Better put on your tin-foil hats and climb under the nearest school desk. The Jones Act is fixin’ for another walloping in public opinion. I love the work that I do and I love that the Jones Act allows me to do it and because of that I hope that the Jones Act never goes away. As hopeful as I am, I am also a realist. We’re riding the Titanic at full ahead towards the iceberg of Congress and public opinion. This puppy is going down whether we like it or not. It’s time we get used to the idea.
Then get out of the business while you can!
Hey why is this product even being discussed about ships/barges when the gummint loves trucks so much?
Call me a masochist but I’m riding this shipwreck right to davy jones’ locker and I am going to have fun doing it!
And why not Mexican trucks paying Mexican drivers to do long haul in the US? After all, it will save “the consumer” a few cents.
Of course when we deliberately outsource every blue & white collar job that pays a buck, I imagine consumption will be rather weak…
Funny how it is already working that way.
[QUOTE=+A465B;131106]And why not Mexican trucks paying Mexican drivers to do long haul in the US? After all, it will save “the consumer” a few cents.
Of course when we deliberately outsource every blue & white collar job that pays a buck, I imagine consumption will be rather weak…
Funny how it is already working that way.[/QUOTE]
They have already tried to do that.
I say let’s save the government and consumers some really money let foreign doctors practice in the US. Also, let’s let in foreign journalists
Saving money through cheap labor? Where do those savings go?
Get quotes for shipping a box from China on a Cosco boat vs a US flag carrier and let us know what the difference is. The crew payroll savings don’t go in your pocket and they don’t contribute to the American economy either.
exactly. Increased profit margins
Double post sorry
[QUOTE=Steamer;131143]Saving money through cheap labor? Where do those savings go?
Get quotes for shipping a box from China on a Cosco boat vs a US flag carrier and let us know what the difference is. The crew payroll savings don’t go in your pocket and they don’t contribute to the American economy either.[/QUOTE]
They go to the job creators. Yeah. That’s where. When we go to the States we can see all the great high wage jobs that done been created in the last few years, like in Florida. Driving from Detroit to Florida makes us want to tear our hair out and scream when we see what happened to OUR economy.
[QUOTE=+A465B;131169]They go to the job creators. Yeah. That’s where. When we go to the States we can see all the great high wage jobs that done been created in the last few years, like in Florida. Driving from Detroit to Florida makes us want to tear our hair out and scream when we see what happened to OUR economy.[/QUOTE]
The government is paying a hidden subsidy to every company that is paying less than a living wage by providing a plethora of welfare programs to make up the difference for their employees. Minimum wage needs to be raised to the point where people can live half decently on it without also relying upon government subsidized rent, medicaid, mandated emergency room treatment that they never have to pay for, food stamps, TANAF, WIC, TWIC, and DICK.
What is the minimum wage in Australia? How about Norway?
In Germany in the summer they sell machinist TOOL KITS in the industrial supply stores, just before the fall school season.
The idea is if your kid is starting his/her apprenticeship in Machinebau, you actually give them the tools to start their apprenticeship, which is still very widespread system. At least 3 worked with us this year, and many more last year.
How cool is that?
latest on this shortsighted thinking
February 21, 2014 By Charlie Papavizas
The Jones Act is being blamed for the inability of the State of New Jersey to get additional road salt in time for use this winter. As often happens when the press turns its attention to a maritime issue, the stories usually obscure rather than illuminate the real issues.
To start with, the restriction of U.S. domestic maritime commerce to qualified U.S.-flag vessels is way older than 94 years. The very first U.S. Congress in 1789 instituted a preference for U.S.-flag vessels in domestic commerce – and that principle has been carried forward to the present day.
Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 – together with similar restrictions applicable to passengers, dredging and towing commonly referred to as the “Jones Act”– changed the pre-existing law to be sure, but not fundamentally. That section was hardly debated in Congress and the record reflects that no one thought it marked a new policy. As Sen. Wesley L. Jones, the father of the “Jones Act” said at the time: “We do not deal in general in this bill with the coastwise laws. They are left just as they are . . .”
So, yes, the Jones Act idea is an old one (but much older than 94 years!) – but its ancient origin is not so much an indicator that it is a relic – but rather that it reflects a fundamental principle of the United States. And that principle is that U.S. domestic commerce – whether it be by land, air or sea – should be reserved to U.S. citizens.
Now, undoubtedly some will note that the Jones Act imposes different restrictions on U.S. maritime domestic commerce than the land and air requirements. And that is in fact the case. But, the restrictions preventing a foreign airplane owned and operated by foreign citizens from carrying passengers between U.S. cities is a duplicate of the Jones Act restrictions to the same effect. The underlying – and very well accepted principle – is the same.
Which brings us back to the New Jersey salt problem. Surely, the State cannot claim that they were surprised by the Jones Act any more than they should be surprised that no one can take a flight on British Airways from Newark to Chicago. Which suggests that perhaps the Jones Act is being used as a convenient excuse for poor logistical planning rather than as a real impediment.
When the subject turns to getting a Jones Act waiver, the reporting is equally confused. It is often assumed (always a bad way to think about any law) that the Jones Act can be waived merely if it is a commercial impediment. For good or bad, that is not the case.
The Jones Act can only be waived if is determined that such a waiver is “necessary in the interest of national defense” – which is a high bar and rarely invoked. In addition, the waiver process has been strengthened in the last few years by the Jones Act community to require that the U.S. Maritime Administration be sure no U.S.-flag vessels are available to meet the demand and to identify actions that could be taken to enable qualified U.S.-flag vessels to meet the need.
In practice, think severe hurricane as the type of impetus needed to make the “national defense” case. Some of the few Jones Act waivers were granted after each of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Sandy. Is getting road salt to New Jersey that type of impetus? Only time will tell as nothing has surfaced publicly about how the Government will respond to a reported New Jersey waiver request.
So, the Jones Act may be, or may not be, having an impact on getting salt to New Jersey. But before everyone starts thinking that the Jones Act is some sort of oddity or can be easily dispensed with, they should look again at what the Jones Act really is and how the law really works.
Charlie Papavizas is a partner in Winston & Strawn’s Washington, D.C. office and chair of the firm’s maritime and admiralty practice. He focuses his practice on administrative, legislative, and corporate matters, primarily in the maritime industry. Mr. Papavizas is frequently consulted on the application of U.S. coastwise laws (Jones Act) to cargo, passenger, and vessel movements and investments in U.S. companies.
Thank god for this, even if they are democrats. The only thing that has me worried is that just because a couple of democrats from the New Jersey are for the Jones Act, I’m sure now a bunch of republicans are going to be against it, just on the principle of disagreeing with democrats.
New Jersey Senators Defend Jones Act in Salt Shortage Crisis
BY MIKE SCHULER ON FEBRUARY 26, 2014
New Jersey State Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) have released a joint-statement today in defense of the Jones Act after it was wrongfully blamed for a shortage of road salt in New Jersey.
In recent weeks, the Jones Act has once again come under fire over the misinformation that it was preventing a 40,000 ton shipment of rock salt located in Searsport, Maine from reaching New Jersey where successive winter storms have left the state with critically low supplies.
The U.S. maritime industry has been quick to refute claims by state officials and the media that the Jones Act has prevented the shipment, saying instead that any salt shortages can be blamed on poor planning on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation.
SEE ALSO: AMP: Don’t Blame the Jones Act for New Jersey Salt Shortage, Blame the State!
Now, Senators Booker and Mendez have released a statement regarding the shortage, backing up the maritime industry’s defense that the Jones Act is not where we should be pointing fingers.
It’s important also to point out that, according to reports in the media, the first shipment of salt, approximately 9,500 tons from the stockpile in Maine, arrived at the Port of Newark on Monday via barge, with more to come.
The full joint-statement from Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) is below:
[QUOTE]We are pleased to hear that the first shipment of rock salt arrived at Port Newark last night. When we first heard about the emergent nature of the State’s salt shortage in media reports, we immediately contacted the appropriate federal agencies on behalf of the health, safety and well-being of New Jersey residents seeking help in expediting procurement and delivery of much needed rock salt.
What has become clear is that the State Department of Transportation has fallen short in planning for and addressing its dwindling salt supply. There were numerous opportunities to enlist our help, including at least one direct conversation with Commissioner Simpson, in which the apparent salt crisis wasn’t even mentioned. In the face of an emergency, citizens of New Jersey expect its officials to do everything possible to protect the public from potential harm and in this case, the State fell short.
It is our understanding that NJDOT’s request to waive the Jones Act was denied because it was determined that American vessels were readily available to transport the salt from Maine to New Jersey, a development we were glad to help facilitate and expedite.
We stand ready to act and to advocate for our fellow New Jerseyans at the federal level, but can only do so when we are informed of a potential issue. It doesn’t matter if it’s John Q. Public, a local mayor or in this case, the State. Had offers for help not been ignored, we could have worked in partnership, provided appropriate guidance on the best way to achieve their intended goal, and most likely avoided this unnecessary situation.
We would caution those who would recklessly call for the abolition of the Jones Act, which has served for nearly a century to protect our national and economic security. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920—which prohibits use of a foreign-flagged vessel for transporting goods between U.S. ports—was designed to support America’s strong shipping industry, while ensuring our country’s readiness to defend itself against a national security threat.
The lesson learned here should not be to repeal or blame the Jones Act, but to work in partnership to achieve a common goal. The State’s poor planning should not become New Jersey residents’ emergency.
[/QUOTE]
Guess they finally came around. They probably just didn’t know a thing about our country’s maritime policy or law. I think most people couldn’t tell you what cabotage was off the top of their head. Only the people who are in the pocket of big business or are hardcore into deregulation are in favor of throwing out the Jones Act.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;131172]What is the minimum wage in Australia? How about Norway?[/QUOTE]
Norway has no national minimum wage, we have collective pay agreement (tariffavtale) between a union(Seaman union/Officer Union/Engineer Union) and the employers’ organization(Shipowning Union). The agreement include all employees at sea even if they are not part of a union. The agreement sets the minimum pay and overtime pay and quite a lot more.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;131693]Guess they finally came around. They probably just didn’t know a thing about our country’s maritime policy or law. I think most people couldn’t tell you what cabotage was off the top of their head. Only the people who are in the pocket of big business or are hardcore into deregulation are in favor of throwing out the Jones Act.[/QUOTE]
Congress, thankfully, for the most part has always stood behind the Jones Act in both word and action. Just about every time something comes up, like this for example, they always seem to stick their necks out for this one issue, even if only in a small way. You might say that congress was not behind the Jones Act when John McCain sent a bill to the senate floor to repeal it, but you also have to remember that that measure was voted down. I’ve seen more congressmen and senators of both parties speak out in favor of the Jones Act than I have seen of the opposite. Almost every presidential candidate since Warren G. Harding has said more or less the same but their actions tell varying stories…
Exactly. I really see no reason to be against it when there’s so many obvious reasons to be for it. It’s truly one of those bipartisan American principles, even If most people have no clue what it is.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;131704]Exactly. I really see no reason to be against it when there’s so many obvious reasons to be for it. It’s truly one of those bipartisan American principles, even If most people have no clue what it is.[/QUOTE]
It’s protectionism and is contrary to the prevailing economic / political philosophy of Neoliberalism
Not labor friendly.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;131704]Exactly. I really see no reason to be against it when there’s so many obvious reasons to be for it. It’s truly one of those bipartisan American principles, even If most people have no clue what it is.[/QUOTE]
The trouble is that if we let the public get a hold of it, especially if that’s through the lame-stream media like we just saw recently, then all hope is lost. The Jones Act is not an easy concept to understand, which is why it is met with fear and resentment from time to time. If you get in a car accident because your state couldn’t salt the roads and some talking head tells you that’s because of some ridiculous “blue law” from 1920 then of course you would call your congressman and ask them to repeal it, and who could blame you? Based on that much information it makes perfect sense.
The trouble is that the issues of merchant shipping and the laws the surround it are far too deep and complicated for the general public to understand. We often complain that we don’t get enough recognition as an industry, and in many ways that’s true, but given what just went over the airwaves a couple of weeks ago I’m starting to think that maybe our relative anonymity is not such a bad thing.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;131709]It’s protectionism and is contrary to the prevailing economic / political philosophy of Neoliberalism
Not labor friendly.[/QUOTE]
It’s interesting that you bring up neoliberalism. I think most people would assume that it’s the free-market laissez-faire conservatives who would be the biggest opponents to its protectionism, but there’s always more than meets the eye, just like with the Jones Act itself.
Yea but that’s a mostly European economic term, in America we’d call it Free Market Capitalism which is mostly supported by libertarians and conservatives.