Ditto to this. I’ve had more than a few wipers come on green with previous experience as auto mechanics, diesel mechanics, HVAC techs, from shipyards, machine shops & vo-tech schools who made themselves vital parts of the engine room team their 1st & 2nd hitches. IMO, the easier we make it for the talented to join & advance the better. Sure, losers & the lazy will join & advance too but that is what evaluations, discipline reports, long work lists & cold sholders are for. Ideally, the more we have in the ranks advancing the better the picking will be.
1 Like
Let me fix that for you: “If you tell experienced American AB’s…” I’d give my eye teeth to have a couple Filipino AB’s show a lot of the AB’s I’ve gotten lately how to make a ship look nice with some woodwork from even scrap pallets. You want a locker? You get a locker. You want chairs for the bridge wings? Not a problem.
5 Likes
Having read the posts above I lost any illusion I may have had about the “superiority” of American seafarers.
It does confirm what I have said many times before; “seamanship doesn’t depend on race, religion or nationality”.
For illustration:
Humen come in many colours. So does seafarers.
Source: Redirecting...
3 Likes
I actually agree with you and Tugsailor, in spirit at least, but the issue isn’t the good AB’s- they’re easy to spot even when they’re brand new; rather, it’s the adequate AB’s, the guys who are nothing special but of some value, which makes up the bulk of AB’s. And there, at least with seatime they can be of increased utility through experience. Perhaps I get hung up on the idea of the utility of an AB as a concept but we always paired new 3rd’s with good, experienced AB’s, ideally for mutual support, vs planting the dead wood in the corner on a 2nd/CM and telling them to look out the window, be quiet and man the coffee maker.
My concern with further reducing seatime requirements is that all mates will have less helpful men available in general on the occasions when it’s truly beneficial to have a 2nd set of eyes or hands.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing — I always thought it was just SIU splitting up jobs for their guys somehow, some way. Now that I think about it, that wouldn’t make sense anyway.
I think Blue is limited. I used to think Green was limited — or the lesser, because it reminded me of calling someone a greenhorn the first time I ever heard it, but the Bosun at the time informed me otherwise. That was years and years ago and the last time I ever heard anyone mention it, hence my uncertainty of what blue/green ABs were all about. Thanks again for this information.
This whole complex Act and they could have easily expanded the number of TSP and MSP billets- A program they know that works. Expand MSP to 100 ships and expand the TSP to 50.
I need to reread the act in regards to the cable security fleet but didn’t see an expansion of that. All I saw was a study if I recall. No talk of using funds to build cable laying vessels for offshore wind projects that could also be used to repair fiber optic cables .
Reading through some of the responses here in this thread from some of the more seasoned sailors here is making me kinda antsy. On the one hand, from direct experience on my first and only vessel last year, there is absolute truth in what is being said about the lack of skill (and even care) for that matter. When I first came on board, the bosun was actually just a regular day man AB who took a relief position for the regular bosun, and he really, really did not know what he was doing, was terrible at explaining and teaching me things, and otherwise just took his frustration out on me from his own inadequacies. It was an open secret from the other AB’s and even union leadership that he wasn’t up to snuff. When the rotary bosun came back, he was mean as hell but actually knew his shit and I learned more from him in 20 days than I did from the other one in 40.
On the other hand, the old proverb goes that the blind cannot lead the blind, for they will both fall in a hole. It seems to be a reinforcing negative feedback loop where less and less capable seamen teach equally incapable seamen and the product ends up being a net negative between the two. It should in theory be the onus of the more senior seamen to teach effectively and correctly, but I see that this has been a deteriorating aspect for a while now, which is a real shame, because I’m excited to get back on the sea and restart my maritime journey, starting my new job early January (with much kudos and shoutout to tugsailor for his help here), and I never wanted to go to an “academy” and get that fart-huffing “experience” which is just glorified tutorial simulator. I already went to college, didn’t need more of that.
I wanted and still want to hawsepipe my way up through direct hands on experience in real world situations as apprentice to master, or ordinary to AB for maritime specifically, as historically has been the case, (really for all trade type jobs, but I hear every trade suffers the same deterioration, not just maritime), and I am eager and ready to humbly sit my ass down (or stand my ass up) and learn things the correct way. But the trouble is knowing how to discern what is right or wrong, what is better or worse when you have no frame of reference and poor tutorship, and worst of all having to accept simply going along to get along in order to remain in the industry, lest petty vindictiveness and ego get you kicked and blacklisted, in spite of correct or incorrect. And all of this is already discounting the difficulty of getting into entry level without outside help or prior experience or official “approval” first. They keep shooting themselves in the foot here begging for workers, and ignoring the ones who want to take it seriously while constantly hiring and firing in a revolving door situation workers who are qualified on paper only, simply because they seem impressive.
And I have to admit that I get scared of that, because I really want to do things the right way and carry on the torch of tradition, and this is something I want to take seriously. I’m not in it for the paycheck (strictly). Last vessel I was on, one of the AB’s told me that if you ask 10 sailors on a ship why they do what they do, 9/10 will say for the money, the 1 remaining will be the crazy guy who loves this shit for its own sake. Granted, there is merit to it, but that didn’t sit right with me. If all of it is just strictly for the paycheck, there is no real incentive to care about the quality or the tradition or bringing up the new generation, because “lol getting paid anyways”. Turns out I was that 1/10, go figure.
But otherwise on the subject of the thread, I am in whole agreement with tugsailor. Years of experience does not necessarily equal skill and capability. Strictly, it just means you’ve been doing it longer, with no other context added. In the end, the reduction of the days required for AB unlimited should not matter. What should matter is the quality of the training in experience, especially in the first hundred or so days, not quantity of days. New sailors need to be developing good habits and practices and skills early on, not having to constantly shift around and relearning a way to do something because AB 1 said this in one ship, and AB 2 said another on another ship, and AB 3 said something different entirely from both of them.
The issue isn’t the legislation, inherently, I think. It’s a more fundamental decay.
2 Likes
I saw a small bone thrown in there for MSCers:
SEC. 514. MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND.
(a) AUTHORITY TO OFFER INCREASED PAID LEAVE ACCRUAL.—The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to offer government merchant mariners employed by Military Sealift Command paid leave accrual at a faster rate than provided pursuant to the standard General Schedule (GS) system to make government seafaring jobs more competitive with the commercial sector.
Vague enough as to be misapplied by the Navy, but potentially a significant change.
If applied correctly. This is a game changer for MSC.
If MSC started giving C/M 30 for 30 and junior officers 26 for 30 they’d most likely change their crewing problems overnight.
1 Like
In 2022 US shipyards delivered one oceangoing ship (the GEORGE III). The “5” refers to US shipyards’ collective orderbook, which per BRS Shipbrokers consisted of 4 boxships (3 3600 TEU Aloha class ships at $333 million each and the $225 million 2,525 TEU JANET MARIE delivered in 2023 and a ferry).
1 Like
Newport News, HII Pascagoula, Bath Iron Works — none have built commercial ships in at least 25 years. NASSCO hasn’t delivered a commercial ship since 2020 and has none on their orderbook. Bollinger/VT Halter not since 2019. Per a 2021 MARAD report, commercial construction/repair accounts for less than 25% of US shipbuilding revenue (pg 12 https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2021-06/Economic%20Contributions%20of%20U.S.%20Shipbuilding%20and%20Repairing%20Industry.pdf). The idea that large US shipyards all go out of business without the JA just isn’t supported by the evidence.
At that point, people like you will say ‘well, if we don’t have the ability to build our own ships, then why do we need all this high priced/first world labor on the ships?’
I don’t see how that follows at all. There is no US built requirement for aircraft, yet where are the voices clamoring to remove the labor provisions of US air cabotage laws? In fact, I suspect that if the JA’s build requirement was removed that complaints about the JA and calls for its repeal would diminish as the competitiveness of US shipping increased and the law’s burden diminished.
I’m sure China will allow Korea to still build and export sea lift ships to the US once the shooting starts.’
Relying on China and Korea for sealift ships is the status quo. “US-built” cargo ships are HIGHLY reliant on parts and components — and even steel — from Korea and China (last JA ship delivered, the JANET MARIE, features components from the China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Jiangsu Xiangsheng Heavy Industries, and Zhenjiang Tongzhou Propeller Co).
Anyone who thinks the JA frees the US from dependence on foreigners for its shipbuilding needs is dreaming.
2 Likes
Again, false as government contracts unrelated to the JA are by far the biggest factor keeping US shipyards in business.
But I think the bigger issue here is the trade-off. With the JA in place US shipyards have built ~3 large commercial ships per year over the last 25 years (and the number is trending down) that are hugely reliant on foreign part/components. Without the built requirement — allowing Americans to get new ships for 1/5 the current price — the fleet would be larger and more modern. Is having fewer and older ships in exchange for assembling a few ships per year from foreign parts a good deal? What about one ship per year? One ship every other year? At what point does this not make sense?
3 Likes
Was anyone concerned about future wages after reading the section about the Mariner Retention Program?
- If you are in the program you can’t fail to accept an assignment
- crewing companies/ vessel operators can use the program to force people in unfilled billets.
So basically companies could cut wages and then go to the government to fill them.
Also another note of concern is that it states for 3months sailing you’re entitled to 1 month vacation. For a licensed officer that is horrible. I find it hard to imagine any licensed officers would accept such crap. I think the program was made for unlicensed. Which is strange because you’d think that the government would try to retain a highly qualified senior officers.
I don’t believe you are understanding the program correctly. That part is for people working shoreside, to maintain their license. Their employer has to allow them 3 months sea time to maintain sea days, then allow them a month vacation, then give them their old job back. It’s not a 3/1 rotation shipping schedule.
Think similar to National Guard/Reserve call-up obligations and protection. That’s how I read it anyway.
Exactly like a national guard/ reserve call up …. Except that there does not need to be any sort of national emergency, only a need from a private company to fill a job billet.
Do you not think that companies with keep wages low and depend on a revolving door of these 3 months reliefs coming from shoreside employment to crew their vessels?
Sounds like the H1B grift that’s been plaguing Silicon Valley for the past decade and a half.
Intentionally create job postings with insultingly low wage offerings and obscenely ludicrous job/skill/education/reference requirements for domestic hires by HR filtering or incompetence, (I’m reminded of a situation some years back of a job posting demanding 8 years of experience using a software program that only existed for like 3 years, the creator of the program commented directly on this), and then crying to the Government that they can’t find any qualified or willing candidates, so they MUST approve their visa applications from India and other assorted grift mills, who are CLEARLY the most qualified applicants for the job (when in truth they’re just willing to work for $5 an hour to a domestic demand of $25). The competency crisis is a real thing, and it is brought upon and exacerbated by this kind of stuff exactly.
Nevertheless, If this is in fact the actual case of what’s going to happen, if not in written law, but in practice, this is definitely a worrisome part of the bill. However, I will probably refrain from commenting further until full context and explanation is given.
1 Like
To play devils advocate, it says the Retention Program is created/administered by Marad, and the Program dispatches the mariners in the program in coordination with the Unions. So if what you suggest happens, it’s because the Unions allowed it to. If the pay is low, it’s because the Unions negotiated low pay.
Since this bill would require companies take the mariners in this program, if the Unions create a pathway to represent the mariners in the program as members, it should give a basis for preventing what you speak of.
I see this bill as having the opportunity for the Unions to rebuild a stronger negotiating footing, but it won’t be without some coordinated effort. Clearly I’m more optimistic than not, but I also haven’t seen meaningful legislation in a while so 
I don’t 100% agree with what you said. Private companies can use the program to undercut the Unions and hurt their bargaining power. They could start undercutting and bidding on contracts they would not be able to crew if not for the Mariner Retention Program.
If it was structured in a way to prevent a dramatic wage decrease…. I might transition to a shoreside job if I can get in the program.
3 months of C/m wages and a shore side salary. Also the month off is unpaid by the shore side employer so I believe how it states/ structured you’d get the 3months working and vacation pay all at once for the 3 months of work you did. You wouldn’t be shafted vacation pay.
This might convince a lot of people to transition out of the industry lol.
Interesting discussion on LinkedIn re: SHIPS for America Act:
Lots of people in world shipping give their professional opinion and shear their expertise in the comments.
But that’s not how it works. I know of ABs who gave up because they were the only one who was competent and ended up being saddled with all the work. I know a bosun who was sent away because he dared to require the ABs do their jobs and not just play on their phone all day. (And yes, they were the usual suspects)
The officers are terrified of losing their jobs over “racial” issues because the company won’t back them up.
1 Like