Maritime Labor Convention Enforcement

If I have a beef and I think I have rights under MLC, where do I go? It seems the Coast Guard wants nothing to do with any of it, not even “friendly advice”.

Just what is our status as an American seaman with rights under MLC. I know the United States has not fully adopted or ratified or signed on. Is this another joke, or is there really something there and who enforces it?

It’s a joke.

Tell us more of your situation, it sounds interesting.

Yes, our resident mariner rights activist Cajaya can hopefully chime in

The USA is not a signatory to the MLC, so it does not apply in the US, or to a US flag ship at sea. Whether port state control might apply it in a foreign port is another question. I do not know the answer.

The US is a signatory to several older seamen’s rights conventions, which contain some of the same things as the MLC. Of course many things are in the CFRs.

[QUOTE=z-drive;175287]Yes, our resident mariner rights activist Cajaya can hopefully chime in[/QUOTE]
Could you at least forewarn me if you are going to bring my name into a conversation. At least PM me or something. And nope…don’t know anything about the MLC convention, and I don’t care either. Been too busy partying and drinking with all this new freedom I have…

Laid off isn’t “freedom”. I wouldn’t blow all my money if I was you…

[QUOTE=tugsailor;175288]The USA is not a signatory to the MLC, so it does not apply in the US, or to a US flag ship at sea. Whether port state control might apply it in a foreign port is another question. I do not know the answer.

The US is a signatory to several older seamen’s rights conventions, which contain some of the same things as the MLC. Of course many things are in the CFRs.[/QUOTE]

The MLC has no teeth inside the USA, but what I’ve been taught is that signatory states can enforce them locally on ships of [I]any[/I] registry. To prevent problems, the Coast Guard offers a compromise measure: a certificate of voluntary compliance with the MLC.

After further investigating my possibility of remediation (or even an attempt at remediation) under MLC, it really seems to be as effective as all this foolish training I’ve had to sit through.

We have to sit there for a required 32 hours or 24 hours or 40 hours because there’s mandatory topics to be covered; all agreed upon by international convention and then adopted or approved or administered by port state control and when I walk out of these oh-so-well thought up training courses I think to myself, “What did I get out of that?” Some of them it’s “maybe something,” but there have been a few where I feel the only thing I got was good coffee and maybe a free lunch. MLC sure doesn’t seem to be serving any coffee; baloney and cheese on white bread seems to be all there is to it. Someone, somewhere must be really thumping their chest saying, “Look at all we’ve done to make seafaring better.” It’s nothing but baloney and cheese on white bread.

Anybody got a spare $2500 bucks for a lawyer to “take a look” at what I’ve got? After calling five different maritime attorneys, that’s the best offer I’ve gotten.

[QUOTE=highseasharry;175459]After further investigating my possibility of remediation (or even an attempt at remediation) under MLC, it really seems to be as effective as all this foolish training I’ve had to sit through.

We have to sit there for a required 32 hours or 24 hours or 40 hours because there’s mandatory topics to be covered; all agreed upon by international convention and then adopted or approved or administered by port state control and when I walk out of these oh-so-well thought up training courses I think to myself, “What did I get out of that?” Some of them it’s “maybe something,” but there have been a few where I feel the only thing I got was good coffee and maybe a free lunch. MLC sure doesn’t seem to be serving any coffee; baloney and cheese on white bread seems to be all there is to it. Someone, somewhere must be really thumping their chest saying, “Look at all we’ve done to make seafaring better.” It’s nothing but baloney and cheese on white bread.

Anybody got a spare $2500 bucks for a lawyer to “take a look” at what I’ve got? After calling five different maritime attorneys, that’s the best offer I’ve gotten.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t think “The USA is not a signatory to the MLC” was that confusing. Were you seriously expecting relief (in the U. S.) under something that the United States has not signed on to that is not law in the U. S.?

As far as chest thumping and making things better, these guysmay not share your opinion on the need for the MLC. For some, a “baloney and cheese on white bread” probably sounds pretty good.

[QUOTE=highseasharry;175459]
Anybody got a spare $2500 bucks for a lawyer to “take a look” at what I’ve got? After calling five different maritime attorneys, that’s the best offer I’ve gotten.[/QUOTE]

I think someone else already asked you… but what is your problem exactly? For all you know, your issue is covered by some other US law/reg… That being said… being the one squeaky wheel vs a big company does put you at a disadvantage against corporations that have attorneys on retainer and have deep pockets to fight legal proceedings. Sometimes, as employees, we just have to weigh the pros and cons of the fight and just cut our losses and move on to a better work environment, especially if your complaint is relatively minor in nature.

Didn’t this guy come on here ranting and raving about work/rest hours not that long ago?

Suck it up and put it behind you. Getting legal about it produces unsatisfactory results, even if you win. It’s not worth your time money and energy for the next several years.

[QUOTE=tugsailor;175500]Suck it up and put it behind you. Getting legal about it produces unsatisfactory results, even if you win. It’s not worth your time money and energy for the next several years.[/QUOTE]

And this is why every lawyer he has approached want him to pony up 2500 for them to look into it for him. Whatever his grievance is, they probably see it as relatively minor and not worth their trouble and not worth them taking on in any contingency basis. I know it sounds bad, but let’s say the situation is that his employers were getting an extra “hour” of work out of him daily and weren’t paying for it. In all reality, his “damages” probably don’t amount to a hill of beans in the legal arena. Sure a few thousand dollars might not be peanuts to the worker, but when you are a lawyer billing at 500 an hour… the cost to litigate will most likely overrun the value of your claim against the employer.

In practice, what this means is that as the employee, you need to decide whether working under those conditions is worth it or not. Either you are making a satisfactory living or go somewhere else if you think pay or conditions will be better. It sucks, but the company really holds most of the cards here and unless your issue is so glaring and illegal that ALL other employees are willing to fight it, mostly people will put up with a lot to be employed in a bad economy.

Of course, a company will probably suffer under these circumstances too. Generally, if the employees feel they are being shortchanged in some way, they will find ways to get what they are “due”. This may mean they are wholly unproductive for parts of the day, or they may walk off the job with “stuff” and feel justified because the company is cheating them.

[QUOTE=z-drive;175490]Didn’t this guy come on here ranting and raving about work/rest hours not that long ago?[/QUOTE]

No. Not me.