I’m curious as to how long you would stay aboard a vessel not getting paid, with no relief available, while being told by a government agency that you are effectively a slave. A month? 2 months? When your house gets foreclosed on?
These guys are not getting paid by Morty.
I didn’t understand the USCG letter to mean individual mariners were required to stay aboard without pay or face personal concequences. But if I’m wrong, I would do my dammest not to be the last one on board if I were a bridge officer. Say you have a family emergency because your wife & kids are having a mental breakdown due to their husband/dad/loved one being shanghai’ed & the prospect of them going to the poorhouse due to lack of paychecks. Regardless of the intent of the USCG letter, the last bridge officer on the vessel will be in a dilemma if the unit is at anchorage.
Also, I’m surprised the NY Post & Daily News hasn’t gotten a whiff of this yet. Those tabloids love this kind of stuff.
The USCG is responsible for the safety of people and the environment. That’s what we taxpayers fund them with billions of dollars per year to do. We do NOT fund the USCG to go around violating the 13th Amendment. That’s against the law.
The Bouchard tug / barge units are worth what? $30 million a piece? When the vessels are sold at a US Marshal’s auction, the crew will be paid first, the custodian and the dock have second priority, certain other vendors come next, then the banks, Bouchard comes last.
The simple solution is to arrest the vessels. The crew cannot do that because they cannot front the money for the bond. The USCG could easily come up with the bond, or more likely get the bond requirement waived.
As a licensed mariner I would follow the law, how long would I stay, not one second because I learned my Bouchard lesson. Although theatrics aside, the Kim and the Danielle will not be at anchor for months, 12 news has already interviewed the crew. Imagine how the story’s will play tonight, “Bouchard Crew Still Stranded Away From Families On Valentines Day”.
If they are smart they get a crew member to say something on the record, a nice shot of the wife and kids in Galveston saying that Jimmy doesn’t get to come home for Valentine’s Day. That would play real well and maybe help to get those crews ashore.
Coast Guard already arrested several Bouchard vessels, in several ports and honestly wishes they hadn’t.
The process you described would take years.
If I was onboard I’d take it in tie up and walk off. Likely not getting paid anyways, so at least get some payback when Morty gets hit with docking fees.
The arrest could take place within 24 hours. The Marshal’s sale process can take weeks, months, or years, depending upon who wants, and can afford, to zealously litigate. Generally, there will also be bankruptcy court filings. Neither the courts, nor the creditors, want to see the assets consumed by custodial fees, litigation expenses, or waste and deterioration.
In most cases, after a vessel arrest, the owner posts a bond, (often with an advance of extra money from the bank that holds the mortgage) and the vessel is promptly released.
In this case, I think it is likely to take a few weeks, or perhaps months, for the vessels (or the entire company) to be sold to vulture investors or competitors.
None of this matters. The USCG must follow the law (no violations of the 13th Amendment) and do whatever it takes to protect the crew, the public, and the environment, from the insolvent and mismanaged Bouchard vessels.
In the past two years we have now seen two companies both fail in our industries, Transatlatic Lines and Bouchard Transportation Corp.
Both companies have very similar issues that led to their failures.
Both were well known as the lowest tiered operators in their segment, international trading US Flag ships and domestic trading tug and barge.
Both were non union with high turnover.
As Mariners we should feel empathy towards the Mariners on those tugs and barges.
The coast guard is doing their responsibility at this time in the capacity they have allowed to them.
The Mariners on those tugs will need to fight for what they are owed, but will get their earned wages at the end of this. Unfortunately it will take time.
Until it reaches the point of repossession of the assets or arrests of vessels by US Marshals, all that are not many options available to those on board right now.
The USCG has had over two years of very lack luster performance documented heavily since the B-255 explosion. They have had their SMS DOC removed from the office at least once (and loss of all SMC on the vessels) and been allowed to recover from that. Their TPO (the ABS) has terminated service with them. He has failed to staff his office to agreed upon (with ABS and USCG at the table) minimum levels. Well over half the fleet has had expired class certificates and/or required safety inspections. He cannot get a oil major to vet one of his units to touch their facilities… He has several vendors suing him for non-payment in Texas, LA and NY…The list is long and extends over two years. The principle of restraint is central to USCG doctrine, but this is too much. And where is the USCG report on the B-255 explosion that killed two mariners? Why such a long delay. There is plenty of culpability for the USCG in this for not taking substantive action sooner. Never ending SMS audits with a continuation of failed improvement benchmarks is not substantive action, its co-dependency!
Bouchard is very different than Transatlantic.
Transatlantic only had two very old ships that could not engage in the Jones Act trade. Apparently, the ships were worth a lot less than what was owed on them. As I recall, one ship was arrested in Jacksonville by foreign fuel vendors, and subsequently sold at a Marshal’s auction. I don’t know who bought it or what became of it. Wasn’t the other ship bought by the bank that held the mortgage at the Marshal’s sale? The ship was ultimately sold by the bank to new owners in Peru. Transatlantic did not have assets that were attractive to competitors or vulture investors. Transatlantic was a union company. MEBA had recently distributed pledge cards, won an election, and was appointed the exclusive bargaining agent for the officers by the NLRB, but no contract was yet in place.
Bouchard has a large fleet of mostly good vessels. It is a major player in Jones Act oil transport. There is a strong domestic market for those vessels. The Bouchard assets are very attractive to competitors and vulture investors. Bouchard could recover and succeed with new ownership and management. Or the vessels could be sold to competitors.
As I understand it, Bouchard had been a union company at one time (was it Local 333), but it raised wages and “threw the union out.” (Whatever that means). It’s non-union now.
Apparently, the USCG has “enabled” Bouchard to continue substandard operations to the point of collapse.
I mean I do feel bad they’re trapped, but at the same time everyone knew Bouchard was a train wreck waiting to happen. But some people stuck around just because they paid more than other tug companies. Sometimes thays the price you pay.
Just stop with the 13th amendment, no serious lawyer, court system would allow mariners being paid Late bring charges against an owner under a slavery amendment.
Sea lawyers never like to read the law, may I suggest you start with 46 Chapter 1, sub chapter B, part 15, General. Then maybe take a finger walk through the 33.
Several Bouchard vessels are already arrest and the process has started in the courts and it’s already been 6 months. Trade winds did a nice article on the process and nightmares a few months ago.
I completely agree, Bouchard has a long history of always paying his bills on time, always being courteous, respectful, and honest when dealing with his mariners and shore side employees.
Oh wait… never mind.
You realize I’m saying the same thing right?
Yeah, I was just being sarcastic. I just find it funny when people are shocked by what happens (or doesn’t) happen over there. It’s been crazy since before I can remember.
This is about getting “free”, it has nothing to do with getting paid.
The 13th Amendment and 42 USC 1983 (look that up) claims would be brought against the USCG, a law enforcement agency, not the owner. It’s the USCG that is telling the crew with threats and intimidation “under color of law” that they cannot leave the vessels.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus would also be brought against the USCG, a law enforcement agency that is confining the crew to the vessels, not the owner.
Filing these claims with a federal court, putting the USCG in a position where it would have to publicly defend them, and putting a federal judge in the position where he would have to promptly rule on the Writ of Habeas Corpus (and making sure that the press is on hand to cover it) might get the crew off the boat quite quickly.
Your idea of complaining about missing Valentine’s Day is better than nothing, but not likely to produce results.
Please cite the authority for the CG to do what you propose.
Did you mean the authority of the court to order the USCG to release the crew under a writ of habeas corpus?
[ Latin, You have the body. ] A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has restrainedanother to produce the prisoner at a designated time and place so that the court can determine the legality of custody anddecide whether to order the prisoner’s release.
A writ of habeas corpus directs a person, usually a prison warden, to produce the prisoner and justify the prisoner’sdetention. If the prisoner argues successfully that the incarceration is in violation of a constitutional right, the court may orderthe prisoner’s release. Habeas corpus relief also may be used to obtain custody of a child or to gain the release of a detainedperson who is insane, is a drug addict, or has an infectious disease. Usually, however, it is a response to imprisonment bythe criminal justice system.
A writ of habeas corpus is authorized by statute in federal courts and in all state courts. An inmate in state or federal prisonasks for the writ by filing a petition with the court that sentenced him or her. In most states, and in federal courts, the inmateis given the opportunity to present a short oral argument in a hearing before the court. He or she also may receive anevidentiary hearing to establish evidence for the petition.
The habeas corpus concept was first expressed in the Magna Charta, a constitutional document forced on King John byEnglish landowners at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Among the liberties declared in the Magna Charta was that “No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him orsend against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” This principle evolved to mean thatno person should be deprived of freedom without Due Process of Law.
The writ of habeas corpus was first used by the common-law courts in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England. Thesecourts, composed of legal professionals, were in competition with feudal courts, which were controlled by local landowners,or “lords.” The feudal courts lacked procedural consistency, and on that basis, the common-law courts began to issue writsdemanding the release of persons imprisoned by them. From the late fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, the common-lawcourts used the writ to order the release of persons held by royal courts, such as the Chancery, admiralty courts, and the Star Chamber.
The only reference to the writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. Thisclause provides, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion orInvasion the public Safety may require it.” President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ in 1861, when he authorized hisCivil War generals to arrest anyone they thought to be dangerous. In addition, Congress suspended it in 1863 to allow theUnion army to hold accused persons temporarily until trial in the civilian courts. The Union army reportedly ignored thestatute suspending the writ and conducted trials under Martial Law.
In 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 (ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73 [codified in title 28 of the U.S.C.A.]), whichgranted to federal courts the power to hear the habeas corpus petitions of federal prisoners. In 1867, Congress passed theHabeas Corpus Act of February 5 (ch. 28, 14 Stat. 385 [28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241 et seq.]). This statute gave federal courts thepower to issue habeas corpus writs for “any person … restrained in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty or law of theUnited States.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that federal courts may hear the habeas corpus petitionsof state prisoners as well as federal prisoners.
The USCG has authority to terminate an unsafe voyage under 46 USC 4302, et seq.