Are you saying you think the reason the C/M reported to the CG rather than the DPA was because he wished to avoid retaliation?
Given that this individual knew the culture I think that is a reasonable theory, yes. The fact that he was terminated after reporting this to the USCG validates this, in my opinion.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
Considering who Maersk has for DPA’s and their willingness to cover for some of the biggest pieces of shit in the business — I’d totally believe this.
One can speculate what would happen after a report to the DPA but after reporting to the CG the C/M did in fact get fired. I’d think better to call the DPA first and if no results then call the CG.
Calling the CG first creates the perception that the C/M was a disgruntled mariner rather than someone looking to resolve an issue. Even more so in this case given the discrepancy between the complain to the captain and the report to the CG.
1 Like
Perhaps due to past dealings with the DPA’s that went nowhere? (Just speculation…)
I don’t know what this officer’s history with the outfit was prior to all this, maybe they were just fed up and pulled the trigger to set bigger wheels in motion.
Kennebec: You appear to be looking to find fault with the Mariner as opposed to the, clearly, dysfunctional management that fired a senior officer over reporting a safety issue(s). I don’t understand the angle you are coming from. There is nothing to suggest he was “disgruntled.” Perhaps, you did not read my initial post on this topic but to reiterate I can speak from firsthand experience on this topic. I was a Captain for Noble Drilling for nearly 6 years on what was considered their best performing vessel with very positive performance evaluations. When I discovered illegal safety violations I reported them to the DPA (who happened to be a 27 year veteran of the USCG) both verbally and via email. I never heard from the DPA again and was fired 11 days later. Through the course of litigation it became clear that this DPA, the Drilling Superintendent, the VP/Chief Compliance Officer and the other Captain were all involved with the illegal activity. I was following policy and the chain of command and it resulted in my retaliatory firing. Noble was more concerned about covering for their incompetent and dysfunctional management than addressing the safety issues. To be clear, the SPA does contain specific language as it pertains to internal reporting.
What is unfortunate is that the ISM Code and safety management systems were put in place to, hopefully, make vessel operations safer. The most elementary concept of safety is reporting issues or concerns. However, when one fears retaliation for speaking up that creates a dangerous culture as people will not speak up out of fear of losing their job. I will surmise that many of the mariners reading these posts know that though most companies talk a great game when it comes to safety and the reporting of safety issues it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Both Noble and Maersk have demonstrated that to be true.
3 Likes
Perhaps it does create the perception of a disgruntled employee, but that is completely irrelevant. Because, the law says that any sailor can go straight to the USCG.
While going to the USCG directly is obviously not in the best interest of the company, it’s the rules that said company is dealt and must deal with. Smart management will play the political game correctly and figure out how to turn the unfavorable situation of an employee reporting something to the USCG into a “we are proud” moment. Firing a whistleblower is one of the dumbest things that management can do.
You are 100% correct that firing a whistleblower is extremely ignorant on the let of “management.” However, they are so arrogant and know that the USCG and other regulatory authorities will not hold them accountable so they still do it anyways. Until corporate management personnel are held accountable for their actions nothing will change.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764–3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
This thread is not about your case, it’s about a C/M at Maersk. In your case you called the DPA first, in this case the C/M did not.
If the chief mate’s motive in not calling the DPA was to avoid retaliation it didn’t work. He was in fact retaliated against, he was fired.
It’s my view that mariners who seek to correct problems should first report them to the company to allow an opportunity for them to correct the problem.
4 Likes
You are correct that this thread is not about my case. Surely, though, you should be astute enough (though it appears you are not) to realize I was simply using it as a reasonable and credible rationale for why he did not go to the DPA first.
Those of us who have sailed enough realize that despite all of the “safety always comes first” talk that corporate management puts out to the fleet in reality that is not the case.
What you are also failing to comprehend is that there is no real criteria for one to be put in the position of DPA. The intent of the DPA is to be a neutral party; however, given that the DPA is a shore based employee, I am of the opinion it tarnishes their objectivity.
Amazingly, you are still finding more fault with the Mariner and not with the irresponsible management that fired a senior officer over reporting a safety issue.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
2 Likes
It looks like Maersk Line’s line of defence is that there are a clash between Internatuional and US rules here:
While OSHA is basing their ruling on the Seaman’s Protection Act:
Since US is a member of IMO and a signatory to the ISM Code it applies on US-flag vessels.
So does US law (i.e. Seaman’s Protation Act)
Is it a clash of Law here? (Or a clash of cultures?)
Kennebec: Just to be clear, I agree with you that in a perfect world mariners should report safety issues to management first. That is precisely why I reported the safety issues on my vessel internally: to give the company an opportunity to correct it. Unfortunately, there is a culture of retaliation in the industry that is very real. Should a Mariner have to fear losing their job for doing the responsible thing and reporting a safety issue? No, they should not.
There’s no conflict between the Seaman’s Protection Act and the IMO here. The Act protects a mariner equally regardless whether the report is to the DPA or the CG
-Update: not correct, the SPA would not give protection against firing in this case.
There appears to be more of a focus and criticism on the mariner and how he went about reporting this safety issue as opposed to criticism of a corporate management culture that fired a senior officer over reporting a safety issue. It should go without saying that when companies fire senior level officers that is sending a message to lower ranking crew to keep quiet or they will be out of a job.
For Maersk to behave in such a manner indicates a dysfunctional management culture that does not put safety of the mariner first.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
1 Like
I disagree with this analysis. Just like landslide employees reporting shoreside violations to OSHA, employees SHOULD report it to management first, but are protected when they report it directly to the government.
When you look at company policy and safety culture, what should’ve occurred is that the company should’ve made every effort to encourage safety reporting internally, and made it so the crew had trust in the system to the point that they wouldn’t bother with an external report. The fact that an employee felt the only way to resolve the issue was to report it to regulators is a failing of the safety management system; in short, they failed to create a good safety culture. Now sure you may end up with a disgruntled employee who says “screw the company, I’m gonna really mess with them,” but still in my opinion that’s a failing of the company to either a)create good workplace where people feel safe, respected, etc., or b) a failing of the company to weed out bad apples.
2 Likes
You are 100% correct on all points, Sir.
It is incredible and difficult to comprehend that in this day and age some corporate management cultures are still behaving in the same ignorant, arrogant and archaic manner when it comes to safety and the reporting of safety issue.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
It looks like a clash of Maersk’s internal interpretation of the ISM. In the OSHA ruling it says the ISM states the companies SMS should include procedures ensuring that non-conformities, accidents, and hazardous situations are reported to the company. No where does it state that it must be reported to the company before any other authority. Requiring employees to report non-conformities to the office seems fully appropriate. But making a policy requiring them to do so before alerting Flag is perhaps where they erred (though personally that makes since to me too…I’d be pissed as C/E if I found out about a deficiency on my ship from Flag before my own crew).
5 Likes
Absolutely.
You are both correct. However, what does that say about the safety culture of the company, this vessel and the reporting of safety issues from a management standpoint? It’s reasonable to conclude this individual feared retaliation from management so he reported it to the USCG. His fears were realized because he was, in fact, fired.
In my opinion, a better question and more focus should be on how Maersk’s management failed to create an environment where safety issues can be reported, discussed and resolved without people losing their jobs.
Jeff Hagopian
Cell: 978-764-3908
Email: jbhagop@yahoo.com
1 Like
If somebody onboard sees a problem, for Christ’s-sake report it to the Captain.
It’s the captain’s job to solve problems onboard without bothering the know nothings in the office. It’s the crew’s job to report to the Captain.
Office callers are apt to be fired. And they usually should be.
If the captain does nothing , and you are sure he didn’t do anything, then call the DPA.
Don’t ever call the USCG, unless you are ready to retire from going to sea and go ashore.
For every guy like this Chief Mate that got big money and rehired, there are 100 guys that get nothing. Which do you think you are most likely to be?
1 Like