One of the bedrock
tenets of capitalism is that the capitalist investor bears the financial risk
of the enterprise, and that workers’ wages are never on the line. This is only
fair; after all, the capitalist does not share windfall profits he makes in
good times with his workers, so why should labour share his losses when times
are bad?
The
Maritime Labour Convention- which, I have said before, will fail its stated
intentions, since a piece of paper will not change attitude- was, amongst other
things, supposed to formalise that capitalist tenet. It was going to ensure
that seafarers’ unpaid salaries were protected in the event of financial
default by a ship’s owners. Seacurus had even rolled out an insurance policy recently
- CrewSEACURE- that covered wages, repatriation, medical and personal accident liabilities
if owners defaulted.
In a
singular gesture of bad faith, it now appears that shipowners and their P&I
Clubs want to reinterpret the MLC regulations to wriggle out of their basic
responsibility. They say that, in the event of an owner abandoning the crew, crew
repatriation is covered under the MLC but wages are not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short- owners need not spend money buying insurance or making
provisions for financial security for crew wages, since those poor suckers are
going to be on their own for ‘several years’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UK
P&I Club claims to insure 'over 200 million tonnes from more than fifty
countries across the globe’. This is what the Club says, in a ‘clarification’
to its members:
“This
Standard (they mean MLC and its guidelines) does not include a provision on outstanding
unpaid wages following abandonment. Liability for unpaid wages following
abandonment is a feature of the principles agreed in the International Labour
Organisation (ILO) in 2009. These principles are not applicable at this stage
and there is no requirement in the MLC 2006 to provide financial security by
way of insurance cover for unpaid wages.”
They
further claim, attempting to snidely pass the buck, “It has been suggested that
that the MLC introduces an obligation on owners to maintain financial security
for unpaid wages. As noted above in the context of insolvency this is
incorrect. The MLC does not introduce a requirement on owners to provide
financial security for the payment of wages. It does, however, introduce
obligations on States Parties and in turn States will require owners to ensure
seafarers are paid. This does not require owners to meet their obligation to
pay wages through the provision of financial security”.
Apologists
for shipowners will undoubtedly claim that it is the provision of financial
security that is a problem for cash strapped owners, many of whom have never-
and have no intention of- defaulting on wages. They will add, no doubt, that
P&I Clubs are in the business of addressing the collective risk their
members are exposed to, and so obviously do not want to accept liability if
they can wriggle out by claiming that none exists.
As the UK
P&I Club happily claims in the same clarification, (after dismissing the
MLC and saying that wages come under ILO rules instead): “The ILO principles
(on unpaid wages, they mean) are subject to further discussion and negotiation
and to take this forward ILO has scheduled a meeting for April 2014. It will
then take several years for the
principles to be considered in ILO, finalised and implemented in MLC Member
States” (Italics mine).
In short-
owners need not spend money buying insurance or making provisions for financial
security for crew wages, since those poor suckers are going to be on their own
for ‘several years’.
To be
honest, I feel for the shipowner of today; this is no time to look forward to
additional high costs of compliance, whether it is in connection with the MLC, ballast
water or environmental regulation. There is simply no money out there. But my
point is that the MLC, the much overhyped Fourth Pillar of the maritime
regulatory regime, does not subject shipowners to any additional obligation as
regards crew wages. That obligation already exists- it goes way back to the birth
of capitalism. The responsibility to pay crew their wages is a pillar of capitalism,
and paying crew their wages, no matter what, has been a legal- and moral- duty
forever.
The
formalisation- and the costs involved- of this basic responsibility are now
being objected to. This absence of good faith underlines the propensity and
ability of shipowners to disregard the much hyped ‘human element’ completely, and
will be the undoing of shipping. For, if the MLC is today sought to be
reinterpreted to dilute or negate the fundamental duty of paying wages, what
are the odds that the other, lesser, elements of the MLC that hit owners’
pockets- pertaining to working conditions, for example, or fatigue- will be
allowed to succeed tomorrow?
I suspect
that the shaking of this fourth pillar of maritime regulation will become a
regular affair, as the industry seeks to dilute the MLC’s scope and short
change the seafarer wherever possible. The problem is that, when pillars-
whether of capitalism or maritime regulation- become shaky, they eventually collapse
and bring down the entire house on one’s head. If you don’t believe me, ask
Samson or the Philistines.
No comments:
Post a Comment