There is lot more the union can do then just “make demands”.
This sounds like it was a two way negotiation between BTC and the C.G. Seems like it would be good to have a union rep, a vice president or whatever in on the discussions looking out for the members interests.
In the TV news clip about the two ATB anchored in the Port Arthur anchorage Bochard refused to talk. A spokesman from the union could have gone on TV and made the case for the crew.
Also typically the union will have a lawyer to advise on legal matters. Seems like that would have been useful in ;this case.
I understand the point you are trying to make (buy insurance after the boat sinks), but it is misplaced.
As I recall the story, some of the Transatlantic crews were longtime MEBA members (who where working non-union under the table while they aged their shipping cards). Those longtime MEBA members brought in MEBA with pledge cards at Transatlantic. A majority signed pledge cards. MEBA won the election, and accepted the NLRBs appointment of MEBA as the exclusive bargaining agent about six months before the company folded. The company folded before a union contract was signed.
I understand that certain union members and apologists have a “hurrah for me, and screw the mere pledges” attitude. However, in my opinion MEBA freely and voluntarily undertook the duty to represent the officers at Transatlantic, and had all the same duties to its pledges while the contract was being negotiated, as it did to any other members.
It was reported that MEBA did provide some helpful legal assistance. I assume that the crew eventually got paid (less legal fees) after the Marshal’s sales. But the unpaid crew stranded onboard the ship anchored off Long Beach, and their parents begging for assistance to get them ashore was quite a shit show. It really showed American shipping, maritime unions, and American laws for the protection of seamen to be a pathetic joke.
It doesn’t seem to me like there was any negotiation. BTC is in deep ship and is just trying to hang on long enough to get a cash infusion from someone. USCG told them they can’t keep undermanned/under-fueled vessels in the port at anchor and that was that.
As for the crew, it sucks that the company missed payroll, but they will most certainly get paid when the end comes (either when Morty gets some more money or when the assets are sold). And as others have posted, the crew can always quit (unless at anchor). The TV story said the crew at anchor was 1 week late on rotating? Not a calamity yet. And all this can be worked out with a dock willing to accept them.
The real issue here is there is a much bigger picture in play. This one COTP order is just the next escalation of USCG activities to “save” BTC. After the El Faro investigation and now the B-255 investigation the oversight of US commercial operators by ABS and USCG has been under a lot of scrunity. The US flag as implement by some companies is no better than some flags of convenience. And a union made no difference in either case.
Now the USCG finds themself in a position of a major US operator about to go under on their watch. Whether BTC goes by way of bankruptcy or USCG court order the root cause will be years and years of very shoddy oversight by ABS and USCG… the only success story for USCG is to get Morty back up and running showing they worked with “industry” and did not impede industry.
For those who know BTC and how the office works the lack of money is not the problem. The leadership is the problem. That is why his son Brandon quit and no longer works there.
Admr. Timey and his team in headquarters have been working hard over many many months to save BTC. They will not through that away because of a few mariners being treated poorly.
When isn’t it their watch? And what does that mean? Their job isn’t to keep commercial operations from failing. They don’t pick sides, like in Transatlantic Shipholdings, they were content to let it go
How do you figure the CG was responsible for monitoring and maintaining the fiscal condition of a company?? Financial records aren’t part of a COI inspection. Is there a law for minimal financial reserves? What CFR is that in?
We don’t know if the crews currently onboard aren’t being paid after resolving the COTP order in NY that they reported on or why the present crews are remaining since the order was lifted. We don’t know anything beyond the limited amount the CG reports and gCaptain chooses to print - maybe this journalistic outfit should ask these questions?
BTC is in trouble because after the B-255 incident and subsequent public hearings and NTSB investigation report their customers and USCG started taking a new and harder look at them. A large number of their barges and tugs were found to be in very poor condition many of them being ordered out of service. And the vetting of them by customers also got a lot harder.
This was due to years and years of check the box class surveys, audits and inspections by USCG and ABS. BTC has ABS NS-5 software in place but in was very minimally implemented. And the vessel crews were not allowed access.
So I agree there is no CFR that requires fiscal oversight of a company by USCG, there are inspection and survey requirements, and ABS is working for USCG under guidance from IACS all of which were arguably not fully implement or enforced. There is also no CFR that requires customers to use BTC… revenue fell due units being forced out of service by enhanced enforcement activities post B-255 and changes in customer vetting activities, at the same time that a huge bow wave of deferred maintenance costs hit the P&L. The perfect fiscal storm.
BTC did not consolidate the fleet and lay off many people. They kept out of service units manned for a very long time making payroll and chewing up capital.
So the overall condition of the fleet that occurred over years and under the oversight of USCG and ABS is directly related to the crash of the BTC finances… so yes they can be considered a root cause. One of many.
glad you agree on some of the characterization. Now how about the mariners who enabled all of it? If you would fault ABS and the USCG, for largely indirect (you call it direct, I disagree) causation, surely you must concede the mariners who let things slide, interacted with surveyors from CG and ABS also had a role.
I was really referring to the late reliefs. But there hasn’t even been a mortgage payment due since the missed paychecks yet. True, it could get ugly if it drags out.
Points well taken. As far as faulting crews… yes and no. There is no doubt that professional mariners have a duty to report deficiencies and unsafe conditions. And I am sure many many at BTC tried. But … if the management is not receptive and even takes retaliatory action against those that report… it hard to blame them. It think between the B-255 public hearing, NTSB report and recent OSHA finding of whistle blower wrongful employment termination by BTC. There is plenty of at the very least antidotal evidence that suggests crews were not encouraged and even punished for reporting deficiencies and unsafe conditions.,
BTC has operated under an ISM SMS and DOC and SMCs issued by ABS for a long time. Not sure how they could pass IACS external audit standards if the reporting culture is as bad as indicated by they reports identified above.
I think the Coast Guard is trying to remedy its #1 Concern, the safety of the harbor with the path of least resistance, telling the crews they will be subject to penalties if they abandon the vessel at anchor. The other method, seizing the vessel or ensuring the crew is paid is more challenging and takes a more hands on approach. With a hands on approach the opportunity to fail is magnified.
Schoonerman, you hit on many valid points regarding the troubles at BTC in your last few posts.The beginning was the B-255 and the shitshow that followed by ALL involved , and not just Morty and co. The “Check the box” fellows got a lot of egg on their faces. It has been widely practiced throughout the industry for as long as I have sailed. Nobody has clean hands here. Perhaps a wake up call after the Marine Electric, more recently the El Faro, and now the B-255, you would think by now a bit more scrutiny is used during said inspections/evaluations. I am glad to be retired.
Any Mariner making top money should have enough cash on had to cover a few months of mortgage payments and living expenses. If they don’t, they are living far beyond their means, or are fools. Any Mariner earning top money should have good short term borrowing capacity. If they don’t, that’s their problem. Be an adult.
Any Mariner working for a company like Bouchard that is known for firing people on a whim, has a crazy owner, and has been in trouble for a couple of years, but has failed to save money for a disruption in income is a spendthrift and a fool. Be an adult.
I am very sympathetic to people not getting paid by a company that appears to be going under. I am very sympathetic to anyone who is unpaid and is being told by the government that they must stay on a vessel without pay indefinitely.
But I am not sympathetic to spendthrift fools making big money and blowing it all when they know that their employment situation is tenuous.
By the way, when these guys finally get off, I don’t want to hear any whining about how they need money to get home. If someone does not have enough money available on a credit card to get home, they have no business going to sea. Be an adult.
Any mariner for that fact, should have a built up emergency fund. Tugsailor nailed it. Investment advice class 101 says to protect your ass for at least six months. I feel bad for the boys at BTC, and hope they had the foresight to do that. So wanting BTC to get this quagmire resolved. This whole thing saddens me for our fellow mariners. Someone eventually will run those boats. Can you last that long?