I left an Indian shipping firm for a foreign one in 1981 and never worked on an Indian ship again. At the time I left, there were just one or two fledgling manning agents in then Bombay whom I chose to ignore for my own reasons. The profession was almost unknown; few folk in the rest of the country, including cities like Delhi, a big centre in the ship manning business today, had even heard of the merchant navy.
It wasn't easy. In a time of prohibitive international phone call rates and no emails, looking for a job abroad involved posting many laboriously typed letters- cold- to addresses found with great difficulty. Not all that many employed Indians, although the market was opening up. Most did not even bother to reply. I was lucky to get a break; the German ship I eventually landed up on had to suddenly sign off the Chief and 2nd Mates at the same time and so I was in the right place at the right time, for once. This, as it turned out later, was around the beginning of the recession, and I was lucky again, being one of the few who had 'foreign company' experience when I had to look for another job a year and a half later.
Incidentally, I was hardly the only Indian who left an Indian setup just after my first ticket, but we were a minority. Today many of us claim, with some pride and justification, that we were amongst those that contributed to the breaking of the glass ceiling on foreign flags; many started employing Indians when they employed us. But this is just part of the story; there were other reasons we can hardly take credit for. We must realise that the very same reasons that worked for us work against Indians today, and we must therefore recognise the threat to our present ship manning enterprises before it is too late.
What also happened at that time was this: Firstly, shipowners from developed countries flagged out many ships to 'FOC's' to save taxes and crewing costs, besides for the more relaxed Flag State regulation and control. Meanwhile, the merchant navy was not a favoured career choice for many of their citizens, what with salaries ashore being lucrative (in well paying jobs anyway, but also in others) and that too without a sailor's hardships. The few who did come out to sea from developed countries left within a decade or so. This cycle fed itself: lower salaries attracted the youth of these countries less and less; people of higher academic calibre obviously ignored the profession; Flagged out ships meant owners could now look for crews from elsewhere who were cheaper anyway; and so opportunities at sea for the citizens of developed countries started drying up. Incidentally, this process continues even today, with Maersk looking for up to 280 'voluntary' officer redundancies from the UK and Denmark two months ago. The company wants to replace these seafarers with cheaper Asian crews.
In India, on the other hand, the career, as well as the foreign salary package, was very lucrative; shore opportunities were fewer and paid much less. This attracted people of much higher academic calibre; equally importantly, the culture and the economics of the time dictated that most of these (us) seamen intended to make the merchant navy a long term career choice.
It was no contest, really. Lower calibre and dissatisfied seafarers from developed countries could hardly compete with hungry and higher calibre seafarers from India; their pie was shrinking and the Indian cake expanding.
The battleground threatens to invert on its head today. Although we claim to account for 6% of the global seagoing workforce, the long term commitment of most new entrants is in doubt. The reasons are the same ones that grew Indian seafaring, but the shoe is on the other foot now. Salaries are high ashore in India, and comparable (in good jobs, but many others too, after a few years). Sailor hardships have actually increased; onboard facilities and working conditions have not kept pace with time, and in some cases have regressed. With the dollar under long term and international pressure, there is no huge foreign exchange advantage now (The rupee was less than eight rupees in the late seventies when I came out to sea. It went up six times during my seagoing life). Global tonnage may be on a long term uptrend, present overcapacity issues notwithstanding, but Indians are struggling to maintain present manpower market share. Seems to me a matter of time before the scales tip decisively against us, as they did for the Europeans, the North Americans, the Japanese and some others not all that long ago.
In addition, we have one unique disadvantage: China, and on many counts. Firstly, it is a country with population demographics high enough to compete directly for marine jobs with Indians. Secondly, its own tonnage (for which it will hardly need foreign seafarers) is slated to explode as it marches with inexorable certainty to 'next economic superpower' status. Thirdly and critically, it is antagonistic to India and has a direct conflict of interest with us when it comes to a projection of its maritime strength. The strength of the merchant navy is likely to be a strategic pawn in that great game; successive Indian governments may be doing a huge disservice to the nation by continuing to be slothful about this country's tonnage. Ignoring this issue will not make it go away.
But it is not just China. Six percent of the global seagoing workforce is a large number but still one that can be whittled down reasonably easily. A few African countries with decent education systems can halve this within a decade. Then, countries like Bangladesh have not really exported officers to the extent possible, and the Philippines is a dark horse: it should be possible, given their English language advantage, for them to upgrade the quality of their officers without huge difficulty.
Be that as it may, I don't see Indian seafaring numbers going up substantially in proportion to increasing global tonnage. We might find maintaining the six percent figure an uphill task in itself, although I am sure many of us will find creative ways of trying to make the industry attractive to a higher calibre and more committed bunch of new entrants compared to the ones on display today. Even if we do that, though, I wonder how many of the new entrants will be around a decade from today in the industry. If they are elsewhere, who will staff the offices ashore? MBA graduates with little idea of the complexities of seafaring? Heaven forbid.
I must say that though reducing manning market share will create inevitable upheavals in the industry, I do not see this as the biggest issue: It is a natural consequence of a country's overall prosperity. A bigger problem that I think we face can be summarised by looking at some of the same countries whose nationals we displaced on ships, and who grew the industry in their nations in many simultaneous directions regardless. That India has not moved up the maritime value chain is a reflection of the state of the industry as a whole: we have no equipment manufacturers worth the name, no global insurance or reinsurance presence worth talking about, no large international level marine consultancy firms or maritime legal companies and no high end research facilities of any kind. This is an endless list. We are low down the food chain, which means we can be gobbled up or replaced that much easier.
Our expertise seems to end at the lower levels of data entry and the management of ships. And that, frankly, is as simply handled anywhere by finding a few good people and some decent infrastructure. Given that, I can probably set up a ship management company in a week anywhere in the world if I have that, so why should I choose India if she cannot provide me the appropriate people in required numbers, either afloat or ashore?
Our comparative advantage lay in the mariners we produced; that quality has dwindled and will inevitably be under increasing pressure as India progresses economically. It is perhaps too late to increase our mariner market share substantially, but there may still be time for the industry to ascend the value chain; as we proved to the world when it came to working on ships, we have the brains and the will to do so. We could very well give European countries a run for their money.
What we do not have, thus far, is either commitment or appropriate leadership; what we require is a calibre of professionals with unblinkered and forward thinking vision; what we need is to transmigrate up the chain to services and research that will sustain our industry beyond the perhaps inevitable reduction in the manning business. There is far more to shipping than just body shopping.
.
.
Showing posts with label maritime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maritime. Show all posts
January 21, 2010
December 31, 2009
Future Shock
An entertaining Chief Officer I sailed with long ago (the same one who put up a checklist in his cabin for going to the loo, starting with opening the door and ending with spraying air freshener) had a theory about international trade. After a couple of months of carrying steel products into Thailand from elsewhere and then carrying other identical steel products out of Thailand to the same elsewhere, he said that merchant shipping would become superfluous as soon as people realised what was being produced next door.
I was reminded of that statement as I read conflicting reports recently: reports that made me wonder if shipping experts really had any clue of what was going on in their own backyards. All their studies bore on the dry cargo and tanker oversupply situation that is supposed to either hit freight rates badly or not affect them much in the next couple of years, depending on which expert one listens to. As many ships are on order as there are afloat now in the dry cargo market, one says. En masse cancellations are likely, says another. But orders made to greenfield shipyards don't count, says a third, pointing out that those shipyards themselves may now never be built because capital has dried up. Only twenty percent of the order book will actually be delivered, another analyst says with suspiciously remarkable accuracy, considering that nobody seems to have any remotely accurate system that would give numbers of how many vessels will finally be spewed out through the pipeline.
Whatever the experts say, it is clear to anybody that there are simply too many ships around today for the cargo on offer, and that this mismatch between demand and supply will not vanish next Monday. This is because when freight rate graphs were hitting the roof, many owners extrapolated those graphs to infinity, got excited access to the easy credit sloshing around the system and bought or ordered ships greedily like there was no tomorrow. Unfortunately, tomorrow is now here.
To compound the usual myopia, everybody forgot that it is not easy to get rid of assets when markets crash, especially large assets like ships. They even forgot that shipowning is a long term commitment and that shipping has always been a cyclical industry. The chickens have come home to roost now. To make matters worse, the last couple of months have seen fuel prices rising, more than doubling since last December. This has hit shipowners even as they struggle to dodge the sword of Damocles- tonnage in the pipeline over the next two years- hanging over their heads.
Notwithstanding the spike in rates from the second half of October that have relieved those that look for green shoots with magnifying glasses, it seems to me that things are obviously going to get worse before they get better. There may be periodic glimmers of hope, like temporary or calculated Chinese demand (again) spiking rates for a while before they drift down, or the hope that trade will improve with better than expected figures now coming out of the US economy. Freight or hire rates in different sectors may be out of sync for awhile, like what has happened with tanker rates recently as compared to bulk carrier ones. Let’s ignore box ships for now; they have been particular casualties in this mayhem. One of the same experts predicts that container companies are going to lose 20 billion US dollars this year. The fact that a record 11.7 percent of the box ship fleet is presently idle and that the containership segment will grow just 6 percent in 2009, the lowest growth rate in the last decade, speaks for itself. The same analysts expect the idle fleet size to peak by February 2010 before easing, though what will happen to the 1.8 million TEU scheduled for 2010 delivery is anybody’s guess; one can be quite sure that deliveries will be deferred wherever possible).
But here's the thing: Whether things get better or worse in the short term, we in the maritime industry have so far been used to the surety that the long term will surely be to our advantage. That may well be true this time around too; at least all the experts seem to think so. However, I suggest that the industry could do well to factor in a couple of particular caveats into their plans this time.
The first one is actually more a paradigm shift than a caution: With the Chinese economy rivalling the US one, (some voices are already saying that it is globally the more important one of the two) there will be, inevitably, a shift in the kind of tonnage required in the future, Chinese (and even Indian or Brazilian) demand being of a different nature than that from the US. The requirement of more raw material carriage, for example.
It would be simpler if this was merely a matter of shipowners adjusting the kind of ships they buy and operate, which is what they have always done as they react to demand and supply. However, it may require greater nimbleness this time around, because I have a sneaking suspicion that US consumption will remain slow even after their economy recovers. I suspect that we have already seen the heydays of American consumerist prodigality: there will be much that the US just cannot afford now, and some scales may have well fallen off some eyes. If this happens, it will inevitably put pressure on Chinese exports, with a result that overall trade between the two behemoths may well remain sluggish. Of course, other developing countries, including India, may well pick up the slack. Regardless, shipowners will have to react to these developments with much greater agility; they may even have to predict the developments better to take full advantage of the opportunities; paradigm shifts demand this.
The second caveat is that the industry will have to factor in, much sooner than they think, one new heading under costs into their business plans. Let’s call this heading ‘Environmental Costs’; included will be many new headings of expenses including expenses related to shifting to cleaner and greener fuels and new ballast water treatment requirements. The costs involved in both are likely to be worryingly steep. All of us know about the high costs for cleaner fuel, of course, but those who think that ballast water treatment will not be all that expensive need to think again. As an example, US laws in the pipeline will require what the American Waterways Association, a trade body, calls “extremely expensive ballast water treatment systems” to be installed on board.
Of course, there will be, probably justifiably, no let up in pressure on the maritime industries to do more to protect the environment. ‘Environmental Costs’ will keep on rising as new regulations we cannot even envisage now are enacted across the world; Shipping will not be left alone much longer, confusion after Copenhagen notwithstanding. Unfortunately, going greener costs money and impacts shipowner profitability. If bottomlines are squeezed beyond a point, freight rates will be pressurised northwards. Is the global consumer prepared to pay more for just about everything yet?
.
July 24, 2009
Bad Press:
MEPC session attracts criticism of Shipping Industry.
The recently concluded fifty ninth session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) saw delegates agreeing to proposals aimed at cutting carbon emissions from ships. Environmental groups, however, were critical of the MEPC proposals, saying that strong legislation was required instead of the voluntary proposals that resulted from the MEPC session. In any case, they said, the proposals fell way short of what was needed.
The run up to the MEPC session saw media criticism of the maritime industries coming to the forefront. Many environmental campaigners accuse the maritime industry of dawdling on climate change issues for more than a decade. International environmental groups have long protested that shipping and aviation are the only industry sectors unregulated by the Kyoto Protocol that targeted greenhouse gas emissions starting 2008. The BBC reported last week that, “since 1990, the Kyoto baseline year, global shipping's emissions have risen by 85% (Second IMO GHG Study 2009)” and that shipping now emitted more CO2 (870 million tonnes each year) than UK's entire economy. Obviously, if the maritime industry were a country, it would rank amongst the culprits emitting high greenhouse gases.
The shipping industry is responsible for three percent of global CO2 emissions today. Critics have long argued that this percentage would rise by 150 to 250% by 2050, given increasing trade, unless steps were taken urgently to improve emissions from ships. Pressure is now growing on the industry to make changes, and soon. A critical climate change summit is due in December in Copenhagen, and the present MEPC session is seen by many to be a precursor to that conference, which is part of a broad UN proposed climate change agreement.
MEPC Delegates approved non compulsory measures to reduce greenhouse emissions from ships. The steps are both technical and operational and include modification of designs in new ships to make them more environmentally friendly. The IMO statement that these were interim and voluntary guidelines sparked off protests from many environmentalists. The WWF’s head of transport policy, Peter Lockley said that the IMO proposals should have been mandatory with set targets. "This does not meet our demands or what is necessary to protect the climate and we are going to call on the UNFCCC to set targets and timelines and guiding principles," he said. The UNFCCC is the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Peter Hinchliffe, marine director with the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) told Reuters that the proposals were an important first step and indicated that shippers wanted these formalised into law. Other industry bosses agree, in private, that given shipping's global nature, any solution must be directed by the IMO. Analysts agree that the IMO has been slow to come up with a workable framework to curb emissions from ships because of obfuscation by Member States. IMO Secretary General Efthimios Mitropoulos disagreed when he told MEPC delegates last week that they should avoid the temptation to seek "overly ambitious results we cannot deliver." The IMO is facing additional pressure from developing countries who say that they should not be penalised as heavily as rich nations who have contributed disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions.
Nevertheless, some countries have already proposed legislation: France, for example, has called for curbs to ship emissions to be mandated at Copenhagen. Australia has often expressed frustration at the slow pace of change within the shipping industry, and the EU has threatened to make their Emission Trading System more stringent and in line with the MEPC proposals. Environmental groups within the US back their government’s proposals that seek to reduce ship emissions by improving efficiency in order to meet targets within designated time frames. Oceana, one such group, said recently that “a levy on shipping fuel and the participation of the sector in an emissions trading system were potentially effective ways of reducing emissions”. (The ‘levy’ funds to be used for adaptation to climate change in developing countries).
In an indictment of the industry, BBC's veteran Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin, after a quarter of a century of reporting on the environment, gives the example of Tributyltin (TBT), an anti fouling compound commonly in use until recently. He says that, fully twenty four years ago, TBT was causing “female dog whelks to grow penises”. Even after the IMO agreed with scientists on TBT findings, its anti fouling convention “drifted in the Doldrums” and was only ratified in 2008, fully 23 years later. “It doesn't fill you with confidence about the industry's level of concern for the environment in which it makes its money”, he says.
Lockley from the WWF puts the problem in perspective. "The IMO has got the technical expertise," he says. "But this is a bigger political issue and we need to see some movement in Copenhagen if it's going to progress."
.
.
June 14, 2008
Monster's Maritime Ball
In the last few weeks, panicked voices from the manning world within the Industry, like postcards written from the edge, seem to have become shriller. Perhaps this is an illusion; perhaps it is just coincidence that a few reports and surveys have been published recently. The Ship talk recruitment survey was one. The Drewry/PAL associates report, "Manning 2008" was another, and of course, Lloyd's Lists' "Seafarers 2008" event in Singapore was, perhaps, the icing on the cake, or the final nail in the coffin, depending on how maudlin we maritime folk were feeling.
And, depending on whom you read when, or what event you attended where, alarming figures are bandied about. Thirty four thousand officers short already this year. An additional sixty thousand required over the next four years. A thousand officers short in the Indian domestic market; after some time these numbers, like Bill Gates' billions, overwhelm and don't mean much at all, except, of course, that phrases like 'unprecedented manning crisis' stay in one's mind.
So, let us reduce all this cacophony to one statement: In the next four years, almost ninety thousand qualified officers are projected to be additionally required by our world's shipping fleet.
Additional to what we have, and seemingly out of thin air. No wonder there is an acute sense of panic out there. All seems dark and gloomy.
Now and to paraphrase Santana, all you sinners, put the lights on and take several deep breaths, because this is what I see happening:
One, as the honchos at Bear Stearns will tell you, every boom has a bubble and every rose has a thorn. With the world's largest consumer, the USA, in recession and with growth rates in India and China slowing down a bit, trade is likely to drop. Figures out of Europe and Japan are not too encouraging either; in addition, inflationary pressures and oil prices are high. The food crisis worldwide and upcoming elections in the USA and India will result in politicians becoming more protectionist: witness the Indian governments on/off policies in recent times on everything from cement to sugar to food grains.
Not good signs. I am not saying that trade will stop, far from it, but a slowdown is likely. Boom graphs cannot be extrapolated to infinity. The consequence of such a slowdown is likely to ease the pressure on manpower to an extent; how much, of course, remains the million dollar question.
Two, the Industry will press for, and win, even smaller manning requirements from Flag States. This process has already begun. Indian authorities have recently reduced the requirement for one navigating officer on bulkers "on a trial basis" (this probably means that unless there is a major accident with a consequent hue and cry, the shorter manning will continue). There are already rumblings about reducing the number of engineers on board. Questions are even being raised about the Chief Engineer's role. My opinion is this: we need a Chief Engineer like we need a Master, because we in the industry need a fall guy when things go wrong. Who will fulfill that critical role?
Three, we will drift inexorably towards 'Creative Manning'. Place a BCom graduate as admin officer and remove the third mate. Place two welders (call them fitters, though) and remove a junior engineer. No Chief Engineer available, can we sail short 'on dispensation? The aim of the exercise will be to reduce the number of certified officers and engineers on board at any given time to the bare minimum as provided for in the Safe Manning certificate.
Four, and while still on the manning certificate, commercial pressure on Flag States to 'review' these certificates will increase. Review downwards, obviously. We will get creative here again, showing, on paper, non existent technical and operational shore support to persuade Flag States that skeleton crews will still be in line with all rules, including the STCW ones on rest periods. As things get worse, some owners may even threaten to change to more malleable Flags if their demands are not met.
Five and related, increased pressure on statutory agencies to do two things: Reduce sea time requirements for trainees and also pressure to pass them through the examination system faster. These pressures are already underway and are nothing new. We need certified warm bodies now, says the industry; we don't really care how competent they are.
Six, pressure on Class and internal auditors not to examine systemic non conformities too closely. We are short manned and it is tough to get good people, you know, so don't push things too much. Let the facade remain.
Seven, faster promotions, shorter contracts and higher wages on offer. We can have crews fatigued beyond the STCW convention but we can't have them burnt out. They have to return, though we will try fair and foul means to extend their tenures on board. Sometimes we prefer to burn them out even if they don't return to us. And we would rather promote before time even if it adds another less than competent officer to our fleet.
Seagoing wages will continue to rise till the business model can't take it any more, or till ….
Eight, China will, sooner or later, begin to supply manpower to the maritime world. The Philippines will increase its market share. Officers from the Philippines, some already under fire for perceived lower standards, will increase. This is because many Filipinos have the English language advantage which Indian crews often do not. Indian ship managers have already pointed to the Chinese storm on the horizon; given the disparity in the two (actually three, if you include the Philippines) nationalities wages and difficulties in getting new Indian bodies into the industry, this is just a matter of time.
Nine, many in the industry will revert to a bygone era's worst practices. Sitting on mariners' passports and documents, not relieving seafarers on time, promising the moon and delivering the gutter and poaching like drunken gypsies are tactics some are well experienced in.
Many seafarers will get more and more unreasonable; many of these prima donnas will skip jobs for a few dollars more, make outlandish demands and otherwise behave unprofessionally. This will feed the unprofessional on the other side of the fence; ship managers who will impatiently await a time when supply exceeds demand, so they can, in turn, treat seafarers badly. As children do, each side will bawl and say, "But he started it".
Ten and a critical assumption here, which is this: The Maritime Industry, with its present small resource pool of Officers, will fail to address, in the short term, the Officer crisis with any authority on its own. This is because of two main reasons (though I am sure we can all list several more)
a) It is fire fighting time now; issues pertaining to immediate shortages will consume the industry, not five year plans.
b) The maritime industry has no history of managing manpower well, and it does not seem to have the will or expertise to do so this time around either. Supply and demand have always balanced out in spite of our managers, not because of them. Maybe the Chinese will balance the scales this time.
In all this drama, my fear is this. At a time when ships are getting more complex, sea lanes are getting busier and casualty figures are rising, all these 'solutions', unplanned and inevitable as they may be, will cascade into an alarming downward spiral in safety standards. Less experienced officers, faster promotions, untested nationalities, pressures on statutory and non statutory organisations and cuts in present skeleton crews will all contribute to a world fleet which will be increasingly unsafe. Safer seas and cleaner oceans will remain a slogan and a pipe dream.
It is ironic that the industry, whether in boom times or bust cycles, always seems to lower quality; in a boom by leaning towards cutting corners in skilled manpower to keep ships moving and in a bust by cutting corners in ship maintenance to save money. Ironic, but not surprising, because we are conditioned to only looking at the short term. The long term doesn't matter, we think. In the long term we are all dead.
At the moment, the industry is in a bit of panic, like the man who dreams that a monster is sitting on his chest, trying to choke him to death. The man awakes in great fear, and actually sees the monster sitting on him! The man cries aloud "What is going to happen to me??!!??"
The monster grins at him and says "Don't ask me, it's your dream."
.
published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
.
And, depending on whom you read when, or what event you attended where, alarming figures are bandied about. Thirty four thousand officers short already this year. An additional sixty thousand required over the next four years. A thousand officers short in the Indian domestic market; after some time these numbers, like Bill Gates' billions, overwhelm and don't mean much at all, except, of course, that phrases like 'unprecedented manning crisis' stay in one's mind.
So, let us reduce all this cacophony to one statement: In the next four years, almost ninety thousand qualified officers are projected to be additionally required by our world's shipping fleet.
Additional to what we have, and seemingly out of thin air. No wonder there is an acute sense of panic out there. All seems dark and gloomy.
Now and to paraphrase Santana, all you sinners, put the lights on and take several deep breaths, because this is what I see happening:
One, as the honchos at Bear Stearns will tell you, every boom has a bubble and every rose has a thorn. With the world's largest consumer, the USA, in recession and with growth rates in India and China slowing down a bit, trade is likely to drop. Figures out of Europe and Japan are not too encouraging either; in addition, inflationary pressures and oil prices are high. The food crisis worldwide and upcoming elections in the USA and India will result in politicians becoming more protectionist: witness the Indian governments on/off policies in recent times on everything from cement to sugar to food grains.
Not good signs. I am not saying that trade will stop, far from it, but a slowdown is likely. Boom graphs cannot be extrapolated to infinity. The consequence of such a slowdown is likely to ease the pressure on manpower to an extent; how much, of course, remains the million dollar question.
Two, the Industry will press for, and win, even smaller manning requirements from Flag States. This process has already begun. Indian authorities have recently reduced the requirement for one navigating officer on bulkers "on a trial basis" (this probably means that unless there is a major accident with a consequent hue and cry, the shorter manning will continue). There are already rumblings about reducing the number of engineers on board. Questions are even being raised about the Chief Engineer's role. My opinion is this: we need a Chief Engineer like we need a Master, because we in the industry need a fall guy when things go wrong. Who will fulfill that critical role?
Three, we will drift inexorably towards 'Creative Manning'. Place a BCom graduate as admin officer and remove the third mate. Place two welders (call them fitters, though) and remove a junior engineer. No Chief Engineer available, can we sail short 'on dispensation? The aim of the exercise will be to reduce the number of certified officers and engineers on board at any given time to the bare minimum as provided for in the Safe Manning certificate.
Four, and while still on the manning certificate, commercial pressure on Flag States to 'review' these certificates will increase. Review downwards, obviously. We will get creative here again, showing, on paper, non existent technical and operational shore support to persuade Flag States that skeleton crews will still be in line with all rules, including the STCW ones on rest periods. As things get worse, some owners may even threaten to change to more malleable Flags if their demands are not met.
Five and related, increased pressure on statutory agencies to do two things: Reduce sea time requirements for trainees and also pressure to pass them through the examination system faster. These pressures are already underway and are nothing new. We need certified warm bodies now, says the industry; we don't really care how competent they are.
Six, pressure on Class and internal auditors not to examine systemic non conformities too closely. We are short manned and it is tough to get good people, you know, so don't push things too much. Let the facade remain.
Seven, faster promotions, shorter contracts and higher wages on offer. We can have crews fatigued beyond the STCW convention but we can't have them burnt out. They have to return, though we will try fair and foul means to extend their tenures on board. Sometimes we prefer to burn them out even if they don't return to us. And we would rather promote before time even if it adds another less than competent officer to our fleet.
Seagoing wages will continue to rise till the business model can't take it any more, or till ….
Eight, China will, sooner or later, begin to supply manpower to the maritime world. The Philippines will increase its market share. Officers from the Philippines, some already under fire for perceived lower standards, will increase. This is because many Filipinos have the English language advantage which Indian crews often do not. Indian ship managers have already pointed to the Chinese storm on the horizon; given the disparity in the two (actually three, if you include the Philippines) nationalities wages and difficulties in getting new Indian bodies into the industry, this is just a matter of time.
Nine, many in the industry will revert to a bygone era's worst practices. Sitting on mariners' passports and documents, not relieving seafarers on time, promising the moon and delivering the gutter and poaching like drunken gypsies are tactics some are well experienced in.
Many seafarers will get more and more unreasonable; many of these prima donnas will skip jobs for a few dollars more, make outlandish demands and otherwise behave unprofessionally. This will feed the unprofessional on the other side of the fence; ship managers who will impatiently await a time when supply exceeds demand, so they can, in turn, treat seafarers badly. As children do, each side will bawl and say, "But he started it".
Ten and a critical assumption here, which is this: The Maritime Industry, with its present small resource pool of Officers, will fail to address, in the short term, the Officer crisis with any authority on its own. This is because of two main reasons (though I am sure we can all list several more)
a) It is fire fighting time now; issues pertaining to immediate shortages will consume the industry, not five year plans.
b) The maritime industry has no history of managing manpower well, and it does not seem to have the will or expertise to do so this time around either. Supply and demand have always balanced out in spite of our managers, not because of them. Maybe the Chinese will balance the scales this time.
In all this drama, my fear is this. At a time when ships are getting more complex, sea lanes are getting busier and casualty figures are rising, all these 'solutions', unplanned and inevitable as they may be, will cascade into an alarming downward spiral in safety standards. Less experienced officers, faster promotions, untested nationalities, pressures on statutory and non statutory organisations and cuts in present skeleton crews will all contribute to a world fleet which will be increasingly unsafe. Safer seas and cleaner oceans will remain a slogan and a pipe dream.
It is ironic that the industry, whether in boom times or bust cycles, always seems to lower quality; in a boom by leaning towards cutting corners in skilled manpower to keep ships moving and in a bust by cutting corners in ship maintenance to save money. Ironic, but not surprising, because we are conditioned to only looking at the short term. The long term doesn't matter, we think. In the long term we are all dead.
At the moment, the industry is in a bit of panic, like the man who dreams that a monster is sitting on his chest, trying to choke him to death. The man awakes in great fear, and actually sees the monster sitting on him! The man cries aloud "What is going to happen to me??!!??"
The monster grins at him and says "Don't ask me, it's your dream."
.
published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
.
May 28, 2008
Certifiable Insanity.
I started sailing in the seventies. ISM, checklists and computers did not exist, and-though there were load line and SOLAS and all other regulations and certificates- these rules, regulations and procedures were at a twentieth of what they are today. Paperwork was minimal- and what little there was, the Purser, Radio Officer or Chief Steward took care of.
And the Master was rarely seen except at the lunch table, during pilotage or when going ashore.
Fast forward to today. A dirrhoea of paper, computers, emails, forms, checklists, surveys, statutory and State regulations, payroll, accounting and mandatory record keeping and filing is an everyday part of a modern officer’s job. So much so, that more time may be spent on this than on any other single task, with more regulations and trigger happy shore staff adding to pen pushing without reviewing old systems and reducing paperwork requirements.
The skills required from seagoing officers have gradually shifted over the years. A lot of my cadetship was spent with a sledgehammer chipping rusty decks of a thirty year old ship (and gleefully making holes in them). A cadet today likely spends more time with a pen or keyboard than with a chipping hammer.
I haven’t even started on the increased workload in cargo, navigation and other requirements yet. The reduction of manpower and the incremental increase in the crew’s involvement with cargo- including lashing, sometimes tallying and usually cleaning up before and after- has a cascading effect on fatigue and safety. Short manned ships mean that at a time when most crew need to be rested and sharp- post departure and pre arrival port- is when they are usually most fatigued.
It is obvious that we need differently qualified officers today. The old sea dog is giving way to the babu at sea. Be that as it may, the new seafarer must be able to manage computers and electronic equipment, have a higher fluency in English to manage the myriad manuals, checklists, forms and regulations- leave alone read the ISM manuals written by Shakespeare and copied and pasted by a half dozen companies into their own manuals. We need sharper people to manage all this and more on short manned ships- and we need mentally tougher people to manage the pressures of present day regulations and long stints with no effective shore leave. We need more appropriately qualified personnel.
So what does the industry do to manage all this effectively? Well, close to nothing, actually. For a start, it does not ensure most people on board are sufficiently qualified or proficient in English and it does not gauge their multitasking or computer skills. It does not even always know an officer’s proficiency in keeping independent watch before he joins! This is regardless of the IMO saying that “The resolution notes that safe manning is a function of the number of qualified and experienced seafarers necessary for the safety of the ship….”
It gets away with this because of one piece of paper, small but deadly: the Minimum Safe Manning Certificate.
I suppose it’s better to laugh than to cry here. So, this is one of the funniest pieces of paper I have ever seen. The Safe Manning Certificate, to my mind, is like safe sex. You have to be prepared for both long before you walk in the door. Once the action starts, the participants really can’t do anything much about it, except just stop. And then they will all have to go home, or will be sent home.
Issued by a Flag State that does not want too many people to be mandated on board else Owner’s may choose another flag, used gleefully by managers to attest to the fact that they are meeting requirements by appointing the requisite number of heads on board, ignored by all the crew but not the Master, the Minimum Safe Manning Certificate should be renamed the Minimum Manning Certificate- not much is safe about it.
It takes no account of the ship’s run, complexities in navigation and manoeuvring, the crew’s involvement with cargo or the myriad other functions taken for granted in today’s maritime world. Just a small example: it takes no account of the number of people required to be involved in simultaneous cargo, bunkering and stores- and ISPS- operations, which are usually undergone in almost every port by almost every ship, day in and day out.
The various parties involved will undoubtedly cover their various sensitive parts with various appropriate statements- Safe manning is not supposed to cover cargo- that is the Owner’s business. Or, what can we do if a certified officer is found incapable of keeping independent watch? Or, Captain, use your overriding authority. Or, apologetically, we can’t convince the Owners why we should exceed the Manning Certificate and place another third mate on board the ship which is touching twenty ports a month and is always in congested waters and fog. Or, finally, Captain, let us know if you can’t manage (and we will take till the end of your contract and beyond to reply).
There is only one thing to be done to correct this problem, and that is this. I urge Flag States to review their Manning Certificate policies, if they have any- and on a priority basis. Ship’s must be appropriately staffed for their at-sea and in-port operational complexities, including the run and also including the owners or charterers dictated cargo operational requirements in port. Present manning certificates seem more of a one size fits all solution- Pamela Anderson will attest to the fact that this premise is false, and so will many seafarers on complex short-sea trade cargo ships. A car carrier on a short sea trade has totally different requirements for manpower compared with a cape sized bulk carrier in port.
Ignoring this port requirement automatically ensures fatigued seafarers at sea, with lower safety and resultant higher casualties. Casualties that the industry is bemoaning now, by the way.
Even as I write this, the recent announcement that Indian Flag Bulkers will have their Safe Manning Certificate reduced by one deck officer is doing the rounds. Indian ship-owners will undoubtedly welcome this move. Once again, this sweeping reduction takes no account of the age, condition, complexities of operation or the run of individual bulkers; once again, one size fits all.
And, while on Safe Manning Certificates, time for one of my favourite rants:
It is very rare to find a requirement for a cook on a Manning Certificate. Though suited and booted mandarins in various Flag States will undoubtedly point to the fact that a cook has no critical function impacting watch keeping or operational safety, this attitude is precisely what gets my blood pressure up. It showcases- with alarming clarity and the usual regularity- the cynicism and callousness of the industry. Seafarers do not need food for safety, so why put a cook in the requirements? Leave it to the owners’ and managers’ goodwill and good sense. Maybe they will open a McDonald's franchise on board instead.
Or wait! Maybe more artistic owners will combine two functions once again, and- voila! A new rank- a combination "Master and Chief Cook"!
The mind boggles, seafarers groan, innocent bystanders laugh, and accountants in shipping company offices drool at this possibility.
And the Master was rarely seen except at the lunch table, during pilotage or when going ashore.
Fast forward to today. A dirrhoea of paper, computers, emails, forms, checklists, surveys, statutory and State regulations, payroll, accounting and mandatory record keeping and filing is an everyday part of a modern officer’s job. So much so, that more time may be spent on this than on any other single task, with more regulations and trigger happy shore staff adding to pen pushing without reviewing old systems and reducing paperwork requirements.
The skills required from seagoing officers have gradually shifted over the years. A lot of my cadetship was spent with a sledgehammer chipping rusty decks of a thirty year old ship (and gleefully making holes in them). A cadet today likely spends more time with a pen or keyboard than with a chipping hammer.
I haven’t even started on the increased workload in cargo, navigation and other requirements yet. The reduction of manpower and the incremental increase in the crew’s involvement with cargo- including lashing, sometimes tallying and usually cleaning up before and after- has a cascading effect on fatigue and safety. Short manned ships mean that at a time when most crew need to be rested and sharp- post departure and pre arrival port- is when they are usually most fatigued.
It is obvious that we need differently qualified officers today. The old sea dog is giving way to the babu at sea. Be that as it may, the new seafarer must be able to manage computers and electronic equipment, have a higher fluency in English to manage the myriad manuals, checklists, forms and regulations- leave alone read the ISM manuals written by Shakespeare and copied and pasted by a half dozen companies into their own manuals. We need sharper people to manage all this and more on short manned ships- and we need mentally tougher people to manage the pressures of present day regulations and long stints with no effective shore leave. We need more appropriately qualified personnel.
So what does the industry do to manage all this effectively? Well, close to nothing, actually. For a start, it does not ensure most people on board are sufficiently qualified or proficient in English and it does not gauge their multitasking or computer skills. It does not even always know an officer’s proficiency in keeping independent watch before he joins! This is regardless of the IMO saying that “The resolution notes that safe manning is a function of the number of qualified and experienced seafarers necessary for the safety of the ship….”
It gets away with this because of one piece of paper, small but deadly: the Minimum Safe Manning Certificate.
I suppose it’s better to laugh than to cry here. So, this is one of the funniest pieces of paper I have ever seen. The Safe Manning Certificate, to my mind, is like safe sex. You have to be prepared for both long before you walk in the door. Once the action starts, the participants really can’t do anything much about it, except just stop. And then they will all have to go home, or will be sent home.
Issued by a Flag State that does not want too many people to be mandated on board else Owner’s may choose another flag, used gleefully by managers to attest to the fact that they are meeting requirements by appointing the requisite number of heads on board, ignored by all the crew but not the Master, the Minimum Safe Manning Certificate should be renamed the Minimum Manning Certificate- not much is safe about it.
It takes no account of the ship’s run, complexities in navigation and manoeuvring, the crew’s involvement with cargo or the myriad other functions taken for granted in today’s maritime world. Just a small example: it takes no account of the number of people required to be involved in simultaneous cargo, bunkering and stores- and ISPS- operations, which are usually undergone in almost every port by almost every ship, day in and day out.
The various parties involved will undoubtedly cover their various sensitive parts with various appropriate statements- Safe manning is not supposed to cover cargo- that is the Owner’s business. Or, what can we do if a certified officer is found incapable of keeping independent watch? Or, Captain, use your overriding authority. Or, apologetically, we can’t convince the Owners why we should exceed the Manning Certificate and place another third mate on board the ship which is touching twenty ports a month and is always in congested waters and fog. Or, finally, Captain, let us know if you can’t manage (and we will take till the end of your contract and beyond to reply).
There is only one thing to be done to correct this problem, and that is this. I urge Flag States to review their Manning Certificate policies, if they have any- and on a priority basis. Ship’s must be appropriately staffed for their at-sea and in-port operational complexities, including the run and also including the owners or charterers dictated cargo operational requirements in port. Present manning certificates seem more of a one size fits all solution- Pamela Anderson will attest to the fact that this premise is false, and so will many seafarers on complex short-sea trade cargo ships. A car carrier on a short sea trade has totally different requirements for manpower compared with a cape sized bulk carrier in port.
Ignoring this port requirement automatically ensures fatigued seafarers at sea, with lower safety and resultant higher casualties. Casualties that the industry is bemoaning now, by the way.
Even as I write this, the recent announcement that Indian Flag Bulkers will have their Safe Manning Certificate reduced by one deck officer is doing the rounds. Indian ship-owners will undoubtedly welcome this move. Once again, this sweeping reduction takes no account of the age, condition, complexities of operation or the run of individual bulkers; once again, one size fits all.
And, while on Safe Manning Certificates, time for one of my favourite rants:
It is very rare to find a requirement for a cook on a Manning Certificate. Though suited and booted mandarins in various Flag States will undoubtedly point to the fact that a cook has no critical function impacting watch keeping or operational safety, this attitude is precisely what gets my blood pressure up. It showcases- with alarming clarity and the usual regularity- the cynicism and callousness of the industry. Seafarers do not need food for safety, so why put a cook in the requirements? Leave it to the owners’ and managers’ goodwill and good sense. Maybe they will open a McDonald's franchise on board instead.
Or wait! Maybe more artistic owners will combine two functions once again, and- voila! A new rank- a combination "Master and Chief Cook"!
The mind boggles, seafarers groan, innocent bystanders laugh, and accountants in shipping company offices drool at this possibility.
.
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
Right now
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
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 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 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/
February 02, 2008
AIS: Friend or Foe?
First of all, let me state the obvious and the known: The Automatic Identification System for ships was supposed to be a tool to be used for functions such as Automatic Identification of ships (by VTS and shore facilities and also other vessels), whether for general information or Security purposes.
Also, let me state something which is less obvious. The possible errors within a shipboard AIS, whether the offset error or errors in initialisation or the manual feed of information, as well as the limitations of an AIS system, are ill understood by a majority of officers on board.
In an era where gizmos tend to replace basic tenets of navigation and collision avoidance, and where GPS, electronic chart systems, ECDIS and/or radars are getting more integrated, the possibility of misinterpretation and potential catastrophe is huge. Many of the same officers do not understand fully the limitations and errors of Radar or the GPS either. Nonetheless, it is not unusual these days to see almost complete reliance on such systems even while the net effect of limitations of each of the componenets is poorly understood, leading to potential cascading errors in navigation. The AIS is yet another cog in this seamless disaster waiting to happen.
In the last few years, I have experienced Officers giving the CPA from an AIS the same sanctity as that of a radar plot. I have also seen watchkeepers anticipating course changes of traffic depending on what their destination as displayed on the AIS is. Own courses have been altered in anticipation of the targets course change based on this destination, which, of course, somebody may have just forgotten to change.
In congested traffic lanes, with multiple close targets, this is a dangerous practice.
I have often seen these: wrong dimensions. incorrect mooring/underway status, , incorrect names/call signs/MMSI's. "AIS swap", similar to radar target swapping is also very common.
I have also seen pilots in European and British approaches and rivers, in fog and without, using the AIS as an easy collision avoidance tool. The name of the ship, its CPA, a short talk on the VHF with the pilot saying “you are passing 1 cable off, its ok”- easy. And this on a ship where he has stepped on board three minutes ago, has no idea of the AIS equipments reliability, limitations or errors- and has not asked anybody about those either.
I have had agents come on board in Europe and tell me, “Captain, we were watching your speed on the port AIS in bad weather. You were doing only 3 knots, so we knew you would change your ETA”. Big brother is watching you, indeed.
In the Bosphorous, I have seen ships being threatened with fines for showing incorrect AIS destinations- regardless of the elaborate VHF reporting requirements where the correct destination has been repeatedly stated. Agents used to send us, regularly, warnings about these fines.
Off the coast of Somalia, I have wondered, in an age where I can track ships via their AIS on the internet, how simple and deadly it would be for pirates to use this technology for their own nefarious purposes.-thus standing the Security usefulness on it’s head.
I have heard VHF conversations between ships, asking each other to alter course or take other action based on AIS data on CPA and destination alone.
This is a disturbing trend, which is to use the AIS and the VHF as the main tools for collision avoidance. It is not unusual to see action been taken based on these... an AIS given CPA and a VHF decided course of action. Cultural and language issues, incorrect identification of ships and others detailed above make this an action which is fraught with danger.
Clearly, there is over-reliance on the AIS. Clearly, the AIS was not meant for some of the functions it is now being put to use for. Clearly, our navigators do not understand the limitations and possible errors of this equipment. And so, clearly, we need to do something about it.
On balance, I would like to see some of these brought into effect
-A no-integration, no ECDIS/electronic chart policy unless people are sufficiently trained prior joining such a vessel. Failure to do so is contributing to phenomena like paralysis by information, a tendency to sanctify all data as equally correct and reliable, and a tendency to navigate the ship on screens with hardly even looking out of the wheelhouse porthole- what I call ‘computer game navigation’. (On one ship, I came up to the bridge to find a small fleet of sailing boats a cable and a half away in daylight and good visibility- unseen by the watchkeeper since these were not seen on the radar due to high anticlutter used, and since obviously they didn’t carry AIS, and since looking out of the porthole was apparently not in the contract. I threatened, in jest, to restrict the Officer’s certificate to read ‘Valid only on ship’s which experience no boats’ )
- ‘Hands off’ AIS installations, which mean no operator input required after initialisation except a daily check to ensure that AIS is functioning. This would mean that data like the destination is not displayed. I can’t see why this should be a problem, shore entities and VTS has enough other data confirming this, including Port clearances, vessel and agent’s declarations and VTS VHF reporting requirements. And at sea, we don’t really need to know where a ship’s destination is, except our own. Besides, this will stop the assumptions being now made with sometimes unreliable or scanty data.
This will also stop creative ways of revenue generation in some countries, like fines, for incorrect AIS input.
-The stoppage of using AIS as a collision avoidance tool by all concerned. At best, a AIS CPA may be confirmatory to a Radar plot; it cannot replace it.
Other recommendations, like improving the calibre of some Officers who seem incapable of understanding the limitations or optimal use of all electronic systems, including Radars and AIS, are outside the scope of this article.
Some of these should undoubtedly go towards an increasing unacceptable tendency at sea, which is navigation and collision avoidance by gizmo. Last I checked, most of all of these were ‘Aids to Navigation’, and that is where they must remain- useful, good aids, but not the main dish.
Or else, we will have to soon coin another term to go along with other such earlier ones- AIS aided collisions.
This post is supported by boater safety
Also, let me state something which is less obvious. The possible errors within a shipboard AIS, whether the offset error or errors in initialisation or the manual feed of information, as well as the limitations of an AIS system, are ill understood by a majority of officers on board.
In an era where gizmos tend to replace basic tenets of navigation and collision avoidance, and where GPS, electronic chart systems, ECDIS and/or radars are getting more integrated, the possibility of misinterpretation and potential catastrophe is huge. Many of the same officers do not understand fully the limitations and errors of Radar or the GPS either. Nonetheless, it is not unusual these days to see almost complete reliance on such systems even while the net effect of limitations of each of the componenets is poorly understood, leading to potential cascading errors in navigation. The AIS is yet another cog in this seamless disaster waiting to happen.
In the last few years, I have experienced Officers giving the CPA from an AIS the same sanctity as that of a radar plot. I have also seen watchkeepers anticipating course changes of traffic depending on what their destination as displayed on the AIS is. Own courses have been altered in anticipation of the targets course change based on this destination, which, of course, somebody may have just forgotten to change.
In congested traffic lanes, with multiple close targets, this is a dangerous practice.
I have often seen these: wrong dimensions. incorrect mooring/underway status, , incorrect names/call signs/MMSI's. "AIS swap", similar to radar target swapping is also very common.
I have also seen pilots in European and British approaches and rivers, in fog and without, using the AIS as an easy collision avoidance tool. The name of the ship, its CPA, a short talk on the VHF with the pilot saying “you are passing 1 cable off, its ok”- easy. And this on a ship where he has stepped on board three minutes ago, has no idea of the AIS equipments reliability, limitations or errors- and has not asked anybody about those either.
I have had agents come on board in Europe and tell me, “Captain, we were watching your speed on the port AIS in bad weather. You were doing only 3 knots, so we knew you would change your ETA”. Big brother is watching you, indeed.
In the Bosphorous, I have seen ships being threatened with fines for showing incorrect AIS destinations- regardless of the elaborate VHF reporting requirements where the correct destination has been repeatedly stated. Agents used to send us, regularly, warnings about these fines.
Off the coast of Somalia, I have wondered, in an age where I can track ships via their AIS on the internet, how simple and deadly it would be for pirates to use this technology for their own nefarious purposes.-thus standing the Security usefulness on it’s head.
I have heard VHF conversations between ships, asking each other to alter course or take other action based on AIS data on CPA and destination alone.
This is a disturbing trend, which is to use the AIS and the VHF as the main tools for collision avoidance. It is not unusual to see action been taken based on these... an AIS given CPA and a VHF decided course of action. Cultural and language issues, incorrect identification of ships and others detailed above make this an action which is fraught with danger.
Clearly, there is over-reliance on the AIS. Clearly, the AIS was not meant for some of the functions it is now being put to use for. Clearly, our navigators do not understand the limitations and possible errors of this equipment. And so, clearly, we need to do something about it.
On balance, I would like to see some of these brought into effect
-A no-integration, no ECDIS/electronic chart policy unless people are sufficiently trained prior joining such a vessel. Failure to do so is contributing to phenomena like paralysis by information, a tendency to sanctify all data as equally correct and reliable, and a tendency to navigate the ship on screens with hardly even looking out of the wheelhouse porthole- what I call ‘computer game navigation’. (On one ship, I came up to the bridge to find a small fleet of sailing boats a cable and a half away in daylight and good visibility- unseen by the watchkeeper since these were not seen on the radar due to high anticlutter used, and since obviously they didn’t carry AIS, and since looking out of the porthole was apparently not in the contract. I threatened, in jest, to restrict the Officer’s certificate to read ‘Valid only on ship’s which experience no boats’ )
- ‘Hands off’ AIS installations, which mean no operator input required after initialisation except a daily check to ensure that AIS is functioning. This would mean that data like the destination is not displayed. I can’t see why this should be a problem, shore entities and VTS has enough other data confirming this, including Port clearances, vessel and agent’s declarations and VTS VHF reporting requirements. And at sea, we don’t really need to know where a ship’s destination is, except our own. Besides, this will stop the assumptions being now made with sometimes unreliable or scanty data.
This will also stop creative ways of revenue generation in some countries, like fines, for incorrect AIS input.
-The stoppage of using AIS as a collision avoidance tool by all concerned. At best, a AIS CPA may be confirmatory to a Radar plot; it cannot replace it.
Other recommendations, like improving the calibre of some Officers who seem incapable of understanding the limitations or optimal use of all electronic systems, including Radars and AIS, are outside the scope of this article.
Some of these should undoubtedly go towards an increasing unacceptable tendency at sea, which is navigation and collision avoidance by gizmo. Last I checked, most of all of these were ‘Aids to Navigation’, and that is where they must remain- useful, good aids, but not the main dish.
Or else, we will have to soon coin another term to go along with other such earlier ones- AIS aided collisions.
This post is supported by boater safety
January 28, 2008
ISPSo Facto
(ipso facto: Latin for "by the very act", i.e. ‘automatically’)
Soon after the ISPS code was introduced (shoved would be a better word), we used to receive many emails from the CSO, usually forwarded. Wonderful thing, forwarding. Two clicks and the job is done.
One of them, when printed, was about eight pages long and was headlined “President Bush declares Code Orange- all ships to take appropriate measures”.
This was very interesting but useless, as we were on the SE Asia run and nowhere near the US, didn’t know what Code Orange was, didn’t have that code in the ISPS manual, didn’t know what appropriate measures to take, and, to be honest, didn’t much care.
There is no rest for the wicked. So we were told, in a subsequent email, that this involved more stringent checks on visitors, stevedores and stores without raising the Security Level. And no vehicles within 100 metres of the ship.
At which point I gave up, because we were a container ship with trailers and stackers coming alongside in all ports within a few metres of the shipside. However, I did think, briefly and just for fun, of enforcing the no-vehicle rule in Japan and stopping cargo operations as indirectly instructed. Better sense prevailed, as I didn’t feel like packing my bags just yet. Man does not live by ISPS alone.
But quite a few years have passed since then, surely we must have got our act together by now?
Well, consider this:
Ship Security Assessments are still being conducted hastily, at least when a ship is taken over second hand. I have seen these being conducted by one person sitting with a general arrangement plan and a laptop, modifying another vessel’s SSA as applicable.
Since this was an old ship, modifications were missed out, and since the vessel had not yet been taken over, input from crew was unavailable or unreliable.
The SSA was finished, nonetheless, in about three hours, approved, and the ship taken over. The new crew kept on finding new doors and access points to designated Unauthorised areas and others for a few days thereafter. The Ship Security Plan, based on this SSA, was quite useless, though it had a good lineage of required approvals. Nevertheless, it stayed in place awaiting embarrassing revisions during the remainder of my contract.
The Ship Security Plan is often generic, impractical and ill thought out. It almost never takes into account
· Peculiarities of the ship. On one ship, the navigating bridge doubled as a de-facto (de-facto is close to ipso facto, but more later!) ship’s office in port; it was the only place big enough to seat a dozen port officials at a time, besides the messroom, which was four flights down from the main deck. It did not help that the bridge was an unauthorised area, as it well should be. Another example... a ro-ro had shipchandlers driving up the ramp to a convenient point inside the ship for offloading stores. I authorised this in contravention of the ISPS procedures, which required all stores to be checked and tallied ashore. I did this because I did not have sufficient crew to lug provisions up six flights and across cargo compartments a hundred metres away from the accommodation- and since the provision crane was knackered, awaiting spares at a ‘convenient’ (read cheap) port.
· Other duties, planned and unplanned, of the crew in port.
· The number of crew available to monitor and enforce the Plan.
· The fact that some members of the crew may actually want to go ashore, reducing the numbers available on board.
· That different cargo ship’s have different levels of crew involvement in cargo. Companies put pressure on crew to lash and unlash cargo. A car carrier may require larger numbers of crew required for cargo operations versus a bulk carrier; a ro-ro with side and stern ramps and gangway all down has, suddenly, three access points with monitoring required at each. If somebody has to be escorted all the way up to the accommodation, you require six crew just to cover this. Often the suitability of the ship to the procedures being put in place is ignored. A gangway watch keeper cannot escort officials to the Master (as mandated by the Security Plan) and leave the gangway unattended. Do we then put two people per access point? Is there manpower for this?
· The number of stevedores which may be repeatedly boarding the vessel, in large numbers... as in a car carrier .. with drivers who return many times in each shift. (And the cargo superintendent requests gangway access for them, too, because for some reason turnaround is faster)
· The fact that cargo operations these days are often around the clock, with attendant pressures on short manned crews.
· STCW mandated rest periods. The Master, Officers and crew may be not rested before they even make the port. They certainly and often contravene the STCW regulations while departing most ports. (Ah, but it is the Master’s responsibility. He must stop the ship!)
· Commercial pressures. I have had pressure to remove cargo lashings while the ship is in the locks or in the river, or during the stevedore meal breaks. My refusal to handle lashings thereafter, on the grounds that the crew was being pushed so hard it was impacting safety (this, after I found helmsmen nodding at the wheel in congested waters), was not taken too well by all concerned, including the crew, who were making some pocket money. However, ISPS is not optional, but is similarly contributing to unrested Officers and crew navigating ships.
· Scheduled Surveys. With short port stays, a couple of scheduled statutory and non statutory surveys, inspections and the like can involve an entire crew just for these. With the explosion in regulations and their administration, it is common to see something scheduled here almost every port. The inspectors, surveyors et al get their rest at the end of the ship’s stay in port. The crew sail out – less than safely - unrested.
· The Ship Security Officer. I have seen Master’s or Chief Engineers or Chief Officer’s handling the SSO’s job. It doesn’t work. Too many other responsibilities in port.
And so on.
The ISPS Code was, as we all know, hastily brought out in an era of ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’ kind of thinking. The mandarins in various international bodies must have been worried about being marginalised and made redundant by fast moving events; Crews and Owners undoubtedly groaned, training institutes, classification societies, managers and such undoubtedly rubbed their hands in glee at another opportunity, another revenue stream.
But that does not mean that we cannot amend the Code to make it workable now. Or is it too much to ask?
In addition to all this, the crew are often unsuitable and ill trained to conduct ISPS checks and procedures. They are multitasking to an astonishing degree.. handling, simultaneously, stores, bunkers (where a large component of the engine and deck crew and officers are automatically involved these days), ballast, cargo, crew change, fresh water, garbage, surveyors, port officials, (where all Deck Officer’s tend to be involved), Managers and the like.. all of whom want everything now and show scant regard for the seaman as a human being... so, then, to add an onerous and time consuming responsibility like the vessel’s security to the list seems ridiculous.
On one ship, a 5% check of all visitors by metal detectors at access points was mandated. On another, a photograph had to be taken and clipped to a visitor’s ‘permit’ at the gangway. It was interesting to watch this in the rain, when a couple of shipchandlers, surveyors and such arrived at the same time, and the gangway amidships.
It is akin to asking the pilot of an aircraft to handle the aircrafts security on the ground , or a stewardess to frisk 5% of the passengers at the entrance to the aircraft. Much as some of us would love that idea, it is, simply, impractical, farcical and unworkable. And yet we ask the crew to do this, albeit with smaller numbers, all the time. It is laughable to the point of hysteria.
The industry needs to decide. Whether, (a) Ship security should remain the farce it often is. In which case nothing needs to change, and the only thing that has to be managed is the increasing pressure on crews. If we want to manage that at all, of course.
Or (b) Ship Security is a serious business. In which case amend the Code, make the Ship Security Plan with extreme care and with an eye on it’s practicality. Be prepared to have to outsource elements of this to shore personnel if required, or increase manning. Budget for this. Examine the possibility of passing on these special costs to customers... a run specific ISPS levy, similar to the surcharges airlines are so fond of?
Maybe, given the fractured nature of Shipping, we are not in a position to do that. Maybe the IMO or somebody will have to mandate that the logistics of the vessel’s security should be handled by suitably trained shore personnel, and not be loaded onto already overworked crews. (That’s a huge maybe).
In any event, and in my opinion, the ship’s crew are ill manned, ill equipped, ill trained and too busy to do a halfway decent job on Security.
And so and ergo and maybe, the ISPS Code as practiced, is, ipso facto, unworkable in it’s present form.
Maybe that is a possibility, too.
first published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
Soon after the ISPS code was introduced (shoved would be a better word), we used to receive many emails from the CSO, usually forwarded. Wonderful thing, forwarding. Two clicks and the job is done.
One of them, when printed, was about eight pages long and was headlined “President Bush declares Code Orange- all ships to take appropriate measures”.
This was very interesting but useless, as we were on the SE Asia run and nowhere near the US, didn’t know what Code Orange was, didn’t have that code in the ISPS manual, didn’t know what appropriate measures to take, and, to be honest, didn’t much care.
There is no rest for the wicked. So we were told, in a subsequent email, that this involved more stringent checks on visitors, stevedores and stores without raising the Security Level. And no vehicles within 100 metres of the ship.
At which point I gave up, because we were a container ship with trailers and stackers coming alongside in all ports within a few metres of the shipside. However, I did think, briefly and just for fun, of enforcing the no-vehicle rule in Japan and stopping cargo operations as indirectly instructed. Better sense prevailed, as I didn’t feel like packing my bags just yet. Man does not live by ISPS alone.
But quite a few years have passed since then, surely we must have got our act together by now?
Well, consider this:
Ship Security Assessments are still being conducted hastily, at least when a ship is taken over second hand. I have seen these being conducted by one person sitting with a general arrangement plan and a laptop, modifying another vessel’s SSA as applicable.
Since this was an old ship, modifications were missed out, and since the vessel had not yet been taken over, input from crew was unavailable or unreliable.
The SSA was finished, nonetheless, in about three hours, approved, and the ship taken over. The new crew kept on finding new doors and access points to designated Unauthorised areas and others for a few days thereafter. The Ship Security Plan, based on this SSA, was quite useless, though it had a good lineage of required approvals. Nevertheless, it stayed in place awaiting embarrassing revisions during the remainder of my contract.
The Ship Security Plan is often generic, impractical and ill thought out. It almost never takes into account
· Peculiarities of the ship. On one ship, the navigating bridge doubled as a de-facto (de-facto is close to ipso facto, but more later!) ship’s office in port; it was the only place big enough to seat a dozen port officials at a time, besides the messroom, which was four flights down from the main deck. It did not help that the bridge was an unauthorised area, as it well should be. Another example... a ro-ro had shipchandlers driving up the ramp to a convenient point inside the ship for offloading stores. I authorised this in contravention of the ISPS procedures, which required all stores to be checked and tallied ashore. I did this because I did not have sufficient crew to lug provisions up six flights and across cargo compartments a hundred metres away from the accommodation- and since the provision crane was knackered, awaiting spares at a ‘convenient’ (read cheap) port.
· Other duties, planned and unplanned, of the crew in port.
· The number of crew available to monitor and enforce the Plan.
· The fact that some members of the crew may actually want to go ashore, reducing the numbers available on board.
· That different cargo ship’s have different levels of crew involvement in cargo. Companies put pressure on crew to lash and unlash cargo. A car carrier may require larger numbers of crew required for cargo operations versus a bulk carrier; a ro-ro with side and stern ramps and gangway all down has, suddenly, three access points with monitoring required at each. If somebody has to be escorted all the way up to the accommodation, you require six crew just to cover this. Often the suitability of the ship to the procedures being put in place is ignored. A gangway watch keeper cannot escort officials to the Master (as mandated by the Security Plan) and leave the gangway unattended. Do we then put two people per access point? Is there manpower for this?
· The number of stevedores which may be repeatedly boarding the vessel, in large numbers... as in a car carrier .. with drivers who return many times in each shift. (And the cargo superintendent requests gangway access for them, too, because for some reason turnaround is faster)
· The fact that cargo operations these days are often around the clock, with attendant pressures on short manned crews.
· STCW mandated rest periods. The Master, Officers and crew may be not rested before they even make the port. They certainly and often contravene the STCW regulations while departing most ports. (Ah, but it is the Master’s responsibility. He must stop the ship!)
· Commercial pressures. I have had pressure to remove cargo lashings while the ship is in the locks or in the river, or during the stevedore meal breaks. My refusal to handle lashings thereafter, on the grounds that the crew was being pushed so hard it was impacting safety (this, after I found helmsmen nodding at the wheel in congested waters), was not taken too well by all concerned, including the crew, who were making some pocket money. However, ISPS is not optional, but is similarly contributing to unrested Officers and crew navigating ships.
· Scheduled Surveys. With short port stays, a couple of scheduled statutory and non statutory surveys, inspections and the like can involve an entire crew just for these. With the explosion in regulations and their administration, it is common to see something scheduled here almost every port. The inspectors, surveyors et al get their rest at the end of the ship’s stay in port. The crew sail out – less than safely - unrested.
· The Ship Security Officer. I have seen Master’s or Chief Engineers or Chief Officer’s handling the SSO’s job. It doesn’t work. Too many other responsibilities in port.
And so on.
The ISPS Code was, as we all know, hastily brought out in an era of ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’ kind of thinking. The mandarins in various international bodies must have been worried about being marginalised and made redundant by fast moving events; Crews and Owners undoubtedly groaned, training institutes, classification societies, managers and such undoubtedly rubbed their hands in glee at another opportunity, another revenue stream.
But that does not mean that we cannot amend the Code to make it workable now. Or is it too much to ask?
In addition to all this, the crew are often unsuitable and ill trained to conduct ISPS checks and procedures. They are multitasking to an astonishing degree.. handling, simultaneously, stores, bunkers (where a large component of the engine and deck crew and officers are automatically involved these days), ballast, cargo, crew change, fresh water, garbage, surveyors, port officials, (where all Deck Officer’s tend to be involved), Managers and the like.. all of whom want everything now and show scant regard for the seaman as a human being... so, then, to add an onerous and time consuming responsibility like the vessel’s security to the list seems ridiculous.
On one ship, a 5% check of all visitors by metal detectors at access points was mandated. On another, a photograph had to be taken and clipped to a visitor’s ‘permit’ at the gangway. It was interesting to watch this in the rain, when a couple of shipchandlers, surveyors and such arrived at the same time, and the gangway amidships.
It is akin to asking the pilot of an aircraft to handle the aircrafts security on the ground , or a stewardess to frisk 5% of the passengers at the entrance to the aircraft. Much as some of us would love that idea, it is, simply, impractical, farcical and unworkable. And yet we ask the crew to do this, albeit with smaller numbers, all the time. It is laughable to the point of hysteria.
The industry needs to decide. Whether, (a) Ship security should remain the farce it often is. In which case nothing needs to change, and the only thing that has to be managed is the increasing pressure on crews. If we want to manage that at all, of course.
Or (b) Ship Security is a serious business. In which case amend the Code, make the Ship Security Plan with extreme care and with an eye on it’s practicality. Be prepared to have to outsource elements of this to shore personnel if required, or increase manning. Budget for this. Examine the possibility of passing on these special costs to customers... a run specific ISPS levy, similar to the surcharges airlines are so fond of?
Maybe, given the fractured nature of Shipping, we are not in a position to do that. Maybe the IMO or somebody will have to mandate that the logistics of the vessel’s security should be handled by suitably trained shore personnel, and not be loaded onto already overworked crews. (That’s a huge maybe).
In any event, and in my opinion, the ship’s crew are ill manned, ill equipped, ill trained and too busy to do a halfway decent job on Security.
And so and ergo and maybe, the ISPS Code as practiced, is, ipso facto, unworkable in it’s present form.
Maybe that is a possibility, too.
first published in http://www.marexbulletin.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)