Shipping magazines lately seem to be inundated with articles on how companies are dealing with the manpower shortage. Some stress their new initiatives. Most combine the old high salary+short contract+family carriage+safety standard paradigm and hope for the best. Many stress their size, which doesn’t really matter.
Some of these companies proclaim they are thinking-out-of-the-box. Perhaps they are, and perhaps seafarers are flocking to them. The overwhelming sense I get, however, is one of jaded, desperate and repetitive actions which result in predictable and well experienced outcomes. The more things change, the more they seem the same.
Meanwhile, stories have started doing the rounds of managers sitting on candidates’ documents while reneging on their wage offered commitments- it is obvious that they have not learnt anything new in the last thirty years.
In managementspeak, proclamations of paradigm shifts are catchy and feel-good. Unfortunately, these often postpone action to later. Like Alice in Wonderland, the implication is “jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today”.
We need more than catchy phrases. We need a two pronged approach: Strategies for retention of employees in the future as well as tactics for attracting employees today. Because without managing today, there may not be much of a tomorrow left.
In a couple of previous articles I have suggested longer term strategies; in this one, I would like to suggest a few steps the more intrepid amongst us could actually take, right now.
I would strongly advise, however, that every company take some time to gauge it’s requirement of manpower long term before this exercise. A tough ask, because like the Indian stockmarket till recently, long term has been taken to be one month, where it actually should be a couple of years, at least.
Perhaps some of these proposals could be tried out instead of vanilla salary revisions- there is no automatic assumption that seafarers prefer one over the other here. The goal is to promote a sense of belonging and well being amongst potential and current employees- and not just to encourage them to ‘get what they can’ in the present manpower scenario.
Some of these measures could also be in exchange for an enforceable or demonstrated long term commitment by the seafarer; and in fact, companies could do well to push the advantages to the seafarer of this commitment at every opportunity, and stress how such a relationship is of mutual benefit. In the hurly-burly of demand and supply, many of us often forget that.
I would also advise some number crunching, as these suggestions impact profitability for owners. I am convinced, though, that a cost-benefit analysis would justify many of these actions:
1. Reduce tours of duty to a maximum of four months for Junior Officers, and three months for Seniors. This would address somewhat one major minus of being at sea in an era where a contract is akin to a jail term- albeit a decently paid one.
2. Put in place cheap private communication. Emails to be freely possible, and free. Phone calls home could be either subsidised, or better, made considerably cheaper by installation of new technology. I believe that a ten minute call home almost everyday (What? Too much? How often do managers call home when on tour?) should be possible at about a hundred dollars a month, give or take.
3. Assign seafarers back to the same ship as far as possible, and with the same crew. Will address issues of disorientation and social isolation and promote a feeling of belonging. I have seen this happening, and it works.
4. Do not short-man ships. I do not refer to the manning certificate levels, which are often a joke, but levels appropriate for the ship, it’s condition and it’s run.
5. Do not dump administrative workload on board which belongs to the office. In fact, try the reverse, on the assumption that there are often more idle people in shore offices than on board.
6. Involve seafarer’s families in social activities. Some companies are doing this, and it is a good idea. Like the military worldwide which has an automatic and often informal community supporting families while the soldier is away, our families need this support, too.
7. Give maximum opportunity for families to sail- even though very often they will decline to do so, for many reasons we all know.
8. A group medical insurance scheme for seafarers (between tenures) and their families.
9. Repatriation for close family emergencies.
10. Demonstrated commitment to timely reliefs at the completion of the agreed upon tenure.
11. Incentives based on performance, not on time served.
On another note, and on the shortage of entry level seafarers- particularly deck cadets and trainee engineers .
I think that our industry’s inability to attract well educated and academically excellent urban youth is fait accompli. We would do well to stop banging our head on that wall at once. Higher salaries ashore, better lifestyles and an easier, more normal life are all enemies we cannot easily conquer.
Instead, what if we concentrated on smart, well educated youth from the smaller towns? Lets face it, all we require of an entrant at that stage is a proficiency in Math and some Science, particularly Physics- which is language independent. I would also suggest targeting youth who do not speak or write good English - maybe even any English- and training them extensively in the language as part of their pre-sea training.
Fluency in written and spoken English is a must, if we are to retain our competitive edge.
I would tend to think many of these youngsters would find shipping salaries very attractive; they would also have fewer alternative options. I would canvas coastal areas first, maybe fishing communities and others connected with them. Branch offices of manning companies could handle this; it would get their officers out in some fresh air too.
One last item on my agenda which is long term but needs to be started soon.
I have been convinced for awhile now that what the Shipmanning and management industry needs is a well functioning apex body. The advantages of this are obvious; lobbying and cooperation with government and international regulatory bodies and non-regulatory associations, promotion of best practices, co-operation between members, advancement of ethical practices- the list is endless.
I also think that, within this apex body, a committee of serving seafarers across ranks would be an excellent idea. This would perhaps balance the initiatives been taken in today’s manpower crunch with some real time feedback- without which these decisions tend to be taken in a vacuum, as they now are.
How that can be managed with these ‘committee’ seafarers sailing for half the year is problematic, but not insurmountable. Perhaps a rotating committee or somesuch may be the answer.
In addition to the advantages already mentioned, such an apex body would be able to propose a concerted course of action to address the many manpower issues related to the industry today. Not only that, it would be able to realistically project future requirements, trends and training needs.
Also and very importantly, it would address the issue of the perceived negative profile the industry, and what could be done to make it more attractive for future generations of seafarers and managers.
Existing associations like FOSMA have somehow not been empowered to address these issues in a big way. For example, an association like the one I suggest would have no role in direct training of it’s members employees. It would be a facilitator across the spectrum without any operational role at all.
I envisage an organisation like NASSCOM, which has served the Software industry well. Let’s just say “A National Association of Shipmanagement Companies”
NASMCOM, anyone?
First published in www.marexbulletin.com
April 27, 2008
April 08, 2008
Soft Skills, hard realities.
The following is a short summary of things I wish I had known before my first Command. I would have made a better Master, and have been easier to work with.
This list will be almost certainly useless to the many Masters who are now sailing. Regardless, I just thought some things needed to be said- maybe they will be of some use to future Masters.
My own checklist, so to speak, and one I find more useful than most:
Communicate with the Chief Engineer first. He is critical. More critical than the Chief Officer, because, in a crunch, you can do that man’s job but not the Chief Engineer’s. Start building trust. What are his problems? What are the machinery and manpower issues? Is he finding enough time for preventative maintenance? Any safety or other issues? Anything broken down now? Waiting for important spares? Are things good at home? (Oh yes, that matters far more than we think. I defy anybody to be working at his peak if there is turmoil on the home front).
Familiarise yourself with Engine Room machinery. What are the fallbacks in the event of failure of critical machinery? What happens if this happens during manoeuvring? Are there any engine driven pumps which may immediately stop if the M/E trips? Generators? Compressors? And a hundred other similar critical issues. Stress on the Chief that as far as possible that during critical times, the main engines should be run on slow speed to give you on the bridge time to manoeuvre away from danger. Stress too, that a sudden drop in speed is usually manageable, loss of steering in a sudden stoppage less so. In my experience, this is, since it is not their area of expertise, not obvious to many Engineers.
Encourage a daily half hour before meals for an impromptu get together over a beer, or in these days of treating seafarers like children, a soft drink. Eat your meals together if possible. A visibly friendly Chief and Captain solve a few problems just by making this fact clear to the rest of the crew.
A high level of professional trust between a Master and a Chief Engineer is critical. What happens is, in the absense of this preparation, the only time these two then talk is when there is a problem, when they are strangers to each other and under stress. Heat of the moment issues tend to flare up because they don’t really know each other.
Familiarity breeds trust too, not neccessarily contempt. A Chief Engineer or a Master who trust each other pay each other the highest professional compliment.
Communicate with the Deck Officers. Try to gauge competencies. Your conversations will also give them a chance to gauge your style of working and the kind of person you are. Again, start building trust. Stress that you don’t want yes men, and that everybody agreeing with everybody is a recipe for creating an organisation of pygmies. It can also lead to disaster. Stress that you are perfectly happy to have them disagree with you. Stress that this disagreement does not mean that a ship has suddenly become a democracy, but that you will hear them out. Change your mind on less important matters if this happens, make them happy that their input is important. A boss who listens to his juniors often learns as much as he teaches, and makes them more confident- which is excellent for the ship he is on.
Communicate with the Engineers and Crew. Encourage them to surface their problems through Department Heads. Ensure decent quality of food and entertainment on board, ensure their grievances are addressed. This is more important today: with shore leave very infrequent, it is more critical now that all on board are as comfortable as is possible. Address usual hiccups with allotments etc immediately. It is not a favour, it is your job.
One comment here: Many Masters, including me, have no knowledge of cooking. In a multinational crewing environment, it is important that suitable people be then nominated from different cultures to give the cook and the mess committee (oh yes, form a good working one asap, and be transparent with provision purchases) decent feedback, and suggestions for improvement.
Encourage email wherever the facility exists. Push for this facility with Management- a few there, as well as a few Masters on board do not seem to realise how little time and money this takes, how important this is, and how much impact this has on crew morale and well being. Anybody who has sailed will tell you that, though many think a periodic pep talk is all it should take for crew morale to be up. Morale is the sum total of a crew’s psyche, it is not a bunch of ticks on a checklist, or a monthly meeting as per ISM.
Surprisingly and in my experience, quite a few of the officers and crew do not use this facility even where it exists. Though it is hard to believe this in today’s age, some actually do not know how it works. On one ship, I emailed my son to setup an email account for a Filipino AB, who was thrilled after his family was able to communicate with him.
Did that AB go that extra mile for me henceforth? You bet he did.
Back your people: Back them when they have made an honest mistake. Back them when they are tired. Tell them when they have done something wrong, but don’t generalise. “You are a third rate watchkeeper” doesn’t do anybody any good. Tell them what you expect, and be tough but fair. Back them with shore staff if the crew is right. Stick your neck out a bit. Be a Master, not just an administrator.
Learn to say No. when safety or your professional integrity demands it. This includes saying no to management, and no to your crew. How you say no, of course, is upto you, but this is a critical part of any Shipmaster’s job.
With management, this is not as difficult as it sounds. You just have to have an attitude of “If I am right- then, on important or critical matters, I would rather get sacked than do something I consider unsafe or wrong”. Then it is alarmingly easy.
Manoeuver the ship extensively at the first opportunity. In open waters clear of traffic, and preferably in calm seas with no current, put her through the motions. Get a feel of the ship, the extent of her transverse thrust going ahead or astern, her response to the rudder and, if applicable, thrusters, steering at low speeds, loss of steering going astern, effect of wind on her superstructure, stopping distance, crash stop .. and whatever else it may require for you to quickly understand that particular ship’s characteristics. Have a look at the manoeuvring diagram for comparison. The little time spend and the little money you burn doing this can save a lot of money and heartburn later.
Downgrade paper For the first two weeks, don’t spend unneccesary time on paperwork. You can catch up later. There is a growing tendency to have paperwork dominate our lives; even when handing over or taking over Command, paperwork- port papers, company and ISM requirements, accounts, victualling, payroll and month end papers, multiparty reporting requirements- tend to consume almost all the available time, leaving little time for what is really important. Which is the crew, the ship and the cargo.
So, initially, get on top of all these three. Concentrate on the old fashioned stuff- safety equipment, a drill or two, the ship’s condition, the ballast, the cargo, the people- and downplay paperwork except what is essential.
Put on a surveyor’s hat and inspect as much of the ship as you can.
Prioritise. Your first function is the Command, there is enough time to be a clerk later.
Be truthful with the Office. Surface the problems realistically. Admit mistakes made by any on board, including yourself.
Propose workable solutions.
Some in the office will distrust you anyway; experience with other Masters or their own paranoia drives them. Ignore such people. You have nothing to hide, and the only thing anybody can do is take away your job. If you are any good, it will hardly be the end of the world.
The Superintendents are your allies. Don’t assume otherwise. A good working relationship with the Superintendents is nearly as important as the one with the people on board. Don’t fall into a predictable antagonistic mindset. Superintendents are doing their job, and if you do yours, you complement each other.
Incidentally, treating them as collaborators instead of either adverseries or bosses is both counterproductive. Treat them as seniors, and be professional about it. Don’t kowtow. If somebody kowtows, it is suspicious; it signals that that person may not know his job.
By assuming this professional attitude you leave the door open for a constructive disagreement with a Superintendent- and a disagreement or two will surely arise from time to time. It is the nature of the beast, but, since both of you are otherwise on professional terms, the chances of this degenerating into anything more than a disagreement are very low.
A brief aside- I have never regretted disagreements with Superintendents, but I have regretted occasions when I let these degenerate into a squabble due to my own boorish behaviour- even though at least one Superintendent was big enough to continue to work with me for another couple of years despite that. I may not have been so magnanimous in his place.
Leave time for yourself: A ship is a twenty four hour job, and one tends to become jaded and burnt-out after awhile. Keep some time everyday to yourself to do what you like to do on board, and, barring emergencies, guard that time zealously. Difficult, I know, and depends on how hectic the run is, but I find this works. A change of scene- mental at least since a physical change is not possible- relaxes you and gives you a different perspective on your work. It also makes you calmer, and a calmer Master is good for everybody on board. He also performs better.
Distance yourself from your rank in your mind. Too many Master’s seem to be unable to do that. It is as if without that ‘Captain’ as the tag, they have no identity.
We are all, finally, just people. We harm ourselves by associating ourselves too deeply and only with the rank or the job. We all know what that does to us, and sometimes our families, because we continue to be authoritarian when we step ashore, unable to adjust to a different reality. Or, by the time we do, it is time to shift realities again.
While the imperatives of Command cannot be ignored, it is good, even while on board, to tell ourselves once in awhile that there is more to us than just being Masters, and that this job is not our only definition.
Else, by the same reasoning, we become nobodies when we relinquish command, and I certainly and vehemently disagree with that notion.
Published in www.marexbulletin.com
This list will be almost certainly useless to the many Masters who are now sailing. Regardless, I just thought some things needed to be said- maybe they will be of some use to future Masters.
My own checklist, so to speak, and one I find more useful than most:
Communicate with the Chief Engineer first. He is critical. More critical than the Chief Officer, because, in a crunch, you can do that man’s job but not the Chief Engineer’s. Start building trust. What are his problems? What are the machinery and manpower issues? Is he finding enough time for preventative maintenance? Any safety or other issues? Anything broken down now? Waiting for important spares? Are things good at home? (Oh yes, that matters far more than we think. I defy anybody to be working at his peak if there is turmoil on the home front).
Familiarise yourself with Engine Room machinery. What are the fallbacks in the event of failure of critical machinery? What happens if this happens during manoeuvring? Are there any engine driven pumps which may immediately stop if the M/E trips? Generators? Compressors? And a hundred other similar critical issues. Stress on the Chief that as far as possible that during critical times, the main engines should be run on slow speed to give you on the bridge time to manoeuvre away from danger. Stress too, that a sudden drop in speed is usually manageable, loss of steering in a sudden stoppage less so. In my experience, this is, since it is not their area of expertise, not obvious to many Engineers.
Encourage a daily half hour before meals for an impromptu get together over a beer, or in these days of treating seafarers like children, a soft drink. Eat your meals together if possible. A visibly friendly Chief and Captain solve a few problems just by making this fact clear to the rest of the crew.
A high level of professional trust between a Master and a Chief Engineer is critical. What happens is, in the absense of this preparation, the only time these two then talk is when there is a problem, when they are strangers to each other and under stress. Heat of the moment issues tend to flare up because they don’t really know each other.
Familiarity breeds trust too, not neccessarily contempt. A Chief Engineer or a Master who trust each other pay each other the highest professional compliment.
Communicate with the Deck Officers. Try to gauge competencies. Your conversations will also give them a chance to gauge your style of working and the kind of person you are. Again, start building trust. Stress that you don’t want yes men, and that everybody agreeing with everybody is a recipe for creating an organisation of pygmies. It can also lead to disaster. Stress that you are perfectly happy to have them disagree with you. Stress that this disagreement does not mean that a ship has suddenly become a democracy, but that you will hear them out. Change your mind on less important matters if this happens, make them happy that their input is important. A boss who listens to his juniors often learns as much as he teaches, and makes them more confident- which is excellent for the ship he is on.
Communicate with the Engineers and Crew. Encourage them to surface their problems through Department Heads. Ensure decent quality of food and entertainment on board, ensure their grievances are addressed. This is more important today: with shore leave very infrequent, it is more critical now that all on board are as comfortable as is possible. Address usual hiccups with allotments etc immediately. It is not a favour, it is your job.
One comment here: Many Masters, including me, have no knowledge of cooking. In a multinational crewing environment, it is important that suitable people be then nominated from different cultures to give the cook and the mess committee (oh yes, form a good working one asap, and be transparent with provision purchases) decent feedback, and suggestions for improvement.
Encourage email wherever the facility exists. Push for this facility with Management- a few there, as well as a few Masters on board do not seem to realise how little time and money this takes, how important this is, and how much impact this has on crew morale and well being. Anybody who has sailed will tell you that, though many think a periodic pep talk is all it should take for crew morale to be up. Morale is the sum total of a crew’s psyche, it is not a bunch of ticks on a checklist, or a monthly meeting as per ISM.
Surprisingly and in my experience, quite a few of the officers and crew do not use this facility even where it exists. Though it is hard to believe this in today’s age, some actually do not know how it works. On one ship, I emailed my son to setup an email account for a Filipino AB, who was thrilled after his family was able to communicate with him.
Did that AB go that extra mile for me henceforth? You bet he did.
Back your people: Back them when they have made an honest mistake. Back them when they are tired. Tell them when they have done something wrong, but don’t generalise. “You are a third rate watchkeeper” doesn’t do anybody any good. Tell them what you expect, and be tough but fair. Back them with shore staff if the crew is right. Stick your neck out a bit. Be a Master, not just an administrator.
Learn to say No. when safety or your professional integrity demands it. This includes saying no to management, and no to your crew. How you say no, of course, is upto you, but this is a critical part of any Shipmaster’s job.
With management, this is not as difficult as it sounds. You just have to have an attitude of “If I am right- then, on important or critical matters, I would rather get sacked than do something I consider unsafe or wrong”. Then it is alarmingly easy.
Manoeuver the ship extensively at the first opportunity. In open waters clear of traffic, and preferably in calm seas with no current, put her through the motions. Get a feel of the ship, the extent of her transverse thrust going ahead or astern, her response to the rudder and, if applicable, thrusters, steering at low speeds, loss of steering going astern, effect of wind on her superstructure, stopping distance, crash stop .. and whatever else it may require for you to quickly understand that particular ship’s characteristics. Have a look at the manoeuvring diagram for comparison. The little time spend and the little money you burn doing this can save a lot of money and heartburn later.
Downgrade paper For the first two weeks, don’t spend unneccesary time on paperwork. You can catch up later. There is a growing tendency to have paperwork dominate our lives; even when handing over or taking over Command, paperwork- port papers, company and ISM requirements, accounts, victualling, payroll and month end papers, multiparty reporting requirements- tend to consume almost all the available time, leaving little time for what is really important. Which is the crew, the ship and the cargo.
So, initially, get on top of all these three. Concentrate on the old fashioned stuff- safety equipment, a drill or two, the ship’s condition, the ballast, the cargo, the people- and downplay paperwork except what is essential.
Put on a surveyor’s hat and inspect as much of the ship as you can.
Prioritise. Your first function is the Command, there is enough time to be a clerk later.
Be truthful with the Office. Surface the problems realistically. Admit mistakes made by any on board, including yourself.
Propose workable solutions.
Some in the office will distrust you anyway; experience with other Masters or their own paranoia drives them. Ignore such people. You have nothing to hide, and the only thing anybody can do is take away your job. If you are any good, it will hardly be the end of the world.
The Superintendents are your allies. Don’t assume otherwise. A good working relationship with the Superintendents is nearly as important as the one with the people on board. Don’t fall into a predictable antagonistic mindset. Superintendents are doing their job, and if you do yours, you complement each other.
Incidentally, treating them as collaborators instead of either adverseries or bosses is both counterproductive. Treat them as seniors, and be professional about it. Don’t kowtow. If somebody kowtows, it is suspicious; it signals that that person may not know his job.
By assuming this professional attitude you leave the door open for a constructive disagreement with a Superintendent- and a disagreement or two will surely arise from time to time. It is the nature of the beast, but, since both of you are otherwise on professional terms, the chances of this degenerating into anything more than a disagreement are very low.
A brief aside- I have never regretted disagreements with Superintendents, but I have regretted occasions when I let these degenerate into a squabble due to my own boorish behaviour- even though at least one Superintendent was big enough to continue to work with me for another couple of years despite that. I may not have been so magnanimous in his place.
Leave time for yourself: A ship is a twenty four hour job, and one tends to become jaded and burnt-out after awhile. Keep some time everyday to yourself to do what you like to do on board, and, barring emergencies, guard that time zealously. Difficult, I know, and depends on how hectic the run is, but I find this works. A change of scene- mental at least since a physical change is not possible- relaxes you and gives you a different perspective on your work. It also makes you calmer, and a calmer Master is good for everybody on board. He also performs better.
Distance yourself from your rank in your mind. Too many Master’s seem to be unable to do that. It is as if without that ‘Captain’ as the tag, they have no identity.
We are all, finally, just people. We harm ourselves by associating ourselves too deeply and only with the rank or the job. We all know what that does to us, and sometimes our families, because we continue to be authoritarian when we step ashore, unable to adjust to a different reality. Or, by the time we do, it is time to shift realities again.
While the imperatives of Command cannot be ignored, it is good, even while on board, to tell ourselves once in awhile that there is more to us than just being Masters, and that this job is not our only definition.
Else, by the same reasoning, we become nobodies when we relinquish command, and I certainly and vehemently disagree with that notion.
Published in www.marexbulletin.com
March 31, 2008
Small change
All those men have their price- Robert Walpole
I once took over from a Master in a reputed ‘foreign’ company. His first contract with them, so I casually asked him how he found the setup and when and if he was rejoining.
“I don’t like container ships”, he said. “I don’t know how to make money on them”.
Then again, once I was handing over to a Master in another reputed ‘foreign’ company. Both of us were a few contracts old as Masters, in fact, he had been around with them for more than a decade.
This was a management company, and on this particular ship the owners were paying a higher salary than on their other ships. They offered much better terms, and ordered all stores and provisions themselves based on the ship’s requisitions. They also demanded greater involvement with cargo bookings and operations from the Master.
Anyway, paraphrasing now, but this Master told me- “I came here once, I don’t know if I want to do it again. They pay more, yes, but on other ships we can make that much on provisions every month, so there is no real difference. And they are too many other headaches.”
I was meeting both these Masters the first time in my life. The fact that they weren’t even embarrassed by these admissions to a stranger should tell all of us how widespread the behaviour is, and how cynical we seem to be about it.
On a ship which was sold, I have seen crew walking off with spares, pumps, stores and god knows what else.
I have seen a senior officer stealing a table tennis racket from the gym.
I have heard from multiple reliable sources of an Indian Master walking off with safety equipment, besides a horde of other things.
I have seen a British Master walking off with an air compressor and charts... he used to dive on vacation.
And I have heard of stories, even suspected some once or twice, of Engineers making money on bunkers and the surreptitious sale of good spares or dealings with workshops.
All in foreign companies, by the way.
As far as Indian companies go, I am not really qualified to speak about them, not having sailed with them for decades. But, when I was there, things were so bad in a then premier company that money was being made on cargo, lashings and material, dunnaging, food and drink...on everything, as a matter of fact. Many readers will know more about this than me.
I brought it up because even as a junior, one main reason I wanted to join a foreign company was not the difference in wages. It was that I found the system rotten; without knowing anything about foreign companies, I knew this much: that premier company was not for me, and from stories I had heard, others were equally bad and some were even worse.
Ten years after this, I was on a foreign ship as a Chief Officer when we were chartered by the same company. A Superintendent asked me to sign incorrect receipts for dunnage received. He did not like it when I refused and told him this was one of the reasons I had left his Company.
While attending yet another course in Mumbai, I had a conversation with a Chief Officer working in another Indian company, who asked me my wages, and told me, in effect, that he was thinking about moving to a Foreign company, and though he didn’t mind the work, “Between you and me I make that much here”
Foreign companies, when I joined them, turned out to be better in this regard. Not flawless, far from it, just much better. Also, later, as a Master, one could set the tone of what is acceptable on a ship, and what is not.
It had it’s moments, though. Shipchandlers attempting to supply substandard stores and provisions when we called specially Indian ports while offering kickbacks, cargo interests offering money for clean mate’s receipts, ... we all know this, and though this is hardly unique to India, it is this country and it’s maritime professionals I am addressing here.
It was so annoying that I stopped buying stores and provisions in India, even though I wondered why an honest shipchandler- a contradiction in terms sometimes?- couldn’t supply me the same quality of stuff I buy at home at a similar cost, plus a healthy profit for him, of course. I also started buying small quantities of provisions, medicines etc by sending volunteer crew ashore to do so.
Why do so many of us behave in this manner? We are professionals, and despite my regular digs at being overworked and underpaid, are making a good living.
I suspect that it is a cultural thing, too, specially for seafarers from countries like India, used to corruption and other finaglings. And, though I don’t have enough first hand knowledge about Masters from many other nationalities to make a generalised comment of any sort here, I believe we are worse than many. Shame on us.
This behaviour is justified by the perpetrators with a warped logic similar to that expressed by the corrupt constable on the beat... all others doing this as well.
I also know this. Some companies- or elements of some companies, and specially elements of some Management companies -turn a blind eye to this. Why? Because they then encourage some seafarers to work for slightly lower salaries, knowing fully well that the ‘difference’ between Ownership and Management salaries will be made up in nefarious ways- at the Owner’s cost usually, not the Management Company’s. I have heard at least one senior officer in one company ashore admit this much.
Turning a blind eye is sometimes akin to turning the other cheek. You then maybe get it in the neck.
And so, at the end of the day, Masters or other seafarers do it also because they can get away with it. Not an excuse, this. Their lack of moral fibre is already on display to many, including very often their crews.
Which brings me to an associated and incalculable aside. The effect of such behaviour by specially a Master on other officers the crew. Lack of respect and the sanction to behave similarly is just the start of this slippery slope.
I believe it is time to put an end to this. My strong suggestions would be:
Companies should start a zero tolerance policy, whether in the office or on board. Offenders to be summarily dismissed. Many companies often have a good system in place, with mess committees and somesuch, but dismissals for offenders is not so common.
Company’s which even subconsciously justify slightly lower wages in exchange for turning a blind eye should stop doing this, and have a serious talk with their Principals if there is a case for raising wages in line with the market. I honestly believe this practice costs the Owners more than the money made surreptiously from them, and I also believe that Owners are more than savvy enough to understand that.
Master’s on board should put in place an absolutely transparent system for purchases. It is sometimes difficult encouraging mess committees to get involved more in purchases because many see it as an extra workload- which it is. However, if half a dozen people share this workload, it is not huge. The cook can easily share most of this burden anyway, in my experience.
A cleanup starts from the top. All of us who bemoan the situation in Indian politics and beaurocracy and propose cleanups should apply the same logic at sea, too.
And, of course, all of us should look within. All change starts from there.
Published in www.marexbulletin.com
I once took over from a Master in a reputed ‘foreign’ company. His first contract with them, so I casually asked him how he found the setup and when and if he was rejoining.
“I don’t like container ships”, he said. “I don’t know how to make money on them”.
Then again, once I was handing over to a Master in another reputed ‘foreign’ company. Both of us were a few contracts old as Masters, in fact, he had been around with them for more than a decade.
This was a management company, and on this particular ship the owners were paying a higher salary than on their other ships. They offered much better terms, and ordered all stores and provisions themselves based on the ship’s requisitions. They also demanded greater involvement with cargo bookings and operations from the Master.
Anyway, paraphrasing now, but this Master told me- “I came here once, I don’t know if I want to do it again. They pay more, yes, but on other ships we can make that much on provisions every month, so there is no real difference. And they are too many other headaches.”
I was meeting both these Masters the first time in my life. The fact that they weren’t even embarrassed by these admissions to a stranger should tell all of us how widespread the behaviour is, and how cynical we seem to be about it.
On a ship which was sold, I have seen crew walking off with spares, pumps, stores and god knows what else.
I have seen a senior officer stealing a table tennis racket from the gym.
I have heard from multiple reliable sources of an Indian Master walking off with safety equipment, besides a horde of other things.
I have seen a British Master walking off with an air compressor and charts... he used to dive on vacation.
And I have heard of stories, even suspected some once or twice, of Engineers making money on bunkers and the surreptitious sale of good spares or dealings with workshops.
All in foreign companies, by the way.
As far as Indian companies go, I am not really qualified to speak about them, not having sailed with them for decades. But, when I was there, things were so bad in a then premier company that money was being made on cargo, lashings and material, dunnaging, food and drink...on everything, as a matter of fact. Many readers will know more about this than me.
I brought it up because even as a junior, one main reason I wanted to join a foreign company was not the difference in wages. It was that I found the system rotten; without knowing anything about foreign companies, I knew this much: that premier company was not for me, and from stories I had heard, others were equally bad and some were even worse.
Ten years after this, I was on a foreign ship as a Chief Officer when we were chartered by the same company. A Superintendent asked me to sign incorrect receipts for dunnage received. He did not like it when I refused and told him this was one of the reasons I had left his Company.
While attending yet another course in Mumbai, I had a conversation with a Chief Officer working in another Indian company, who asked me my wages, and told me, in effect, that he was thinking about moving to a Foreign company, and though he didn’t mind the work, “Between you and me I make that much here”
Foreign companies, when I joined them, turned out to be better in this regard. Not flawless, far from it, just much better. Also, later, as a Master, one could set the tone of what is acceptable on a ship, and what is not.
It had it’s moments, though. Shipchandlers attempting to supply substandard stores and provisions when we called specially Indian ports while offering kickbacks, cargo interests offering money for clean mate’s receipts, ... we all know this, and though this is hardly unique to India, it is this country and it’s maritime professionals I am addressing here.
It was so annoying that I stopped buying stores and provisions in India, even though I wondered why an honest shipchandler- a contradiction in terms sometimes?- couldn’t supply me the same quality of stuff I buy at home at a similar cost, plus a healthy profit for him, of course. I also started buying small quantities of provisions, medicines etc by sending volunteer crew ashore to do so.
Why do so many of us behave in this manner? We are professionals, and despite my regular digs at being overworked and underpaid, are making a good living.
I suspect that it is a cultural thing, too, specially for seafarers from countries like India, used to corruption and other finaglings. And, though I don’t have enough first hand knowledge about Masters from many other nationalities to make a generalised comment of any sort here, I believe we are worse than many. Shame on us.
This behaviour is justified by the perpetrators with a warped logic similar to that expressed by the corrupt constable on the beat... all others doing this as well.
I also know this. Some companies- or elements of some companies, and specially elements of some Management companies -turn a blind eye to this. Why? Because they then encourage some seafarers to work for slightly lower salaries, knowing fully well that the ‘difference’ between Ownership and Management salaries will be made up in nefarious ways- at the Owner’s cost usually, not the Management Company’s. I have heard at least one senior officer in one company ashore admit this much.
Turning a blind eye is sometimes akin to turning the other cheek. You then maybe get it in the neck.
And so, at the end of the day, Masters or other seafarers do it also because they can get away with it. Not an excuse, this. Their lack of moral fibre is already on display to many, including very often their crews.
Which brings me to an associated and incalculable aside. The effect of such behaviour by specially a Master on other officers the crew. Lack of respect and the sanction to behave similarly is just the start of this slippery slope.
I believe it is time to put an end to this. My strong suggestions would be:
Companies should start a zero tolerance policy, whether in the office or on board. Offenders to be summarily dismissed. Many companies often have a good system in place, with mess committees and somesuch, but dismissals for offenders is not so common.
Company’s which even subconsciously justify slightly lower wages in exchange for turning a blind eye should stop doing this, and have a serious talk with their Principals if there is a case for raising wages in line with the market. I honestly believe this practice costs the Owners more than the money made surreptiously from them, and I also believe that Owners are more than savvy enough to understand that.
Master’s on board should put in place an absolutely transparent system for purchases. It is sometimes difficult encouraging mess committees to get involved more in purchases because many see it as an extra workload- which it is. However, if half a dozen people share this workload, it is not huge. The cook can easily share most of this burden anyway, in my experience.
A cleanup starts from the top. All of us who bemoan the situation in Indian politics and beaurocracy and propose cleanups should apply the same logic at sea, too.
And, of course, all of us should look within. All change starts from there.
Published in www.marexbulletin.com
March 19, 2008
Postcards from the Conveyor Belt
I got a call on my mobile phone a week or so ago. It went like this
“Hello, is that Capt. X?”
“Yes, speaking”, I said.
“This is Capt. Y. Can you be in London on the 18th?” a male voice said.
“Where are you calling from?” I inquired in irritation.
“Oh, this is Z shipping. Are you available?” (Z shipping is not an unknown manning agency in Mumbai, in case you are wondering)
“Sorry, I will not be available...”, I say
“Can you tell your friends....?”, he wonders.
Not if I want them to remain friends, I thought.
My first reaction was, here is a guy willing to employ somebody to command a ship (and has commanded at least one himself, by the dubious looks of things) - whom he has never seen, never spoken to or even emailed before. Sight unseen, without observing basic formalities, without caring to make small talk to try to begin to gauge if I was actually worth employing.
Regardless of the manning crisis, he therefore runs a substandard setup, and I want no part of it.
Actually, what Capt. Y did is this- in four or five sentences over less than a two minute phone call, he put me off ‘Z Shipping’ forever. Not to speak of my influence on anybody I might choose to talk to about his company.
Conversely, if I had been looking for a ship, and Z shipping had no requirement for a Master, chances are high my emails would go unanswered and my phone calls would not lead to anything beyond “we will let you know” (which they never would). I have experience of that, too. And yes, regardless of their lack of openings, and anyway at the first possibility, a ‘form’ would be sent to me on email or otherwise, asking me to fill it up, probably with a stock ‘Dear candidate’ letter. To keep my details in their database, of course.
(Collecting resumes’ for databases seems to be a favourite pastime in Mumbai. Everybody seems to be doing it. I have visions of trainloads of people migrating from one job to another with a database CD copied from previous employers as their USP.)
A confession: anybody who sends me forms a first step usually doesn’t hear from me again, regardless of the state of the employment market. I understand the need to send a resume’ across to the Principals, but I am of the opinion that as a reasonably senior seafarer is entitled to a brief lowdown of the Company and his chances of a job in it before he is asked to fill up forms. A first reaction of “fill up a form” after a resume’ has already been sent gives me the impression that I am talking to a data entry operator, not a maritime professional.
The sad fact of the matter is that headhunters tend to work with an assembly-line mentality. Right from this initial approach, the toddlers next steps- interviews, agreement, pre-joining formalities, visas, ticketing- usually underlines this feeling, even when a seafarer is re-joining the same firm. Fill up forms, make photocopies, handover photographs, hurry and do your medicals- the doctor will close in half an hour, come back for your ticket asap... I wonder if there are there others who feel like canned tuna every time they join a ship, at the end of a conveyor belt, like I sometimes do.
Sadly, too, there is minimal thought given to providing the seafarer pertinent information about the ship he is joining. As a Master, I have spent four days in transit once, including visiting the management head office for a ‘briefing’, and not been told of major problems on the ship I was taking over. Probably intentionally, in fear that I would refuse the assignment.
In any event, at these briefings, I have been told nothing useful most of the time. These are usually ISM requirements; perhaps they are not meant to be practical. Or perhaps it is not considered important enough to provide pertinent information. Familiarisation, like familiarity, can sometimes breed contempt.
I have once commented on this. The response indicated puzzlement; this was a game we are all playing, come on! ‘You will come to know everything once you are on board, anyway’, I was told, a little condescendingly.
Ridiculously often, I have known more about the ships I was joining by researching their names on the internet than from the information given to be in manning offices. Surprise was expressed about the depth of my information once at one office, so I went on their computer and showed them where I had got the information from. (It was from a Classification Society website.)
A few years ago, I have sat with another officer at a STD booth in Mumbai while he called the company office in Delhi, who had given him an absolutely contrasting view of some basic terms and conditions which he wanted to clarify, and which he found out about at their head office in Mumbai. The fact that we had just walked out of the same head office- where nobody had even offered a phone to this senior officer who had worked for them for years- knowing he was going out to make the call to their own office in Delhi, disgusted me.
Every seafarer has these kinds of incidents to narrate. My point is only is to underline that this unprofessional assembly line process leaves a bad taste in the mouth and does not make for good relations between employers and employees. And this bad taste translates in the end into employees who have fewer reasons to rejoin.
This is what I would do, if I was sitting on the other side of the table:
1. At first contact (whether we call a seafarer or whether he calls us first), a stock response along the lines of ‘Hello, we are Differentship, and we would like you to consider joining us on a long term association. We represent a, b, c, d companies who offer employment on x, y, z kinds of ships. I would like to send you a mail with further details, meanwhile do visit differentship.com for an overview’. (If no opportunities exist, and if the seafarer has approached us, he would be told so politely and frankly, and invited to enquire at a future known date. He would also be requested to send us a short email with contact details and a few lines on his rank and experience. )
2. The mail would follow immediately, would be a stock one-without a ‘Dear Candidate’, and include
· details of ships, or better still, a link on a website with these details
· Standard terms and conditions with an indication of flexibility where possible.
· Reasons why Differentship is better, or indeed, different.
· Upcoming vacancies in the next month or two, on which ships.
· An invitation to visit us in person, or failing which, an invitation to discuss details on the phone
· A stated willingness, even eagerness- to match his requirements and ours.
· Details of the selection process, and an end date by which a yes/no would be intimated.
And, subsequently,
3. Each stage of the process would be ensured personalised, professional, dignified and smooth.
4. If a person is selected, and if the pre-joining briefing is in my domain, it would be practical, accurate, honest and useful.
5. The potential employee would be kept updated at each stage of the process.
6. Nothing pertinent would be hidden from him at any stage.
7. If the employment doesn’t work out this time, we would keep all doors open for it to maybe work out in the future- unless it is decided not to employ him at all, in which case I would let him know.
8. If Differentship does so much of its business on the phone, then phone etiquette and the projection of professionalism will be a basic requirement from its entire staff that pick up a phone, anytime, anywhere. Nobody will open a conversation with “Can you be in London on the 18th” with a complete stranger.
The problem with this as far as we at Differentship were concerned would be that it would require us to get our act together, project our requirements and maybe train our people; not a problem, actually, because that would result in a good business practice. We would be automatically working on enhancing the pre joining experience of an employee, which would
translate more into his wanting to come back to us, not to speak of the excellent word-of- mouth he would give us throughout the industry.
We would indeed be different, and better, because we would be sweating the small stuff.
Professional touches, personalised interest, regard for potential employees prior experience, regard for his time, all done in a dignified manner- this is not rocket science, but it works. First impressions and small touches remain, which is why we paint gangways so often.
Finally, another pet peeve. I for one, dislike being referred to – whether by email or otherwise- as a ‘candidate’. I am a professional seeking a long term association with other professionals. I have a name and rank, though not a serial number yet- and I much prefer being addressed by any of those, even my first name. Frankly, ‘Dear Candidate’ stinks. Besides, how would we at Differentship respond to an email sent addressed to ‘Dear Headhunter’?
Unless I am running in the US Presidential elections, of course.
Then it is different. ‘The Candidate’, then, is salutary.
Or, after Mr. George Bush, is it?
published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
“Hello, is that Capt. X?”
“Yes, speaking”, I said.
“This is Capt. Y. Can you be in London on the 18th?” a male voice said.
“Where are you calling from?” I inquired in irritation.
“Oh, this is Z shipping. Are you available?” (Z shipping is not an unknown manning agency in Mumbai, in case you are wondering)
“Sorry, I will not be available...”, I say
“Can you tell your friends....?”, he wonders.
Not if I want them to remain friends, I thought.
My first reaction was, here is a guy willing to employ somebody to command a ship (and has commanded at least one himself, by the dubious looks of things) - whom he has never seen, never spoken to or even emailed before. Sight unseen, without observing basic formalities, without caring to make small talk to try to begin to gauge if I was actually worth employing.
Regardless of the manning crisis, he therefore runs a substandard setup, and I want no part of it.
Actually, what Capt. Y did is this- in four or five sentences over less than a two minute phone call, he put me off ‘Z Shipping’ forever. Not to speak of my influence on anybody I might choose to talk to about his company.
Conversely, if I had been looking for a ship, and Z shipping had no requirement for a Master, chances are high my emails would go unanswered and my phone calls would not lead to anything beyond “we will let you know” (which they never would). I have experience of that, too. And yes, regardless of their lack of openings, and anyway at the first possibility, a ‘form’ would be sent to me on email or otherwise, asking me to fill it up, probably with a stock ‘Dear candidate’ letter. To keep my details in their database, of course.
(Collecting resumes’ for databases seems to be a favourite pastime in Mumbai. Everybody seems to be doing it. I have visions of trainloads of people migrating from one job to another with a database CD copied from previous employers as their USP.)
A confession: anybody who sends me forms a first step usually doesn’t hear from me again, regardless of the state of the employment market. I understand the need to send a resume’ across to the Principals, but I am of the opinion that as a reasonably senior seafarer is entitled to a brief lowdown of the Company and his chances of a job in it before he is asked to fill up forms. A first reaction of “fill up a form” after a resume’ has already been sent gives me the impression that I am talking to a data entry operator, not a maritime professional.
The sad fact of the matter is that headhunters tend to work with an assembly-line mentality. Right from this initial approach, the toddlers next steps- interviews, agreement, pre-joining formalities, visas, ticketing- usually underlines this feeling, even when a seafarer is re-joining the same firm. Fill up forms, make photocopies, handover photographs, hurry and do your medicals- the doctor will close in half an hour, come back for your ticket asap... I wonder if there are there others who feel like canned tuna every time they join a ship, at the end of a conveyor belt, like I sometimes do.
Sadly, too, there is minimal thought given to providing the seafarer pertinent information about the ship he is joining. As a Master, I have spent four days in transit once, including visiting the management head office for a ‘briefing’, and not been told of major problems on the ship I was taking over. Probably intentionally, in fear that I would refuse the assignment.
In any event, at these briefings, I have been told nothing useful most of the time. These are usually ISM requirements; perhaps they are not meant to be practical. Or perhaps it is not considered important enough to provide pertinent information. Familiarisation, like familiarity, can sometimes breed contempt.
I have once commented on this. The response indicated puzzlement; this was a game we are all playing, come on! ‘You will come to know everything once you are on board, anyway’, I was told, a little condescendingly.
Ridiculously often, I have known more about the ships I was joining by researching their names on the internet than from the information given to be in manning offices. Surprise was expressed about the depth of my information once at one office, so I went on their computer and showed them where I had got the information from. (It was from a Classification Society website.)
A few years ago, I have sat with another officer at a STD booth in Mumbai while he called the company office in Delhi, who had given him an absolutely contrasting view of some basic terms and conditions which he wanted to clarify, and which he found out about at their head office in Mumbai. The fact that we had just walked out of the same head office- where nobody had even offered a phone to this senior officer who had worked for them for years- knowing he was going out to make the call to their own office in Delhi, disgusted me.
Every seafarer has these kinds of incidents to narrate. My point is only is to underline that this unprofessional assembly line process leaves a bad taste in the mouth and does not make for good relations between employers and employees. And this bad taste translates in the end into employees who have fewer reasons to rejoin.
This is what I would do, if I was sitting on the other side of the table:
1. At first contact (whether we call a seafarer or whether he calls us first), a stock response along the lines of ‘Hello, we are Differentship, and we would like you to consider joining us on a long term association. We represent a, b, c, d companies who offer employment on x, y, z kinds of ships. I would like to send you a mail with further details, meanwhile do visit differentship.com for an overview’. (If no opportunities exist, and if the seafarer has approached us, he would be told so politely and frankly, and invited to enquire at a future known date. He would also be requested to send us a short email with contact details and a few lines on his rank and experience. )
2. The mail would follow immediately, would be a stock one-without a ‘Dear Candidate’, and include
· details of ships, or better still, a link on a website with these details
· Standard terms and conditions with an indication of flexibility where possible.
· Reasons why Differentship is better, or indeed, different.
· Upcoming vacancies in the next month or two, on which ships.
· An invitation to visit us in person, or failing which, an invitation to discuss details on the phone
· A stated willingness, even eagerness- to match his requirements and ours.
· Details of the selection process, and an end date by which a yes/no would be intimated.
And, subsequently,
3. Each stage of the process would be ensured personalised, professional, dignified and smooth.
4. If a person is selected, and if the pre-joining briefing is in my domain, it would be practical, accurate, honest and useful.
5. The potential employee would be kept updated at each stage of the process.
6. Nothing pertinent would be hidden from him at any stage.
7. If the employment doesn’t work out this time, we would keep all doors open for it to maybe work out in the future- unless it is decided not to employ him at all, in which case I would let him know.
8. If Differentship does so much of its business on the phone, then phone etiquette and the projection of professionalism will be a basic requirement from its entire staff that pick up a phone, anytime, anywhere. Nobody will open a conversation with “Can you be in London on the 18th” with a complete stranger.
The problem with this as far as we at Differentship were concerned would be that it would require us to get our act together, project our requirements and maybe train our people; not a problem, actually, because that would result in a good business practice. We would be automatically working on enhancing the pre joining experience of an employee, which would
translate more into his wanting to come back to us, not to speak of the excellent word-of- mouth he would give us throughout the industry.
We would indeed be different, and better, because we would be sweating the small stuff.
Professional touches, personalised interest, regard for potential employees prior experience, regard for his time, all done in a dignified manner- this is not rocket science, but it works. First impressions and small touches remain, which is why we paint gangways so often.
Finally, another pet peeve. I for one, dislike being referred to – whether by email or otherwise- as a ‘candidate’. I am a professional seeking a long term association with other professionals. I have a name and rank, though not a serial number yet- and I much prefer being addressed by any of those, even my first name. Frankly, ‘Dear Candidate’ stinks. Besides, how would we at Differentship respond to an email sent addressed to ‘Dear Headhunter’?
Unless I am running in the US Presidential elections, of course.
Then it is different. ‘The Candidate’, then, is salutary.
Or, after Mr. George Bush, is it?
published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)