I wish that some of the passion and letter writing prowess displayed on this forum in the discussion of hawspipe vs academy, cajuns vs “outsiders”, deck vs engine, etc could be aimed in a productive direction. I’d aim some of that passion and writing at the useless, self serving f**ks who we send to Congress year after year. They need to save the Jones Act and the US Merchant. It’s ironic that we are a major sea power who’s commercial fleet is being allowed to fade into obscurity. They blew hundreds of billions of dollars on " shovel ready projects" and yet somehow we still don’t have a modern shipyard that can build new container ships and tankers at a competitive price.( Just my two cents worth ( and I know I’m overcharging.)
Ditto from me without reservation or equivocation,the US Congress and every Administration after Richard Nixon has done absolutely nothing to assist rebuilding and maintaining a vibrant merchant marine and merchant shipbuilding base. What’s worse still, is how they themselves work to subvert laws and regulations already in place which if enforced, would go miles to creating jobs for US mariners and shipbuilders. How is this that they are so bloody dense that they cannot see how more Americans working at high paying seafaring and shipbuilding jobs means MORE federal revenue in the form of income taxes paid. The giveaway is of course going to major American corporations who benefit with foreign built and manned ships be they in offshore, military and yes, even Jones Act protected trades. Here I must blame the system of how the campaigns of our elected officials are funded mainly by these same large and powerful corporations.
I’ve been watching this steady descent for over thrity years and can say that it is in the end, Joe Boss versus Joe Worker. Sadly, Joe Boss is winning!
Regarding your charge for commenting, I say you should raise your rates! You’re undercutting the rest of us here…
How do you propose to reduce the cost of American ships and American seaman to make them competitive with foreign ships and seaman?
How do you purpose to reduce the cost of American ships and American seaman to make them competitive with foreign ships and seaman?
It has nothing to do with making the cost lower. The Jones Act was put into place because cheap foreign ships and labor was invading the US coastwise trade. It will always cost more to use a US crew on a US built ship but look at the OSV companies for example. They build their vessels in the US and man them with Americans even though it costs 3-4x more than going to China for the ship and the Phillipines for the men. The reason for this is being the case in the GoM is because the Federal Government enforces the applicable statutes. How much does it in the end effect the cost of gasoline at the pump? I say nada, but BP’s profits might be reduced by .0001%. Regulations when enforced create a level playing field for all and in the end the added costs are distributed evenly.
The Jones Act is the only thing we have going for us. We need to make sure that it is never changed.
Next, we need an American International Ship Register that requires American Flag ships in the foreign trade to have American officers, but allows them to have less expensive foreign unlicensed crew. Then, we need to require that the amount of foreign trade coming and going from the US on American Flag ships increases by 2% per year until it reaches 50%. We also need to give ship owners and seafarer’s the same tax breaks that they get virtually everywhere else.
Americans own more ships that any other nationality. The problem is that almost all of those ships are foreign flag.
If you want increased regulation to be the answer, then there is nothing really to discuss. However, I think that decreasing regulations, aside from those aimed at promoting safety and the environment, increases global productivity and in turn profits for everyone. You see, a rising tide raises all ships.
To really explore the question I think the ships and the seaman should be treated separately. Starting with ships, it seems logical that the United States would have at one time wanted to protect domestic shipbuilding. The United States had to ensure that ship building and the ship building traditions carried on, so that, in the event of a war, we had the capability to produce our own ships. I just don’t see how the current requirement for domestic built vessels accomplishes this anymore? Most of the nation’s shipyards don’t have the ability or expertise required to make today’s class of military vessels, and almost no one in America is building ocean going ships domestically to engage in international trade. Since we aren’t even making seagoing cargo vessels domestically, what is the regulation accomplishing? The protectionist regulation helps a few shipbuilders to the detriment of American shipping companies, seaman, and consumers. If American shipping companies could purchase vessels overseas, they could add newer, bigger vessels into coastwise service increasing shipping efficiency and reducing costs to the end user. Furthermore, seaman would be enjoying the benefits by working on new vessels.
The question of seaman is a different matter. I honestly think that American seaman can be and are competitive in a global market based on skill and expertise, especially with respect to oil field type work where we have a lot of experience domestically. I may be very naive on this point, as I have never worked overseas, so I hope to hear some input on this point. However, the rates required to hire an OS or an AB and some of the smaller licenses are absurd. The answer shouldn’t be to prevent foreigners from working here. Rather, we should strive to train American mariner’s of sufficient quantity and quality that they become desirable in a global market for seaman. This argument is in my opinion less compelling than the one for shipyards, because the protectionist regime in place does a fair job of developing a core of domestic mariners.
First, I will say that the demand that only US built vessels be allowed in coastwise trade is too extreme and hinders the development of new services. If you do a search back in earlier posts of mine on this subject you will find a proposal I have made to allow foreign built ships in under a license agreement where the shipowner pays a tax, duty, license fee, whatever to the government for the right and unless an equivalent US ship is built within 5 years the foreign ship will not only lose its right the US coastwise trade but to the US flag as well. If the US flag vessel is built, 50% of the taxes collected by the government over the preceeding five years is returned to the ship owner in the form of a tax credit.
Second, there is no way that American officers of seamen will ever be competitive in the lower skilled seagoing trades like bulk cariiers, but are already competitive in the high skilled trades such as LNG, drilling, etc… What needs to happen here is to create an incentive for a shipowner to hire the American mariner. There are plenty of regulations which are supposed to protect the GoM to US workers but the mariners are getting shut out by the granting of waivers to certain vessel owners which has been previously documented by me in depth here. Also the right for an American seaman to collect damages against a shipowner in an almost unrestricted fashion has made the US mariner too great of a liability for shipowners to accept unless they are forced to under the enforcement of the applicable regulations as mentioned above. Ease that blanket ability for the seaman to collect for injuries due to his own negligence and you will see shipowners take another look at Americans as we are plentiful and, in the GoM anyway, we pay our own taxes. That alone makes us at least 25% less expensive that a Brit or Norwegian working HERE!
Those useless self serving fucks do not listen to us, their constituency. Exercise in futility.
[QUOTE=Flyer69;66824]Those useless self serving fucks do not listen to us, their constituency. Exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]
Indeed sir…indeed!
[QUOTE=c.captain;66823]First, I will say that the demand that only US built vessels be allowed in coastwise trade is too extreme and hinders the development of new services. If you do a search back in earlier posts of mine on this subject you will find a proposal I have made to allow foreign built ships in under a license agreement where the shipowner pays a tax, duty, license fee, whatever to the government for the right and unless an equivalent US ship is built within 5 years the foreign ship will not only lose its right the US coastwise trade but to the US flag as well. If the US flag vessel is built, 50% of the taxes collected by the government over the preceeding five years is returned to the ship owner in the form of a tax credit.[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how that would accomplish your goal. I searched for the earlier posted detailed plan, but I couldn’t find it. The only way I could see this being beneficial would be for a company that wasn’t currently operating. An existing, operating company could just set aside funds in a tax deferred Capital Construction Fund for the construction of vessels for new service. A better solution might be to tweak the CCF rules so that vessels over a certain tonnage built with CCF funds can still be depreciated. That would definitely add some activity in US yards. I myself would open the flood gates to US owned foreign built vessels.
[QUOTE=c.captain;66823
Also the right for an American seaman to collect damages against a shipowner in an almost unrestricted fashion has made the US mariner too great of a liability for shipowners to accept unless they are forced to under the enforcement of the applicable regulations as mentioned above. Ease that blanket ability for the seaman to collect for injuries due to his own negligence and you will see shipowners take another look at Americans as we are plentiful and, in the GoM anyway, we pay our own taxes. That alone makes us at least 25% less expensive that a Brit or Norwegian working HERE![/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree that actions against employer negligence can bring forward some pretty outrageous awards (Did you see my thread on Webb v. Teco?), but the high costs of those cases lead directly to increases in safety for domestic mariners as employers strive to create safer workplaces and better trained employees. Despite that, the time might have come for a statutory scheme similar to the LHWCA for seaman in place of the variety of remedies currently available for seaman. I don’t know that it is a big factor in determining whether to hire American or not. I suspect that it is not, but it may help to promote coastwise trade on domestic vessels by decreasing the costs of P&I insurance.
Can you also explain to me the reference to “pay(ing) our own taxes?”
[QUOTE=Phil Brady;66836]Can you also explain to me the reference to “pay(ing) our own taxes?”[/QUOTE]
Many operators of vessels in the GoM with foreign mariners pay the US Federal tax obligations for those mariners rather than deduct them from the mariner’s wages. This is a fairly common industry practice worldwide with expat seamen in offshore operations. US corporations cannot do this for their US citizen mariners even if they are working out of the US yet they do it for any foreign mariners whether in the US or out. In many of these cases, the mariner gets to claim the foreign taxes paid as from his earnings thus gaining deductions against their own national tax obligations vis. a double win for foreign offshore workers. Others here can elaborate further with regards to this.
I don’t see how that would accomplish your goal. I searched for the earlier posted detailed plan, but I couldn’t find it. The only way I could see this being beneficial would be for a company that wasn’t currently operating. An existing, operating company could just set aside funds in a tax deferred Capital Construction Fund for the construction of vessels for new service. A better solution might be to tweak the CCF rules so that vessels over a certain tonnage built with CCF funds can still be depreciated. That would definitely add some activity in US yards. I myself would open the flood gates to US owned foreign built vessels.
I’ll use Horizon Lines as an example. Each antiquated steamship of Horizon Lines in the coastwise trade is allowed to be replaced by a modern (ie <10y/o) foreign built vessel. To get a coastwise trade endorsement, Horizon pays a 10% of the vessel’s purchase price or current market value importation duty upon entry into the US flag registry and then subsequently 5% each year for 4 years thus a total obligation of 30% to the Federal treasury. If after 5 years, Horizon does have an equivalent ship built in the US, 1/2 of that 30% reverts back as a tax credit to the company and the foreign built ship can remain in the US flag registry (not coastwise however) with no further obligations for the 5% annual license. if they do not have such a ship built in the US, then the treasury keeps all of the 30% and the foreign ship is booted out the flag plus companies who reneg more than one time on the deal would face other sanctions to keep them from gaming the system too much. Perhaps a performance bond would need to be placed as surety? Under such a scheme, Horizon could bring all five of the D-8 vessels from their failed FSX service to replace the floating scrap heap they continue to operate (the vast majority of which are now over 40 years old and steam powered!). No ship should be in the US flag fleet if over 25 years old!
All existing CCF rules would remain in effect and be available to build US replacement tonnage.
In the end, such a mechanism brings much needed modern tonnage into the US fleet to replace old steel, the jobs for mariners are preserved, US shipyards will ultimately get the contracts to build the replacement vessels and if the companies fold or reneg, the government keeps the money.
.
I’m not generally a political pundit, but Ron Paul (R, Galveston) has actually spoken about many of these concerns. Worth looking into.
The problem with writing letters is that they end up in the Congressman’s circular filing cabinet never to been seen again… at least if you post this stuff online it’s saved in the archive and searchable when the day comes when someone in power finally asks the question ‘What the F happened to the US Merchant Marine?’
[QUOTE=john;66842]The problem with writing letters is that they end up in the Congressman’s circular filing cabinet never to been seen again… at least if you post this stuff online it’s saved in the archive and searchable when the day comes when someone in power finally asks the question ‘What the F happened to the US Merchant Marine?’[/QUOTE]
John,
Here I get to humbly thank you for having had the foresight to give us this forum. You have provided the mariner the opportunity to openly express opinions and exchange experiences and information not previously available to us. I do hope one day the day arrives when some person in Washington in a position to do something to assist the plight of the American mariner and American maritime industry will read through the volumes here of the postings by real industry professionals and take away from it a view of our lives and concerns from the deckplates level up to the bridge. Maybe someday that will happen…at least it is a nice hope to have.
Running a vessel and crewing a vessel has EVERYTHING to do about money.It is ALWAYS about money.In the comment about GOM, there is always money in that end of the marine world.Oil companies have VERY STRICT requirements and the technology and skills to use it all do not come cheap.Also it is a buyers market.We have the skills and more and more Charterers are looking for them.DPO?ROV?Anchor Work in deep water?Step right up sonny and how much can we pay you today?
The marine industry is so much more specialised than when I started 30+ years ago that it is hardly recognizable.I think it has come to you want more coin?get more training.