Transatlantic never signed a contract with the MEBA. One was being negotiated when they went under but the fact remains until the contract is signed the issue is moot. Having a pledge card does not make one a member.
Nor apparently did it entice MEBA to step up to the plate and do the right thing. But honestly… why would anyone think that a union would have any power in this situation? The company is out of cash. You can’t impose union demands on BTC and expect anything different at this point. Unless the union steps in and negotiates a pay deferral and large wage cuts in favor of BTC.