Union fees

[vic mcclymont]

In the early 70's the Labour Government legalised the closed shop, workers had a choice pay their dues to the Unions or a choice of charities.
Vic

[j.sabourn]

Well if that’s the case that’s where the trouble started. That’s a hotch potch if ever there was one , the mnaou the predecessor to Numast and the follow up to Numast never had any rules as such. Maybe they weren’t considered a union . I never recognised them as such , but would have been necessary to have in a situation like the tanker come container ship grounding in the Suez Canal. So hope at least all the bridge members are also members of the association . Cheers JS.

[vic mcclymont]

John, when the rule was brought in, I joined the MNAOU.
If you didn't join or pay the equivilant to charity no job.
Vic

[j.sabourn]

#83.. Vic that’s a new one on me. Maybe I missed this by being on foreign flag ships. But would not have known in any case as have always been a member since 1953 when it was the mnaou. However this was impressed on me for the ever need of legal representation and loss of salary which you were insured against. I wouldn’t of stood with strike placards , at least I don’t think I would. It was the same argument as the shipowner paying into the NE shipowners association a smaller private insurance for claims against his company of smaller claims than total loss. I did use Numast as insisted on a solicitor accompanying me to the Enquiry at the latter stages of, they insisted I didn’t need one ,and I insisted I did , my total time giving evidence must have been less than 15 minutes . It made the press aware I was loaded for bear if any mischief on their behalf. Besides that I was issued with a warrant to appear by uniformed police officers at my home , so what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If I was still at sea today I would still be a member through choice , mainly for self legal protection. If any of those ships mates and engineers are held responsible for any action leading up to the grounding of the container ship in the Suez. If not already members they will soon be wishing they were. The shipowner will soon be quick to absolve himself of any blame and his employees will be of secondary importance. Cheers JS.

[Ivan Cloherty]

but would have been necessary to have in a situation like the tanker come container ship grounding in the Suez Canal. So hope at least all the bridge members are also members of the association . Cheers JS.

Whether they are members or not, they will be hung out to dry. The Suez Canal Authority have already declared that their employees, the pilots, tugs etc bear no responsibility as they are only there to advise the Master. Two crew members have been flown home as they are considered to be very ill, the rest are being detained until all legalities are agreed and compensations due to the SCA are paid, seems like the cargo they are there for the long haul! poor barstewards. Like being a supt, ships never broke down or had an incident in the Bermudas or Bahamas, it was always some sh*thole of a place, ah well they won't be able to waste their money on wine, women and song, not the nicest place to be stuck, the Bitter Lakes, aptly named.

[Denis O'Shea]

Did 18 months of my National Service at the bottom end of the Bitter Lakes, was my local swimming pool. Den

[j.sabourn]

#85... I was thinking more on the lines of compensation from the owners of the vessel Ivan. The only one who has no lien on the vessel is the master himself or herself , as legally he or she used to be the owner and totally responsible in the absence of the actual person controlling the money. Even going back to the 50 s most company’s with a load of ships were registered as different company’s for just such as a case like this , where it was not likely that they could claim off ships registered as another concern.Maybe the maritime laws are all changed by now I don’t know. If any of the crew of that vessel are detained against their will and wages stopped etc. who is going to represent them ? Solicitors fees can be astronomical . The law used to be the first people who had a lien on a ship when it was sold to pay fines etc. were the crew for all monies owing them ,this included everyone apart from the master. If the Egyptians hold that ship as collateral to pay for future expenses , I am sure the crew will have to have someone to remind the Bill collectors of their obligations first off to settle their own debts. JS

[Ivan Cloherty]

Egyptians are currently holding two ships in the Canal Zone, one has been there for four years, with one crew member aboard, for the last year he has been swimming ashore to get food and water, but is always sent back, there is no fuel or power aboard. The other vessel has been there two years with two crew members aboard, both have been abandoned by their owners. As far as I can ascertain John, it is still legal to own a 1000 ships and have each one registered under a different company. If I remember correctly we had a framed certificate on the bridge or chartroom with the name of the unknown owners, normally somewhere in Liberia, probably the Marshall Islands these days

[happy daze john in oz]

Yes at one time here in Oz about 98% of the work force was unionised, but now down to about 12% and most of that in construction, retail and emergency services .

But I do not recall ever having to pay dues, always taken out of my pay, poor enough as it was.
Not sure about any union book either, most likely too busy just getting off the ship.

[cappy]

98 percent unionised in oz .......now 12 percent......86 percent saw the light .....keeping a bunch of lazy buggers in overpaid .....underworked ....expense no limit jobs... in ivory towers.....at last the dog sees the rabbit ......