Foreign Officers soon to be on US Ships

Professional Mariner Forum
21

[QUOTE=Steamer;42979]Well, anchorman, you have the floor. Rather than just chiming in once in a while to tell us all how wrong we are, how about telling us how right the NPRM is. Please describe the benefits that will accrue to US licensed mariners. Tell us how this will improve our careers and enhance our standard of living. Tell us how the US merchant marine will prosper under the benevolent oversight of the USCG with input from the patriots at OMSA and their ilk.

If all you can do is tell those of us who see this as a serious threat that we are wrong then save your breath, if you have nothing to contribute you are simply wasting bandwidth. If you can make a good argument for the proposed rule change then have at it, this is about as close as any of us will ever get to the “bully pulpit” and I, for one, am waiting to hear the other side.[/QUOTE]

That sure is a hell of a lot of questions, but if you could answer just one, maybe I’m the one in need of education.Legally, I cannot see what you are. Just tell me of one maritime sector, that will certainly suffer by this NPRM. That’s it - one question. And, that is the only question that I would need answering for me to agree with you. Even one vessel will do - that currently has Americans, and will certainly be replaced by foreigners when this goes into effect. I thought Salty Sailor spelled it out pretty damn well and I can chime in as I damn well please - if I agree with someone’s post. Plus, I’m on vacation and this is about all you’re gonna get - bits and pieces as I have time. There is no other side (refer to Salty Sailor’s post if you want), just the reality of what the NPRM will do to myself, and any other American mariner.

22

No, it is only one simple question framed in several ways to make it easier for you.

Legally, I cannot see what you are.

Legally, morally, or ethically, what difference does it make who or what I am? I am an American mariner, an unlimited chief engineer whose family income depends on my license, a healthy American merchant marine, and a healthy American economy.

Just tell me of one maritime sector, that will certainly suffer by this NPRM. That’s it - one question. And, that is the only question that I would need answering for me to agree with you. Even one vessel will do - that currently has Americans, and will certainly be replaced by foreigners when this goes into effect.

That’s the easiest challenge I’ve had in a long time … here is a list of more than one vessel. And not that it seems to matter to you, half my own family income, and all the income generated by many other American officers depends on employment on those ships.

Active foreign trade ships (excluding ships chartered to MSC or in the NDRF)
http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/usshipping/generalcargo.htm

23

Those are all Union jobs, mostly AMO, so Salty Sailor’s answer still applies…I agree with Anchorman and S/S.

24

[QUOTE=Steamer;42981]No, it is only one simple question framed in several ways to make it easier for you.

Legally, morally, or ethically, what difference does it make who or what I am? I am an American mariner, an unlimited chief engineer whose family income depends on my license, a healthy American merchant marine, and a healthy American economy.

That’s the easiest challenge I’ve had in a long time … here is a list of more than one vessel. And not that it seems to matter to you, half my own family income, and all the income generated by many other American officers depends on employment on those ships.

Active foreign trade ships (excluding ships chartered to MSC or in the NDRF)
http://shipbuildinghistory.com/today/usshipping/generalcargo.htm[/QUOTE]

Oh Please, You don’t have to make anything easy for me. You’re asking how this benefits American Mariners. I just want to know how it hurts, because of losing jobs - you’re biggest complaint!

So, that list is a list of US flagged vessels in foreign trade? Now, what you are saying that because there will be a CEC issued by the Coast Guard that the owners of these vessels will be inclined to replace US guys with foreigners to save money, basically? So, being that these vessel are not currently required to be US flagged to begin with, and the owners could already save a boat load of money by flying a foreign flag and having foreigners, what’s the damn difference? Sorry, I don’t see it. You got another list?

25

It is funny reading some of these responses. The WHOLE encihlada (so to speak) for me is the phrase: " After determination by the Secretary, any vessel may use foreign crews to avoid detention." I am a realist. I know that certain companies will use ANY excuse to cut pay, benefits, and will use ANY reason. Once this is started, it will be down hill for us all.

To have this written into the law, to allow (after determination by some bureaucrat in some local office) the decision to foreign crew US ships where ever they are is only going to be abused to our detriment. What company have any one of us worked for that has/didn’t try to cut corners, costs, benefits and wages at each and every opportunity?

Some of you may not think the office would do this to you. I KNOW what and how to expect to be treated by the office. I may be the Captain of a 4300 HP ATB, but I am JUST a number in their eyes, only tolerated because laws like this are NOT in force now. Just wait!

I was talking with a Romanian Master of a Atiigua and Barbuda flagged ship last week. We were discussing wages, and such. He was startled to find I make $125,000 US a year (for six months) He makes the same, but has to work 8 or 9 months. And he has to pay 40% income tax and Health care too! A ship Master!

You guys who don’t believe what the potential consequences of this NPRM are in for a RUDE awakening!

26

[QUOTE=cappy208;42986]It is funny reading some of these responses. The WHOLE encihlada (so to speak) for me is the phrase: " After determination by the Secretary, any vessel may use foreign crews to avoid detention." I am a realist. I know that certain companies will use ANY excuse to cut pay, benefits, and will use ANY reason. Once this is started, it will be down hill for us all.

To have this written into the law, to allow (after determination by some bureaucrat in some local office) the decision to foreign crew US ships where ever they are is only going to be abused to our detriment. What company have any one of us worked for that has/didn’t try to cut corners, costs, benefits and wages at each and every opportunity?

Some of you may not think the office would do this to you. I KNOW what and how to expect to be treated by the office. I may be the Captain of a 4300 HP ATB, but I am JUST a number in their eyes, only tolerated because laws like this are NOT in force now. Just wait!

I was talking with a Romanian Master of a Atiigua and Barbuda flagged ship last week. We were discussing wages, and such. He was startled to find I make $125,000 US a year (for six months) He makes the same, but has to work 8 or 9 months. And he has to pay 40% income tax and Health care too! A ship Master!

You guys who don’t believe what the potential consequences of this NPRM are in for a RUDE awakening![/QUOTE]

That just isn’t good enough. Hey, I like my job just like everyone else, but I look at things a certain way - with practicality. I agree that if there is a lot of cheap labor around that CAN replace you, then everything you say it absolutely true - they will replace you. I cannot disagree with any of that. The point that they Coast Guard will look at, if anything, is the word I just capitalized. “CAN”…I don’t see where companies “CAN” replace you. Not if they would if given the chance. I agree with you when it comes to that (that’s old news), but that’s after the argument and this rule making doesn’t change any of it. “CAN” you be replaced is the question. On vessels in foreign trade, you could be replace already - nothing changes. Ones in the Jones Act trade, you “CANNOT” be replaced. This rule doesn’t change any of that, and your and everyone’s argument assumes everyone “CAN” be replaced.It’s very hard to convince an entity, like the Coast Guard of something when you’re not even in the context of the rule making. I’m sorry, but that’s about what it is. That’s why I think everything is in vain, or knee-jerk at best. Hey, I don’t like the big foreign boats in the gulf, and there is an argument, but here, I just do not see it.

27

Cappy,
Ask that Romanian Captain how much a beer cost in Romania. Just curious. I have come to the conclusion that the price of beer generally relates to how economies and cost of living expenses compare world wide. I was in Norway for the last 3 weeks and always wonder why the Norwegian were paid so well. When I paid 16 bucks for a damn beer I figured it out pretty quick.

28

(C) Any other vessel if the Secretary determines, after an investigation, that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available

This one simple sentance says it all. Nowhere does it say CAN or CANNOT. Nowhere does it say Foreign going or coastwise. Nowhere does is say cargo, offshore, towing or other service. What it does say is the word ANY!

Please tell me all in honesty that there are not companies today with vessels in the Gulf who are telling the the Coast Guard that “that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available”? Try to tell me that these companies have not been telling the Coast Guard this for years now? Tell me that the USCG is conducting an “investigation” each time a vessel manning waiver is requested? Read the article published by Blank Rome LLPtelling shipowners how to circumvent US Federal law and then please tell me that there is no stinking putrid corruption in the system?

You simply can’t and you know it!

Granting recognition of the STCW certificates of foreign seafarers and then issuing USCG Certificates of Equivalency to the licenses held by foreign officers will change the system overnight to allow foreign nationals legal ability to serve as officers on US flagged ships of ANY type. Once the waiver letters begin to be issued, the end to the American citizen mariner will be sealed. That is exactly what we are facing here today.

29

As slick Willy said: “I didn’t know what the meaning of IS is.”

Well I am aware of the meaning of “ANY.” And in this context I am fairly certain how this will turn out. I hope you are right and I am wrong. But the cynic inside of me says otherwise.

30

QUOTE=c.captain;42991 Any other vessel if the Secretary determines, after an investigation, that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available.

This one simple sentance says it all. Nowhere does it say CAN or CANNOT. Nowhere does it say Foreign going or coastwise. Nowhere does is say cargo, offshore, towing or other service. What it does say is the word [U][I][B]ANY[/B][/I][/U]!

Please tell me all in honesty that there are not companies today with vessels in the Gulf who are telling the the Coast Guard that “that qualified seamen who are citizens of the United States are not available”? Try to tell me that these companies have not been telling the Coast Guard this for years now? Tell me that the USCG is conducting an “investigation” each time a vessel manning waiver is requested? Read the article published by Blank Rome LLPtelling shipowners how to circumvent US Federal law and then please tell me that there is no stinking putrid corruption in the system?

[B]You simply can’t and you know it![/B]

Granting recognition of the STCW certificates of foreign seafarers and then issuing USCG Certificates of Equivalency will change the system overnight to allow foreign nationals legal ability to serve as officers on US flagged ships of [B][I][U]ANY[/U] [/I][/B]type. Once the waiver letters begin to be issued, the end to the American citizen mariner will be sealed. That is exactly what we are facing here today.[/QUOTE]

I, U.S Coast Guard Unlimited Master Ocean, was available, willing to work, and applied for the job…
The exemption was signed, the U.S. Tuna boats are gone to the foreign mariners…without counting the U.S. applicant in…
The same thing can happen to all U.S. mariners…it is doom’s day for us all…

31

[QUOTE=cappy208;42993]I hope you are right and I am wrong.[/QUOTE]

Why on Earth do you hope I am right? For God’s sake…I pray that I am wrong!

32

[QUOTE=capitanahn;42996]The same thing can happen in all the marine sectors…it is doom’s day for us all…[/QUOTE]

Captain, have you sent your comment in to protest the NPRM? If not, please, please do!

33

That wasn’t directed at you, but at the guys who are in denial about the laws effect on how ANY vessels can, will, and in some cases already are being crewed.

Captinahns’ post even gives a related example that this has already happened to in the fishing industry.

My only thought, is the two separate issues of stcw equivalency is that it is one topic that the CG must do to obtain parity in the worldwide licensing organization. The second issue of ‘giving’ foreigners a valid CG license (document, endorsement, or any other right to operate) is wrong. I believe the intent of the law should be to have an agreement about license equivalency world wide, and that a Masters license here is the same as one from Panama. Not that this should be used as a pretext to make foreign mariners available to use in our EEZ, to take jobs away from US citizens.

34

[QUOTE=c.captain;42998]Captain, have you sent your comment in to protest the NPRM? If not, please, please do![/QUOTE]

Hi, C.Captain, I was so devastated by the exemption, I was out of my mind.

Please show me the place where should I go and put up my comment…

http://www.regulations.gov. found & my comment just sent.

35

[QUOTE=anchorman;42984]Sorry, I don’t see it.[/QUOTE]

And you probably never will. I told you which ships will eliminate American officers first. Please tell us how this proposed rule will benefit American seafarers?

You have steadfastly refused, or more likely, are incapable of producing an argument to support your contention that all the rest of us are wrong in our interpretation of the rule and its impact on our livelihood. If you can’t defend the proposed rule why are you wasting time and space here? If you are just a troll, fair enough, that is how I see your comments, they lack substance, they do not contribute to the discussion.

36

Thanks to all for the input. I have to admit I am gun shy regarding both companies and unions after seeing the AMO pension plan destroyed. When I look at the disinterest the union leaders have in the damage done to their membership, and I think of how much easier it will be to screw them some more, if there are new members from countries outside USA competing for the jobs, then I have to question why would the unions NOT want to see the changes made? I for one think that AMO will be cheering for it to pass, as they will have an abundance of officers who will gladly work for the lousy contracts they sign… It’s all about the power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

What is happening to the jobs base in the U.S. merchant marine is a microcosm of what is happening throughout our country. Anybody need a bailout using taxpayer dollars?

37

This is called ‘globalization’ This is what ‘Nafta’ did for trucking, manufacturing, and blue collar jobs. Welcome to progress. Making us all equal, so there is a homogeneous mix of people from all around the world .

38

[QUOTE=anchorman;42988]Cappy,
Ask that Romanian Captain how much a beer cost in Romania. Just curious. I have come to the conclusion that the price of beer generally relates to how economies and cost of living expenses compare world wide. I was in Norway for the last 3 weeks and always wonder why the Norwegian were paid so well. When I paid 16 bucks for a damn beer I figured it out pretty quick.[/QUOTE]

What in the [B][I][U]f–k[/U][/I][/B] does any of this have to do with American mariners keeping the jobs they have a right to under LAW?

39

[QUOTE=cappy208;43021]This is called ‘globalization’ This is what ‘Nafta’ did for trucking, manufacturing, and blue collar jobs. Welcome to progress. Making us all equal, so there is a homogeneous mix of people from all around the world .[/QUOTE]

No…here is where we have them! the US citizen mariner is a defense asset needed in wartime! No citizen mariners means no American crews for RRF ships unless the MSC is ok with Pakistanis at the helm of our Gray Ships sailing into the war zone! US citizen mariners have always been and always will be critical to our Nation’s defense!

DO NOT FORGET THAT.

40

[QUOTE=Turk 182;43006]… It’s all about the power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

What is happening to the jobs base in the U.S. merchant marine is a microcosm of what is happening throughout our country[/QUOTE]

Turk…good on ya mate! Have you submitted your comment yet on the NPRM? If not, please do for all of our sakes!