End of the red ensign???

[John Arton]

I was always a member of Numast when I was sailing but in 86 when C.P. went offshore I refused to up my contributions to the level they wanted and never did so until I retired. Used to get regular letters from them wanting an increase in my contributions but I refused to do so.
Reason.
Back in late 70's early 80's C.P. gave us huge pay increases as they were so short staffed and required more seafarers to man their expansion program. NUMAST used to trumpet how hard they had worked to gain these mega wage increases but in reality it was C.P. imposing them on us.
Then in the mid eighties it all started going tits up and we went onto offshore contracts. NUMAST rep. actually had a months long holiday in Mexico at C.P.'s expense supposodly because he was out there explaining it all to the 5 ships we had on the west coast of mexico at the time. He got lamped by a certain disgruntled 3rd eng. when he walked into the bar of one of the ships, such was our feelings at the time.
By the late eighties it was all over for us in C.P. and after 20 years with them I got less redundancy than my nephew who had worked in the mines for 8 years and then taken his redundancy.
I spoke with a high up Union man to try and get an explanation from him as to why when C.P. were flashing the cash he had not got them to put part of the money into improving the redundsncy packages, pensions etc. as that was what I believed the Union was meant to do for you, not only to negiate wages but the whole employment package. He had no answer for me and when I challenged him about the company car that C.P. provided for him, he got very agitated and eventually hung up on me. I rang back immediatley but was told he was "unavailable" once they found out who was calling.
For years after I would still get letters asking me to increase my contributions to the required level and my reply to them was always the same. My contribution was at a level that I thought reasonable for the service they provided which was basically now't and as they had overseen the demise of the British MN to such an extent that they were rapidly approaching the level of one Union guy per 10 serving members, my contibution was sufficient to keep him employed at doing nothing.
Mind you, if they treated us badly you should have seen the way they treated their own employees in the early 80's.
I lived opposite the NUMAST guy who ran the South Shields office. There was him on permament salary plus a part time secretary in a rented office costing £350 per 6 months. He covered an area from the Borders down to thed Tees ans it was one of the busiest NUMAST office in the country.
He had been to their AGM in London the week before and had heard rumours that they were in a bad way financially and had seeked assurance from the head honcho regarding his office and his position. He had been given assurances that as his office was very busy and cheap to run it was under no threat until at least he reached his retirement age in 4 years time.
Satisfied he came home from the AGM only to be phoned up at 1 am by the head mans secretary telling him that they had decided to close the office forthwith and he was out of a job. I met him as he was coming out of his house that day and asked why he looked so downcast. After he explained it all to me I went ape and tried to get him to take them to an Industrial Tribunal but he refused saying he would not drag the name of the Union through the dirt. Sod that I sais, what about all the local members. We did try and get the office a stay of execution but to no avail. It was shut overnight and from then on only occasional visits by a member of the Liverpool office had to suffice.
It was then and there that I lost all faith in the Unions. Like the song says, its the poor that suffer, its the rich that gets the pleasure.
Most Union guys (these days) are on a godd wicket and never think of the hardship they are imposing on families when they call their members out on strike, as they never suffer a loss of wages.
Take the fuel tanker drivers in the U.K. Years ago it was rumoured that those employed by ESSO were payed more than Esso Captains at sea, so if there is a grain of truth in that then they are most likely on a good wicket even in these days. So why is the Union so hell bent on having them out on strike? Is it only for their own self serving ideals to show the goverment that they can bring the country even further to its knees should they so wish, or are there genuine reasons for their stance. No one seems to be able to tell us. So the Union bosses can sit in their comfy houses with their flash cars etc. and dictate to the rest of us how they want the country run (in their eyes).
Sod em all, remember Scargill never suffered unlike his members and he manipulated the NUM to his own needs.
End of soap box for today.
rgds
Capt. John Arton (ret'd)

[Captain Kong]

In the early 80s the ESSO drivers became self employed on a contract as were all the men who worked on the Jetty at Fawley.
I believe at that time a tanker driver was on well over £20,000 a year, 30 years ago. a hell of a lot more than I was getting at the time for driving a tanker, allbeit a Much Bigger One, and away from home for a few months at a time.
The Unions said , when the Conservatives won the election a couple of years ago that they would bring down the Government. They are and always have been a bunch of Gangsters, they use the Members only as a way to maintain their own lifestyles. They are a bunch of left wing Commies who critisize "toffs" and are making more money than anyone else.
Cheers
Brian

[Capt Bill Davies]

Throughout the 70s I received many a visit from the ITF masquerading as decent people upholding and fighting for the rights of there brother seafarers. These ‘officials’ usually visited the crew first to try and stir up trouble and sow discontent. Finding no luck there they usually demanded examination of 'Crew Wages'. Some were barely literate and incapable of following the accounts. These people conducted themselves in a most unruly manner and seemed 'hell bent' on trouble. They bit off more than they could chew when they ‘boycotted’ one of the Mariner class in Milford Haven in the late 70s.

Lord Scarman found in favour of the owners and that the ITF were guilty of ‘Economic Duress’.

The very fact that many shipowners had been bankrupted by this very tactic is appalling. Taking on Dan Ludwig was just too much for the ITF. Old DKs ‘costs’ were not small his Solicitors bill to ITF made them think before trying to extort money from owners of his stature again. Unfortunately, throughout the 80s and early 90s this ‘tactic’ of extortion was still practiced on small owners.

Bill

[Red Lead Ted]

I have sailed with many a drunken alcoholic Master, When I was Mate I have physically thrown a Master off the bridge and shoved him into his cabin. He was a menace and nearly lost the shsip.
I once had a Pilot who told me to get rid of the Master off the Bridge or he would go, It was not always Sailors and Firemen who got bevied.
It happens in all Departments.
Cheers
Brian.

I was aboard a small container boat the M.V. HARP 1976 Just finished my watch 12 by 4 afternoon at the wheel suez canal pilot /second m8/ and myself on the bridge........ As i was relieved the m8 arrived to relieve the sec....... passed on to my relief our head and basically follow the pilots order,s. As i turned to go down the staicase of the accomadation from the bridge the skipper appeared from knowere grabbed me by the throat and told me to stop sleeping with his wife shaking my head. Enough of this i thought and butted him down the interior staircase. I looked around to all on the bridge and said i think for everyones sake this is best forgotten......... His wife wasn,t aboard the ship never was ???????. Yes there were many Captains and Officer,s screwed up with the booze. I had a lot of crew and the pilot witness this and of course could have took it a lot further. Put it down to experience. Skipper never spoke to me again the whole trip i wonder why Regards Terry.

[j.sabourn]

Joined B.S.F. 1953. Took Voluntary redundancy 1986. Redundancy payment 1325.27 p. I beleive the miners were upto 30,000 pounds for 20/30 years service, but still think they were done. John Sabourn

[happy daze john in oz]

There has been much talk about the "FLAG" and where it is used and what may become of it.
On my latest cruise with Princess Cruises I noticed the Red Duster flying high. The ship along with all others in the fleet is registered in Hamilton. P&O Australia, P&O UK, Cunard,and Princess all fly the Duster and are also registered in Hamilton.
I was determined to ask the question again as to why? There have been a number of reasons put forward on site so this time I went to the top to find out.
My question, 'Why is a ship with the port of Hamilton on the stern allowed to fly the Red Ensign'?
First I asked the master at arms an ex RN man the question.

Then the Hotel mangager who was a little miffed when I addressed him as Chief steward.
Then came the night of the Captians Cocktail party, Captain Ivan Jerman English born and bred. I was a little hesitant as past memories of captains at that close a proximity were costly and painful.
All gave the same answer.
Hamilton is just the port. All the ships are registered in Bermuda, which is a British protectorate. As such it allows the shipping companies to fly the Red Ensign on ships registered there.
As an aside, Bermuda has only a token police force which comes under the aupices of the UK metropolitain police, and in the event of major crime they are brought in.
There may be some who will question this comment, but I have reported only what I was told.

[j.sabourn]

Thats a new one on me John. I believe Bermuda the same as Nassau have their own version of the Red ensign, i.e. they have some design in the Red part of the flag. He probably thought he was talking to a layman who wouldnt know any better. Unless the law has been changed they should have been flying the flag of the port of registry. Saying that going back to flag etiquette a post of several months ago the whole system as it used to be is not very often upheld and dont think anyone would even notice if you were flying the Skull and Crossbones, and that includes the ship staff as well. Once again the poorer standards of today. Cheers John Sabourn.

[Keith Tindell]

It would be very interesting to know how many weddings have been held on board Cunard ships since registering in Bermuda, as this was the excuse for reregistering, and the big money they would then make from weddings. I would be willing to bet that the amount of weddings would be in single figures, if that. KT

[Captain Kong]

The Cunard three Queens flagged out last autumn to "have weddings on board". In March I asked the Purser on QE how many weddings have you had, he said `None`.
The average age of a passenger on the Queens is around 60 years old, Not a very romantic age group is it.
Says it all
. Cheers
Brian.

[j.sabourn]

Perhaps they are waiting for the law to be changed, then will have a rush of same sex marriages. Cheers John Sabourn