In that case, maybe you should contact some Seamans Unions that are in operation in other countries to get some ideas that may help your agenda forward.
The hypothetical mega-union would become an abusive mega-monopoly. Mariners would be bled dry by corrupt mega-union officials. Mega-union bosses would walk hand-in-hand with corporate officials to maximize their profits. The mega-union would support egregious training and experience requirements only it (and its maritime school partners) could provide making them the gatekeepers to the industry.
Mariners are disparate. We work in small groups with little interaction with other groups of mariners. We are trained to be submissive. We are easy to take advantage of. Mega-union would only make it easier for the union boss and the company men to take advantage of us.
Why would a mega-union work to benefit mariners? There’s more profit in using mariners like surfs and pawns. The ability to quit and work somewhere else is the only power we have.
I think the USMM would look great as long as the new ‘MegaUnion’ had the following features:
Defined Contribution pension plan. I for one am sick and tired of the ‘give us your money now and we’ll take care of you in 20 years (we promise)’ model. I’ll take my chances with an index fund in an account in my own name thank you very much.
Provide incentive to sail on your license. 1 seniority point for sailing AS-E/D, 2 points for 3E/3M, 3 points for 2E/2M, etc. It’ll be tough to be a career 3rd when you’re constantly getting passed up by those willing to sail up.
The leadership structure must be very carefully designed to not have an inherent conflict of interest. For example, in my union, the top three elected officials are also on the board of trustees for the pension plan. If it should become fiscally necessary to cut the pension plan benefits, those individuals would be cutting their own pension as well as ensuring they won’t get re-elected. Think that’s going to happen? (another reason to have a DC pension plan).
As mentioned earlier in this thread, an all-in-one hiring hall including job dispatching, lodging, union admin offices and classrooms for training. I would expect night work to continue to go away so there’d only be a need for one hall on each coast and maybe one in Houston. Once again, lowering the overhead of the organization.
No union “clinics”. Contracts state that if you hold a valid USCG medical certificate, (which is available for ~$100 every other year) then you’re good to ship. If a company wants something more and the union agrees to put it in the contract, then that company foots the bill for the additional exam.
We should use our pool of talent for other things besides manning ships. We should strive to provide all the services that currently get farmed out to contractors. These include but are not limited to generator overhauls, piston pulls, torque wrench calibrations, rigging gear certifications, fire extinguisher and fire suppression system certifications, lifeboat/raft/FRB certifications, etc. Once we had a pool of talent and a shop that could accomplish these tasks, the opportunity for work for this arm of the union would expand to other industries beyond the union contracted vessels and thus diversify our organization.
Have a method in place to get rid of dead weight. I know this is an area rife with potential for lawsuits, but there HAS to be a way to cull the herd legally. I’m all about 2nd chances…it’s the 6th and 7th and 10th chance crowd I’m talking about.
I’m sure there’s more but that’s what I can come up with now. The overriding themes are to ENcourage personal initiative and drive and to DIScourage laziness and mediocrity. Also to decentralize power from the union officials and centralize it to the union members.
That’s just passing the buck. Like when the steward forgets to order fresh milk and then claims that he did order it but the captain canceled the order.
If each ship would fire their ne’er-do-wells this problem would go away.
That’s exactly what I mean. Under the current system from what I’ve seen, if the Capt/Chief wants to fire someone for a non-obvious reason (drunk/fighting/missed ship’s movement, etc.), then the paper trail involved combined with the pushback from the terrified of a lawsuit office is such that they just let the guy ride out his hitch and pass the deadbeat on to the next ship that gets him off the board.
All of this is very valid. This is why the initial setup of the leadership structure is so key. It has to be in such a way that the leadership has no incentive to get into bed with the companies and in fact has some sort of incentive to maximize contract gains. Maybe a third party observer in the negotiations that files a report directly to the membership after all negotiations? I don’t know the best way but I know if it’s not set up properly from the start we’ll end up with what we have now which is systemic, fundamental flaws that are pretty much impossible to fix without starting anew.
Not sure, but I know one is definitely needed. On my last ship, we had a guy with a Chief’s license (all modes) and 32 years in the union occupying a permanent 3AE job. Doing the bare minimum (and doing that slowly) all the while claiming ignorance of various duties because he “was a steam guy”. It’s doubly bad because not only was he useless, but he was taking a 3AE billet from a new potential member.
This is a legitimate gripe. With proper documentation and “counseling” on performance, there should be little to no reason to expect blowback from firing someone. I think most captains or chiefs won’t do it because it is not a pleasant thing to do but if someone is not pulling their weight and not responding to various “motivational” tactics, that person needs to go. If they were enough of a problem for your vessel they will most likely be a problem for one of your sister ships or another company within the union so put it on the record.
I’ve also noticed that people’s reaction to being served a letter of warning usually indicates whether or not they have been fired before. When there is no evidence of incredulity or questions as to how they can improve further, they’ve most likely been down this road before.
None of this is my favorite part of the job, but it is the job nonetheless.
Don’t know about your situation but the contracts I’m familiar with for “drunk/fighting/missed ship’s movement” a letter of warning (LoW) may not even be required. Just a DFC, (discharge for cause).
In this case it would be helpful to have verbal warning, a LoW and then the DFC letter. I can whip them out so fast I don’t have time to write the names out in full.
Maybe management should be more worried about the lawsuits that might arise from having a known incompetent or drunk crew aboard and less about the discomfort and hassle involved in of getting rid of them.
Once the word goes out the ship won’t tolerate bs the bad actors will go elsewhere.
I think that’s right, or they feel sorry for the guy. I ask them what about the guy that is competent, works hard, a good shipmate, doesn’t drink on the job and is cooling his heels at the hall? That’s the guy I feel sorry for, not the bum that’s screwing up my operation.
The root cause is that for captain and chief sitting in their office pushing a computer mouse around all day it doesn’t impact them directly. But it’s a big problem for the crew that gets their hands dirty every day.
Better than taking a 2nd or 1st job. The company I worked for had a few career 2nds that were making mobility all but inmpossible for new 3rds, after a short while those 3rds left to find a 2nd job elsewhere. The company knocked the career 2nds down to 3rd, essentially swapping positions with the 3rds, as a result, there was retention of good mates and engineers, they no longer left because they couldn’t progress their loicenses and careers due to the logjam at 2nd.
Absolutely he was within his rights to do what he was doing under the current rules. …that’s why I propose having different rules in our hypothetical new mega union that discourage/make life difficult for someone like this
[quote=“lm1883, post:98, topic:47318”] Something to chew on: by sailing 3rd he is not occupying a senior officers position that he is incapable of filling there by leaving it available to existing members.
[/quote]
My point is that I don’t want him (and people like him) occupying ANY billet in our new organization. Hence my proposal to have rules and procedures in place to reward those who do the job and cull out those who are looking to just scrape by doing the bare minimum
It doesn’t have to be that way. I have fired people. My relief has fired numerous people. When they aren’t cutting it then they are gone. You are right though that they just get passed to the next ship. They won’t take a job on my ship, but will try somewhere else.
This is a big help, if the guy opposite won’t fire anybody but instead leaves it for me, to the office it looks like I might be the problem. But the flunkies in the office are not responsible for the ship.
