IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THE READER:

Before you begin reading, please keep in mind that "SIU Wages Vs. SUP Wages: A Dangerous Difference" is a work in progress--it's fluid, it's ever-changing.

Unless--or should I say until?--I'm murdered for writing this, I'll make changes to it daily, even hourly: spelling, mathematical, grammatical, historical, language, et cetera. Meaning, if you read it today, then come back to it a day or two from now, there ought to be plenty more insights to explore.

To encourage folks not normally interested the maritime industry to continue reading, I'll do my best to include personal accounts whenever possible. After all, if I can't grab your attention and hang onto it, what good will come of this?

By following this blog, what you're doing, really, is experiencing what it's like to read an expose while it's written in near real time. When appropriate, I intend to shoot it off to policy-makers, maritime Capital interests, maritime Labor interests, news agencies, federal law enforcement agencies--anyone and everyone--not for personal profit or public recognition, although both, I'm sure, will be widely disputed anyway, but to help forge a new relationship between maritime Capital and Labor interests here in America--one that, I hope, shall be advantageous to both parties in this increasingly fierce global economy.

Oh, and if I stop writing unexpectedly, chances are the bad guys got the drop on me.
_____________________________________________________________________
CAPITAL INTERESTS USE THE MAFIA TO UNDERMINE ORGANIZED LABOR
--NOAM CHOMSKY

"If you look into the history of the CIA, which means the US White House, its secret wars, clandestine warfare, the trail of drug production [and union-busting] follows. It started in France after the Second World War when the United States reconstituted the traditional social order, to rehabilitate Fascist collaborators, wipe out the Resistance and destroy unions.

The first thing US Capital interests did post WWII was reconstitute the Mafia, as strikebreakers. And the Mafia wasn't in the union-busting business for fun, you know--they were on the brink of extinction, which we'll get to in a moment--but they still wanted a payoff:

Essentially, US Capital interests made money and weapons available to the Mafia, which had been all but eradicated by the Fascists...[in exchange for undermining the French Organized Labor Movement, which was turning out to be too democratic for US Capital interests' liking, because if the French Organized Labor Movement succeeded, US workers just back from the War would have a model to look at and duplicate].

Again, the Fascists--Hitler and Mussolini--tended to run a pretty tight ship during their rise to power and throughout the war; they didn't like competition, so the first group they went after during their rise to power was the Mafia [because the Mafia posed a threat to their power, at least initially. Exterminate the threat--namely, armed dissenters, people who just might assassinate you, like the Mafia--and now you have all the power].

The whole operation was a huge success. The mafia was provided a new lease on life, with new orders, dictated by powerful US Capital Interests: Take control of unions here in America, render them powerless at the negotiation table, loot the pension funds all you like, we don't care, and we'll allow you to survive. But be forewarned: If you think for a moment about negotiating fairly on behalf of the Members, we'll use taxpayer funded agencies to finish you off--this time forever. The choice is yours.

Ever since decision time the mafia has been subservient to Capital's demands here in America--they know they're at the bottom of today's established social Order, and nobody of importance respects them in the least.
_____________________________________________________________________
LABOR MANAGEMENT IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

Ask Dr. Jaime Veiga of the Seafarers' International Research Center, and he'll say, "The seafaring profession has always involved a different way of life. It is a diverse activity in which absence from family and friends and the inability to take part in activities available to other people [on the beach] has to be accepted.

"At different periods in history, the profession has been regarded in different ways. In ancient times seafaring meant involvement in commercial activities; at the time of the discoveries seafarers were at forefront of progress...

"Seafaring has always been a dangerous activity and many seafarers have lost their lives while making their contribution to the world economy. Consequently, it should be an occupation where safety is of paramount importance. But, as Richard Cahill, an historian of shipping, wrote in 1990: 'Safety has never ranked very high in the scale of priorities of those who own ships'."

Dr. Veiga would be among the first to recognize that this was particularly true during the 18th and 19th centuries, until the middle of the latter, when shipowners and their agents were not liable to criminal penalties for safety failure at sea. The law imposed no criminal liability on the ship-owner who failed to manage, refit or equip his vessel properly, or who sent it to sea overloaded or under-manned. Of course, things have changed now, he's said, implying that the industry had improved.

Some maritime Capital interests with bloodlines dating back to the British East India Company and the infamous Triangle Trade, disagree, suggesting that, contrary to popular believe, the industry, at present and as a whole, is back-peddling, and that it requires more than a few domestic changes to keep from tearing itself apart.

Now let's examine what sailors sailing with Sailors' Union of the Pacific earn, what non-union sailors earn, and what sailors sailing with Seafarer's International Union earn, explore work conditions as influenced by Labor Agreements, and you'll see why everyone on the coast, from property-owners in the Hamptons to ice cream vendors in Key West, as well as anyone who would ever like to take a swim in the ocean again, as opposed to a boiling, churning vat of crude oil that stretches from horizon to horizon and beyond, ought to take a hard look at what's taking place in the maritime industry today, and consider how one tanker driven by one inexperienced and/or incompetent sailor could bring every costal economy--correction: the entire American economy--to its knees tomorrow.

Since SIU Labor Agreements vary from Great Lakes to Deep Sea, company to company, even ship to ship within a given company, even salty SIU sailors have difficulties understanding exactly how they're paid--as they debark one ship, return to the Hiring Hall, "throw in" for another job aboard another ship, and start working for yet another Company under an entirely new Labor Agreement--but sailors who are new to the industry are especially vulnerable to exploitation.

Like many, I lay blame squarely on the SIU Leadership: Mike Sacco, Auggie Tellez, Nick Marrone, and the remainder of the "Titled Twelve."

____________________________________________________________________
MIKE SACCO

Excellent Question: Why would 80,000 merchant mariners vote a Steward with next to no documented sea-time into office?

The answer is simple: they didn't (initially).

And from that point forward all you hear are nasty allegations of election tampering: from stuffing ballot boxes, at the very least, to hand-picked Bosns requiring crewmembers to fill out ballots in pencil, to patrolmen and port agents telling SIU Members who they are going to vote for, like it or not, while they're trying to vote, to illegitimate disqualifications of opponents running for office, and the list grinds on.

Whether Mike Sacco remembers it or not, I've spoken with him on a number of occasions, back in the early stages of my investigation, and therefore under very different circumstances than I would expect today. If you've been introduced, then you already know he's reasonably intelligent, someone who approaches life with a street-smart wit, a disarming sense of humor, enough charm to soothe even the fiercest of critics, at least temporarily. But what Mike's like on a personal level is irrelevant to what we're examining here.

As for Auggie Tellez and Nick Marrone, they're the same: nice guys, as you'd expect from people in their positions. They're both intelligent, especially Nick, who's known to be the brains of the operation, they're both engaging during conversation, and under different circumstances I might go on to compliment more of their personal traits and characteristics--but like I implied earlier, this isn't personal, it's professional.

Besides, when it comes to assessing the root cause of problems afflicting the maritime industry, it's not my opinions that count, but rather the SIU Memberships' opinions that count--how they view the SIU Leadership, and how their interaction affects the working relationship between maritime Capital and Labor here in America.
_____________________________________________________________________
MEET THE "TITLED TWELVE"

Michael Sacco, President

Augustin "Augie" Tellez, Executive Vice President

David W. Heindel, Secretary-Treasurer

George Tricker, Vice President Contracts

Dean Corgey, Vice President Gulf Coast

Kermett Mangram, Vice President Government Services

Tom Orzechowski, Vice President Lakes and Inland Waters

Nicholas J. Marrone, Vice President West Coast

Joseph T. Soresi, Vice President Atlantic Coast

John Spadaro, National Director, UIW

René Lioeanjie, Vice President at Large

Charles Stewart, Vice President at Large
_____________________________________________________________________
Indoctrination into Modern-day Slavery

An estimated 80% of SIU sailors who graduate from the year-long SIU Apprentice Program in Piney Point, MD, abandon the maritime industry after only two years.

I call them "turn-key" sailors: sailors who approach the industry optimistic and ready to work until they reach the fleet, contribute to SIU's billion dollar pension fund for a year or two, and then--once they realize how the system works, once they realize how many hours they toil per month and see how little they earn in return for their hard labor, once they crunch the numbers and realize there's an excellent chance they'll never retire, and finally, inevitably, conclude that they're being exploited both by the ship management companies they're working for and the SIU Leadership, they abandon the industry, disgusted, disillusioned, never to return. Less than ideal working conditions combined with slave wages is a great way to ensure a sustained, rapid-fire turnover of personnel who abandon the industry before they master their trade, politically and professionally.

NOTE: if I recall correctly, you're required to sail for five years before you're vested with SIU, while SUP sailors, on the other hand, are vested from day one; SIU-contracted companies contribute $7.00 per day toward the pension, while SUP-contracted companies deposit $25.00 per day into a 401K that you control; multiply that over the course of a forty-five year career.

Apprentices, like myself, since I, too, subjected myself to SIU's Apprenticeship Program voluntarily, learned to appreciate the joys of rabid exploitation from the moment they vanished from society, staggered deep into wilds of rural Maryland, and ran up against a sizable compound by any measure surrounded by fences topped with barbed wire. Since the barbed wire was installed pre 9-11, one had to wonder, was it installed to keep locals out, or to keep students in?

Welcome to the Paul Hall School of Maritime Training.

The Paul Hall School of Maritime Training was--and, of course, still is--an impressive facility for anyone allowed to pass through the security check-point and wind down the picturesque drive lined by sizable anchors, anchor chains, the Paul Drozak building surrounded by Norfolk pines off to the right, storage facilities off to the left, a sizable pond, The Hotel, as it's called, directly ahead, demanding immediate attention.

Inside the small buildings to your right were the compound's classrooms and simulators. For visitors, those who'd spent little if any time aboard a ship before, simulators were fun and exciting--definitely a main feature along the political parade route. They were also fantastically expensive, something like a hundred grand plus for what amounted to life-sized video games, one in which you stood in the middle of a mock Bridge surrounded by video screens displaying moving images of life aboard a ship transiting the Houston Ship Channel (or where ever). You saw ships on reciprocal courses booming toward you, you saw pretty lights, heard fog horns in surround sound, mashed lighted buttons, maybe spun the Helmsman's wheel--it was all very engaging.

But then, you weren't a visiting politician, but an Apprentice, so get ready to experience the School from the polar-opposite perspective.

As you continued on, you'd see the Library off to your right, across the pond, and the Chesapeake Bay beyond The Hotel, where Nancy Lynn Manni's body washed ashore. You'd see a crane, some trucks, fire-fighting equipment. It all looked impressive, very hands-on, and if you were there to investigate labor problems in the industry, like I was, you couldn't help but wonder: Who pays for all this, ship management companies that require an educated labor force, or the SIU's Membership?--because any way you look at it, this is one enormous burden, especially when compared to the smaller, faster, more stream-lined maritime training schools opening around the country.

While standing there grappling with my surroundings for the first time, I remember thinking: it wouldn't take a creative imagination to make lots of the Membership's money disappear in a place like this. Within the week I had heard about Mike Sacco's infamous "Ghost Room Scheme," which cost the SIU Membership millions: first, when he stole the money, then a second time when he'd given himself a $600,000 raise to pay a portion of it back.

Over the following week, I'd realize that for most, not all, of my classmates, the decision to sacrifice the next year bouncing between a prison-like learning environment, often called Piney Point, Prison Point, Piney Penitentiary, and an ever-changing variation thereof, and working in the world's most remote and unforgiving environment, one that will happily kill you, was less an act of courage than a last ditch effort to join the middle-class.

With little or no money to attend college, they had some options in life, but few of those offered much hope for a future. Many could either join the military--which, when alternative options exist, is an especially noble decision, in my opinion--remain in juvenile incarceration, like my friend Dave, or they could take their chances at sea.

When your options in life are that grim, you're ready to learn a lesson in voluntary servitude, but not before you're stripped of your wallet, and therefore your means of escape, your identity, and you're shoved face first into a dorm room setting where you'll spend your first week adjusting to jailhouse policy: might makes right.

Navy boot camp, as I recall, never promised to be much fun, but you didn't complain about it while you were there, mostly because you didn't have time to complain about it: you zipped through it in eight weeks (now it's only six), during which time drill instructors crammed a relatively huge amount of information into your head. Then you went on to A-school, which, for me, was in avoid-at-all-costs Millington, TN, and for the next four weeks even more instructors crammed even more information into your head. Point being, you were hustled off to the fleet to do your job so fast that the whole indoctrination process seemed little more than a blur.

All that was zippy about the SIU Apprenticeship Program were the uniforms you were required to purchase at top dollar. As I recall, each apprentice spent upwards of $600 for three sets of dungarees, two sets of khakis, hats, belts, ill-fitting boondockers, etc, none of which you'd be required to wear in the fleet. When you multiplied $600 by the number of Apprentices entering the Program each month--usually between 30 and 40, many of whom were scheduled to quit, though they didn't know it yet--you soon realized: Wow, somebody's raking in more than $18,000 per month selling Apprentices Dickies--which were made where? China?--and for how much, thirty or forty cents per uniform? (We'll explore the incentives to smuggle anything and everything out of China later.)

It was described as a quasi-military program. To this day, I don't pretend to know why. As a merchant mariner, you were, are, a civilian, free to come and go as you please, relatively speaking, at least once you reached the fleet, so there was no legitimate reason for hazing--which, despite the fact that it was illegal, was a common practice, largely because students, not trained professionals equal to drill instructors, were required to discipline themselves.

Nor was there any functional reason for shaving Apprentices' heads, screaming in their faces, humiliating them, making them march in formation, restricting them to the compound for three consecutive months plus change, much less requiring they spend upwards of $600 on uniforms--except, perhaps, to provide a false sense of military-like discipline for Washington outsiders who occasionally visited the School, hoping, no doubt, to exchange a photo opportunity for campaign contributions--and of course the SIU Leadership would pony us around in the more professional-looking khakis.

It would never be a question of if you could endure the abuse, because anyone could endure it. It was a question of necessity. It was also a question of function.

Throughout the course of your training, the process of "weeding out the weak" would be implemented, and it would undermine the Membership's position exceedingly well, from the Leadership's perspective.

The process of systematically undermining the Membership requires explanation. But before I provide one, I should begin by saying that attending a Big Ten and/or an Ivy League university doesn't necessarily mean someone who’s formally educated is more intelligent than, say, another guy who's straight out of the ghetto, and who's never attended college, more likely than not because he couldn't afford it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, I might have grown up comfortable, for lack of a better word. Most would say way too comfortable. But between college, the navy, and my everyday life, I've come to appreciate all types of people, from those who were fantastically wealthy ten generations before they were born, who've attended the world's finest universities, to guys straight out of East St. Louis who grew up Third World poor right here in America, guys who never purchased a book in their lives, much less contemplated how to finance MIT's out-of-state tuition costs, yet some of whom had the mental capacity to strip down a jet engine, locate the problem, correct it, and put it all back together in time to make Flight Quarters the next morning.

Okay, so we've established that there's not always a direct correlation between college degrees and intelligence, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't benefit the SIU Membership to increase the number of guys running around holding degrees, either. They're out there, too, no question about it. From time to time, I've encountered SIU personnel who were far more educated than, say, the vessels' captains.

What's difficult for some people to understand is why, generally, these Unlicensed personnel tend to conceal their educational backgrounds rather than shed light upon them. For the most part, it has everything to do with the relationship between Licensed and Unlicensed personnel (officers and non-officers). When an Able-bodied seaman holds a degree from, say, Florida State, whereas the officer shouting orders graduated from a maritime academy, friction between personnel can and often does arise. Unlicensed personnel holding degrees know this. To reduce that friction, they simply keep their educational backgrounds tucked under their hats.

Of course, when you're an apprentice, when you're struggling to survive your present environment, it's difficult to see beyond graduation to the fleet, much less how the egotistical jerk holding a degree standing next to you might evolve into one of your strongest allies five years down the road.

Society places an emphasis on degrees for good reason. For example, if you ever need a malignant tumor sliced from your noodle, chances are you're going to ask the doctor performing the surgery if he (or she) graduated from a reputable Med. School well before you're twitching on the operating table, unconscious, and for obvious reasons: you don't want to jerk awake midway through surgery and see him reading directions on how to perform brain surgery from Martha Stewart's Thanksgiving cookbook.

Okay, so I'd studied at the University of Illinois (and elsewhere), survived military conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti, plus I had very specific reasons for enrolling in the Apprenticeship Program, so my willingness to tolerate jailhouse policy was higher than most of my classmates' to begin with.

Others--that is to say, the minority, the handful of my classmates who'd also been to college--were immediately recognized by the majority as, let's say, different. So as the "weeding out the weak" process commenced, more often than not, those who were formally educated were typically singled out—-they were targeted, harassed, sometimes even assaulted--so before we even got to First Phase, before the real exploitation began, these guys were already packing their bags and hitting the road.

And I understand why they wanted to leave, too. Let's face the facts: right or wrong, a college degree opens lots of doors. It always has. It always will. So when you've got one, your tolerance for eighteen year old tough guys screaming in your face is reduced virtually nothing.

That's not to say they couldn't handle the situation, of course. They simply figured: "Why should I put up with this twerp when I can land an office job anywhere, hire a whiplash smart paralegal to make life easy, and make twice the money I could ever hope to make in the maritime industry? To hell with my dreams of sailing the seven seas aboard a commercial vessel--I'll buy a yacht. But first I gotta ditch this nightmare."

Generally speaking, as these guys made their decisions, and they retrieved their wallets from the Commandant, there was already a credit card or two inside, and they'd max the first one out, happily, because that's what was necessary to arrange for a taxi to rescue them from the wilderness and drive them two hours back to BWI, which was where they'd max out their second credit card, happily, because that’s what was necessary to arrange a flight home on a moment’s notice.

SIU's Leadership wasn't indifferent about seeing someone who's formally educated quit the program during those first few days. Quite the contrary. Regardless of what they might say publicly, if asked, now, they wanted those guys to leave. Subtly, they probably even encouraged their departures. Why? The SIU Leadership has played this game long enough to know formally educated people are prone to stirring up what they consider trouble in the industry. At some point, they'll pull rank, so to speak, they'll whip out that degree, that clout, and they'll demand the Leadership improves work conditions, as they're supposed to. To SIU's Leadership, that's trouble.

While someone of equal intelligence who couldn't afford college tuition might ask the tough questions, might read the fine print, might study and understand statistics, might understand the numbers game, might dabble in the political arena, and, if provoked, might mobilize the masses to engage the SIU Leadership--someone who's holding a degree has everything to gain by engaging SIU's Leadership head-on, and probably will, sooner or later, especially after they've developed a kinship with their union brothers--and that likelihood doesn't jive well with the way SIU's Leadership prefers to conduct business.

If I'm wrong to say that weeding out those who were formally educated was deliberate, why hadn't the Leadership adjusted policy to encourage more formally educated people to complete the Program long before our arrival? For example, forcing students to discipline students doesn't fly with those who are formally educated--and everyone knows that, it's common knowledge. Had the Titled Twelve simply eliminated that policy, it would have alleviated most tensions within the apprentice student body, and more people who were formally educated would ignore those they couldn't get along with, and they'd complete the Program. For proof, simply refer to the "Up-graders" side of the Hotel.

Up-graders, as they were called, were sailors out of the fleet. In the fleet, they were Bosuns, they were Able-bodied seamen, Q-meds, Pumpmen, Electricians, whatever, but while at Piney Point attending classes, they were students: Nobody could pull rank. Wouldn't you know it, but as students, for the most part, they attended classes, they get along, maybe they even celebrated graduation with a little beer and pizza with their union brothers.

Military academies, like King's Point, for example, implement hierarchies, and while they generally work, there, one has to keep in mind that students' experience-levels vary, and those students are enrolled for a prolonged period of time: four years. This, of course, means the student body is composed of freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors, with sea-time--that is to say, legitimate experience that students can validate amongst one another--interwoven into their perspectives of order. Also, King's Point, like the military, has trained professionals equal to Drill Instructors in place, apart from the student body, to maintain order from a perspective totally removed from the student body.

There were no legitimate differences in experience and seniority between one apprentice and another--so again I say implementing a hierarchal structure within the apprentice student body disrupted rather than encouraged unity, in this particular case.

This is not to say that those apprentices holding degrees were opposed to discipline--they had all the discipline the industry would ever require of them. What they didn't understand was why an eighteen year old tyrant straight out of juvenile detention had been slapped with a pin that read "Class Bosun" or "Chief Bosun" was granted authority to enforce policies he didn't likely understand himself. If apprentices were regarded as equal, those who couldn't get along would have ignored one another and gone about the business of learning their trade.

And so, to an outsider, establishing a hierarchy within the apprentice student body might have appeared to encourage stability, when in practice it pitted student against student, and therefore encouraged an anarchy even the SIU Leadership could barely control. Of course, that the School was "out of sight, out of mind," from society's perspective, which undoubtedly helped foster the Leadership's illusion of calm stability, that anarchy was contained, and therefore controlled, at least from the Leadership's perspective.

Within those first few days, we'd come to realize the Day Commandant and the Night Commandant hadn’t received training directly related to disciplinary matters at the School--and I have no reason to suspect policy has changed. Generally, they did their best, but their direct supervision was limited to accommodate their personal lives. If you say: "Well, apprentices are adults, and therefore they shouldn't need direct supervision," try to imagine the chaos we'd live in if America abolished the Judicial Branch of the government, and did away with policemen, state and federal judges--those sorts of people. America is loaded with adults, we're everywhere, but it would still reduce itself to smoldering rubble overnight if we eliminated certain checks and balances designed to maintain social order.

And so apprentices confined to their "side" of The Hotel were for the most part required to fend for themselves for extended periods of time, especially at night and on weekends, so violence and general mayhem more often than not superseded student-enforced regulatory policies.

Because it was a hassle to jump the barbed-wire fence surrounding the compound whenever we needed booze to stave off prolonged boredom and spirit-crushing depression, which was "strictly prohibited," we'd round up whatever cash hadn't been confiscated days earlier and send someone to track down Security: when two people are paid just over minimum wage to pacify a hundred or more apprentices suffering from a worst case scenario of cabin fever, policy is irrelevant, and a few extra bucks earned on the side meant the difference between mild hunger and dirt-eating starvation. Their willingness to risk their jobs was probably the deciding factor explaining why the apprentice side of The Hotel didn't host violence eruptions more often.

At some point during those first few days, I recall being summoned to observe something disturbing in the "Chief Bosn's" private suite on the third floor. It was pitch black, so I couldn't see anyone--not that it mattered, I didn't know anyone yet anyhow--but I could hear one of the "females" moaning and grunting on the floor, and there was a line of frighteningly quite young men waiting their turn. When someone asked if I had a condom, I said no, and returned to my lumpy bed, disturbed, nauseated, certain there would be repercussions if I spoke out. Needless to say, I'd soon come to realize that such acts were far from uncommon around the compound. Human beings are sexual creatures by nature, but under such conditions as those I'm doing my best to describe, consensual sex turns into something altogether different. It's primal, hostility is involved, self-loathing, anger, resentment, it can turn very ugly very fast, so when the lights are off, and the elements mentioned are institutionalized, there's little difference between the School and the Fleet (the "White Ships" in Hawaii--cruise ships).

This was only a rumor, but for what it's worth, I'd heard that the SIU Leadership dragged the Apprenticeship Program out to nine months for the same reason McDonald’s replaces their employees after ninety days whenever possible: after ninety days, according to Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation," the McDonald's corporation demands the US Government hand over $2,400 for each unskilled laborer they train, thereby reducing their labor costs to near-nothing at taxpayer expense. The incentive, as you probably already realize, is to fire an employee after ninety days, only to find a new one to train, and to keep that cycle--that taxpayer money--rolling their way indefinitely. Meanwhile, Ray Kroc's widow earns an estimated 7 million dollars per day. Yeah--she's obviously living hand-to-mouth like her employees.

As the rumor went, the SIU Leadership was wise to the same scheme, which sounded somewhat plausible, and the reason I say plausible was because the entire Apprenticeship program was broken into blocks of ninety days.

The only reason I doubt that SIU collected federal funding was because, once an entity collects federal funds, they're subject to federal scrutiny--like nasty audits, for example--and the Titled Twelve were known to minimize governmental oversight--and to exclude it completely when it came to financial holdings. Unfortunately, right now, with Government and maritime Capital interests directly intertwined (John Snow), I can hardly fault their concerns.
_____________________________________________________________________
FIRST PHASE

--During First Phase, as it was called, you were required to waste your first three months at Piney Point learning next to nothing that couldn't be taught in three weeks.

When taken as a whole, Seafarers International Union had mustered some of the finest maritime training instructors in the world--so it was neither the equipment nor the instructors carving this abyss between Capital and Labor in the maritime industry.

Nothing would make me happier than to name names, to compliment instructors who deserve recognition for their extraordinary efforts, but, since they do not play in the political arena, it's also my responsibility as an investigator who happened to attend their classes to express my gratitude subtly in order to protect their fundamental rights to privacy.

What I soon came to realize during First Phase, was that, when approached with discretion, most secretaries, both at the School and SIU's headquarters in Camp Springs, could and would provide a wealth of inside political information, as would many of the instructors mentioned, since over the years they had all fought their battles with the SIU Leadership.

While this will likely sound redundant to professional journalists and federal investigators, personally, I'd feel more comfortable if I said it anyway before we move on: the people who can help you the most probably will, especially if they know you're there to help them in return, and feel that there's a high probability your efforts will succeed, but because they have their own interests to look after between investigation and action, and rural Maryland offers so few job opportunities, it's important that you employ a liberal dose of discretion during your investigations. Otherwise, you might inadvertently hurt the very people you're trying to help. Approaching them after work and far from it would probably be a wise decision.

As reported in "St. Mary's Today" on July 2, 1996, page 26--a newspaper critical of the SIU Leadership I encourage investigators to examine closely:

"...According to extensive interviews with retired and active Seafarers and employees of the (then Lundeberg) School of Seamanship, the Union is now applying the worst methods of Big Business to their own employees, including contracting to a favored bidder while laying off 30 instructors at the School two weeks ago.

The laid-off employees were told to apply to the new company with the contract for employing educational instruction at the training center. All but three were hired, say sources, but those three have families and homes and mortgages and now they have no jobs. Their former co-workers have diminished benefits and lost all of their seniority. The former employees of the [School] also have to join another union run by Seafarers boss Mike Sacco. This new union they are working for is called United Industrial Workers..."

The author goes on to state: "...In 1991, the FBI offered to put this writer into the federal witness protection program after they learned of a murder plot being hatched by Union officials. The preparations for murder took place after this writer and the FBI had learned of three alleged murders which reportedly had taken place at the School..."
_____________________________________________________________________

There might be a lot of reasons why someone wouldn't want to attend the Paul Hall School of Seamanship, but even now I don't think fear should be one of them. You might not like it, for whatever reason, but I'd say there's a 99.9999% chance you'll survive the fiasco. Point being, it's time to move on...

In my opinion, Fire-fighting, First Aid and Lifeboat--all of your '95 STCW classes--were the only classes we were required to take during First Phase worth our time; now you can take these classes at private maritime schools across the country at minimal cost, whereas with SIU you'll fund the enormous cost of the School year in and year out via involuntary paycheck contributions whether you spend what little time you can afford to get off a ship attending classes at the School or not.

Union Education, on the other hand, taught next to nothing regarding the history of the organized labor movement in the maritime industry, but instead focused on creating unrealistic expectations for apprentices new to the industry: "You're going to make more money than you've ever made in your lives! $6,000 per month, easy!" slick-talking Steve bellowed at my class repeatedly. But then, when you consider that the average age of my classmates was somewhere between 18 and 23, and their employment history alternated between McDonald's, Burger King, and the military, well, okay, yeah, sure, Steve wasn't exactly lying. He simply wasn't telling anyone that they could earn comparable money at Olive Garden if they were willing to work 360 hours per month, a fairly typical work-load for SIU sailors.

Interestingly enough, it was Steve (omitted) who haphazardly informed apprentices of SIU Leadership's ultimate goal: to eliminate SIU's "competition," as he put it. Meaning, of course, alternative maritime unions. How? By reducing labor costs at the Membership's expense. Surprised that he was willing to discuss such an anti-Labor agenda publicly, I asked, "By how much?" at which time he realized his mistake and dodged the question the only way a man of his caliber knows how: by ignoring it.

Historically, Old School maritime Capital interests and the Department of Defense have recognized the importance of supporting a limited variety of maritime Labor organizations. Quite simply, policy-makers identified and recognized the dangers of concentrating too much power in too few hands--they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. This is a policy ship management companies relatively new to the market ought to consider, implement, and encourage, perhaps by diversifying fleets for a predetermined time limit while it's still possible, then signing long-term Labor Agreements with one Labor organization or the another based on cost-performance analysis.

ARA American Radio Association -MMP
GLLO Great Lakes Licensed Officers
IBU Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific
ILA International Longshoremen's Association
IND Independent Employees Association
MEBA 1 Licensed Division, District No. 1-MEBA
MFU Marine Firemen's Union
MMP Master, Mates & Pilots
MSO Marine Staff Officers
NMU Unlicensed Division, District No. 1-MEBA
ROU Radio Officers' Union--(MEBA District No. 3)
SIU Seafarers Internatinal Union, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters District
SMU Seafarers Maritime Union
SUP Sailors' Union of the Pacific
UMD United Marine Division, Local 333, ILA
USW United Steel Workers
AMO American Maritime Officers

Not surprisingly, Capital interests, government interests and even Labor interests--meaning Members, not necessarily Leaders--have benefited from moderately free forms of Labor Management.

From Capital's perspective, if, for whatever reason, Seafarer's International Union, for example, was unwilling to cooperate and negotiate fairly, or if they were unable to provide a quality workforce consistently--I'll say that again: consistently--then at present Capital interests still have the option of allowing present Labor Agreements to expire with the intention of tapping alternative, more suitable and cost effective labor organizations within the American labor market: Sailors Union of the Pacific and/or Marine Firemen Oilers and Watertenders, for example, or vice-versa.

From the Government's perspective, it's more of the same.

From Labor's perspective, when there's moderate competition between labor organizations, it's in one labor organization's own interest to negotiate competitive Labor Agreements on behalf of their Membership to avoid losing quality Members to alternative unions that offer better protection and/or higher pay.

At present SIU's Membership is able to obtain Labor Agreements from friends affiliated with Sailors Union of the Pacific and Marine Firemen Oilers and Watertenders Union in order to make those comparisons with regards to language and pay structure within their own Labor Agreements. George Orwell once said, essentially: "The poor don't know they're poor until they have someone to compare themselves to," and according to what Steve was implying, that comparison is precisely what SIU's Leadership intends to eliminate.

And therefore, as it stands, if through democratic means the SIU's Membership cannot replace the present SIU Leadership with a Leadership they feel approaches the negotiation process with their interests in mind, then, ironically, it's in the SIU Membership's interest to do whatever's necessary to keep SUP and MFOW both afloat and independent for the time-being, even if that effort includes withholding SPAD contributions from SIU to deliver to SUP and MFOW, to keep that pressure on, to keep that comparison possible, because if the SIU Leadership's "competition" is successfully eliminated, if they overpower and monopolize Labor interests here, Canada, and Puerto Rico, then I'm firmly convinced the SIU Membership, the SUP Membership, the MFOW Membership and, indirectly, Capital interests, will suffer all the more for it.

Why do I include Capital interests? We'll get to that in a moment.
_____________________________________________________________________
SECOND PHASE

--As an apprentice, you'll waste your next three months aboard a ship, where you'll be worked like a slave for one month in each of the three departments, Deck, Engine, and Steward's department, during which time you won't be protected by any of SIU's Labor Agreements, inadequate as they may be.

For years the SIU Membership has demanded the SIU Leadership provide apprentices protection against labor abuse aboard their "training ships," but the SIU Leadership and the Companies they work for already have a suitable arrangement to accommodate their needs: Fuck the apprentices and the Membership's call for apprentice-protections.

And so, year in and year out, hundreds of SIU apprentices are sent out into the fleet to fend for themselves with no legal protection whatsoever, except maybe verbal assurances that the SIU Boatswains aboard will look after their interests. (Yeah. Right. If he's "permanent," he'll likely be the crimp who exploits you first.)

I was paid, if I recall correctly, $24.00 dollars per day in exchange for an eight hour workday, and $8.00 per hour everyday for "mandatory overtime," which made sense: from the Company's perspective, I was so incredibly cheap to have around that making overtime mandatory was a logical decision. Hooray for the Company! Bad for me.

Some Captains don't exploit the apprentices as much as the SIU Leadership permits them to. The first Captain I worked for, for example, while aboard my training ship, was not a "Company bitch," as sailors often refer to blindly pro-Company captains--the kind who convince themselves they're Management (they're not; they're labor): he worked me like a dog, he expected me to perform every task the Able-bodied seaman aboard performed, which was a completely unrealistic expectation at the time, but at least he did me one favor: he based my pay upon a 40 hour work week.

Classmates of mine, however, were not so fortunate. They worked for Captains who were prepared to reduce their apprentices' already miniscule paychecks even further.

To do this, instead of basing apprentices' pay on a forty-hour workweek, these "Masters," as this sort demand to be called, opted for the more brutal of their two options--the fifty-six hour work week--because apprentices are not entitled to Vacation Pay (we'll ravage Vacation Pay shortly).

This eliminates sixteen hours of payable overtime per weekend from the payroll for every apprentice they have aboard (often times two apprentices per ship are furnished for exploitation). The apprentices are going to work those sixteen hours--I guarantee it. They're just not going to be paid overtime for those hours. They'll only be paid their daily base wage--again, $24.00 per eight hour workday--and four hours overtime after that, assuming they work the full twelve hour day.

Over the course of the three months apprentices are required to remain aboard before they're permitted to suffer through an additional three months at Piney Point, this decision alone reduces their pay by roughly 60 percent (one can safely assume these "Masters" require the apprentices to work twelve hours per day, every single day, for a minimum of three months straight), explaining why some apprentices earn $9,000 aboard their training ships, while the majority earn only $3,000.

If you're thinking, "That's illegal, that's less than minimum wage!" remember that ships operate under admiralty law--they're not bound by domestic labor laws--so those who operate them are not required to pay sailors anything at all, if you can believe that. Who works for free? Lots of people will, actually: the entire Third World. Why? Because on a ship you're typically provided some food--fish heads and rice, that's about it, if you're aboard a typical "flag of convenience," like Liberia, Panama, the Bahamas, Cyprus, Monrovia, even Mongolia. You're also provided some shelter. But here's the biggest incentive of all to work for free: the opportunity to jump ship in America!
_____________________________________________________________________
Cabotage Laws and The Jones Act

One role of the cabotage laws in the United States is to ensure that all companies operating in the transportation field compete under the same set of rules.

No U.S. industry could compete with foreign corporations in the domestic trades under the situation that would face the maritime industry if the Jones Act and other maritime cabotage laws were repealed.

Foreign-flag ships can operate outside much of U.S. law governing American ships, even when they are inside U.S. territory and using U.S. ports, and can avoid much of the economic impact of those U.S. laws.

This gives them an insurmountable competitive advantage over American ships subject to the full scope (and cost) of those laws.

No company in the United States, in any industry, could compete today in a market distorted by the advantages that foreign maritime companies would have, such as --

Freedom from U.S. federal and state corporate taxes.

Owners and builders of U.S.-flag vessels pay about $300 million annually in federal taxes, and $55 million annually in state taxes. On the other hand, the foreign-ship cruise industry, like Carnival Cruise Lines, Norwegian Cruise lines, and Royal Carribean, for example, operating out of U.S. ports earn an estimated 14 billion dollars per year from American consumers, yet pays no taxes on that income.

Freedom from personal taxes.

Foreign workers brought into our maritime trades would pay no federal or state income taxes, but American employees on Jones Act ships and related industries annually pay $1.1 billion in federal income taxes and $272 million in state taxes.

No minimum wage requirements.

No matter how reasonable the wage scale in a U.S. industry might be, it could not be competitive with wages of workers from Indonesia or Bangladesh if they were allowed to work here in the United States at those rates.

Freedom from the National Labor Relations Act, federal hours-of-service regulations, child-labor laws, Coast Guard safety regulations, U.S. Civil Rights laws, our national laws relating to health insurance, pension and other benefits or any other state or federal legal requirements, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Receiving benefits of subsidies and other policies of their home governments -- such as limited or no national tax liability, government-provided health and retirement benefits, etc.; in fact, many foreign-flag vessels are actually owned by foreign governments or government-controlled corporations.

U.S. TRANSPORTATION MARKET -- A "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD"

When U.S. policy-makers advocate competition, they mean fair competition -- a level playing field where all companies compete under similar constraints and with similar responsibilities to their workers, their community, and to the country as a whole.

It would be impossible to achieve a level playing field between domestic and foreign waterborne carriers without subjecting foreign carriers to all the same rules, regulations and tax treatment that domestic carriers must meet.

Under the cabotage laws, foreign companies operating businesses in the United States are free to transport their own goods on their own ships -- provided they employ American workers to do so and use ships built in the United States to U.S. standards.
_____________________________________________________________________
MAERSK: ENSLAVING AMERICANS AT AMERICA'S EXPENSE

From Tradewinds (2005):

Denmark's AP Moeller-Maersk is leading a
behind-the-scenes drive to legalize "riding gangs" of
foreign workers on US-flag vessels, first in
HRR 889, and now in S-1280.
The move has drawn fire from the US Coast Guard (USCG)
and most labour unions. Seafarers International Union
and American Maritime Officers have yet
to oppose the effort publicly.

If Maersk gets their way, and they're able to marginalize the Jones Act, which is before the Senate now, they'll soon replace every non-Watchstanding American sailor with foreign nationals they've plucked from whatever labor market is cheapest--an unethical business practice which, by the way, SIU's Leadership has not opposed publicly, unlike every other American maritime Union. From what I gather from friends presently at Piney Point, the SIU Leadership hasn't even bothered to inform the SIU Membership what Maersk is up to via the "Seafarers Log" (Sounds to me like A.) somebody received a brown bag full of "hush money.", or B.) somebody's considering retirement, as they ought to be, and therefore couldn't care less what happens to the union after they're gone, or C.) Both A and B are correct. You decide.).

Let's not forget that while American-taxpayers are forced to watch their public school system collapse due to lack of federal funding--their tax dollars--they're still required to pay the labor costs for twenty-four Danish-owned vessels (Maersk and P&O Nedlloyd) via MARAD's Military Security Program.

The following article is from the Friday, December 17, 2004 edition of Tradewinds:

"MARAD," announces the author, "has made it known who the winners of $1.7 billion in subsidies are.

"Tradewinds has learned that US authorities have told ship operators this week who is likely to get $1.73 billion in vessel operating subsidies.

"Established players dominate the renewed Maritime Security Program (MSP). Only two new companies are joining the exclusive subsidy club, New Orleans-based Intermarine and Long Island's Liberty Maritime, with a single subsidized ship each.

"Of money provisionally allocated so far, some 80% will go to non-US shipowners.

"The subsidies run for ten years under the MSP and are meant to equalize US operating costs with those foreign competition so as to keep a fleet of commercial ships in international trade under the US flag.

"Over 10 years of subsidies are worth $29.8 million per ship. For the biggest participant, Maersk Lines Ltd, this equals well over a half-a-billion dollars.

NOTE: Remember that only 24 sailors crew one ship at any one time, so labor costs were minimal to begin with. Now, from Maersk's perspective, they're free. Of course free is a matter of perspective: The American taxpayer is required to foot labor costs for this Danish-owned company.

"US sources tell Tradewinds that the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) has told operators that all 47 ship slots currently in the MSP will be "grandfathered," or allowed to remain with the owners that hold them.

"In addition, eight dry-cargo vessels will be brought into the program.

"For the most part, MARAD is offering operator a good deal less than they were asking for, as a matter of arithmetical necessity. Some operators have indicated that they would turn down fewer than some minimum number of subsidy slots as insufficient to make US-flag operations worthwhile.

"Reports pieced together from Various sources indicate that MARAD is offering the following line-up: The operators keeping their current slots are Danish-owned Maersk Lines Ltd with 19 ships, [American President Lines] (Don't let the name fool you: it's not American-owned) with nine, P&O Nedlloyd (Maersk-owned) with five, and Overseas Shipholding Group (OSG) with one.

"Several participants will be increasing their participation. CP Ships (Lykes Line) will gain subsidy slots for two ships, making a total of five. International Shipholding Group (Central Gulf) will go from seven to eight. American Roll-On Roll-Off owned by Sweden's Wallenius and Norway's Wilhemsen, will double its present three slots to six.

"Newcomers Liberty Maritime and Intermarine will be granted one new slot each.

"US citizen owners account for only 11 of the 55 slots whose winners have been leaked.

"In addition, many of the US-owned participants are relying on foreign-partners for tonnage. Liberty Maritime is thought to be partnering Japan's Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) and Tradewinds recently reported that International Shipholding is flagging in two P&O Nedlloyd containerships for charter back to the Dutch-owned company.

"No mention is being made of how the funds appropriated for five new building products tankers will be used. The US Congress has only appropriated construction subsidies enabling the building of the equivalent of one-and-a-half tankers.

"Predictably absent from the list is Charlotte, North Carolina-based United States Ship Management (USSM), which is locked in a court battle with Maersk over rights to operate 19 ships under the MSP."
_____________________________________________________________________
IMAGINARY SAVINGS

Maritime Capital fears capital flight when investors hear Management discussing wage adjustments--and this is a real possibility. But as we've seen time and time again, if it happens, it's more often than not short-lived. As soon as Labor costs re-stabilize, investment capital returns to pre wage-adjustment levels, and everyone lets out a sigh of relief. And we're talking moderate wage adjustments, people, not suiciding the Company.

In the final analysis, we're talking about modifying a system, removing redundant parts so that it functions properly. Overhauling this system is neither necessary nor advised.

More and more investment firms like Hodges Capital Management are taking what might be considered a progressive look at exactly how wages are structured. If a CEO's pay is out of sync with his (or her) work force, they hold back, fearing the next Enron implosion. To date, their investment philosophy seems to be serving them well, especially in the last three years:

Performance through 9-30-05:

1 Year
+35.87%
3 Year *
+38.98%

5 Year *
+9.63%

10 Year *
+12.26%

Inception **
+12.94%

Performance through 10-31-05:

1 Year
+29.52%
3 Year *
+36.74%

5 Year *
+10.13%

10 Year *
+12.58%

Inception **
+12.60%

Time and time again, as indicated in countless academic studies, short-sighted Mangers, especially in the retail industry, implement two specific labor management policies that cost Capital interests ridiculous sums of money: underpaying employees through union demolition (or undermining their interests via less conspicuous means).

Despite maritime Capital interests' most aggressive efforts to control lost man-hours, deliberately reduced productivity, frivolous lawsuits, delayed turn-around time during port visits, et cetera, they're losing that battle.

One reason they're losing that battle is because ship management companies charged with managing Capitals’ interests are allegedly signing substandard Labor Agreements everyone at the contract negotiations table know won’t work--and it's not difficult to imagine how and why this takes place: ship management companies' loyalties rest with themselves first, Capital's interests second, and so if front-end cash persuades them to sign substandard Labor Agreements with corrupt labor leaders who know they'll see their payoff on the back-end--well, that's likely to happen.

When taken at face value, signing substandard Labor Agreements is easy to justify, considering that ship management companies are able to return to their employers and say, “Look, boss, we reduced labor costs by applying this mechanism here, so you’ll save this many hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for the duration of these Agreements,” while those who grasp human nature know those savings will manifest elsewhere as costs: increased travel expenses, for example, reduced productivity, overtime paid but not necessarily worked, job-related injuries, lawsuits, damaged/lost equipment, and the list marches on.

Those who win: parasitic ship management personnel on the take, and corrupt labor leaders (I'm not cynical enough to believe that every single ship management company on the market is selling out maritime Capital interests, nor do I believe the entire SIU Leadership is corrupt--just the key players). Those who lose: sailors, in terms of pay and working conditions, investors and Capital interests--except that Capital interests and investors stand to lose the most: with 14-26 sailors crewing oil and chemical tankers, labor's cheap, but mishaps like spills and fires, for example, are fantastically expensive, especially when stock value takes a significant hit. Increasingly more common, when there are sailing time delays, these delays--these hidden costs--cost maritime Capital interests roughly $10,000 per hour for each tug made fast to the vessel, whatever port facility operators charge--and that's just the beginning of it.

(LARGE PORTION REMOVED FOR EDITTING AND RE-WRITING PURPOSES)

Since most ships carry a million dollar (or more) deductible on their insurance policies, unless I'm looking at one specific Company's financial records, there's limited data available to point to and say, "Look, if Capital eliminates current labor management mechanisms from the equation, you'll raise sailors' wages here, and if you allow them to work under Labor Agreements they perceive as fair, they’ll be content, they'll follow orders, they'll stick around, so you can expect to save X-amount of dollars annually, which will materialize here, here and here," so I'm incredibly frustrated at the moment, because those who will likely seek to crush reform efforts will describe my observations as unsubstantiated, baseless claims.

(continue working here: Go back and do a better job nailing specific examples of how disgruntled/underpaid/retaliatory sailors working under substandard Labor Agreements cost Horizon more money in hidden costs than they saved on labor costs. Once that's done, compare and contrast what you observed while aboard the President Grant, explain why morale was higher, how this increased productivity and virtually eliminated waste, so on and so forth).

THIRD PHASE

--then you're going to waste yet another three months back at School complaining about how much television you've watched since you're still not permitted to stroll off campus to admire all the pretty trailer parks rural Maryland has to offer whenever you're not screwing off in class.
_____________________________________________________________________
INDOCTRINATION INTO MODERN SLAVERY COMPLETE

--"Forth Phase," as they call it, is the exception: you must agree to be worked like a slave for just over minimum wage (shore side) for four months before the union will finance your airfare back to the School and provide accommodations while you "upgrade," from DEU to Oiler, if you decide to go into the Engine Department, from Ordinary Seaman to Able-bodied seaman, if you decide to go into the Deck Department, or from Steward's Assistant to Chief Cook, if you decide to go into the Steward's Department.

What's amazing is that 80% of SIU's sailors are willing to write-off a full year as a total loss within two years of completing the Program.

If that statistic alone doesn't tell you there something's going seriously wrong in the maritime industry, then you might as well stop reading now.
_____________________________________________________________________
Spending Big Money to Work

Sailors spend huge sums of money just getting a job, even more so now than they did twenty years ago, especially if they sail off the West Coast. Reason being, wages are falling, the cost of living is rising, so nowadays few SIU sailors can afford to live in, say, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle (three cities SIU maintains Hiring Halls).

According to California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: "The cost of living has gone up exponentially, but wages have been frozen, creating an underclass of working poor."

Fifteen and twenty years ago, sailors--more specifically, SUP sailors--could afford to buy a decent home in those cities. Not anymore. Not when a small home in the "worst" part of Compton can easily run upwards of $300,000. So, instead of residing in the United States, many sailors turn to the Philippines, Brazil and Venezuela are increasingly popular, as is Costa Rica--all of which are beautiful countries, but let's not entertain illusions: that more and more sailors are living abroad is not entirely by choice, but rather by necessity.

So, on top of the bills sailors have at home--mortgages, children, maybe a car or two, like everyone else--today's sailor also has to budget how much it will cost to fly from home to the whichever Hiring Hall they hope to ship out of. That's an expensive commute to work, because now, on top of paying their mortgages, their phones, electricity, water, whatever bills at home you can imagine, you also have to factor in the cost of a hotel room, tons of fast food, transportation, while "playing the hall," and this can easily go on for months, because here's the real problem: there might not be any jobs available in the Hiring Hall.

It's not unheard of for sailors to spend months living in a San Francisco flop house, surviving on a sandwich per day, maybe a pack of cigarettes to kill the hunger, making their way to and from the Hiring Hall on foot, hoping today will be the day they secure a job. Nor is it unheard of for sailors to spend themselves so far down a hole they can't afford their hotel room anymore, much less a meal, and can't afford to get home, either, so now they're really stuck. The maritime is a feast or famine industry, and the feast isn't all it's cracked up to be.

It's not a cycle anyone working on the beach can understand without suffering through it once themselves, and I strongly encourage you not to. Whatever numbers the SIU Leadership spoon-feeds the young and easily persuaded apprentices are straight up...well, let's just say they're not entirely truthful.

To put this into a monetary perspective, in 2003 and 2004, I was more the exception than the rule, in that I actually maintained a home in the United States, near Oak Brook, Illinois, where more than one shipping company is headquartered (I maintained it--paid for it--but I only got to live there a few weeks per year). In 2003, I spent $15,229 above and beyond my bills at home to ship out with SIU, according to financial records. In 2004, that number jumped to $19,917, partly because I was scared shittless SIU port agents in Houston might force me to take another job aboard a "gray hull" carrying military cargo back to the Middle East, so I sneaked off to the West Coast, where I had heard more jobs aboard commercial container vessels were available (you can't imagine how ruthless and cunning some of these ship management companies can be until you're at their complete and absolute mercy en route to the Middle East, but I'll detail the misery and rage involved with my experience aboard the Cape Ducato another time).

If you were earning, say, $35-40,000 per year at your job, but spending $19,000 per year on the commute, how long would it take you to realize it's time to find another job? Not long, I imagine. A minute, maybe two? But, in a way, sailors are akin to gamblers, and they always hope the next ship pays just a little bit better than the last. Most of the time they lose.
_____________________________________________________________________

SIU Labor Agreements were standardized, a long time ago, but not anymore, and part of that reason is because, I believe, the SIU Leadership couldn't "brown bag" labor negotiations as easily if the numbers involved were universal throughout the SIU fleet.

NOTE: Michael McKay, the president of American Maritime Officers, and close affiliate of Mike Sacco, the president of Seafarers International Union, was recently indicted for labor racketeering, along with a long list of other charges, as was his brother, Robert McKay, AMO's treasurer, which surprised absolutely no one in the maritime industry. So, prior to the indictments, do you think Michael McKay and Mike Sacco might have compared notes? Ask the Members of either union what they think, and I imagine the answer will be a resounding yes.

The problem with "brown bagging" one Labor Agreement negotiation, especially if it's early in your political career, is that everyone you'll negotiate with from that point forward has power over you--because it goes without saying that real Power in the maritime industry gets together and discusses business at, let's say, Pinehurst Resort and Country Club?

(To answer your question, Mr. Sacco: Yes, I'm quite familiar with Pinehurst's wealthiest long-term guest. She's a fascinating lady. Very, shall we say, insightful, exceptionally illuminating, too, especially if you're a charming young man who's happy to sit and talk politics every once in awhile).

In other words, if you've ever sold out the Membership, even once, you've signed your pact with the devil already: you're expected--required--by Capital interests to sell them out again.

If you don't, or if your services are deemed no longer necessary, one way or another, you'll be shown the door.

Let's hope you don't slam it on your way out.
_____________________________________________________________________
THE WRONG WAY

If you were seated aboard a 747, and, just before take off, the flight attendant announced: "Less than 20% of our pilots have been flying more than two years," would you sit still? Me neither. I'd jump up and sprint toward the door along with everyone else, because when pilots are inexperienced and/or incompetent, 747s go down, and hundreds of people die--and I wouldn't want to die with them. Worse yet, when ships go down, as documented later in this blog, those hundreds of dead people rapidly turn into thousands. Or they slam a ship full of, say, Benzene into the rocks while navigating through the narrow inlet at Long Beach, for example, and now the entire West Coast realizes just how bad the Exxon-Valdez disaster really was--excuse me: IS--and millions are affected, as one tourist-based economy after another collapses.

The point is: It's in our nation's best interest to ensure sailors responsible for the safe navigation of ships carrying some of the most lethal toxins known to man in and out of American ports are paid enough to justify a life at sea--and to have a vacation once in awhile.

Here's how it works while aboard a ship that's sailing deep sea:

While aboard ship, sailors are required to work a minimum of eight hours per day, seven days per week, thirty days per month--and that's what accounts for their daily base wage. If you're an Able-bodied seaman, the person directly responsible for driving the ship, for eight hours of work, you're going to earn--with SIU--a staggering $70-80 per day. Wow. Amazing. Hooray. That breaks down to a whopping ten bucks an hour (and consider the responsibility!). God knows John Snow would have bankrupt CSX had he bumped an ABs hourly wage up to, say, $30 per hour, which is what a Union plumber in Chicago earns. That's sarcasm, by the way.

Okay, so we've got your Base Pay covered. At the same time, if you're aboard one of SIU's "best" ships, like the Horizon Reliance, you'll also earn what's known as Vacation Pay: 14/30. That means, for every 30 days you're aboard the ship, you'll earn an additional 14 days base pay toward your vacation. While that might SOUND good, remember that it's only about $40.00 per day, divided by eight hours, so it's nothing to cheer about (Twenty years ago NMU Members were earning 20/30, so things are getting better--for the companies, not the sailors, thanks to SIU Leadership's eagerness to undermine functioning maritime unions by signing whatever Labor Agreements ship management companies toss in front of them).

When confronted, SIU's Leadership will argue that SIU sailors and SUP sailors earn essentially the same base pay (an SUP Able-bodied seaman earns roughly $3,330 per month), because SUP sailors work a fifty-six hour work week, whereas SIU sailors work a forty hour work week, so therefore mandatory weekend overtime makes up the difference.

Don't you believe them! It's a trick!--a numbers game! See, the name idea is to keep sailors' base pay as low as possible--in SIU's case: roughly $2,200 per month for an AB blue sailing deep sea (SUP AB: roughly $3,100 per month). Since your vacation pay is based upon your base pay, that's why SIU's Leadership agrees to the forty hour work week. If SIU sailors stick with the industry long enough to realize they're losing hundreds of dollars per month in vacation pay, they raise hell about it. The problem is, for the Membership, anyway, the SIU Leadership's not listening.

To better explain how much of a difference this arrangement between the ship management companies and SIU's Leadership makes, allow me to illustrate: thanks to the Invisible Hand, I worked aboard the M/V Sealand Florida (Maersk) for six months straight. The pay, when compared to other SIU ships, was great, but by any other standards besides "flags of convenience," it was awful: $2,100 base, $14.83 overtime, 14/30 vacation, $7.00 per day pension. Because it was little more than Third World pay, sailors that had come and gone long before me had refused to work overtime, and therefore the ship was a disaster waiting to happen. Finally, it did. A bunker line had wasted away, and we had a major oil spill in one of the holds. Try wallowing around in 1,500 gallons of bunker C with a bucket and a shovel deep down in a hold for Third World Wages. Your most immediate concern is the poor bastard standing next to you gives up completely and lights up a cigarette. People tend not to work very fast for a Company they feel screwed them long before they checked aboard, so the clean up process--that immediate fear--stretched itself out to a full week.

After I was discharged, I returned to the Hiring Hall and filed for my vacation check. Three weeks later, the check finally arrived: roughly $5,000. Talk about an anti-climax to a long and miserable experience.

Soon thereafter I abandoned SIU and joined SUP, a legitimate, functioning union, and took a job aboard the M/V President Grant for three months the very first day I joined the union (half the time I worked aboard the M/V Sealand Florida).

The day I was discharged from that ship, I returned to the Union Hall--not Hiring Hall--filed for my vacation check, and that afternoon I had it in hand: $5,000. Big difference, eh? Huge, I'd say. With money like that, a guy could actually afford to take a vacation instead of scrambling back to the Hiring Hall to look for another job, one that wouldn't likely be there.

A reliable "inside" source informed me that ship management companies actually did pay 30/30 for vacation, and that SIU (all unions, actually) held onto that money until the sailors were discharged from the ship and filed for their vacation checks.

In other words, sailors were providing unions interest-free loans while they were aboard ships. If those monies were invested while that sailor was overseas, and they turned a profit, the sailors who had provided funding for that loan without their knowledge did not benefit.

After they were "discharged," they'd return to the Hiring Halls and file for their vacation checks. While SUP sailors can pick up their vacation checks the same day they're discharged, SIU sailors must wait two to three weeks before SIU releases half the money or less (these checks are disbursed by the union, not the Company). SIU keeps the other half or more to finance the compound in Piney Point, MD, the 3,000 acre spread Mike Sacco lived on at Membership expense, not to mention SIU's "corporate headquarters" in Camp Springs, MD--so only God, the Titled 12, their attorneys and accountants can ever hope to keep up with how Union monies are distributed.

Unions cost money to operate, there's no way around that. Shortly after I began taking a look at how SUP sailors compared to sailors throughout the industry, I realized that, for the most part, SUP's Membership was in favor of contributing a portion of their pay to help support the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. While there will always be people critical of their Leaders, generally speaking, SUP Members were for the most part convinced that their Leadership--Gunnar Lundeberg and Dave Connolly, Andy, and everyone in-between--was negotiating and upholding fair Labor Agreements on behalf of the Company and the Union.

Every single time I worked aboard an SUP-contracted ship, and we pulled into port, the Union's vice president--again, Dave Connolly, in San Francisco--was right there, waiting on the pier to see what needed to be done to keep the peace. Since everyone--Management, the Captain and Chief Mate, and of course the crew--knew he'd be there waiting when we docked, friction between the Company and the Union was kept at an absolute minimum. Everyone had a Labor Agreement in hand, so everyone played by the rules, and it worked. So if the Union required a portion of the SUP Member's Vacation checks to operate smoothly, few complained, and fewer still complained consistently.

However, when I was basically forced to contribute half my vacation check to help finance a union that, I believe, was deliberately mismanaged, I had a huge problem with that. Again, according to my "inside" source, a Port Engineer with MSC, for every dollar I saw in my regular paycheck, Seafarers International Union took a dollar for themselves BEFORE I received my paycheck, he alleged. Exact figures are hard to come by in the maritime industry--Companies won't provide them to sailors, and the Titled Twelve aren't exactly eager to do so, either--so I have yet to confirm his allegations were true, but I tend to believe him, and I'm still determined to find that documentation. If his allegations prove truthful, then quarterly union dues are the least of a sailors' concerns. They're almost a non-issue.

Moving on. Just getting your hands on a Labor Agreement while you were still back in one of SIU's Hiring Halls, contemplating whether or not you wanted to "throw in" for a job, was next to impossible, while I was with SIU. You almost had to threaten to call the Secretary of Labor's office before the port agent behind the counter would attempt to obtain a copy of the Labor Agreement with that particular Company from SIU Headquarters, and then you could expect to wait for hours before someone back at Headquarters faxed one out to you.

Why won't SIU's Leadership keep Labor Agreements in stock? Cost, they say? That's bologna. There's no legitimate reason for it. The Dispatcher with SUP--Andy--will provide you with a brand new Labor Agreement each and every time you "throw in" for a job while preparing your paperwork. There are literally stacks of Labor Agreements around the Union Hall--they're everywhere. So why won't SIU's Leadership provide Members with Labor Agreements to protect themselves?

Here's why: Because it's not required. As usual, they provided themselves with one of their far-too-common loopholes when the people they work for wrote the Labor Agreements. As stated in the Standard Freightship Agreement between Seafarers International Union and Contracted Companies, in Section 67 on page 22, it says:

"Section 67. Copies of Agreement to be furnished. Copies of this Agreement shall be furnished to the Master, Chief Engineer, Ship's Committee and all Unlicensed Personnel, WHEN AVAILABLE and requested."

Here's just one of a thousand better ways to write it: "...all Unlicensed Personnel."

Of course, that's written in the Labor Agreement sailors standing in the Hiring Hall contemplating whether or not to throw in for a job are trying to see. If Labor Agreements are not readily available, chances are the majority of the Membership will rarely have one at their immediate disposal.

And from what I gathered during my investigation, SIU's Leadership didn't want everyone aboard to have a copy of the Agreement to examine while filling out overtime sheets, just the key players, most of whom were "permanent" crewmembers, loyal to the Company and the Titled Twelve who put them there, not the crew: The Chief Steward, the Bos'n, and the Delegate aboard would have one, but just one each, so the delegate wasn't likely to lend you his copy when you needed it most. Besides, if you asked to see his copy, chances are you were about to "rock the boat," making his life difficult--since the Chief Mate and the Delegate stand the 0400-0800 and the 1600-2000 watch together, day in and day out, for months on end, the last thing he wants to do is solve overtime disputes between you and the guy he's caged up with.

This is yet another reason why investigators will find blatent inconsistencies in the distribution of overtime hours between people working in the same department: some people have a copy of the Agreement to point to, and they "write in" for overtime they deserve, while others--those who don't have a copy of the Agreement, those who are marginalized by their own Leaders--are left to weather their own storms.

SIU Labor Agreements are loaded with loop-holes, vague language, exceptions to the rule, so they're next to worthless to begin with, but at least they provide some guidlines. Without them, though, SIU Members are rendered completely defenseless by their own Leadership. So why won't SIU's Leadership help protect their Membership by providing them with Labor Agreements BEFORE they stagger out of the Hiring Halls and fly out to meet their ships?

Here's one theory--and it's only a theory: SIU's Leadership, the Titled Twelve, are crooked, crooked in a dangerous way, and therefore they have no real power at the negotiating table--that's why maritime Capital keeps law-enforcement agencies at bay (everyone knows SIU's Membership calls for investigations regularly). The Titled Twelve are there not to negotiate fairly on behalf of the Membership or to enforce Labor Agreements, but to "manage" (man-handle, if necessary, which I'll get to later) the SIU Membership, to incite fear and intimidation and keep unruly "union activists" in check while systematically reducing labor costs--that's their true function. If they ever attempted to negotiate fair Labor Agreements on behalf of the SIU Membership, ship management personnel--new money--would rise up and provide all the evidence the FBI and the Justice Department needed to lock up the Titled Twelve. But because the Titled Twelve have no such intention, they are permitted by ship management personnel, and therefore the Justice Department, to remain in power. Noam Chomsky spoke about this arrangement between "US interests" and the Mafia in his book "Understanding Power," which I've already quoted, word for word, earlier in this blog.

Before I return to the subject--wages and working conditions--allow me a moment to clarify my position: I no longer work in the maritime industry, so I have nothing to gain by "selling" SUP or "bashing" SIU's Leadership (not the Union Members). What I hope to accomplish with this blog is to help re-forge a relationship between maritime Capital and Labor--one that actually works, and I'm simply using SUP as a model for what actually works--and I want to pressure the SIU Leadership to make better managerial decisions on behalf of the people--the Members--who are counting on them to do so. After all, criminals or not, they're still in a position to help a lot of people--again, both Capital and Labor--but it seems to me they need a little nudge, shall we say, in the right direction.

Generally, I don't like to nudge anyone I believe is dangerous. I'd much rather cold-cock them, figuratively speaking, so let's get back to proving the SIU Leadership is either A.) crooked, B.) inept, or C.) both A and B...

Overtime pay, and when you're entitled to it, is a great way to prove that the SIU Leadership are the wrong people to negotiate fair Labor Agreements on behalf of the SIU Membership.

To cover all my bases, let's start with a small "mom and pop" shipping company operating on the Great Lakes called "American Steamship," which, when compared to a behemoth of a company, like Maersk, is miniscule--and yet they can still afford to pay their sailors a decent living wage.

American Steamship operates, I believe, thirteen or fourteen bulk carriers on the Great Lakes, each between six-hundred and a thousand feet long, but I'd have to double-check their website to be certain. Their ships carry iron ore pellets, gravel, sometimes a little corn, maybe some wheat, charcoal--products that are neither expensive nor potentially catastrophic for the environment. So they're not making fantastic amounts of money like, say, the oil industry.

I worked for American Steamship for four months last summer, during which time I realized there was high concentration of extremely competent "professional" American sailors working on the Great Lakes.

Generally speaking, because the wages on the Lakes are radically higher--$3448.93 per month base pay, $29.73 per hour overtime, compared to $2,200 per month base pay deep sea, and $14.83 overtime--the difference in quality between sailors who work consistently on the Lakes, and those who work consistently deep sea, is night and day. I mean, deep sea sailors who are lucky enough to land a "relief" job on the Lakes typically stand out like retards at a genius convention (Hmmm...maybe I was one of them! Ha ha ha!). You'd have to work amongst both groups for a prolonged period of time to fully appreciate my assessments.

That's not to say all deep sea sailors are morons, either. Some, and they know who they are, rank among the most professional sailors I've ever seen. If they're non-productive, as foreign maritime Capital interests often declare when trying to rationalize why Congress should abolish the Jones Act, they're non-productive because they're retaliating against forces determined to undermine their interests the only way they can: work stoppages and slowdowns. Nobody asks the Leadership's permission to toss expensive gear over the side of the ship when they're convinced the Leadership is a huge part of the problem.

If you spoke with the average Great Lakes sailor affiliated with SIU, you'd quickly realize this guy had options in life: He could have been a carpenter, or an electrician, perhaps an auto mechanic, or a skilled craftsman of some sort, but he chose to be a sailor. And we'd all better hope he's a good one, too.

U.S. water shortages are becoming critical. Flow in the Colorado River, which feeds the Las Vegas Valley, dropped by almost half between 2000 and 2005 due to successive droughts. Yet Canada has major water problems of its own.

The International Joint Commission has repeatedly warned about declining water quality in the Great Lakes due to toxic contamination, and water levels in the lakes have dropped to record lows.

"Although the Great Lakes contain about 20 per cent of the fresh water on the Earth's surface, only one per cent of this water is renewed each year," the commission noted in a recent report.

Between the ever-changing currents and the small vessel traffic, navigating a ship up the Houston Ship Channel is a challenging and often times frightening experience, but navigating a thousand foot ship through the narrow rivers connecting the Great Lakes--now that takes skill, competence, prolonged concentration, a steady mind, and I'm barely scratching the surface.

There are sharp twists and turns in the rivers, like driving along mountain roads, only those roads are flat, of course, except now they actually move. There are sub-surface peninsulas, pre-dawn fishing boats, shoals, rocks along the shoreline--which might be less than a hundred feet off your port and starboard bow at one point--and there are wind gusts, shifting water currents, not to mention unpredictable weather: dense fog, rains, heavy winds that can easily blow a ship off course, and plenty of ice during the winter. But during the summer, there are pleasure craft to avoid crushing--thousands of them--and they seem to dart out of nowhere.

Off the top of my head, I don't know exactly how many ships have hit the rocks and sunk on the Great Lakes, but I've heard the number before, and it was a staggering: hundreds. The Edmund Fitzgerald is, without question, the most famous. The point is, sailors navigating ships on the Great Lakes damn well better know what they're doing--they better know what they're getting into beforehand--because if they don't, if they hit the rocks, the whole world's going to know someone just fucked up in a huge way. Since American Steamship operates only on the Great Lakes, and can't slip below the horizon the same way a salt water vessel can, they know it's in their best interest--everyone's best interest--to hire only the most professional sailors available. To ensure professional sailors stick around, they offer a respectable wage.

NOTE: And yet, even on the Great Lakes, multi-national conglomerates, like Du Pont Chemical, ship their lethal cargoes on "flags of convenience," because, hey, if one of these ships hits the rocks and pollutes what is arguably America's most precious resource--the largest fresh water supply in the world--for the next thousand years, do you think they want to be held responsible? Hell no, they figure. And so Big Oil and Big Chemical side-steps responsibility by hiring unknown operators who are experts at evading responsibility: mega-rich American and German folk who own and operate "foreign-flagged" vessels no government in the world will be able to track down in the event of a disaster).

If you don't understand the hidden dangers of "flags of convenience" operating in American waters--anywhere, for that matter--then I strongly encourage you to read: "The Outlaw Sea" by William Langewiesche.
_____________________________________________________________________
Safe Crew Levels Questioned ("The Sea")

Commerical pressures, together with flag state flexibility, are leading to wide differences in the minimum number of crew required to operate ships of similar size and trades, the UK's Maritime Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has warned. It has illustrated its point with the case of a British-flagged 2,594gt ship which hit a buoy in Danish waters. Under UK regulations it needed a crew of seven, while a ship of similar size and engaged on similar trades was deemed by another European flag to need just five.

"Such inconsistencies raise questions about the effectiveness of the current methods of determining safe manning levels," the MAIB said.

Britain's Maritime and Coastguard Agency, meanwhile, is being urged to review its procedures for issuing safe manning certificates following inspection of a UK-flagged ship by the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF). The vessel, carrying timber between Scotland and Ireland, was found to have a crew of five--an Irish Master, one Ghanaian and three Russians--instead of seven required on voyages exceeding twenty-four hours.

The head of the UK officers' union, Numast, Mr. Brian Orrell, said more and more ships like this were turning up. "Our information is that the crews are mainly Russian or Ukrainian and are employed through manning agencies that require seafarers sign waivers not to speak with flag or state authorities or to the ITF."
_____________________________________________________________________
WHO'S DRIVING THE SHIP?

If you recall seeing photographs of a Wheelhouse setting aboard an American-flagged vessel on the cover of a magazine, the Bridge itself probably looked like it was filled with lots of high tech equipment--the kind that will mark a target the size of a milk carton two miles away. It goes without saying that there were lots of people in the photograph, too, and they all appeared attentive to their surroundings, clean and professional. Like, the Captain was probably in the window with a pair of binoculars wearing a white collared shirt and pretty gold bars, while the mate on watch was taking a bearing or scrutinizing the radar, and then there's the Wheelsman, of course, who always appears ready to maneuver the ship on a moment's notice so as to avoid catastrophe.

Photographs like that are deceitful propaganda, that's all. It's not even realistic propaganda--and everyone who works in the maritime industry knows it. The public, on the other hand, remains largely ignorant to shipboard life. They look at this propaganda and see all that high-tech looking equipment that's involved and figure the professionals operating commercial vessels couldn't possibly go wrong.

They're not mistaken, they're mislead.

Those who live on the coast ought to take great comfort in knowing that whenever they see an SIU-contracted ship--be it an oil tanker, chemical carrier, whatever--bombing along the coast at full ahead, nobody's driving.

Not comfortable with that? Why not? Oh, that's right: you use common sense.

I guess that explains why you're alive. What I mean by that is, if you didn't use common sense while speeding to work this morning, maybe you would have engaged the cruise control, tied the steering wheel in place, and leaped into the back seat for a cat nap before work while your car careened toward the inevitable--driverless.

That would, after all, make sense, right?

Of course not. And the SIU Membership knows that removing the AB Watchstander (Quartermaster, Wheelsman, Helmsman, whatever SIU's Leadership calls them today) from the Wheelhouse to work outside on the Bridge wings via Labor Agreement requirements is worse than country dumb: if/when there's a collision, that SIU Member knows he'll likely be among the first to die, along with all hands aboard, while the people ashore who concocted these Labor Agreements will shrug their shoulders predictably, and hire someone convincing to explain to the public why they'd forced the deceased to abandon his post in the first place. Only after the fact will the general public realize, too, that removing the Helmsmen from look-out duties to chip and paint out on the Bridge wings via pro-Company Labor Agreements was a corporate-sponsored act of terrorism.

Let's slam the brakes, throw it in reverse, and stomp the gas. Fifteen to twenty years ago, according to the what an SIU Bos'n sailing out of Houston had to say, SIU Labor Agreements didn't force AB Watchstanders to work while on Wheel-watch--and it drove ship management company personnel stuttering mad. They couldn't stand that Labor Agreements permitted not one but two lazy AB Watchstanders to stand in one place eight hours a day and stare out the window at the ocean: one behind the wheel, another out on the bridge wing, regardless of the weather.

Now, staring at the ocean might sound rather pleasant, however, allow me to assure you, it's work, mentally and physically. Imagine it this way: draw an imaginary box that's approximately two feet wide and two feet tall on the floor. Step inside it. If you absolutely must use the head, you must first call your spouse and convince them to stand in your place. Otherwise, for the next four hours straight, don't move, just stand there and imagine you're keeping a sharp eye out for vessel traffic: chemical tankers, oil rigs (800 plus in dot the Gulf of Mexico), pleasure craft overloaded with drunken loonies who think it's hilarious to risk their lives, your career, and your freedom, slicing across your bow dolphin-close. Are your feet, legs and back beginning to throb yet? If not, don't worry, they will--and you'll have plenty of time to think about that pain.

What you probably won't realize while standing there in your little box in your den, your office, or wherever, is that, ironically, while it's difficult to spot vessel traffic at night, it's a thousand times easier than it is during the day--and here's why: running lights.

During the day you can't see those running lights, so ships blend into the sea, as do oil rigs and tugs, and as for small vessel traffic--unless you notice their bodies floating by while you're painting out on the bridge wing, you won't even know you killed them, because remember: the vessel you're driving is approximately the same size as the North Tower at the World Trade Center...was. There's an unbelievable momentum in motion underfoot, it takes a long time for a ship to react, even if you're heavy on the rudder, so if you suddenly see another vessel emerge from a thick fog dead ahead of you, guess what: both ships are doomed, along with, what, forty-eight other people who are about to drown--and those of us ashore can look forward to an ecological disaster biblical in proportion while waiting for policy-makers who saw this coming to react predictably: "Whose responsible? Why did this happen? How could this happen? We didn't know SIU Labor Agreements removed the Helmsman from the Bridge! We have to do something to prevent it from ever happening again!"

Of course, by then it would already be too late for rich folk living along the coast between, say, Seattle and San Diego, or New York City and Key West. Everyone in the maritime industry knows that the Exxon Valdez did not run aground and waste 1,200 miles of coastline because the Captain was drunk--that was all complete fiction. It ran aground because the Wheelsman was inexperienced and incompetent. Any way you look at it, if/when there's a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, if it's anything like the Exxon Valdez, and 1,200 miles of coastline ends up wasted for the next thousand years, there won't be much of a tourist-industry left to support the Southeast.

In order to fully appreciate this scheme's implementation, this SIU Bos'n took me back twenty years. In collusion with the SIU Leadership, he said, ship management companies devised a Bait and Switch policy to lure AB Watchstanders out of the Wheelhouse to scale rust and paint on the bridge wings. Wouldn't you know it?. They began implementing this policy in stages shortly after Mike Sacco took office. As this particular Houston Bos'n described these stages to me, images of a huge paper bag full of cash swapping hands appeared in both of our minds.

Stage one consisted of the SIU Leadership convincing AB Watchstanders they had negotiated hard on their behalf--and won! If you'll agree to work while on watch, they allegedly told the Membership, the Company has agreed to pay Penalty Overtime! Hooray for the Membership!

Younger, more naive sailors cheered, figuring: Hey, I'm going to be on this ship anyway, so I might as well make all the money I can while I'm here. Older, wiser SIU Members who didn't trust the new Regime sensed foul play, and they resisted, refusing to work while on watch, undoubtedly because they understood the risks involved with being stranded in a life-boat surrounded by 330 million square miles of salt water (Yes, that's roughly how much salt water covers the planet).

Stage two was implemented during the next round of Labor Agreement negotiations: Now, whether you like it or not, you're going to work, but don't complain, because we've fought hard on your behalf, and the Companies have agreed to continue paying Penalty Overtime. Throughout this time period, the older, wiser Members who, by now, had learned to despise the new Regime, were retiring en masse to avoid retiring at sea--the bottom of it. The younger, more naive Members simply figured their Leadership was fighting hard at the negotiation table on their behalf, but unfortunately this time they lost some ground.

Until stage three was implemented: Now you're going to work on watch whether you like it or not, and you're not going to be paid Penalty Overtime. Oh, and by the way, we've removed one of the ABs from the Wheelhouse, too. No, he won't be an AB Maintenance man. He won't even be on the ship. Yeah, tough round of negotiations this year. We lost that position altogether. Sorry about that, fellas. Good luck out there. You'll need it. Later.

Now those younger, more naive sailors, like the one telling me how this scheme had come together, were older, wiser, and thoroughly convinced they'd been sold out by their own Leadership.

Like the majority of SIU's widely varied Labor Agreements, here's the language used to ensure AB Watchstanders do not stand a proper look-out while on Wheelhouse watch in SIU's 2001-2006 Standard Freightship Agreement:

Section 7, page 25, Men Standing Sea Watches: "Men standing sea watches shall be paid overtime at the applicable rate for Saturday, Sunday and Holiday watches for all work in excess of eight (8) hours between midnight and midnight each day. No work except for the safe navigation of the vessel is to be done after 5:00 pm and before 8:00 am, Monday through Friday, and Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays without payment of overtime.

"B. Except as otherwise specifically provided, if a man standing regular at sea or in port on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays is required to do work other than routine work for the safe navigation of the vessel, they shall be paid at the rates specified in Article II, Section 21 (b), Penalty Rates.

"With the Following exceptions (SIU Labor Agreements are loaded with "exceptions" and "loop-holes"):

"1. Routine work for the safe navigation of the vessel.
"2. Cleaning quarters
"3. Undocking and docking
"C. If a man standing sea watches on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays is required to handle explosives, clean holds, do longshore work, work ballast, do carpenter work, secure cargo, lay dunnage, handle mail or baggage, handle stores, use paint spray guns or sand-blasting equipment, tend livestock, handle garbage, remove soot from the stack, clean bilges or clean up oil spills, clean tanks or such work as defined in Article III, Section 34, Additional Work, he shall be paid only the rate as specified in this Agreement for that type of work."

Leaves much to be desired, doesn't it, especially in terms of specifics. For example, it says nothing to the effect of: vessels operating within such-and-such distance from the coastline shall require AB Watchstanders to put away their tools and stand a proper look-out in waters frequently shared with pleasure craft and small fishing boats. The language used in SIU Standard Agreements doesn't even come close, and sailors realize why: you have to actually work aboard a ship for a prolonged period of time before you can negotiate Labor Agreements effectively from a sailor's perspective--and with such limited experience, even when combined, the Titled Twelve can't possibly live up to that basic expectation.

When you're aboard a fishing boat or a pleasure craft off the coast of Florida between 0800 and 1700 Monday through Friday, and it's not a Holiday, say your prayers if you see an SIU-contracted vessel coming toward you at 18 knots: the AB you're counting on to maneuver the ship is out on the bridge wings chipping rust, painting, or whatever it takes to make the main stop along the political parade route look pretty--so he's definitely not paying attention to you. If you're counting on the mate on watch to maneuver the ship in his stead, you're wasting precious moments waiting for that ship to turn. AMO Captains typically force mates to update publications, for example, while on watch, to keep from paying that mate overtime, so he's not paying attention to you, either. If you don't start your engines and get out of the way fast, you're going to die.

Equipment aboard commercial ships--again, tankers, chemical carriers, LNG vessels, break bulk carriers, etc--is dangerous to rely upon entirely.

Take nuclear submarines, for example. Now they really do have all the newest high-tech gadgetry at their disposal--yet none of it prevented the USS San Francisco (SSN 711) from face-planting into the broad side of a subsurface mountain not far off the coast of China last summer. In reality, the navigational equipment aboard commercial vessels doesn't come anywhere close to the high-tech navigational equipment aboard nuclear submarines. In fact, one could argue that the most important gear available to an AB Watchstander--aside from the helm itself--is a heavy-duty pair of binoculars.

But those binoculars don't do much good when you're the 0800-1200 or 1200-1600 AB Watchstander painting the bow 700 feet away from Wheelhouse when you're supposed to be standing a proper look-out watch aboard the M/V ITB Mobile.

During fair weather, the bow of an Integrated Tug and Barge (ITB) is a quiet place to paint--so en route to Point Comfort, TX, I heard the screaming from a way-too-nearby fishing vessel perfectly well. That screaming is not something I'll forget any time soon.

In case you're as unfamiliar with what it's like to work for USS Chartering, Inc. as the Titled Twelve, I'll tell you a little bit about their vessels.

They're tankers, they're the same size as ships, but, because the house-portion of the ship can be removed, the Coast Guard had to come up with a whole new classification for them, so they called them Integrated Tug and Barges.

Most tankers, like the M/V Philadelphia, for example, which was actually smaller than both the ITB Mobile and the ITB New York--I risked my life aboard all three ships--are operated by twenty-four to twenty-six sailors, and even those numbers are inadequate in the event of flooding or fire.

On the other hand, Integrated Tug and Barges are crewed by half the number of sailors, making them twice as dangerous to operate--and whenever USS Chartering Inc. could escape Coast Guard detection--they were known to reduce labor costs by sailing short-handed whenever possible (Deck Engine Utility personnel were often absent, and sailing short an AB wouldn't stop them either) so even with a full crew aboard, they were unapologetically short-handed.

The SIU Membership didn't put up much of a fuss, either, largely because SIU Membership knew ITBs not only ranked among the most dangerous ships in the US fleet, they were also among the lowest-paying jobs. Only the hungriest, most desperate SIU Members with the least amount of union seniority would have anything to do with ITBs, so crew turn-over was rapid-fire (yet another hidden cost investigators can attribute to substandard Labor Agreements). That would change over time if word spread that suitable Labor Agreements were agreed upon between maritime Capital interests and Labor, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

These days the importation of foreign nationals to replace American sailors aboard American-owned ship, for example, is justified by decision-makers who reference "jobs Americans don't want." What? Jobs Americans don't want? Work conditions can be life-threatening, but if the pay is right, American employers don't have to look for employees--at all. American employees find them. Take jobs driving fuel tankers (tractor trailers) through Iraq. There are IEDs--road side bombs--everywhere, they're killing American personnel daily, so work conditions truly are life-threatening, but because pay outweighs the risks, American employers like Halliburton rarely if ever complain about labor shortages.

While aboard the M/V ITB Mobile, I asked the captain why the Company risked breaking the law by importing four Polish nationals (at a time) to perform work aboard an American-flagged vessel that could otherwise be performed by four American sailors, and, without hesitation, he belched: "Because I can work them like dogs for $6.00 per hour sixteen hours per day, and they can't give me any shit about it."

Integrated Tug and Barges are poorly designed. Their rudders--they have two--are excessively small for the size of the vessel, so they're notoriously difficult to maneuver. Too, their propellers are undersized, making them that much more difficult to maneuver because you have an inadequate volume of water flushing the rudders. Containerships, by comparison to all tankers, handle like sports cars. All tankers are hard to control because there's so much momentum involved with the weight of the product, but ITBs are by far the trickiest, and because ABs have to work the machinery twice as hard to mainain a proper heading, they lose steering regularly. You spend a lot of time holding your breath when driving one of these disasters waiting to happen

Have you heard about last month's spill in northeast China's Heilongjiang province? It was caused by an explosion at a benzene plant. That spill is headed to the Russian city of Khabarovsk along the Amur river and predicted to hit the city of 600,000 early Thursday. Benzene is horrible stuff, so the Russians might as well forget using that river for drinking water ever again. As it leaches into the shoreline and kills off the environment for the next millennium, it'll give everyone who ignores my advice to cut their losses and flee the region a healthy dose of cancer.

As I recall, we carried MTBE (an accelerant equal to ether) aboard the M/V ITB Mobile between California, Louisiana, and Texas quite regularly. We might have even docked in Port Everglades, FL, while I was aboard, but I'd have to research the ship's schedule to be sure. Okay, so MTBE’s horrible stuff to work with. It not only reeks like ether right through your gas mask, it's just as volatile, so one spark near the "headers," as they're called, during a load/discharge operation will happily incinerate a large portion of, say, Fort Lauderdale. Care to disagree for political reasons? Perhaps we ought to round up video footage of those explosions and fires at that fuel depot north of London that are presently raging out of control--and that was only jet fuel, not MTBE. Not necessary? Okay, good: everyone agrees one stray park near the headers during load/discharge operations would happily incinerate a large portion of Fort Lauderdale.

Deck Department aboard the M/V ITB Mobile consisted of one stuttering drunk AMO Captain, one incompetent AMO Chief Mate who wasn't afraid to admit he'd cheated his way through SUNY, a twenty-five year old AMO Second Mate, a twenty-three year old AMO Third Mate straight out of the academy, a hard-working but otherwise egotistical name-dropping SIU Bosun from Jacksonville, FL, who couldn't wait to tell you he knew Lynard Skynard survivors, three SIU AB Watchstanders, two of whom were removed from the Wheelhouse to work on deck--out on the "barge" portion of the ship--during daylight hours throughout the workweek, an irrational pumpman from Ghana, and sometimes a DEU. Come to think of it, I don't remember anything about the DEU, probably because there wasn't a DEU aboard while I was there. Yes, that sounds typical.

I recall the Chief Mate's first words to me--spoken the moment I had finished signing Articles: "Overtime is mandatory. If you don't work because you're sick, tired, foul weather--I'll fire you."

My response was probably not what you'd expect. He didn't expect it, that's for sure. "Just how old are you, Mate?" I asked. It's been a few years, so I’m only 99.9% certain he said twenty-eight, but he definitely responded by shouting: I'm twenty-fucking-eight! You got a problem with that?

Actually, yes, I did. What kind of experience can a twenty-eight year old Chief Mate who--I later learned--cheated his way through SUNY bring to the fleet? Not much, that was obvious. And I had to stand watch with this guy eight hours per day until I jumped ship and ran for my life? If tanker depots weren't so remote, his response alone would have prompted me to turn around and walk off the ship on the spot, but I figured I could tolerate him until we reached Long Beach (I wanted to transit the Panama Canal at least once before completing my investigation). Several days after departure, the Captain barged into the Wheelhouse stone-cold drunk, wearing only his underwear. I'm not kidding, either. This guy was a foul-mouthed, chain-smoking mess, a total loser. The Chief Mate looked neither surprised nor offended. Apparently this was a regular occurrence.

Which brings to mind an interesting side-note: whenever I'd dash up to the Wheelhouse to report for watch, I'd check the GPS to see how far off course we were. It's not just some random habit I'd developed, either. When an AB Watchstander values his career--or, for that matter, his life--he'll check the GPS to make sure he's assuming a watch that's been stood properly by the AB before him. Reason being, if the ship's off course, but you assume the watch anyway, and then something happens, the Coast Guard holds you responsible. Now you're facing huge fines, possibly jail time, losing your Merchant Mariner's Document, you career--all sorts of horrible things will happen to you.

A ship is almost always allowed to wander off course, more on the ocean than on the Great Lakes (more room for error). There are no strict guidelines, and it's common courtesy for the previous watch to adjust the ship's heading by tweeking "Iron Mike" a few degrees to port or starboard, whichever is necessary, to make sure you're as close to the course line as possible for turnover--normally within a hundred feet. Generally speaking, I don't recall a problem with assuming the watch, mostly because all I can think about at the moment were the problems that arose while the Chief Mate and I stood our watch (0400-0800/1600-2000). That is to say, I'd check the GPS, we'd assume the watch together. Then he'd order me to perform day-maintenance on the barge so that he could kick back and play "Solitaire" on the computer located in the chart room instead of focusing on the ship's present whereabouts. Pretty smart, right?

So, I'd have an excellent idea of the ship's position when I reported to the Bosun for my work assignments. That would change, of course, as time passed, and by the time 1700 rolled around--the end of the workday--I'd grab some dinner and report back to the Wheelhouse to re-assume the watch. Of course, by then we had always wandered a couple of miles off course. The Mate never seemed to mind. He was always busy entertaining himself on the computer. I can't believe I had to ask his permission to bring the ship back to the course line by simply tweeking "Iron Mike," but that's what it came down to, and here's why:

The first time I tried fine-tuning our heading, he had jumped up screaming: "Don't touch that! Never touch the helm without my say so!" Dumbfounded, I remember saying, "But, Mate, we're a mile and a half off course!" to which he responded, "Who the hell cares! Let the Second Mate fix it when he gets up here!" So much for safe navigation of the vessel. For the next four hours we'd stray further and further from the course line plotted on the chart (he was gun-decking his work there, too, as I recall). By the time our watch was over, and our reliefs arrived, turnover consisted of pointing in the direction of the course line and saying: "It's five to ten miles that way."

Not only is straying off course and zig-zagging across the Gulf of Mexico dangerous, it's expensive. For every mile you wander off course, you have to come back a mile, and ships don't get the same fuel economy as, say, a Honda Accord, either. They burn tons of fuel per hour, literally. So if you wander off course, say, five to ten miles per watch, twice per day, and the Second Mate always has to come up and make adjustments, this AMO Chief Mate's lackadaisical approach to accuracy was costing maritime Capital interests tens of thousands of dollars in additional fuel costs each year. If someone corrected me by saying, "No, hundreds of thousands of dollars," it wouldn't offend me.

One can assume USS Chartering, Inc, thought they landed a real bargain when they signed substandard Labor Agreements with American Maritime Officers long-term, too. It wouldn't surprise me if their employers are reading this and calling their attorneys, shouting, "Christ, if ship management personnel had signed Labor Agreements with MM&P, we might have spent a few extra bucks an hour, sure, but we'd have professional officers aboard our ships, and we'd be saving hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in fuel costs! What can we do to fix this mess!" because signing substandard Labor Agreements with an inferior and/or resentful labor organization is no bargain.

Wait until their employers and investors hear about the part that involved lots of screaming I foreshadowed earlier--and we're not talking about the kind of screaming a water skier might expect when he deliberately cuts a fisherman's lines, either. We're talking about the kind of screaming you hear when a handful of weekend fishermen on a small yacht look up and realize they're about to experience a violent death.

If I was on watch, why was I painting on the bow?

Unlike regular tankers, where one Bos’n and two AB Maintenance men prowl the deck fulltime, there was only one fulltime AB maintenance man (commonly called a day-workers) aboard the ITB Mobile: the Bos'n. Without help, voluntary or involuntary, there was no possible way he could keep up with all the work necessary to keep the "deck" operating safely.

Only the structural engineers and architects can provide a guestimate of how many miles of steel fuel lines (pipes) are exposed to the weather and salt water sea-sprays aboard the M/V ITB Mobile, but it would be just that: a guestimate. Nobody knows precisely, the Chief mate informed me. Cargo or Product lines are equal in circumference to a 200 year old Oak Tree, while hydraulic lines are no greater in circumference than a child's pinky, all of which have lots of nooks and crannies that take ten times as long to prepare properly before painting. If someone who knew said there were fifty miles of these lines aboard, or even a hundred miles, it wouldn't come as a surprise. They're everywhere, so you risk life and limb climbing up, over and around them in a hurry while on cargo watch to start and shut down pumps. If you don't move fast enough, expect catastrophe.

Four fulltime Able-bodied maintenance men (day-men) couldn't possibly hope to maintain that many miles of fuel lines properly, much less just one.

Unlike SUP-contracted vessels, where fresh water wash down of the entire vessel is mandatory overtime for unlicensed deck personnel each time the vessel pulls out of port (the Company spends a little on overtime, but recovers those costs in paint, maintenance--and, hey, everything around here actually works!). Aboard the ITB Mobile, we were ordered to implement a different means of attacking inner-granular rust (and most other SIU-contracted vessels): Paint over it until you forget it's there.

When the Evamarine paint you're ordered to smear over salt, rust, grease, hydraulic oil, and everything in between, with minimal if any preparation work to the surface area, and five gallons of it costs roughly $400.00, it's not only careless and ineffective, it's not only brutally expensive for maritime Capital interests and investors who foot the bill, it's deliberate, and it's sabotage--but that's exactly you should expect when ship management companies reduce the crews to the point where they can't possibly hope to maintain that $120 million dollar ship without cutting a few corners, while at the same time undermining the interests of those few sailors who are left by signing substandard Labor Agreements with labor organizations managed by Leaders who apparently couldn’t care less about their Membership's interests.

If sailors take time to prepare steel surface area properly, lay on two coats of primer, one gray, the other red, hit it with several thick coats of paint, it'll take longer, and therefore it'll cost maritime Capital interests more in labor costs, but sailors won't have to revisit it again for a couple years, even longer if they rinse the thick layers of salt off with fresh water on a regular basis. They finish one job, move on to the next, and you begin to see significant progress.

On the other hand, if sailors don't take the time to prepare the surface area because the vessel is severely short-handed, and therefore they have neither the time nor the manpower, not to mention the inclination, you'll see rust reappear and spread within a couple of weeks, creating deep divots in the steel that only get deeper with time (weak points where pressurized cargo lines eventually rupture if they're not replaced--and there was no possible way to replace them all aboard the ITB Mobile, no matter how many foreign-nationals the Company was willing to fly over from Poland to exploit, a blatantly illegal business practice the SIU Leadership ignored for years).

If I know how ship management personnel think, they're reading this and concluding the best way to get results is by strong-arming crewmembers with written step-by-step policy. Well, okay, that might work. I doubt it, personally, but you can try.

Here's another approach to the same situation: Experienced sailors know how to do their jobs. Sailors new to the industry will learn if they see a future in it. If you provide them with the proper tools, provide them with incentives to work hard and efficiently, provide them with the appropriate manpower, and implement policy that makes them value rather than resent their jobs, they'll do whatever is necessary to protect your employer's $120-140 million dollar investment without being told precisely how to do it. As I stated earlier, they already know how to do it. If you're part of the Management Team, it's your job to encourage them to follow through.

The first step is to locate a labor organization that negotiates fairly on behalf of their Membership. From there, everything else will fall into place: If you won't or can't take care of your employees, allow their labor leaders to do it for you. In return, they'll see that it's in their best interest to take care of you. Just make sure you're dealing with the right labor leaders. Otherwise, forget it, none of this will work.

While all of this might sound hopelessly idealistic, let's not forget who explained it to me: a businessman everyone called "Bobby." Bobby wasn't some random businessman, either. He was the Chairman Emeritus of Alexander and Baldwin, Inc., and he was a true leader. We'll discuss his winning approach to business later. Right now I have to explain why I heard all that horrible screaming while painting the bow aboard the ITB Mobile.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN AB WATCHSTANDER ABOARD THE ITB MOBILE

In published reports, Captain David John of Graig Ship Management criticised companies that used minimum legal manning levels as the basis for crewing their ships. "These low numbers inevitably lead to long working hours and fatique--unsafe ships manned by non-caring, lonely and desperate seaman. Such a situation did no good to Company or Seafarer.

"The day is fast coming," he went on to say, "when regulators must take a long, hard look at the current regulatory system from a practical view-point, and ensure that their principles of safe manny are actually worth anything at all. Sure, there would be added crew cost, but isn't that worth a more efficient and safer industry?"

Captain John "deplored" the growing difficulty for seafarers getting ashore and for charitable welfare organisations, such as The Mission to Seafarers, getting on board to make contact with them. "The Ship is fast becoming a prison for its crew." All the more reason then, he said, for the industry to appreciate the benefit of these organisations to seafarers, and to provide the necessary support to ensure their "long term survival."

To make up for self-imposed deficiencies demonstrated earlier, USS Chartering, Inc. didn’t ask for my help, they demanded it.

The 0400-0800 AB Watchstander’s schedule is grueling, to say