I don’t really understand the deck union vs engine union argument, and those who think it would never work. AMO seems to make it work alright, right?
The MEBA vs MMP hostility is a detriment to both parties. I hope it is brought to an end soon by the leadership of both.
I do agree that all mariners would benefit under a more consolidated and harmonious union structure.
SIU seems to be pretty successful having the majority stake in blue water unlicensed.
You dont actually think about or read what you post before you let it fly do you?..
One union isn’t going to happen for a myriad of reasons but the biggest one being money.
Blockquote THE M in STEM is Math not management, the E - engineering.
Managers sit at desks. IMHO, Deckies are managers doing menial jobs with high responsibility and a little ship handling.
Its funny that the rig managers I know are all engineers… who would have thought. Why does the Valaris Rig Manager pipeline require someone to work in all aspects of the operation and be familiar with the roles (from roustabout on up)? Surely some business degree from Wharton could do the job better? So why do the individuals in question need to be engineers?
Blockquote Please show me one Manager or Boss who works with his hands and is paid less than the the guy getting his hands dirty… and please not UNDERCOVER BOSS.
You do realize as fields become more technical it is in fact very common for workers to out earn their managers? Or do you think the early Data Science salaries were just a coincidence? The senior software engineers at Google outearn most of the management. How about any University? The Deans are rarely the highest paid staff members.
Just take a break from the internet, relax.
Stewards don’t belong in an officers union.
Why do the top shipping companies fill vacancies without any problem whatsoever?
I thought there was a shortage? hmmmm…
I don’t understand it either as it works on MEBA top to bottom ships too. When there’s one union you are negotiating a contract as one. All contract set wages for 3m/ 3AE, 2m/ 2AE, c/m/ 1AE are together. The CE and Captain are close with Captain slightly ahead always. Granted some weeks the engine guys make more, other weeks the deck guys pull more. It’s never going to be perfectly fair. But at least the base wage and OT are identical for most ranks.
I can see how resentment on MMP - MEBA crewed ships would arise.
The MMP Seacor ships deck officers seeing the disparity in base wages and OT probably creates resentment towards the MEBA engine department.
Top to bottom contacts of either MEBA or MMP fail to give the other union a seat at the negotiating table. The union with the contract then assumes that the other union will fill the billets via pass-thru. It’s gone on with both union’s contacts like Keystone, SLNC….etc.
How many engineers are MMP?
How many MEBA mates are left? 20ish?
Just leads too further animosity in the race to the bottom.
Not sure on exact numbers. There might be 20ish MMP deepsea engineers as they only have 3 ships for MMP engineers.
With 20ships (32 if you count the ROS ships with several that go FOS through the year) MEBA definitely has more deepsea mates than 20. The Pride of America has 18 permanent deck officers alone.
Why the hell would MEBA give MMP a seat at the table for a contract negotiation that is the MEBA deck contract and only occasionally has MMP relief mates?
The pass through is only uses infrequently and as a last resort. It is and will be used less frequently with the MMP going forward now that the MEBA has a more advantageous agreement with the AMO and due to disagreements regarding the Express vessel MEBA-MMP passthrough. (Which is set to expire in 2025)
MMP should fix its own contracts first before trying to ride on MEBA deck contracts. MMP mates want to work on MEBA ships but no MEBA engineers want to work on the crap SLNC contract ships.
This quarreling between unions, whether MMP vs MEBA vs AMO has not helped combat the wage stagnation of the last 20+ years. It has likely lead to much of it.
Wage stagnation is the primary cause of the “mariner shortage”, labor crisis…etc, whatever you want to call it.
Mr. Norton (OSG) has conveniently avoided this term and subject, being properly roasted for such.
Going to sea is not worth it anymore.
Especially for Senior Officers. Increased regulatory requirements, training, certification, responsibility, workload….etc. Unfortunately much of SQMS/SMS/QMS is nothing but a feel-good way of the office (and legal) to absolve themselves from any issue. It tends to present an enormous paperwork burden and responsibility for shipboard personnel.
The pay does not equate to the workload or responsibility. That’s why no one wants these jobs.
AMO, MEBA & MMP, especially the union bosses, are emotionally locked into a destructive multigenerational Hatfields vs. the McCoys hatred loop (and most union members don’t even know how or why they descended in a race to the bottom 50 years ago). Today, this is really silly and costing mariners far too much money.
The only practical obstacle to having one union with better wages for its members is figuring out who is going to be the new leadership, and who is going to get pushed out with a big golden parachute. Paying for the golden parachutes, as distasteful as it may be, is an easy problem to solve.
In addition to one union, there should be one standard industry wide master contract that sets a good healthy level of minimum mariner compensation (probably whatever the best contract is now , plus 25%). If employers want to compete for top talent senior officers by offering top money, give them room to do so.
I do not know the history of the longshoremen’s unions, but I imagine that once upon a time every port had its own union, and there were different contracts with different employers. Now it’s one West Coast union and one East Coast union with one coast wide master contract on each coast. There is no competition between unions or a race to the bottom. The longshoremen are making super good money as a result.
It’s obvious that the race to the bottom among competing unions is not getting mariners what they deserve.
I believe the issue, at it’s core, lies with the retirement and pension funding.
How do you merge a union like MEBA with many hundreds of millions in pension funding with AMO which has none? or the MMP which has a pathetic pension fund?
It must be a fiscal and legal nightmare. Especially they are engaged with current contracts with contribution obligations.
Has anyone been following Sam Norton’s posts and comments on LinkedIn? He was quite active until about a week ago.
Not in my public comments, nor in the contents of the Tradewinds article referred to by Mr. Konrad’s is there anything to indicate that visa recipients would receive compensation less than that which a current US seafarer receives. Closing the door to possible solutions to declining participation in the maritime labor pool is not responsible. A recent survey of SIU seafarers on board OSG tankers revealed that nearly 50% of the crew were born in a country other than the USA! Immigrants already play a large role in manning our domestic ships. Why shouldn’t we be proactive and find the best candidates by choice rather than passively accepting whoever may have immigrated under other circumstances? The history of immigration into the US is one where those already here resent and try and prevent the next wave to arrive. But the fact is that we are all immigrants at one time or another. The desire of highly motivated people to find a home and a good career in the US is a tremendous advantage open to policy makers wanting to get the best and the brightest. To refuse to consider that tool as a bridge to building a stronger US maritime industry is a mistake.
Essentially: “US Mariners will not accept this suppressed wage, but immigrants will!”
Unfortunately, he was likely the first and most vocal to say what most US shipowners and management would like to say. I would image he is getting much kudos behind the scenes.
I certainly don’t know how to merge the pensions, but I’m sure that pension experts know how to do it.
Companies buy other companies and pensions get merged all the time. There are ways to do it.
Maybe something like this:
Let’s just say the new merged union is going to be called “Maritime Officers Guild” (MOG).
If MEBA has the best pension stick with that pension for the new union, MOG
If AMO has no pension; that’s simple. Former AMO members will be treated like any new member and start paying into the pension.
More complicated for MMP, but the net present values of the MEBA and MMP pensions can be calculated by pension finance experts. Former MMP members near retirement might get whatever the MMP pension would have been (a reduced portion of the MEBA pension). Former MMP members with many years to retirement might have to make catch up contributions to buy into the full share MEBA pension.
In any event, merging pensions is probably widely perceived by members to be a very difficult problem, but in reality there are pension finance experts that know how to merger pensions in fair and equitable way.
Don’t talk yourselves out of one union with much higher wages because of pension merger issues. That’s not a real obstacle.
Spot on here^
People acting like it’s impossible have no clue what the real world of business goes through to make these transitions seamless. There is literally an entire industry dedicated to making just that happen. The pensions have nothing to do with merging… it’s just what they might feed you to make you think otherwise.
A better idea would be to have separate pensions between deck and engine, and any AMO engineers would just start at year zero since they didnt have a pension
MEBA has been paying wage garnishments into their pension for over the past decade and wouldnt agree to have any piggybacking into their plan that they’ve been taking reduced wages to support
Ok then any meba member keeps their terms, any mmp member keeps theres, and all AMO and new applicants begin a new pool that in enough years will become the standard.
There are a million ways that they could make it work but the point is…there is a solution.
So does anyone have some examples of unions or company work forces, some with pensions and some without, getting merged into a single union or work force with everyone on the same retirement system AND it not being a 401(k)?
After that maybe we can talk about outstanding liabilities and some other fun stuff.
Obviously, the pension must be worked out so that no one with a strong pension that has made higher contributions ends up subsidizing anyone coming in from a weaker pension, or no pension.
The net present value of each individual member’s contributions and prorata share of each existing union’s pension plan can be calculated. Some combination of buy-ins, extra contributions, or prorated retirement benefits can be used to merge the pensions. There are many fair and equitable ways to get everyone onboard and rowing in the same direction with the new union.
In the new master contract negotiation with shipowners, an extra pension contribution for former MMP members to catch them up to the MEBA pension level of the new union could be part of the contract.
The goal should be for everyone to have an even better pension than MEBA has now, all of it paid for by vessel owners.
Thats not possible, MEBA doesnt have a better pension than MEBA had just what 10 years ago. So the notion of them not only expanding the size of the union itself but also increasing the pension goes firmly beyond “unlikely”.
I’ve got to run to a Christmas Party. Anyone free to explain the concept of “deferred compensation” using short sentences and shorter words?
Put money away now tax free and get it out later when you’re at a lower tax bracket (hopefully).