Silly letters you have received

Professional Mariner Forum
21

[QUOTE=skycowboy;50170]

Also if the NMC can send you out an email telling you there is a problem with your application, then why can’t they send you an email telling you what the problem is. You have to call them and then they will email you the same letter that’s in the mail saving you a number of days to get your application in order or appeal their decision.

.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!!..I got one of those messages today…

Made the call to NMC…Nice lady there says that the letter hasn’t been written yet so they don’t know what the problem is…

22

This is not a letter story but I have to share anyway.
I have a Message saved on my home answering machine from the NMC. While in our Yard for Maintenance, I was having yet another request for “Amplifying Information” for my renewal sent to my Company Office, as it cannot be sent to a “Public” Fax (ie:Staples, Office Max ect…). Anyway, I was told that I needed to be Standing by the fax machine and be on the phone with the NMC while the letter was being faxed so that I was the only one recieving it. After 30 frustrating Minutes and an absurd conversation with an NMC Employee, I was told that I no longer needed to be standing by the fax machine nor be on the phone at the when the fax was sent. It was finally sent about an hour later.
When I got home that night, there was this Message on my machine-"Hi, this is Ms.Sonso from the NMC trying to verify that Mr.(me) is standing by the fax machine so that we can sent the requested document."
I never even mentioned my Home Number during the Coversation concerning the Fax Transmission!

23

[QUOTE=Shellback;50291]Exactly!!..I got one of those messages today…

Made the call to NMC…Nice lady there says that the letter hasn’t been written yet so they don’t know what the problem is…[/QUOTE]

When I asked NMC that same question last year they told me that a different department typed the letters and that they would put in a suggestion that they be emailed as well. make no since that they can tell you there is a problem by email by they can not tell you what the problem is

24

submitted complete chief mate upgrade application to NYC REC three weeks ago.
next day back to work: 28 day hitch on HP1.
within 48 hours received confirming email of application received and package being sent on to NMC in nautical West Virginia.
within a week I had an email confirming application received @ NMC and Security/Background check underway.
a few days later: email received that I passed background check… sending to Medical Evaluator.
next day email from nice NMC lady, LaTwanya?, arrives saying there was no medical form attached to my submission. HUH? WTF. mystery. of course there was. in any event, I email her a copy I had onboard the HP1.
a few days later email received “passed Medical Evaluation”… now onto Professional Evaluator.
within a few days received email from “Professional Evaluator” as planned. slick. badda bing.
now continue studying for upcoming exam.

a few days ago, after all of above & out of the blue, wife at home in NYC emails me with a letter received at home from NYC REC. a cryptic yellow post-it note attached to my [U]original medical form[/U] reads only “OLD FORM, NOT ACCEPTED.”

asked wife to throw the useless piece of paper in with my socks.

lessons learned:

  1. go through checklist before submitting.
  2. keep copies of everything submitted on your person so you can email them out pronto if needed.
  3. ignore random letters from REC, the NMC is the big cheese these days.
  4. have a sock drawer.
25

[QUOTE=anchorman;50147]NMC is presently changing to all USCG staff and getting rid of most civilian contractors…you can always tell when a new commander arrives. We will see if anything changes other than the stripe on the collar.[/QUOTE]

I requested further clarification on this by my last evaluator and was informed that they are transiting the 3rd Party Contractor (i.e. Security Assistance Corp., Contractor to United States Coast Guard) to Government Employees. Same evaluator just a different signature at the bottom of his/her paycheck.

26

[QUOTE=Sukker;50560]I requested further clarification on this by my last evaluator and was informed that they are transiting the 3rd Party Contractor (i.e. Security Assistance Corp., Contractor to United States Coast Guard) to Government Employees. Same evaluator just a different signature at the bottom of his/her paycheck.[/QUOTE]

Greeeaaaattttt.

27

When I sent my application to REC New Orleans they sent me an email stating that I had not paid the fees yet. I informed them i had and emailed them copies of the pay.gov receipts. They then informed me that in the interest of speeding things up I would need to pay again because it may take a while to get the other payment problems straightened out. So, I paid them a second $145 got my license. I then started the task of trying to get refunded for my first payment. I have been stopping by the REC on my way home everytime and still can’t get a straight answer. The REC says it is something the NMC will take care of NMC says it is the REC’s responsibility. The NMC told me to check the status of my application on their website, I then asked the lady for an application #. She said there was a number but there was no way she could get it. AWESOME. I have finally decided to leave it alone. I will never use the pay.gov website again

28

i am still waiting for a refund of 95 dollars,it has been over 6 months,i paid 95 dollars instead of 100,according to the rec there was no way i could just pay the 5 dollars. she suggested i pay the 100 and get a refund on the 95 dollars,she was honest and said it would be awhile,i do not blame the rec,they tried, even gave me a number to call,i gave up on it,easier to lose the 95 dollars then continue making phone calls,

29

Sounds like a crappier deal than I got a while ago. I paid too much, can’t remember how I came up with the number but it seemed right to me, upgrades renewal and stuff. Any way i went out for a couple of months and came back to find a letter telling me they cannot proceed, along with my un-cashed check. and I have to send the correct amount. I had 5 days to expiry of my license but pulled it off. That was when CG was running the show before NMC, and it was Miami REC. I was lucky.

30

I have quit bothering with it already. I have a few years before I have to renew again so I figure I will just enjoy the time

31

Got a letter denying 12 hour days, even after guys on my vessel have been upgrading all the way up until the end of last year based on 12 hour days. Furthermore, NMC took away my sea time that had been approved for my QMEDs years ago. I am now a QMED with 654 days in the engine room with 516 days as a QMED, even though you need 180 days to become a QMED in the first place!

I would only need 5 more weeks at sea to test for my thirds license, now I need 14 more 28 day rotations. Meanwhile everyone around me has upgraded and is far ahead of me career-wise, while I am stuck paying for all of the training I did, and hundreds of hours of wasted time studying for those parts of the test that don’t pertain to my current vessel.

The whole 12 hour day thing is a mess, anyway. The purpose of 8 hour days was so that people couldn’t count overtime and work constantly to upgrade faster. It wasn’t created to stop people who actually work 12 hour days from getting their due.

NMC is a disaster, and it will take an act of congress to fix it. I’m not even sure if a class action suit is feasible, even if what they are doing in many cases is HIGHLY questionable under US law.

32

You vessel needs to be approved for the 2 watch system to get 12 hour days,if it is not approved you only get 8 hours a day no matter if you work 12,do not know about the qmed time,I think it has to be 360 8 hour days now not 180,look into the CFR’s and you will find your answer on seatime there,

33

Mr 100 ton,

Yes, that is the NMC’s interpretation of the rules. In reality, the laws and regulations do not differentiate between the definition of a day (or working day) and a watch, nor do they say that a 3 watch system is equal to 8 hour days.As I said before, to understand the law, you have to understand why it was created, which in regards to the definition of a day was to remove overtime from becoming sea time so that people wouldn’t try to work 14 or 15 hours a day in order to upgrade faster. It wasn’t meant to deny those who actually work 12 hour days as part of company rules/policy from getting the sea time that they deserve. Look it up, you will see.

Besides, why would you give one mariner day and a half, and the guy who worked right beside him that same day, only one day? The NMC is trampling all over the rights of the mariners, and using circular logic to do so. Research the laws, they do not say what the NMC claims them to. All I’m saying is do your own research. We’re all getting hosed, most likely, as someone said before, so that the special interests (schools) can make as much money as possible.

34

[U][I][B].As I said before, to understand the law, you have to understand why it was created, which in regards to the definition of a day was to remove overtime from becoming sea time so that people wouldn’t try to work 14 or 15 hours a day in order to upgrade faster. It wasn’t meant to deny those who actually work 12 hour days as part of company rules/policy from getting the sea time that they deserve. Look it up, you will see. [/B][/I][/U]

were do you get this stuff,were can you read WHY it was created,who told you this,LOOK IT UP WERE???

[U][I][B]
In reality, the laws and regulations do not differentiate between the definition of a day (or working day) and a watch, nor do they say that a 3 watch system is equal to 8 hour days[/B][/I][/U]

you better read the CFR’s again,why can you NOT become a unlimited master on an OSV,because of the 2 watch system thats why,read the CFR’s, they do state the day

read here

46 CFR 10.107

35

quote from another thread

Yesterday 05:48 PM #13 cappy208
Top Contributer

The 12 hour versus 8 hours a day (and how it is credited towards your applicable seatime) has undergone ALOT of scrutiny since January 1st. by the NMC. They are aware now that just because a sea service letter says 12 hour days, does NOT automatically mean they will accept your 1.5 days for a day calculation.

The vessel you serve on MUST be allowed to have a two watch system, AND it must actually USE a two watch system.

The reason for this change in attitude by the USCG is that most companies with a 3 watch system require the employees to work 12 hours, in other words, 8 hours of watch, and 4 more of deck utility, or maintenance. This extra 4 hours is NOT creditable to use towards ‘sea time’ for a license. They got ‘wise’ to the abuse of this improper abuse of seatime.

However if you DO have legitimate 12 hours a day watchstanding, on a vessel which IS allowed to stand 12 hour watches, you can submit a company letter saying so.

Then the problem is when you get an incompetent, overzealous evaluator who throws the whole application out because they don’t like one part of your sea service letter. Then you are left guessing what the problem is with your application, since the ‘canned’ explanations aren’t clear about what they really want, or what they are rejecting about your service.

Recapping, just because you are standing 12 hour watches, does NOT mean they will accept it. You may have to prove the vessel you were on is specifically allowed to run with 2 watches!

36

[QUOTE=Mr 100-ton;51405][U][I][B].As I said before, to understand the law, you have to understand why it was created, which in regards to the definition of a day was to remove overtime from becoming sea time so that people wouldn’t try to work 14 or 15 hours a day in order to upgrade faster. It wasn’t meant to deny those who actually work 12 hour days as part of company rules/policy from getting the sea time that they deserve. Look it up, you will see. [/B][/I][/U]

were do you get this stuff,were can you read WHY it was created,who told you this,LOOK IT UP WERE??? [/QUOTE]

This is not NMC. It’s coming from the policy division in CG HQ based on a strict interpretation of the U.S. Code, the CFR, anbd the regulatory intent. There is further clarification ion the Marine Safety Manual (Vol. III, Chapter 2, Section G (page 2-9)). It states [emphasis added]:

<DIR>G. [U]Time-And-One-Half Sea Service Credit. [/U]The time-and-one-half provision was put in the regulations to take into account the additional experience mariners obtain when they stand watches on a six-on, six-off watch schedule. Time-and-one-half credit will not be given for overtime nor for other work days that do not involve six-on, six-off watchstanding even if the work days are more than eight hours long. The six-on, six-off watch schedule should be proven to the satisfaction of the OCMI or their representative before the time and a half credit is applied. The following sources express this intent.

</DIR>

<DIR><DIR>1. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (for the current licensing system), FR 35926, August 8, 1983, stated, “Many comments expressed concern about obtaining additional credit for 12 hour days in the case of people that work six on/six off watches. A statement has been added to a new definition section in the proposed regulations whereby any persons standing watches on any vessels upon which the six on/six off watch schedule may be used, will be given credit for 1.5 times each 12 hour day of service in that capacity.”

[LEFT]2. House Report No. 96-1075 on Public Law 96-378 [H.R. 5164], which created our current system of Able Seaman ratings, states on page 27, “The eight-hour provision is primarily intended to assure that those mariners who work a two-watch system (that is, six hours on duty and six hours off duty for a total of twelve hours a day) will receive a day and a half of credit for each twelve-hour day worked.” [/LEFT]

[LEFT]3. Some inland vessels not subject to the 2 or 3 watch system have in place a 12 hour watch rotation. If the REC can verify that such a schedule is practiced and legal, day and a half credit may be granted. [/LEFT]

</DIR></DIR>

37

Mr. 100 ton,

No need to get angry about it. I was stating that you should actually read the CFRs and laws, not the intent of the law, which I did see somewhere, but cannot verify, but makes perfect sense as far as the stipulation that overtime not be included.

I’ve honestly gone through almost every page of the Title 46 CFRs and US Shipping laws through the government’s ECFR website. I’m telling you to read it carefully, the definitions of day and a watch are different, and in no place in the laws does it say that watches and working day are the same. In fact
§ 15.705 Watches (a) state that this is NOT the case;
[B][I]The performance of maintenance or work necessary to the vessel’s safe operation on a daily basis does not in itself constitute the establishment of a watch.[/I][/B]

Furthermore the definition of day verbatim:
[I]Day means, for the purpose of complying with the service requirements of this subchapter, eight hours of [B]watchstanding or day-working [/B]not to include overtime. [B]On vessels where a 12-hour working day is authorized and practiced, each work day may be creditable as one and one-half days of service. [emphasis added][/B][/I]

Now you get into the question of what is authorized and practiced, and what may or may not be. In this regard the Coast Guard can allow 12 hour working days, but still have a 3 watch system. This is and has been authorized by the Coast Guard and there is mounds of precedent throughout the industry, including close to 10 years of precedent on my ship alone.

Then, in regards to my case, you get selective application of new rules and policies, giving some 8 hour days and others 12 hour days while they stood the exact same watch or working day at the exact same date in history.

Perhaps you don’t agree with my plain english assessment of the laws, but can you deny that the case of the above paragraph is wholly and totally wrong? I would be fine with receiving 12 hour days until the date of the new iron fisted policy change, but to retroactively remove my sea time while turning a blind eye to others that have reaped the benefits just months before me is immoral, and perhaps, unlawful.

38

Not angry,personally I would appeal the decision,I have lost 180 sea days from when NMC took over,when they showed me the CFR I had to agree with them,in my case it did not matter much as had made up the time,

39

Aye, and I think that is the reason that this has not been challenged more whole-heartedly. For most mariners, it is just easier to get the rest of your sea time than deal with the NMC, when in reality by the time you’re done dealing with them you’d pretty much have the remaining sea time that you would need anyway. For myself, I’m looking at the difference of 2 years, so I imagine I will use every resource necessary.

40

[QUOTE=deven;51421]Mr. 100 ton,

… Now you get into the question of what is authorized and practiced, and what may or may not be. In this regard the Coast Guard can allow 12 hour working days, but still have a 3 watch system. This is and has been authorized by the Coast Guard and there is mounds of precedent throughout the industry, including close to 10 years of precedent on my ship alone…[/QUOTE]

Setting aside the question of whether “10 years of precedent” of not following clear written policy is not itself “policy”, the published policy is the Marine Safety Manual, and it has been in place for at least 10 years. The interpreatation of the ambiguous portions in the CFR is supported by traditional means of legal interpretation, e.g. the agency’s stated intent in the preamble to the rulemaking, and the intent of Congress when adopting the enabling legislation. The MSM clearly cites the Federal Register discussion of the Coast Guard’s intent, and the intent of Congress.