(in which water is slowly dripped onto a person's forehead, driving the victim insane)
Okay, this one is personal.
After a few decades at sea, there is a serious debate going on in my tortured head about whether I need to hang up my boots and quit. So far the nail in the wall is winning.
It would have been very nice if I had debated this in my dotage, or even at some unknown and mysterious superannuatory stage, but I am (as I like to think) in my middle age now. I am sure I have a few years at sea left in me, health issues notwithstanding.
It would have been equally nice if I had debated this in an overall aura of satisfaction and pride in the industry I have worked in for so many years. (And still might do so, because the debate is not over yet, and because man does not live by bread alone- he needs a new cell phone every two months).
But it is not so nice. Because, you see, the overwhelming sentiment I have when I think about quitting sailing is one of relief, and of “good riddance”.
That says a lot about to me about my profession – a profession I joined a few decades ago in great excitement, a little awe and a dash of fear. However, I had no doubt in my mind then that this was going to be a career; unlike the youngsters of today, I had no plans of an MBA, or a few years at sea leading to some business. I was a sailor, and so I remained, through the marriage and children, through the 80’s recession and out of it, through family emergencies and celebrations, and through thick and thin.
So what happened? At what stage did a die hard sailor get disillusioned, jaded and, yes, disgusted at the state of affairs at sea?
I doubt it happened suddenly, and I know it has not happened to me alone; like Chinese water torture, it happens drip-by-drip, drop by insane drop- till, finally, the sailor cries- enough! - and, being an all or nothing person, chooses nothing.
One drop was probably the eighties recession, when I saw, for the first time, how petty, small and mean my seniors ashore could be, and how blinkered and clueless many were.
Another drop was undoubtedly the incremental short manning as time went on, and the increased workload and paperwork, paper straw by paper straw until the last straw was loaded on this camel’s back.
A few drops were added by the arrival of the children, and the realisation that the price I was paying was getting too high.
A big drop was the criminalisation of sailors and the impotence of the industry- or was it negligent callousness? - to address the issue.
A small drop was the alcohol policy: not because I could not have a drink, but because Shipmasters were being treated like children by minor bureaucrats, bean counters and blinkered colleagues.
A moment of clarity was when I realised I did not want to recommend the profession to any youngster at all, except those who, through circumstance, had limited choice.
Another drop was when I realised that the seafarer had really no say in much, and that though on every ship there was probably more than a hundred years of collective seagoing experience, an accountant with a calculator and not much else had sometimes more say than the Master.
A drop was at the disgust felt in attending substandard training and Company Seminars- and being asked to pay for both.
A drop or two because of the authorities who issued and revalidated certificates, CDC’s et al -and who then treated seafarers like taxi drivers at the local RTO.
A smattering of drops when shore leave became a luxury because of short manned ships and hectic turnaround times. Another dribble at the restrictions placed after terrorism became a US problem. More disgust at the impotence and spinelessness of people who should have known better, or who didn’t care because it did not concern them directly.
A drop because of stories of a few casualties at sea - and the appalling behaviour of a few countries against all norms of acceptable behaviour and tradition, not to speak of common and international law.
A small drop for sheer boredom.
The realisation that a seafarer was being increasingly discriminated against, was powerless to do anything about it- and that platitudes were of no use to him in prison or in the grave- and that was all the Industry really offered him, a wage and platitudes.
Disgust at the way a few manning agencies in India behaved- and continued to behave, when the entire marketplace and other industries transformed around them.
Ridicule at their surprise at the downgrading of shipping as a profession. They didn’t see the train coming till it hit them?
A drop at the double standards of the industry with respect to safety at sea- and indeed with most regulatory matters. Minimum compliance, maximum certification. Way to go.
A drop at the “Cover your backside” philosophy of many at sea and ashore. Sure, that is a prudent thought. However, when it is the overwhelming philosophy, we have a problem. It leads too often to inefficiency, inertia and even paralysis in maritime operations. Usually it is paralysis by discussion or by information.
The blazing realisation, a year or two ago, that nothing was going to change in my professional lifetime.
The penultimate drop, when I understood that since I was not part of the solution, I was part of the problem.
One Master Mariner quitting is a statistic. But if a hundred are quitting for similar reasons, it may become a little more noteworthy. Add Chief Engineers to this. Add other officers who are dreaming of this and who never looked at sailing as a career anyway, and you are reaching alarming statistics already. You can choose to live with it, but being surprised at it is naiveté’.
From the little I know, it seems quite a few seafarers are quitting and thinking about it; and while our myopic industry is concentrating on advertising and hiring, perhaps it should spare a thought or two on retention as well.
And the final drop, the acidic one that made me pause. Can I, in all good faith, look for a job ashore, feeling the way I do? Will I make a difference, or join the multitudes of colleagues who crossed the Styx and made no difference? Can I digest being another brick in the wall?
The jury is still out on this one; so far, the defendant has not much hope.
Because it does not take much for the last drop to become the final straw, or the final nail.
(first published in www.marexbulletin.com)
May 10, 2008
May 06, 2008
Back to the future
What does the manning department of an ethically run shipping company want from its seagoing staff?
A good hardworking officer who completes his contract unless there is a good reason to come home early- and one who stays with the company forever. A person of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. A person who accepts market wages and normal seniority and bonuses, and is fair in his dealings with the company. A person who rejoins as agreed, and is otherwise reasonable.
So now, the mirror question to my first one; what does a good, responsible and ethical officer want from a shipping company?
A good setup which offers him shorter contracts than its peers, pays his agreed wages on time, and responds appropriately to the market at appropriate intervals. A setup of integrity and responsibility, which has a decent number of safe and well maintained ships, which treats him fairly, relieves him on time and does not waste his time on leave. A setup which employs him forever. A setup which offers him a ship as agreed after leave, and is otherwise reasonable.
Now for just two quick comments on the above:
· One, it seems to me, looking at the last few paragraphs, that there is a lot of congruence between what a company and a mariner want from each other. This is heartening. Perhaps the twain can meet after all.
· Two, as my wife will gleefully attest, even threaten- nothing is forever. So let’s take forever to mean long term. The rub lies here, though. Everybody, seafarers and manning departments alike, would love to sit back and have everything running almost on autopilot- people reporting back on time, ships being assigned promptly et al. Hiccups aside, (ship delayed? owners not happy with the officer or vice versa? Officer has last minute family commitments?) this does seem to be the way to go. But the million dollar question has to be answered first- given a contractual relationship, how can forever be attained?
I would have proposed substituting a contractual relationship for a permanent one, but the biggest negative there is the Income Tax Act. Seafarers were probably not meant to be beneficiaries; but they (at least the ones working for foreign companies) enjoy tax benefits which would evaporate if they became permanent employees. Indian Shipping Companies are hamstrung in comparison, which is an anomaly that needs to be addressed urgently. The fact that industry representations- both formal and informal- to various Governments have not yielded any results for years testifies to the weak lobbying skills of the industry.
Be that as it may, let us assume that offering seafarers permanent employment may mean that their post tax wages take a big hit, and is not therefore easily possible.
(Other issues with permanent employment: Many seafarers may not like the lower monthly wage this entails, even as the annual wage remains unchanged. Many will not like the restriction. Some seafarers will be suspicious- what if the company doesn’t deliver on promises? Some companies may not like the permanent tag and the complications it creates with labour laws, employee provident fund requirements and such, which effectively raises costs. )
Back to the future.
The only recourse then , if ‘forever’ is to be attained, is to define a path wherein a desired seafarer employee gets obvious benefits of a long term association, and sees a clearly defined path to this end.
So far, these ‘benefits’ have translated mainly into seniority allowances and xth year wage scales. Unfortunately, this has been ad-hoc; xth year scales are often, even usually, negotiated by new entrants to a company, making the entire concept of seniority meaningless. In one well known company, I was so disgusted with finding out that a relatively junior Master had been granted higher wage scales – after I had accepted spiel about ‘we are very rigid about seniority allowances”- that I threatened to quit. I am still of the opinion that our profession should count for something greater than haggling in a fish market, or buying potatoes on the roadside.
I tend to think that the solution to the ‘forever’ question has to be more creative than salaries anyway, so for the purposes of this article am ignoring the ‘wages last revised on’ option. It is a bullet which has traveled its optimal distance or a soap bubble which has been blown up enough- at some stage, the business will become unviable and the bubble will burst, leaving our faces wet.
In short, I am proposing this: All Ship Ownership Companies (and here I take ship management to be an integral part of ownership, even if they are separate entities) should have a well defined, transparent and formal system in place for evaluation, identification and subsequent training of seagoing staff with a clear objective of career advancement into managerial positions ashore. This proposal assumes that a long term association between a seafarer and a shipping company is not only possible; it is desirable and to mutual benefit- and so is clearly a prime objective.
Firms can well have a programme wherein the best performing officers can be identified, and put on a ‘fast track’ for promotions and shifting ashore; such a public programme, in my view, would go a long way towards healthy competition. A leaf could be taken out of the book of a few long standing MNCs- I believe Lever’s (now Hindustan Unilever) have had such a programme for years. How do they do it? The devil is in the details, but the details are not rocket science.
Yes, there will be some fallout- other officers feeling disgruntled or sidelined, for one. But this has to be managed- and well- if a firm has to retain staff and improve quality at the same time; right now most shipping companies employ what they can get. I also believe this fast track approach will do much towards employees trying harder- and staying longer with you, the clearly defined objective being ‘moving ashore’. What the management types call a win-win situation.
A clear definition of the path is very important. In it’s absence, the whole exercise seems prone to favoritism, subjective and arbitrary. For example, a Third Engineer needs to clearly see where his long term association with the company can benefit him, and after how long- provided he continues to perform- and what those parameters for performance evaluation are.
In my opinion, this industry has failed here so far. Operational and technical managerial jobs automatically lead to management jobs in most industries. Except shipping. Yes, it is a pyramidal structure, sure- after all if all the Master’s came ashore where would they go? And who would run the ships? - But this pyramid is hardly unique to this industry. All businesses have this, and so using this reasoning is lame.
Besides, a pyramidal structure ensures competition, which raises the professional bar. A good outcome, I would have thought.
Surely, there are some companies which identify good officers for a shift ashore. But too many select people in a ad-hoc manner- and nepotism, regionalism and sheer unprofessionalism is alive and kicking in these selections. Wouldn’t a transparent and formal system be much better?
The fact is, also, that seafarers and companies alike are hamstrung by the contractual nature of employment and are scattered worldwide. Multinational and multicultural crews add to this eclectic mix of issues; we consequently get paralysed by these complexities and take recourse in the well trodden path, the one with least resistance. As long as the going was good, this system kind-of worked. No more, and not really.
Managing this effectively at higher levels of attrition will continue to be a nightmare unless individual companies retain people they want. In this context, my suggestion above in an attempt to address this issue may work, or it may not.
If it doesn’t, we haven’t lost anything and we will be back to square one.
If it does, however, you may see Ship managers beating this drum, instead of the old and jaded ‘wages last revised on’ one.
Somebody just has to try it, is all.
The rest of us, to quote Thomas Paine, have to either “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
.
first published in www.marexbulletin.com
A good hardworking officer who completes his contract unless there is a good reason to come home early- and one who stays with the company forever. A person of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. A person who accepts market wages and normal seniority and bonuses, and is fair in his dealings with the company. A person who rejoins as agreed, and is otherwise reasonable.
So now, the mirror question to my first one; what does a good, responsible and ethical officer want from a shipping company?
A good setup which offers him shorter contracts than its peers, pays his agreed wages on time, and responds appropriately to the market at appropriate intervals. A setup of integrity and responsibility, which has a decent number of safe and well maintained ships, which treats him fairly, relieves him on time and does not waste his time on leave. A setup which employs him forever. A setup which offers him a ship as agreed after leave, and is otherwise reasonable.
Now for just two quick comments on the above:
· One, it seems to me, looking at the last few paragraphs, that there is a lot of congruence between what a company and a mariner want from each other. This is heartening. Perhaps the twain can meet after all.
· Two, as my wife will gleefully attest, even threaten- nothing is forever. So let’s take forever to mean long term. The rub lies here, though. Everybody, seafarers and manning departments alike, would love to sit back and have everything running almost on autopilot- people reporting back on time, ships being assigned promptly et al. Hiccups aside, (ship delayed? owners not happy with the officer or vice versa? Officer has last minute family commitments?) this does seem to be the way to go. But the million dollar question has to be answered first- given a contractual relationship, how can forever be attained?
I would have proposed substituting a contractual relationship for a permanent one, but the biggest negative there is the Income Tax Act. Seafarers were probably not meant to be beneficiaries; but they (at least the ones working for foreign companies) enjoy tax benefits which would evaporate if they became permanent employees. Indian Shipping Companies are hamstrung in comparison, which is an anomaly that needs to be addressed urgently. The fact that industry representations- both formal and informal- to various Governments have not yielded any results for years testifies to the weak lobbying skills of the industry.
Be that as it may, let us assume that offering seafarers permanent employment may mean that their post tax wages take a big hit, and is not therefore easily possible.
(Other issues with permanent employment: Many seafarers may not like the lower monthly wage this entails, even as the annual wage remains unchanged. Many will not like the restriction. Some seafarers will be suspicious- what if the company doesn’t deliver on promises? Some companies may not like the permanent tag and the complications it creates with labour laws, employee provident fund requirements and such, which effectively raises costs. )
Back to the future.
The only recourse then , if ‘forever’ is to be attained, is to define a path wherein a desired seafarer employee gets obvious benefits of a long term association, and sees a clearly defined path to this end.
So far, these ‘benefits’ have translated mainly into seniority allowances and xth year wage scales. Unfortunately, this has been ad-hoc; xth year scales are often, even usually, negotiated by new entrants to a company, making the entire concept of seniority meaningless. In one well known company, I was so disgusted with finding out that a relatively junior Master had been granted higher wage scales – after I had accepted spiel about ‘we are very rigid about seniority allowances”- that I threatened to quit. I am still of the opinion that our profession should count for something greater than haggling in a fish market, or buying potatoes on the roadside.
I tend to think that the solution to the ‘forever’ question has to be more creative than salaries anyway, so for the purposes of this article am ignoring the ‘wages last revised on’ option. It is a bullet which has traveled its optimal distance or a soap bubble which has been blown up enough- at some stage, the business will become unviable and the bubble will burst, leaving our faces wet.
In short, I am proposing this: All Ship Ownership Companies (and here I take ship management to be an integral part of ownership, even if they are separate entities) should have a well defined, transparent and formal system in place for evaluation, identification and subsequent training of seagoing staff with a clear objective of career advancement into managerial positions ashore. This proposal assumes that a long term association between a seafarer and a shipping company is not only possible; it is desirable and to mutual benefit- and so is clearly a prime objective.
Firms can well have a programme wherein the best performing officers can be identified, and put on a ‘fast track’ for promotions and shifting ashore; such a public programme, in my view, would go a long way towards healthy competition. A leaf could be taken out of the book of a few long standing MNCs- I believe Lever’s (now Hindustan Unilever) have had such a programme for years. How do they do it? The devil is in the details, but the details are not rocket science.
Yes, there will be some fallout- other officers feeling disgruntled or sidelined, for one. But this has to be managed- and well- if a firm has to retain staff and improve quality at the same time; right now most shipping companies employ what they can get. I also believe this fast track approach will do much towards employees trying harder- and staying longer with you, the clearly defined objective being ‘moving ashore’. What the management types call a win-win situation.
A clear definition of the path is very important. In it’s absence, the whole exercise seems prone to favoritism, subjective and arbitrary. For example, a Third Engineer needs to clearly see where his long term association with the company can benefit him, and after how long- provided he continues to perform- and what those parameters for performance evaluation are.
In my opinion, this industry has failed here so far. Operational and technical managerial jobs automatically lead to management jobs in most industries. Except shipping. Yes, it is a pyramidal structure, sure- after all if all the Master’s came ashore where would they go? And who would run the ships? - But this pyramid is hardly unique to this industry. All businesses have this, and so using this reasoning is lame.
Besides, a pyramidal structure ensures competition, which raises the professional bar. A good outcome, I would have thought.
Surely, there are some companies which identify good officers for a shift ashore. But too many select people in a ad-hoc manner- and nepotism, regionalism and sheer unprofessionalism is alive and kicking in these selections. Wouldn’t a transparent and formal system be much better?
The fact is, also, that seafarers and companies alike are hamstrung by the contractual nature of employment and are scattered worldwide. Multinational and multicultural crews add to this eclectic mix of issues; we consequently get paralysed by these complexities and take recourse in the well trodden path, the one with least resistance. As long as the going was good, this system kind-of worked. No more, and not really.
Managing this effectively at higher levels of attrition will continue to be a nightmare unless individual companies retain people they want. In this context, my suggestion above in an attempt to address this issue may work, or it may not.
If it doesn’t, we haven’t lost anything and we will be back to square one.
If it does, however, you may see Ship managers beating this drum, instead of the old and jaded ‘wages last revised on’ one.
Somebody just has to try it, is all.
The rest of us, to quote Thomas Paine, have to either “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
.
first published in www.marexbulletin.com
Back to the future
What does the manning department of an ethically run shipping company want from its seagoing staff?
A good hardworking officer who completes his contract unless there is a good reason to come home early- and one who stays with the company forever. A person of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. A person who accepts market wages and normal seniority and bonuses, and is fair in his dealings with the company. A person who rejoins as agreed, and is otherwise reasonable.
So now, the mirror question to my first one; what does a good, responsible and ethical officer want from a shipping company?
A good setup which offers him shorter contracts than its peers, pays his agreed wages on time, and responds appropriately to the market at appropriate intervals. A setup of integrity and responsibility, which has a decent number of safe and well maintained ships, which treats him fairly, relieves him on time and does not waste his time on leave. A setup which employs him forever. A setup which offers him a ship as agreed after leave, and is otherwise reasonable.
Now for just two quick comments on the above:
· One, it seems to me, looking at the last few paragraphs, that there is a lot of congruence between what a company and a mariner want from each other. This is heartening. Perhaps the twain can meet after all.
· Two, as my wife will gleefully attest, even threaten- nothing is forever. So let’s take forever to mean long term. The rub lies here, though. Everybody, seafarers and manning departments alike, would love to sit back and have everything running almost on autopilot- people reporting back on time, ships being assigned promptly et al. Hiccups aside, (ship delayed? owners not happy with the officer or vice versa? Officer has last minute family commitments?) this does seem to be the way to go. But the million dollar question has to be answered first- given a contractual relationship, how can forever be attained?
I would have proposed substituting a contractual relationship for a permanent one, but the biggest negative there is the Income Tax Act. Seafarers were probably not meant to be beneficiaries; but they (at least the ones working for foreign companies) enjoy tax benefits which would evaporate if they became permanent employees. Indian Shipping Companies are hamstrung in comparison, which is an anomaly that needs to be addressed urgently. The fact that industry representations- both formal and informal- to various Governments have not yielded any results for years testifies to the weak lobbying skills of the industry.
Be that as it may, let us assume that offering seafarers permanent employment may mean that their post tax wages take a big hit, and is not therefore easily possible.
(Other issues with permanent employment: Many seafarers may not like the lower monthly wage this entails, even as the annual wage remains unchanged. Many will not like the restriction. Some seafarers will be suspicious- what if the company doesn’t deliver on promises? Some companies may not like the permanent tag and the complications it creates with labour laws, employee provident fund requirements and such, which effectively raises costs. )
Back to the future.
The only recourse then , if ‘forever’ is to be attained, is to define a path wherein a desired seafarer employee gets obvious benefits of a long term association, and sees a clearly defined path to this end.
So far, these ‘benefits’ have translated mainly into seniority allowances and xth year wage scales. Unfortunately, this has been ad-hoc; xth year scales are often, even usually, negotiated by new entrants to a company, making the entire concept of seniority meaningless. In one well known company, I was so disgusted with finding out that a relatively junior Master had been granted higher wage scales – after I had accepted spiel about ‘we are very rigid about seniority allowances”- that I threatened to quit. I am still of the opinion that our profession should count for something greater than haggling in a fish market, or buying potatoes on the roadside.
I tend to think that the solution to the ‘forever’ question has to be more creative than salaries anyway, so for the purposes of this article am ignoring the ‘wages last revised on’ option. It is a bullet which has traveled its optimal distance or a soap bubble which has been blown up enough- at some stage, the business will become unviable and the bubble will burst, leaving our faces wet.
In short, I am proposing this: All Ship Ownership Companies (and here I take ship management to be an integral part of ownership, even if they are separate entities) should have a well defined, transparent and formal system in place for evaluation, identification and subsequent training of seagoing staff with a clear objective of career advancement into managerial positions ashore. This proposal assumes that a long term association between a seafarer and a shipping company is not only possible; it is desirable and to mutual benefit- and so is clearly a prime objective.
Firms can well have a programme wherein the best performing officers can be identified, and put on a ‘fast track’ for promotions and shifting ashore; such a public programme, in my view, would go a long way towards healthy competition. A leaf could be taken out of the book of a few long standing MNCs- I believe Lever’s (now Hindustan Unilever) have had such a programme for years. How do they do it? The devil is in the details, but the details are not rocket science.
Yes, there will be some fallout- other officers feeling disgruntled or sidelined, for one. But this has to be managed- and well- if a firm has to retain staff and improve quality at the same time; right now most shipping companies employ what they can get. I also believe this fast track approach will do much towards employees trying harder- and staying longer with you, the clearly defined objective being ‘moving ashore’. What the management types call a win-win situation.
A clear definition of the path is very important. In it’s absence, the whole exercise seems prone to favoritism, subjective and arbitrary. For example, a Third Engineer needs to clearly see where his long term association with the company can benefit him, and after how long- provided he continues to perform- and what those parameters for performance evaluation are.
In my opinion, this industry has failed here so far. Operational and technical managerial jobs automatically lead to management jobs in most industries. Except shipping. Yes, it is a pyramidal structure, sure- after all if all the Master’s came ashore where would they go? And who would run the ships? - But this pyramid is hardly unique to this industry. All businesses have this, and so using this reasoning is lame.
Besides, a pyramidal structure ensures competition, which raises the professional bar. A good outcome, I would have thought.
Surely, there are some companies which identify good officers for a shift ashore. But too many select people in a ad-hoc manner- and nepotism, regionalism and sheer unprofessionalism is alive and kicking in these selections. Wouldn’t a transparent and formal system be much better?
The fact is, also, that seafarers and companies alike are hamstrung by the contractual nature of employment and are scattered worldwide. Multinational and multicultural crews add to this eclectic mix of issues; we consequently get paralysed by these complexities and take recourse in the well trodden path, the one with least resistance. As long as the going was good, this system kind-of worked. No more, and not really.
Managing this effectively at higher levels of attrition will continue to be a nightmare unless individual companies retain people they want. In this context, my suggestion above in an attempt to address this issue may work, or it may not.
If it doesn’t, we haven’t lost anything and we will be back to square one.
If it does, however, you may see Ship managers beating this drum, instead of the old and jaded ‘wages last revised on’ one.
Somebody just has to try it, is all.
The rest of us, to quote Thomas Paine, have to either “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
.
first published in www.marexbulletin.com
A good hardworking officer who completes his contract unless there is a good reason to come home early- and one who stays with the company forever. A person of integrity, sobriety and responsibility. A person who accepts market wages and normal seniority and bonuses, and is fair in his dealings with the company. A person who rejoins as agreed, and is otherwise reasonable.
So now, the mirror question to my first one; what does a good, responsible and ethical officer want from a shipping company?
A good setup which offers him shorter contracts than its peers, pays his agreed wages on time, and responds appropriately to the market at appropriate intervals. A setup of integrity and responsibility, which has a decent number of safe and well maintained ships, which treats him fairly, relieves him on time and does not waste his time on leave. A setup which employs him forever. A setup which offers him a ship as agreed after leave, and is otherwise reasonable.
Now for just two quick comments on the above:
· One, it seems to me, looking at the last few paragraphs, that there is a lot of congruence between what a company and a mariner want from each other. This is heartening. Perhaps the twain can meet after all.
· Two, as my wife will gleefully attest, even threaten- nothing is forever. So let’s take forever to mean long term. The rub lies here, though. Everybody, seafarers and manning departments alike, would love to sit back and have everything running almost on autopilot- people reporting back on time, ships being assigned promptly et al. Hiccups aside, (ship delayed? owners not happy with the officer or vice versa? Officer has last minute family commitments?) this does seem to be the way to go. But the million dollar question has to be answered first- given a contractual relationship, how can forever be attained?
I would have proposed substituting a contractual relationship for a permanent one, but the biggest negative there is the Income Tax Act. Seafarers were probably not meant to be beneficiaries; but they (at least the ones working for foreign companies) enjoy tax benefits which would evaporate if they became permanent employees. Indian Shipping Companies are hamstrung in comparison, which is an anomaly that needs to be addressed urgently. The fact that industry representations- both formal and informal- to various Governments have not yielded any results for years testifies to the weak lobbying skills of the industry.
Be that as it may, let us assume that offering seafarers permanent employment may mean that their post tax wages take a big hit, and is not therefore easily possible.
(Other issues with permanent employment: Many seafarers may not like the lower monthly wage this entails, even as the annual wage remains unchanged. Many will not like the restriction. Some seafarers will be suspicious- what if the company doesn’t deliver on promises? Some companies may not like the permanent tag and the complications it creates with labour laws, employee provident fund requirements and such, which effectively raises costs. )
Back to the future.
The only recourse then , if ‘forever’ is to be attained, is to define a path wherein a desired seafarer employee gets obvious benefits of a long term association, and sees a clearly defined path to this end.
So far, these ‘benefits’ have translated mainly into seniority allowances and xth year wage scales. Unfortunately, this has been ad-hoc; xth year scales are often, even usually, negotiated by new entrants to a company, making the entire concept of seniority meaningless. In one well known company, I was so disgusted with finding out that a relatively junior Master had been granted higher wage scales – after I had accepted spiel about ‘we are very rigid about seniority allowances”- that I threatened to quit. I am still of the opinion that our profession should count for something greater than haggling in a fish market, or buying potatoes on the roadside.
I tend to think that the solution to the ‘forever’ question has to be more creative than salaries anyway, so for the purposes of this article am ignoring the ‘wages last revised on’ option. It is a bullet which has traveled its optimal distance or a soap bubble which has been blown up enough- at some stage, the business will become unviable and the bubble will burst, leaving our faces wet.
In short, I am proposing this: All Ship Ownership Companies (and here I take ship management to be an integral part of ownership, even if they are separate entities) should have a well defined, transparent and formal system in place for evaluation, identification and subsequent training of seagoing staff with a clear objective of career advancement into managerial positions ashore. This proposal assumes that a long term association between a seafarer and a shipping company is not only possible; it is desirable and to mutual benefit- and so is clearly a prime objective.
Firms can well have a programme wherein the best performing officers can be identified, and put on a ‘fast track’ for promotions and shifting ashore; such a public programme, in my view, would go a long way towards healthy competition. A leaf could be taken out of the book of a few long standing MNCs- I believe Lever’s (now Hindustan Unilever) have had such a programme for years. How do they do it? The devil is in the details, but the details are not rocket science.
Yes, there will be some fallout- other officers feeling disgruntled or sidelined, for one. But this has to be managed- and well- if a firm has to retain staff and improve quality at the same time; right now most shipping companies employ what they can get. I also believe this fast track approach will do much towards employees trying harder- and staying longer with you, the clearly defined objective being ‘moving ashore’. What the management types call a win-win situation.
A clear definition of the path is very important. In it’s absence, the whole exercise seems prone to favoritism, subjective and arbitrary. For example, a Third Engineer needs to clearly see where his long term association with the company can benefit him, and after how long- provided he continues to perform- and what those parameters for performance evaluation are.
In my opinion, this industry has failed here so far. Operational and technical managerial jobs automatically lead to management jobs in most industries. Except shipping. Yes, it is a pyramidal structure, sure- after all if all the Master’s came ashore where would they go? And who would run the ships? - But this pyramid is hardly unique to this industry. All businesses have this, and so using this reasoning is lame.
Besides, a pyramidal structure ensures competition, which raises the professional bar. A good outcome, I would have thought.
Surely, there are some companies which identify good officers for a shift ashore. But too many select people in a ad-hoc manner- and nepotism, regionalism and sheer unprofessionalism is alive and kicking in these selections. Wouldn’t a transparent and formal system be much better?
The fact is, also, that seafarers and companies alike are hamstrung by the contractual nature of employment and are scattered worldwide. Multinational and multicultural crews add to this eclectic mix of issues; we consequently get paralysed by these complexities and take recourse in the well trodden path, the one with least resistance. As long as the going was good, this system kind-of worked. No more, and not really.
Managing this effectively at higher levels of attrition will continue to be a nightmare unless individual companies retain people they want. In this context, my suggestion above in an attempt to address this issue may work, or it may not.
If it doesn’t, we haven’t lost anything and we will be back to square one.
If it does, however, you may see Ship managers beating this drum, instead of the old and jaded ‘wages last revised on’ one.
Somebody just has to try it, is all.
The rest of us, to quote Thomas Paine, have to either “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
.
first published in www.marexbulletin.com
April 27, 2008
One Pressure Cooked Mariner with fries, please
With reference to the Command of a ship, one of the greyest legal areas I can think of is the relationship between a pilot and a Master, and indeed between a pilot and the navigational watch. It can be stressful, ambivalent and confusing at the best of times. Relatively newer practices and codes, including checklists and logs for ‘Master Pilot exchange’ have done little except generate more paper in an attempt to, well, CYA.
I have been witness to a near miss with a nearsighted pilot and a near moronic Chief Officer, who saw the boat fifty feet away and did not inform the pilot, because quote Cap, the pilot on the bridge, it his job unquote. Though this may be an extreme example, it highlights the confusion. What is a pilot? Well, traditionally it was advisor or “Servant of the vessel”- which put most of the liability on the Master, and therefore the Owners.
If this wasn’t confusing enough, we now have the Cosco Busan ruling against the pilot. This, in my view, changes, well, everything.
Let’s take a step back to try to understand the ramifications. Ignore the hype surrounding Capt. Cota’s alcohol, depression and prescription drug related issues. Ignore the dead birds and the oil spilled, even as you wonder how many birds have been killed and how much oil (not to speak of blood) has been spilled in Iraq. Ignore his 27 years experience or his recourse to the Fifth Amendment. Ignore his pancreatis and migraines and CPAP machines and apnea- remember this is a country which is used to finding specks of dirt on it’s Presidents’ and Presidential Candidates’ shoes, and so a marine pilot is, like the birds, fair and easier game.
Ignore the hoopla and come to the root of the matter. Which is, answer this question
“What is the legal role of a Pilot and/or the Master on the bridge of a ship in US waters?”
“Search me” is my answer. Perhaps somebody in the room has a better one.
Not an idle question and answer session, this. People are going to jail for these “crimes”. Criminalistion of the seafarer is fait accompli; it just got expanded to include pilots. However, at least we mariners are entitled to know the areas we are individually and collectively liable in, and which one of us will go to jail for what, and who will do what and to whom, and so on.
Or is that too uncomfortable a question?
Come to think of it, many other such grey areas exist in a Masters day to day working life. Idly thinking about this, and paraphrasing, here is a random compilation from my own experience. I hasten to add that these grey areas are usually exploited to create pressure, one which unfortunately many of us mariners succumb to. And, actually, so is putting a mariner in jail – not for a criminal act, but for an accident- a pressure tactic.
If we mariners had any sense, we would, similar to airline pilots, refuse to sail, or operate, from the very moment there was a possibility of lower safety, or when any of the myriad rules were broken. Our threshold of acceptable risk is just too high in today’s blame game world.
This would mean ships held up in port or delayed at sea, longer voyages and lower profits, higher costs for garbage and sludge disposal and maintenance of critical machinery (how many times have the engineers been less than happy with the separator’s performance and struggled with it daily?). It would mean turning the profit and loss statements and balance sheets of companies on their collective heads. It would mean a hundred changes to practices, stores and spares, manning and manning certificates, safe ports and terminals, pilotage and weather routeing, safe speeds and bunker and water reserves.
It would also mean a lower chance of a jail term, so, gentlemen, maybe it is time to prioritise.
But apologies, I digress and transgress.
Anyway, here is my promised grey area compilation of pressure tactics. Some suggested responses are in brackets, though to save time and stay ahead of the curve, perhaps you should take out that suitcase first, if you are sailing. Else, enjoy.
Trust me, all these incidents happened in firms many of us would consider ‘standard’.
I repeat, too, that these are paraphrased- even slightly exaggerated. But these incidents are essentially true. Actually, I must confess that one or two of the suggested responses are more than just ‘suggested’. One lives and learns and hopes...
· Charterer’s rep: “Captain, I have sailed in these waters for a long time and nobody reduces speed in thick fog and zero visibility, and nobody even doubles watches or uses the foghorn. However, and psst, you have overriding authority.” (Suggested response: That is indeed excellent. Why don’t you take over from me and crash at 25 knots using your overriding authority instead of mine?)
· Manager: “It is very difficult to get good junior officers these days. Though I understand you are always in fog and narrow waters in one of the busiest traffic density area in the world, why don’t you manage with this useless and dangerous guy for sometime?” (SR: Ok boss. But since I am doing all his work, and since the manning certificate is a joke, why don’t I sack him instead and you give me his wages in addition to mine?)
· Superintendent: “During your next port stay of ten long hours, I am coming down to Port Chaos. We will call Class and do six surveys. We will also do a ship inspection, an ISM audit and have four beers in the evening. Meanwhile, don’t forget the cargo, stores, sludge disposal and crew change and such small routine stuff, and stop people even dreaming of going ashore”. (SR: Great! Since we will also ‘do’ the crew, -and since I hear it is a peaceful berth and a wonderful place for stopping the ship so everybody can sleep till we comply with the mandatory rest periods, we will do that too. Will you inform Operations or should I?)
· Superintendent: “That equipment is critical for the survey. I don’t know why the Chief is saying it has been knackered for months and has been mentioned so in his handover notes four months ago... It was working fine last month when I was there.” (SR:Then you should have done the survey last month)
· Owner’s representative: “What do you mean a Flag State Inspection has stopped the ship because of holes in the funnel?? Why didn’t someone point them out to the Superintendent when he visited last month? How can they expect us to renew plating before the ship sails. Can’t you make an arrangement with them and get the ship moving? How come you didn’t report these holes when you joined a week ago?” (SR: Yes, I probably can make an arrangement, but in case I get jailed in this country reputed for strict laws and low corruption, will my contract and wages be on till I am released, at least? And apologies, next time I will go directly to the funnel of any ship with a toothcomb as soon as I step on board)
· Dry Dock Superintendent to Chief Engineer: “Chief, there is a lot of oil around in the water from the yard just outside the dry dock. When are you are afloat, can’t you lower your bilges a bit?” (SR: Yep, and maybe my pants too?)
· Operations: “Captain XYZ always loaded five hundred tonnes more cargo than you. Can you explain why you are loading less?” (SR: Lemme try. We are unfortunately limited by deadweight. Also, you see, he was often sailing with the loadline well immersed, because he also had problems taking out the ballast. Can I send you photocopies of the official log book where the Chief Officer has logged down sailing drafts? And if so, do you want the same officer’s statement confirming this, or will my word do?)
· Manning Superintendent/DPA who has not sailed for a decade and a half: “Captain, the charterers are complaining that you have informed them, based on calculations, that many containers are under declared in weight, and hence you may have to shut out cargo. If you do that, we will spoil relations with them, which we must avoid at any cost. Can you send me a full report ASAP right now, even though I understand it is past midnight over there?” (SR: Sure. Make sure the secretary you have arranged to assist me is blonde with blue eyes, please?)
Come to think of it, some of these incidents are quite funny. Maybe I can write a book next time I am behind bars. As the management types say, in every adversity there is an opportunity.
Mariners seem to be getting a lot of opportunities these days.
First published in www.marexbulletin.com
I have been witness to a near miss with a nearsighted pilot and a near moronic Chief Officer, who saw the boat fifty feet away and did not inform the pilot, because quote Cap, the pilot on the bridge, it his job unquote. Though this may be an extreme example, it highlights the confusion. What is a pilot? Well, traditionally it was advisor or “Servant of the vessel”- which put most of the liability on the Master, and therefore the Owners.
If this wasn’t confusing enough, we now have the Cosco Busan ruling against the pilot. This, in my view, changes, well, everything.
Let’s take a step back to try to understand the ramifications. Ignore the hype surrounding Capt. Cota’s alcohol, depression and prescription drug related issues. Ignore the dead birds and the oil spilled, even as you wonder how many birds have been killed and how much oil (not to speak of blood) has been spilled in Iraq. Ignore his 27 years experience or his recourse to the Fifth Amendment. Ignore his pancreatis and migraines and CPAP machines and apnea- remember this is a country which is used to finding specks of dirt on it’s Presidents’ and Presidential Candidates’ shoes, and so a marine pilot is, like the birds, fair and easier game.
Ignore the hoopla and come to the root of the matter. Which is, answer this question
“What is the legal role of a Pilot and/or the Master on the bridge of a ship in US waters?”
“Search me” is my answer. Perhaps somebody in the room has a better one.
Not an idle question and answer session, this. People are going to jail for these “crimes”. Criminalistion of the seafarer is fait accompli; it just got expanded to include pilots. However, at least we mariners are entitled to know the areas we are individually and collectively liable in, and which one of us will go to jail for what, and who will do what and to whom, and so on.
Or is that too uncomfortable a question?
Come to think of it, many other such grey areas exist in a Masters day to day working life. Idly thinking about this, and paraphrasing, here is a random compilation from my own experience. I hasten to add that these grey areas are usually exploited to create pressure, one which unfortunately many of us mariners succumb to. And, actually, so is putting a mariner in jail – not for a criminal act, but for an accident- a pressure tactic.
If we mariners had any sense, we would, similar to airline pilots, refuse to sail, or operate, from the very moment there was a possibility of lower safety, or when any of the myriad rules were broken. Our threshold of acceptable risk is just too high in today’s blame game world.
This would mean ships held up in port or delayed at sea, longer voyages and lower profits, higher costs for garbage and sludge disposal and maintenance of critical machinery (how many times have the engineers been less than happy with the separator’s performance and struggled with it daily?). It would mean turning the profit and loss statements and balance sheets of companies on their collective heads. It would mean a hundred changes to practices, stores and spares, manning and manning certificates, safe ports and terminals, pilotage and weather routeing, safe speeds and bunker and water reserves.
It would also mean a lower chance of a jail term, so, gentlemen, maybe it is time to prioritise.
But apologies, I digress and transgress.
Anyway, here is my promised grey area compilation of pressure tactics. Some suggested responses are in brackets, though to save time and stay ahead of the curve, perhaps you should take out that suitcase first, if you are sailing. Else, enjoy.
Trust me, all these incidents happened in firms many of us would consider ‘standard’.
I repeat, too, that these are paraphrased- even slightly exaggerated. But these incidents are essentially true. Actually, I must confess that one or two of the suggested responses are more than just ‘suggested’. One lives and learns and hopes...
· Charterer’s rep: “Captain, I have sailed in these waters for a long time and nobody reduces speed in thick fog and zero visibility, and nobody even doubles watches or uses the foghorn. However, and psst, you have overriding authority.” (Suggested response: That is indeed excellent. Why don’t you take over from me and crash at 25 knots using your overriding authority instead of mine?)
· Manager: “It is very difficult to get good junior officers these days. Though I understand you are always in fog and narrow waters in one of the busiest traffic density area in the world, why don’t you manage with this useless and dangerous guy for sometime?” (SR: Ok boss. But since I am doing all his work, and since the manning certificate is a joke, why don’t I sack him instead and you give me his wages in addition to mine?)
· Superintendent: “During your next port stay of ten long hours, I am coming down to Port Chaos. We will call Class and do six surveys. We will also do a ship inspection, an ISM audit and have four beers in the evening. Meanwhile, don’t forget the cargo, stores, sludge disposal and crew change and such small routine stuff, and stop people even dreaming of going ashore”. (SR: Great! Since we will also ‘do’ the crew, -and since I hear it is a peaceful berth and a wonderful place for stopping the ship so everybody can sleep till we comply with the mandatory rest periods, we will do that too. Will you inform Operations or should I?)
· Superintendent: “That equipment is critical for the survey. I don’t know why the Chief is saying it has been knackered for months and has been mentioned so in his handover notes four months ago... It was working fine last month when I was there.” (SR:Then you should have done the survey last month)
· Owner’s representative: “What do you mean a Flag State Inspection has stopped the ship because of holes in the funnel?? Why didn’t someone point them out to the Superintendent when he visited last month? How can they expect us to renew plating before the ship sails. Can’t you make an arrangement with them and get the ship moving? How come you didn’t report these holes when you joined a week ago?” (SR: Yes, I probably can make an arrangement, but in case I get jailed in this country reputed for strict laws and low corruption, will my contract and wages be on till I am released, at least? And apologies, next time I will go directly to the funnel of any ship with a toothcomb as soon as I step on board)
· Dry Dock Superintendent to Chief Engineer: “Chief, there is a lot of oil around in the water from the yard just outside the dry dock. When are you are afloat, can’t you lower your bilges a bit?” (SR: Yep, and maybe my pants too?)
· Operations: “Captain XYZ always loaded five hundred tonnes more cargo than you. Can you explain why you are loading less?” (SR: Lemme try. We are unfortunately limited by deadweight. Also, you see, he was often sailing with the loadline well immersed, because he also had problems taking out the ballast. Can I send you photocopies of the official log book where the Chief Officer has logged down sailing drafts? And if so, do you want the same officer’s statement confirming this, or will my word do?)
· Manning Superintendent/DPA who has not sailed for a decade and a half: “Captain, the charterers are complaining that you have informed them, based on calculations, that many containers are under declared in weight, and hence you may have to shut out cargo. If you do that, we will spoil relations with them, which we must avoid at any cost. Can you send me a full report ASAP right now, even though I understand it is past midnight over there?” (SR: Sure. Make sure the secretary you have arranged to assist me is blonde with blue eyes, please?)
Come to think of it, some of these incidents are quite funny. Maybe I can write a book next time I am behind bars. As the management types say, in every adversity there is an opportunity.
Mariners seem to be getting a lot of opportunities these days.
First published in www.marexbulletin.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)