I know that’s correct but I can’t figure out why every US company I’ve ever worked for has had a zero tolerance policy if it wasn’t USCG required. Is it an insurance thing? Does anyone here know?
I always knew it wouldn’t be an issue until it came to cadets. When I talked about things people said I was a troublemaker even and especially other females in the industry even especially female deckies who have a whole different experience even especially the HR ladies in the office it doesn’t matter if it’s a minority unlicensed
Apparently the U.S. Coast Guard has done a good job at stamping out assaults aboard Coast Guard cutter‘s (but obviously a poor job on commercial ships). I talked to a person who helped develop the program they use.
He said, looking back, the biggest demographic they had trouble stamping out was “nice guy” predators who premeditated their crimes. Often this type of predator would be really nice to his shipmates but would mercilessly harass a single individual. Sometimes even when the guy had significant evidence against him he would get protected because everyone thought he was “so nice”.
I really hope the results of whatever investigation is done by the authorities is made public and not fade from view as people’s attention moves to the next headline. That said, someone’s misogynistic BS is not ipso facto that he is actively planning a rape. No more than someone using the “N” word is actively planning a lynching. Perhaps not quite an apples to apples analogy but close enough to be in the same basket. BTW, I do not consider either verbiage acceptable.
Would I have expected someone to have come down on this guys behavior (pre incident)? Yeah, the Chief in particular, or the Captain if he was aware. I reiterate my belief that alcohol was an enabling factor in this incident. Nor do I fault the victim.
By the way the blog sounds it, it would lead one to believe that purposely trying to get someone drunk that doesn’t drink is something these people were well adept at…but I’ll take the industry stance and say she is a troublemaker for bringing it up. What a troublemaker seems she had a hard time getting along with the first and the people on board. Obviously she has problems with rank and hierarchy. And the 1st engineer, he is needed! Way more important than a cadet! He knows the ship and that engine! He is a genius! No other can come close to his genius mind to get the ship to work like the other hundreds of ships on the water with engineers with engineering licenses just like his.
Your sarcasm is noted. Keep in mind the “Minority Report” (movie reference) is not real life…yet.
I think it’s mostly just a lot easier to have a no alcohol policy, than an alcohol in moderation policy.
It’s probably easier to overlook or manage occasional violations of a no alcohol policy, than it is to manage the frequent abuse of an alcohol in moderation policy.
Personally, I prefer a dry ship.
Getting back to the topic of this particular rape, alcohol was the enabling factor. It would never have happened without alcohol. The rapist was emboldened by alcohol. The victim was disabled by alcohol.
True, but even without the rape it was a harassing, toxic work environment and that first shouldn’t have had that job.
By the environment it sounds like if they hadn’t gotten her drunk something would have been slipped in her drink at some point.
First, I see you’re an experienced mariner, it’s good to see you posting here.
You’ve mentioned some very important issues but some of the points you made have more to do with the nature and limitations of internet forums in general than the views of the members.
This particular thread is about the statements the unions made but the discussion is really spill-over from the original thread (now 230 + posts) which had wandered into other topics, as long threads tend to do, including alcohol policy.
Another limitation of the forum: Reading that letter was very distressing for me as I imagine it was for other members. A lot of members are very upset about it. Other people are reading our posts and seeing an opportunity to troll.
I’d like to to just tell some stories about past experience and my views but at this point I feel like I need a lawyer to review my posts least I overlook the “allegedly” or what ever the trolls choose to pounce on, the response which then turns into a time and energy waste.
That all said I will gladly participate on a new thread on just about any topic you wish to discuss, assuming I have anything to add.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Tired of sailing with misogynists, bullies, and yes, rapists
With all due respect Cajaya, it was the ad hominem attack of the person you called out that was likely the issue. One’s alleged sexual preferences was a personal attack that had no bearing on the topic.
Perhaps not for the C/E and 1st, but the 2nd and 3rd, perhaps, assuming those jobs were rotary, then when Maersk says are “suspended” what do they mean? have they issued a DNH? If so, then I would tend to think the MEBA does have a dog in the fight.
Go read the second deleted post, @cajaya has edited out the objectionable parts from the original posts.
Yeah, IDK. I wondered myself what suspended means, I’ve never seen that. I sort of assumed in error it was discharge for cause but for all we know they could be still be getting paid. I was thinking more in terms of what a captain might do but in this case it’s the company.
As far as the 2nd and 3rd. Allegedly they were drinking with many witness so I would assume the union is not going to want to spend resources defending that, it’s against company policy, open and shut case.
Also Maersk may have far more serious charges as well besides the drinking. I think of the drinking in a similar situations as some what analogous to Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion. Sometimes you gotta use what you got.
Ok, I don’t know what you were up against at work but I don’t doubt your stories. Go ahead and post. I assume you know what was objectionable about the other post.
Actually it does have a bearing on the topic