The source of that perception is that some unions have leaned hard on their members over the years for contributions to political action campaigns… and boasted in newsletters for years about their lobbying arms in Washington.
The reality is closer to what you describe.
Do you know the cost of exploring and developing meaningful articles like that? A series that even starts to scratch the surface on a second registry would require weeks worth of work by a dedicated journalist and an editor.
gCaptain has the same problem the unions and jones act companies and marad and everyone else has. Developing articles and programs and such takes time and money which isn’t widely available. And if we were to write those articles our workload triples overnights as the phone starts ringing from the various groups that feel threatened by it.
Everytime forward motion starts to happen infighting starts and certain people get pissed, while others become indignant and the rest start listing off all the problems the idea faces… all of which causes the people with deep pockets or political clout to shrug their shoulders and walk away.
That said, I don’t mind possing people off… I you are willing to fund the research or write it yourself I’d be happy to consider publishing it.
Sure, it’d get attention. But the wrong kind.
The minute thousands of Alaska voters have to pay FedEx $50 to get their diabetes medicine or die is the minute that the Jones Act gets abolished with sudden bipartisan support.
The longshore slowdown in 2014-2015 never shut down food and medicine to millions of people. It just made things more expensive and inconvenient to shipping companies and retailers. The minute you start taking hostages, you’ve lost any right to the moral high ground.
Maritime Unions do not have a good track record when it comes to taking the moral high ground? Why should MEGAUNION start today?
Also you are completely ignoring the point that MEGAUNION Doesn’t want to kill anyone… that was simply to illustrate that MEGAunion does have a substantial amount of untapped power in reserve.
Or, a shorter more accurate reply would be:
I don’t know John. Is it me or is MEGAUNION starting to take on a first person type of thing? Alla Seinfeld. “MEGAUNION has big ups!”
MEGAUNION has spoken! 
John, maybe it’s time to take a deep breath. Explicitly giving someone the options of meeting your demands, paying exorbitant transport costs for medication, or dying and then saying you don’t want to kill anybody is a bit like the classic movie thug saying “it’d sure be awful if someone had to smash these windows.”
As far as the moral history of seamen’s unions, I feel like fighting to abolish crimps and allow sailors to terminate their employment without being incarcerated were fairly noble objectives. Your opinions on their actions after that depend on how you feel about the morality of fighting for better working conditions and compensation for sailors. As an engineer who has read about conditions for the black gang in the late 19th century I feel pretty good about it.
You know what never ever works when someone is frustrated and acting wholly unreasonably? Telling them to go take a deap breath!
It certainly is! That is a noble cause… but you didn’t mention noble causes, you mentioned taking the “high ground” and taking the high ground doesn’t mean protecting your members at the expense of others.
It certainly is!!! Unless it’s only a HYPOTHETICAL example to illustrate a more subtle point. Again… no one is hoping anyone gets killed… what I am hoping for is that unions start flexing their muscles collectively to push us political adgenda… and certainly that could be done without killing anyone or endangering the jones act.
HYPOTHETICAL (definition): 1 (of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence 2 arguing a dangerous idea to explore tangental possibilities
A start would be to do a very deep and intense study of ALPA the airline pilots union (under the assumption that ALPA does a good job). But don’t take the company seniority list system that they use.
Nobody is looking to prevent you from joining a union. We’re just not willing to instantly give you the status shared by someone who has spent their whole career supporting unionized labor. The job of the unions is to protect their members. If you want to be a part of that, joining works better than slinging insults.
Not to get us off in a whole lexicographical sideshow, but that definition seems to be a mashup of part of a 4th definition of hypothetical from dictionary.com mixed with a second homegrown definition that you tacked on to support your point. Can’t seem to actually find any reference to “arguing a dangerous idea to explore tangential possibilities” with the words in that order anywhere on the internet.
Here’s the original definition it looks like part 1 was pulled from:
adjective, Also, hypothetic (for defs 1–4).
1.
assumed by hypothesis; supposed:
a hypothetical case.
2.
of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis:
hypothetical reasoning.
3.
given to making hypotheses.
4.
Logic.
(of a proposition) highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence.
(of a proposition or syllogism) conditional.
noun
5.
a hypothetical situation, instance, etc.:
The Secretary of Defense refused to discuss hypotheticals with the reporters.
Willing to admit my google skills could be lacking though. In any case, I’m signing off for the evening, it’s a holiday after all.
It’s the 4th and 8th conotation (and the 1st and 2nd definition based on the context it was writen) from my preferred dictionary which is the oxford english dictionary which (along with the American Heritage and their own writers) is where dictionary.com gets it’s information.
Why does that matter?
When I said “at the expense of others” I was not reffering to myself… I am not anti-union and i am not saying their methods or other transgressions (e.g. past communist sympathies) are inexcusable… but I think we can all agree the unions are not choir boys (nor should they be).
Sweet! Which maritime union admits maritime journalists?
BTW That was by design, I thought that by making the title totally ridiculous it would indicate that the idea (and my replies) were NOT to be taken seriously.
But… apparently… I failed.
Guess I’ll have to ramp up my game and post this photo before every HYPOTHETICAL post so that feelings don’t get hurt.
Oh I was onboard. I just love the absurdity of referring to oneself in the first person and wanted to play along
Oh, I know you were but I don’t think everyone got the memo 
Talking honestly about labor issues with a union member is like talking to a millenial about whore houses. It’s impossible to be objective without them melting down in indignation.
They are fragile snowflakes. The lot of them!!
Whoa, whoa, whoa @joepilot. I could throw out generalities about Pilots allllll day long but I know that’s just horseshit. Some of us members in good standing have a sense of humor and can enjoy ourselves without getting all butthurt.
If we truly want world domination, let’s talk MEGAPILOTSASSOCIATION!
I am a non-union Mariner. I am not in favor of maritime unions as the exist in the US. Not at all. I would be in favor of a union like the Canadian Guild, or like the US Longshoremen.
I have belonged to two maritime unions. They are both still active.
The first was one of the largest maritime unions. The port agent was blatantly being paid off by the employer. We paid dues and the contract required overtime and vacation pay, but we never received a dime of it. Regional and national union leadership was totally dismissive of our complaints. This port agent was a convicted felon that had previously served time for theft in state prison. The Port Agent was eventually convicted of other union related federal crimes, served a couple years in federal prison, and was banned from union activity for life. Upon his release from prison, he became a senior manager at one of the union’s contracted employers.
The second union may have been honest. At least there was no visible dishonesty. However, they were terrible negotiators. There was a two tier contract in place. “Old hires” received good wages and benefits, but “new hires” received significantly less than typical non-union wages. The union contract gave the appearance of overtime and various other catagories of extra pay, but there were so many exceptions in the fine print that it was almost nonexistent.There were a lot of old junk boats.The schedule was very arbitrary and unpredictable. It was typical to get a call out of the blue saying “be here tomorrow,” or “you are getting off tomorrow.” The management attitude toward mariners was damned poor. This company was the closest thing to a Joe Baawss bayou company that I have ever seen on the West Coast. Come spring, I was back in Alaska at a much better paying, better treatment, non-union job.
Over the years, I have worked for several companies that had both union, and non-union branches. Why the unions allowed this I’ll never understand. At two of these companies, the union and non-union boats worked together on the same customer jobs. The unions could have stopped this very easily with a strike, work slowdowns, a continuous stream of valid deficiency reports to the USCG, etc. The unions and the union members at the union branch of the company called us “scabs” and treated us poorly, yet they were also trying organize us. What an inept bunch of neutered thugs and buffoons.
I’d like to see a high quality MegaUnion that has about two-thirds of the jobs, leaving room for a few small non-union companies scattered all around the country to have the other third.
All the US maritime unions I’m aware of are fraudulent. The SIU in particular is the successor to the racist, thug AFL answer to the radical NMU, and it shows: the US maritime workforce is right-wing and mostly fat and happy. Until the US maritime industry is broken away from the military-industrial complex and the oil industry, I don’t see any of this changing. As matters stand, a single union for officers and crew is not desirable. I have worked on boats like this and without a separate union to advocate for the crew, it is easy for the company to choose coopted captains who the crew has limited leverage against, neutering the point of having a union.