If I work on a unlimited tonnage tanker for example for 12 hours a day, does this count as a day and half of sea time?
It should, but depends on how your sea time letter is worded.
[QUOTE=Jacknthebox;37344]If I work on a unlimited tonnage tanker for example for 12 hours a day, does this count as a day and half of sea time?[/QUOTE]
No, not on tankers.
Are you working 4 hours OT each day or are you standing watch for 12 hours a day? OT doesn’t count, watchstanding does.
[QUOTE=Jacknthebox;37344]If I work on a unlimited tonnage tanker for example for 12 hours a day, does this count as a day and half of sea time?[/QUOTE]
Most likely, no. One and one-half credit for a 12-hour day is appropriate when the 12-hour day is “authorized and practiced.” As used here, the terms are not redundant, it’s a two-part requirement. “Authorized” means a 12-hour, two-watch rotation is permitted by law and the vessel’s certificate of inspection. “Practiced” means the 2-watch system was in actual practice on the vessel while you served on it.
Eequirements for how many watches are required on a vessel are specified in 46 U.S.C. 8104 and 46 CFR 15.705.
Since your company has graciously ‘allowed’ you to work your 8 hour watch, and then be required to ‘volunteer’ up to 4 hours OT per day, you only get credit for the 8 hour watch. Ask them to write you a ‘sea service letter’. I will bet it is specifically worded to say you have worked “XX number of days.” which would reflect your 8 hour days.
People who work for US Shipping get 12 hour letters all the time. However, I don’t believe there is any paid OT - it’s salaried, but you’re still only standing 8 hours of watch, and the 4 hours of OT is expected.
[QUOTE=New3M;37376]People who work for US Shipping get 12 hour letters all the time. However, I don’t believe there is any paid OT - it’s salaried, but you’re still only standing 8 hours of watch, and the 4 hours of OT is expected.[/QUOTE]
Geez, you must have been working for some backwoods muddy water outfits!
Even the standard 12 hour contracts I have worked under (AMHS - WSF) still pay overtime and the USCG counts it as 1.5 days. The tanker and dry cargo ship contracts call for an 8 hour day and pay overtime for weekends and after 8 hours (pus a few other little items) but only count as 1 day for USCG purposes.
I never worked for them, but I have several friends that upgraded the quick way by going there and getting a 12 hour letter.
[QUOTE=New3M;37554]I never worked for them, but I have several friends that upgraded the quick way by going there and getting a 12 hour letter.[/QUOTE]
Whether U.S. Shipping vewssels are eligible for the 12-hour day has nothing to do with labor contracts. U.S. Shippng operates ATBs. ATBs are manned as towing vessels, and thus per 46 USC 8104(g) may be authorized to have two watches.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;37573]Whether U.S. Shipping vewssels are eligible for the 12-hour day has nothing to do with labor contracts. [/QUOTE]
Nobody ever said it did.
The poster stated that they worked 8 hour watches and had to do 4 hours OT for free and were getting “12 hour letters.”
US Shipping also operates real ships, the poster did not specify ATB’s so 8 hours of watches is what he said it was. Adding 4 hours of forced labor makes it 12. If the CG counts that as 1.5 days then there is a problem with CG evaluators.
[QUOTE=Steamer;37585]Nobody ever said it did.
The poster stated that they worked 8 hour watches and had to do 4 hours OT for free and were getting “12 hour letters.”
US Shipping also operates real ships, the poster did not specify ATB’s so 8 hours of watches is what he said it was. Adding 4 hours of forced labor makes it 12. If the CG counts that as 1.5 days then there is a problem with CG evaluators.[/QUOTE]
I think Jim can read. He was just stating the obvious based on what was posted and put it into context. We now know that ATBs get 12 hour days, not the US shipping fleet. We now know that OT has nothing to do on how a 12 hour day is credited within the regulations - OT is a labor issue. You may have known both, as did I, but he wasn’t talking to you as you pointed out by referencing “the poster”.
[QUOTE=anchorman;37595]We now know that ATBs get 12 hour days, not the US shipping fleet.[/QUOTE]
US Shipping (Partners LLC) is a company. US Shipping Partners LLC operates a mixed fleet of ATBs and “real ships.” While the crews on both ATBs and “real ships” may work 12 hour days, only those on the ATBs are normally credited with 1.5 days of service.
US shipping as an industry is harmed by the labor practices permitted by the USCG onboard ATBs.
[QUOTE=Steamer;37606]US Shipping (Partners LLC) is a company. US Shipping Partners LLC operates a mixed fleet of ATBs and “real ships.” While the crews on both ATBs and “real ships” may work 12 hour days, only those on the ATBs are normally credited with 1.5 days of service.
US shipping as an industry is harmed by the labor practices permitted by the USCG onboard ATBs.[/QUOTE]
Jim knows that, I know that, and you know that and I assume that we are all in comprehension now.
[QUOTE=Steamer;37606]US shipping as an industry is harmed by the labor practices permitted by the USCG onboard ATBs.[/QUOTE]
US shipping is not harmed by the USCG. US shipping is harmed by laws enacted by CONGRESS. The true culprits are your representative, senator, company lawyers and lobbyists that are employed to protect companies and profits. The USCG is a good scapegoat but they have no choice on what they enforce, they are stuck in the middle just like the mariner and an easy target.
And NO, I never was a company man, just a guy who was doing his job and now doing a new one dealing with the same rules and regulations as yourself.
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;37621]US shipping is not harmed by the USCG.[/QUOTE]
If you believe that congress writes manning regulations I have a bridge to sell you.
46 CFR 15.501 (b)The manning requirements for a particular vessel are determined by the OCMI …
Sure reads to me like the CG has the power and the authority to determine the manning of ATBs is inadequate. Have you ever heard of the CG demanding higher manning levels? These are the folks who wrote the book on getting more from fewer people (CEMS) and figure we can be trained out of fatigue caused by reduced manning. They are the ones who are in the position to file Legislative Change Proposals to correct chronic problems that their future employers have pushed on them. The CG has all the power and authority it needs to correct all the problems that are written about so often on these pages, they only lack the will to write the changes and right the wrongs.
The reason ATBs even exist is to satisfy the companies who are their masters and future employers. They are not just a scapegoat, they are part of an unholy alliance. All it will take is an ATB loaded with heavy oil to foul the beach in front of some politico’s house then all of a sudden they will discover that fatigue and under manning of vessels built for no other reason than to skirt manning regulations might not be good for property values.
[QUOTE=Steamer;37627]If you believe that congress writes manning regulations I have a bridge to sell you… They are the ones who are in the position to file Legislative Change Proposals to correct chronic problems that their future employers have pushed on them. The CG has all the power and authority it needs to correct all the problems that are written about so often on these pages, they only lack the will to write the changes and right the wrongs.[/QUOTE]
And I have one to sell you if you think all we have to do is submit a legislative change proposal to do whatever we want and Congress will gladly rubber-stamp it and give it to us, or that when we are given authority, such as setting manning levels, we can do so with impunity, free from external pressures and influence.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;37659]And I have one to sell you if you think all we have to do is submit a legislative change proposal to do whatever we want and Congress will gladly rubber-stamp it and give it to us, or that when we are given authority, such as setting manning levels, we can do so with impunity, free from external pressures and influence.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was perfectly clear that the CG responds quickly to external pressures from those with influence - those who own the most politicians and who offer the best future career opportunities. What I have never seen, read, or thought is that the CG has fought for greater manning levels, less stressful working conditions, or better living conditions for merchant mariners.
It has been European maritime legislation that has driven, and continues to drive, improvements in shipboard working and living conditions because they finally admit the connection between fatigue and disaster and understand a healthy merchant marine requires a proactive maritime authority. The pendulum has swung the other way and as much as STCW and other international conventions disturb American campaign contributors and the CG becomes even more distanced from merchant shipping and its unique issues the unholy alliance just might be broken. And that will be good for the American seafarer.
[QUOTE=Steamer;37662]I thought it was perfectly clear that the CG responds quickly to external pressures from those with influence - .[/QUOTE]
Fairtr enough, I didn’t appreciate your full statement on the first reading. But it’s more than just a simple labor/management issue. If it were, the same international conventions you mention might have broader acceptance among U.S. mariners. On the other hand, while the U.S. is a signatory to many IMO conventions, we have not accepted some from the ILO.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;37667]Fairtr enough, I didn’t appreciate your full statement on the first reading. But it’s more than just a simple labor/management issue. If it were, the same international conventions you mention might have broader acceptance among U.S. mariners. On the other hand, while the U.S. is a signatory to many IMO conventions, we have not accepted some from the ILO.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the rereading. I have never written or believed that these issues are labor/management issues, they are regulatory.
Only when the maritime authority drives legislation that is based solidly on those issues which impact safety and support the human element of shipping will those issues which are, time after time after time, found to be the root cause of spills, injuries, accidents, and poor mariner retention and recruitment be corrected<BE corrected>. It is a smokescreen to call them labor/managment issues as that only tends to trivialize the real concerns. It is a sellout to the companies who grease the palms of legislators and hold the carrot of a retirement job for CG policy makers.
The fact that we choose not to address ILO matters supports my position.