Should the old, obese & females be given easier pre-employment physicals?

Scuttlebutt
21

Nope, but I did have another employer who required an an annual physical that included an annual EKG. I was on a F.O.C working foreign & that country required all mariners & offshore workers to get that physical. Techs from other countries visiting to service their warranted equipment had to stop by a physical-mill before catching a crewboat or helicopter.

I think the machine I had to jump in for old KSea was call a isokinetic dynamometer or a full joint dynamometer. My town didn’t have one & I had to take a 3hr road trip. Again, it was only once for pre-hire.

2
3
4

22

We had to do an EKG every year while working in Brazil, all mariners had to take their annual physical

23

[Sailor51]
Personally I think there should be a retirement age for mariners. 60 or 65 seems reasonable.<

So, you are in favor of Age Discrimination? Let me get my lawyer on the phone.

I’ve known Captains work into their 80’s just fine. I’ve seen 70 year old women go through basic training, and perform better than 20 yr old kids.

I have also seen 40 yr old men with knees so bad, they can’t sand a 4 hr watch. I have let people go due to their not being able to do their job.

We ALL need regular physicals, by Physicians willing to tell someone they must retire.

3 Likes
24

For most people, regardless of age or weight the USCG physical is no problem, unless you have heart or sleep issues.

Most employer pre-hire physicals are just the same USCG physical. I don’t see any difference between Concerta or Work Clinic USCG and pre-hire physicals. Big companies and the Gulf are the exceptions with a lot of intrusive testing.

I’ve never flunked a physical. I just don’t believe that a company should be allowed to require anything more than the USCG Seamen’s Medical Certificate.

2 Likes
25

First of all, it is illegal to set an age requirement for maritime captains or other personnel, according to lawyers I have consulted with. You can do this for airline pilots, but there is a specific CFR that allows for that.

Second:
Physical requirements are a function of lawsuits. The more lawsuits a company is exposed to, the more stringent will be their physical requirements, and the more prominently they will advertise them.

A certain percentage of lawsuits are bogus, based on a pretext: "Nobody told me that I would have to do X. I did it. Now I am crippled.” So companies remove the pretext for litigation by listing every possible thing a crew member must do. That’s what our lawyers advise us to do. And it works very well. It scares off people with actual physical weakness, as well as removing the pretext for the scammers.

Physical exams are a whole other thing. I hire people. Long ago we required physicals but I dropped the requirement, because not once in six years did an applicant fail a physical, except for bad teeth. And this for what was then an unusually rigorous job physically.

Why did no one fail? First, you can eyeball an applicant and in a few minutes see if they are in bad shape. If they get winded just going up the gangway during a boat tour as part of the interview, they’re not fit to work cargo in the Aleutian Islands, so you simply don’t pick them. So, the doctor only examined people in reasonable shape.

Secondly, a doctor told me he wasn’t going to risk a lawsuit from the candidate for failing them for some medical issue that had a low probability of occurring. To do that the doctor would need to cover their ass with a battery of exams that would costs $1,000s per applicant, something only the biggest vessel operating companies are going to do. So the doctor just passed them–except for bad teeth.

We stopped requiring physicals, and after 20 years I can say there was never a case where I wish we had given a physical. And this is for a job physically harder than some maritime jobs.

Big companies continue doing physicals, in part, to avoid excessive financial risk because of previous medical conditions. If someone has a heart attack aboard the vessel, the company pays for the care regardless. But if it is a congenital condition disclosed in the physical, the company can’t be blamed for the heart attack, so the impetus for litigation is reduced.

That’s why most maritime companies have you fill out that long medical history form on hiring. They’re not trying to weed you out. They’re getting an inventory list of your physical deficiencies. If you later try to sue for a heart attack, but listed a congenital heart defect, you have little pretext for litigation. Ditto, if you know you had the defect, but failed to disclose it on the form, and it was subsequently uncovered during discovery. The company pays for the medical care in any case. They are just trying to reduce the costs of litigation.

6 Likes
26

Having had an “AB” on a seismic boat that was physically incapable of stepping through a standard watertight door without assistance, and had difficulty in personal hygiene (couldn’t fit in the shower stalls) due to his morbid obesity, yet “passed” his USCG physical, I have to disagree with you on that.

Had he not managed to bypass Dr. Death’s physical at ECO I have no doubt he would have been stricken as unfit for duty. He absolutely was a detriment to the health and safety of all those around him yet had a valid medical cert.

2 Likes
27

Hornbeck invited a few women for jobs and after they signed the hiring papers and were believed to be gone called them and told them they did not pass the physical but would not tell them why. Also, when these women called the place that conducted the physical (Pelican outpatient or something) they also would not tell them why they did not pass or give them a copy of their results.

Eco had a grip strength requirement which ironically enough was right below the average for men but above the average for women. I had never heard of a test like that in any other place I worked and I never saw someone’s grip strength help with someone’s troubleshooting/repairing ability. You can always use a bigger wrench but if someone didn’t bother to hone in their skills because they didn’t have to, they won’t.

1 Like
28

I once (just once) had a fat boy onboard that had trouble getting through watertight doors. I got rid of him because his cooking sucked, his cleaning was inadequate, and his painting was too sloppy. Problem solved.

While most guys are somewhat overweight, he was the only really huge guy I’ve seen onboard.

1 Like
29

I had a deckhand on crewboats years ago. He was too big to do engine room checks. Literally couldn’t get between the engines. Because going to the office and saying he wasn’t cutting the mustard usually meant he would be a lifer on there, using the very true facts of him not being able to get between the engines to do a proper round did ultimately get him off the boat.

More recently a few years ago, I had a tankerman that often was asking me to help him out on the barge. Not talking about troubleshooting or things pertaining to engineering, he was asking me for help taking lines out and playing with the gangway. This was the ABs deal to help with this, so I finally starting asking where in the hell was the AB? Well, she weighed 100 lbs soaking wet, had a mate’s license, and was often in the bridge instead of dealing with AB tasks…but that’s a rant for another day…

No matter what these physicals are, or what they lack, there will always be some that manage to get by. When you have shipmates that can’t physically do their part it becomes a burden on everyone else.

2 Likes
30

Yes I think their should be a USCG mandated retirement age. I don’t discriminate in hiring. The union and company send the crew.

I knew there was going to be one person that would say they knew someone who was 100 years old and fit and sharp as a tack…. Until they are suddenly are not thus put my crew and ship at risk. Why play with fire, at 60-65 a Mariner must retire.

31

Getting back to a question I asked earlier: Where would one find qualified tugboat crew under 60?

We are hiring.

32

If it’s not 6 hours on 6 hours off I will do it

1 Like
33

I worked with a morbidly obese mate. Apart from his being a liability in emergency situations, he smelled like a rotting pile of garbage. On that basis alone it was not fair to the other people on the bridge within 20 feet of him but Maersk kept him on.

2 Likes
34

Well your company is probably not paying/ offering enough. I know quite a few younger qualified tugboat guys that have jumped companies in the last two years for more money and better runs/boats/work. The younger generation doesn’t want to work on tugs if they can find shore side jobs that pay just as much or more.

Want crew, offer more money. If you don’t you’ll struggle.

35

Of course it is 6 and 6.

Sorry, but no one in his right mind that has seen your disqualifying comments on this forum would consider hiring you.

4 Likes
36

Thanks tug sailor I know who you are now. I said if it was not 6 and 6 I would do it not that I was desperate or in need. LOL

1 Like
37

We pay as much, or more, than most other companies in this area. One of the better paying areas in the US. All of the competing companies are also struggling to find enough qualified crew.

38

You need to know the obvious, you have shot yourself in both feet.

2 Likes
39

No I didn’t :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

40

I guess it depends on the work. Might need to pay more than other areas. I know some guys that left dredge work for wire towing/ line haul work.

Forgot to mention that on time or close to it crew changes sometimes means more than money. Especially for younger generations. And if a company gets a reputation of screwing people that’s hard to overcome.