UNIONS, The ITF - Did they do any Good

I rememberthe old N.U.S.as a usefull tool . When chief engineer of one 2 year old british ship running to the baltic in winter our central heating system packed up, a simple repair job if I had the part impossible without. Time after time I ordered the part from the owners to no avail. A discreet word to the N U S rep at hull that the crew were freezing and guess what , the part arrived the following day. Both the skipper and I had tried the MNAOA without any result, and the owners said if the crew complained again to give them 48 hrs notice before the next UK port as per running agreement and that they would find a less delicate crowd

Hello Eifion
your story of the NUS coming to the rescue must be a bit of a rarity. I always considered the union as potentially powerful, due to the fact that membership was 100%. But the fact that at least 50% of the membership were out of the country at the time made it a rather toothless animal. I have seen disputes at sea where the complainants have declared that they would report it to the union when they got back to the UK. But although there was a union rep. at the pay off table stamping up your book, very few charges were raised. Partly because probably too much time had elapsed since the incident, also the most likely explanation was that most of us were still suffering from 'the channels' and all we wanted was to get off the ship and home. There was talk at one time of creating sea going shop stewards for each department, but I understand this was tried before and it was found that there was too much cozying up with department heads. I do not know if this was fact or not, but it was a widely held belief at the time.
Cheers
Pete

I was a member of the NUS - MNAOA - RMT for all my seagoing time 1958 to 2007 I have also visited vessels in the UK to see what IFT inspectors do.

I have never seen a vessel arrested unless it was absolutely necessary to either get their wages due and or check all certification onboard the vessel. I have seen many vessels in the UK that should never have been allowed to sail and stopped by either the MCA or ITF. I think without the unions we would still be working in the dark age, I agree sometimes they get it wrong and also you also get a few bad apples but I still think they are a necessary in the work place.


Ray

I persally think that letting Foreign crews work British Ships for pittance wages was not the saviour of teh British Shipping Industry , it just made us another Flag of Convenience . The one thing that I find totally bizzare is that the Ship's Master could be a non English Speaking Russian . It let the goverment collect fees for the port's name on the stern , but I think that to expect British Seamen or any others to work for some of the ships registered in Panama than have one ship flying the revered Red Duster with a crew treated like the Far Eastern crews are treated today .

Hey but I am an old sentimentalist , who started out on General Cargo Liners watching Tramp Steamers take their men off for twenty four months , we only did thirteen on a Clan Line Double Header run , My £25 a month as an apprentice was slightly more than the Bangladeshi Bosun got and they were on 3 shillings 15p) an hour overtime , that was better than the general crew grades who were on £16 a month and half a crown an hour ( 12 1/2 p ) for overtime .

I thought we had progressed , aparently those who were trade Union officials seem in some cases to have progressed better than the general melee of seafarers .

I remember the expression Lions led by Donkeys , as referring to British Troops in the Crimea , I believe , It looks like when it came to the trade Union movement the Lions were led by thieves . I pity the genuine trade union man , the one who thought he could make a difference , we have forgotton him , but we remember the ones who made a fortune .

Hi Shipmates, Hi Captain Bill Davies A simple question" Would our working conditions in the British merchant navy be better or worst without the unions, for the deck crew and stewards!!! not officers deck of engine room or do you think they were{ The ship owners small companys only } good employers who looked after they workforce in a proper way?!960 to 1986 :confused:

Good morning Louis,

I do not believe the Unions contributed anything substantial to the working condition of the British rating. What they did achieve was to harden the resolve of the owners and probably hastened the inevitable.

The time frame you are looking at was one of great change in shipping economics and operating expenses needed to be addressed and like any business when reducing Opex they started with manpower.

Ratings were the ‘soft target’ as many of the company’s had made substantial investment in the officer training. Many of the larger companies dropped out of shipowning as it was not producing a satisfactory return on investment and some ‘flagged out’. The officers found employment FOC where they were in demand. The were some who stayed pursuing a dream which would never materialize.

The company’s that remained were smaller, many having their roots in the short sea trade. These owners, with the agreement of the government and Unions of the day set about creating a vacuum within the ratings. This was achieved by DOT (MCA) creating exams under STCW Class V which made the transit from rating to officer so easy that few could not achieve success. Many ratings were told ‘ get your ticket or go’. This did not seem such a bad deal at the time, if you were naive. It was 'lambs to the slaughter'.

But think again. What about this vacuum that has been created by our rating making the transit. Well we all know the answer. They were substituted by ratings from the ‘Eastern Bloc’.

Is there anyone out there that did not think that this was not a long term plan/objective.



Brgds

Bill

Hi Shipmates and good morning to you Captain Bill Davies, Thank you for your insight you were right officers deck and engine room with the proper training and experiance were needed by many shipping lines at that time What we now call a skill shortage? Not the same need after a short few years after the war for anyone else? Many seaman on deck, stewards, engine room who would soon be replace by cheap labour.The strike by the N.U.S. was part of a widespread social discontent to profound change in british society in 1966 and a demand in pay of17% to bring the basic pay up to £14.00 a week for 56 hours !!! most people ashore worked for 40 hours only for the same money !!! You were right the conditions' at that time were much better on some ships? we were payed overtime for work on sundays and Lost of sleep { better know as loss of doss} the Many ship owners fought all the condition improvements like tigers, they wanted to keep the status quo and keep all us merchant seaman in a master- servant relationship{ long gone ashore} the workers in many heavy industrys ashore did not bow down to the greedy boss's they had rights now in law which helped us, But the reform at sea came in years after laws were passed by government and in other western countries after much hard work by the union s and The N.U.S. but we were not told anything about this so , The heros' of a few years ago {wartime} became the communist under the bed at that time {not true} not all union men were crooks !!! but many were branded by vested intress they were well know at the time ,to keep all merchant seaman as second class citzens, and to reflagg the british merchant fleet, to increase the profits for the owners and companys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bill Davies

Good morning Louis,

I do not believe the Unions contributed anything substantial to the working condition of the British rating. What they did achieve was to harden the resolve of the owners and probably hastened the inevitable.

---

Agree with your insight Bill not only the ratings losing jobs, a lot of the shipping companies that work the offshore sector are now employing Navigators and Engineers from eastern bloc or the Philippines on board their vessels working not only the UK sector but world wide.Most of your coastal companies now employ mainly former eastern bloc seafarers, both officer and rating.

Regards
Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Brady

Bill ,why do you find it so hard to acknowledge that it was through the work of the union .........

---

In total agreement Jim on the Bombardier scandal, Also when you get the seafarers centres helping out the poor distressed crew on the vessels that have been arrested you will find that they have the support of the ITF and RMT if the vessels in the UK, World Wide then it's mostly the ITF.

It looks like the tax break for shipowners that used the Red Duster will shortly stop, and about time too only employed one cadet per ship maybe.

From the beginning of this month the £2.00 an hour for cheap labour on vessels trading between the UK and the Continent came to an end (Mainly Ferries) after years of protest to the government in power and Brussels by the RMT union.

Regards

Ray

Hi All.
Very interesting reading all the views on unions, obviously those who thought that the owners had the right to treat their workforce as they pleased thought that unionism was wrong, and those that thought they benifited from the protection of the Unions were right. One thing that changed things in the union movement was the same thing that permeated many shipping companies; and that was greed. Union officials who rose through the ranks became not only powerfull in thier own right; but lost sight of the plight of the workers. I will give you one great example with the seamens union. Tom Yates ended up president on a very large salary, he became Sir Tom Yates having been knighted by the Queen,[ What for services to Merchant seamen? I don't think so]. When his daughter married he gave her a rolls royce as a present from the seamen, Can't remember voting for that myself. I was never involved in the British seamens union, but was a delegate on the NZ coast. I was also a delegate in the building industry in Sydney, I never in my position took a back hander, though the practice was rife in the building industry, I became very disallusioned by what I saw; but still endevored to see that no one under my juristriction was exploited or shortchanged. I'm afraid that the morals and ethicis of the people who ran for office as time went on left a lot to be desired, and that is why the union movement is in a shambles today, unfortunatly people are still being explioted and have no protection.
Cheers Des:mad: