Is this why we lost the merchant navy?

[Captain Kong]

I don't actually believe this. It seems like an opinion rather than a fact.

Fact, before 1980 it was harder for a compnay to flag out. After 1980, and laissez faire capitalism, it became a lot easier. Many guys can tell you about coming back from the Falklands and paying off on the forrard gangway while a Bangladeshi crew was joining in the rear..........

Another one of Thatchers brillian ideas. God, how I hate that woman!!!!!!!!!!!!

.
.
I think you will find that the Canberra had an Indian etc, crew, as all P&O Lners did, when she was requisitioned by the government, They were sent home on leave.
A volunteer crew was hired from the Pool, and when she returned back to Southampton they paid off and P&O returned the Indian crew.
I do not think that Maggie had anything to do with a crew change, it was done by P&O, obviously with the consent of the NUS.
Cheers
Brian.

[Colin Hawken]

Living where I do and knowing Canberra and many of her crew very well at the time,I can cofirm what you say Captain Kong.

[Captain Kong]

The decline of our MN also started when our old Colonies got independance, They got their own Merchant Fleets instead of using ours,
In West Africa for example, we had, Elder Dempsters, Palm Line, Holt Line and a few others, a big fleet. Then when independance came we then got Nigerian National Shipping Line of Nigeria, Black Star Line of Ghana, and so on, our ships and seamen were no longer needed on the west coast. more ships and jobs lost. This continued throughout the the Commonwealth. hundreds of ships and thousands of jobs lost for ever, never to return.
It had nothing to do with any particular Politician. It just happened by evolution.
.
As regard trading countries, the New World order means that certain countries such as China, who were very beligerant in the old days, Civil wars, fighting in Korea , threatening to bomb and attack Taiwan.
MacAuther threatening to Nuke China and so on. what do we do to stop it? a billion Chinese just dont go away. They gave them the manufacturing industries, this fed the masses there who were sometimes a little restless and hungry. it kept them in check so the Chinese government didnt have to have a nuclear war with the West to keep them quiet. It also kept the Chinese Government in check, behave yourselves and we will make you prosperous. A better option than going to war.
So that is why all our Industries are going to third world countries to manufacture, this feeds them and keeps them quiet, We suffer some unemployment, but that is the price to pay to keep a "peaceful" world.
Cheers
Brian

[Louis the Amigo]

Hi Captain Kong Hi shipmates you are right on the money but it was also about cheap labour on reflaged ships . and tax dodgeing by the shipping companys The profits were the best for many years at that time and ship building{ abroad }was at a record high Today this is still happening in the U.K. cheap non union unskilled labour or agency workers on all the P.O ships on the min pay This has allso happen ashore in many jobs. We were the first industry to suffer from this that was another nail in the coffin of our {"British merchant navy} The unions were powerless to stop this by force of law ,The Iron lady made sure of this by holding all the union funds to ransome at that time so Big business { The Ship owners} allways win in the end Why ? because they have the upper hand and they laws and judges and the system in their pocket. The unions and workers in any industry in the U.K. are today a waste of time.

[Captain Kong]

Today the Unions are losing Jobs, as an example, a stainless steel profiles factory started employing apprentices to learn the highly skilled trade of plasma cutting of profiles.
The apprentices were quite happy to learn the Trade. then the Union Man came in and said `Why are these lads not on the same wage as the Skilled men`, The boss said, they dont know the job, the are still unskilled and the skilled men are teaching them. The Union Man demanded that the apprentices be paid the same as a Skilled tradesman.
No problem , he said, he called the Apprentices into the Office and sacked them all. `I do not employ Apprentices anymore,` So the lads lost their apprenticeship and went onto the dole. several careers lost because of a Thick Union Man.
The Manager is a friend of mine, ex galley boy to Cunard winger. then later new business and the Unions killed the Jobs.

[Captain Kong]

There are still a few jobs with Cunard .................
.

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Public Rooms Manager (Bars and Public Rooms)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Oct 2011

Date posted: 04 Mar 2011

Assistant Public Rooms Manager (Bars and Public Rooms)
Job Description



Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Chef de Partie (Galley)
Job Description



Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Demi Chef de Partie (Galley)
Job Description



Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Commis de Cuisine (Galley)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Asst. F&B Manager (Hotel Management)
Job Description





Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 03 Feb 2011

Assistant Housekeeper (Housekeeping)
Job Description

Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 31 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Wine Waiter (Restaurant)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Waiter (Restaurant)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 21 Jul 2010

Junior Waiter (Restaurant)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 31 Dec 2011

Date posted: 30 Sep 2010

Chief Sommelier (Restaurant)
Job Description
Click Here for Full Details »

Closing Date: 30 Dec 2011

Date posted: 22 Jun 2010

[John Arton]

As everyone has stated before, the demise of the MN was most likely natural progression, though the Unions did have their part to play in it.
Most of the Union bods were in the pockets of the shipowners, the one I worked for actually hired ex Union bosses to head up their personnel dept and kept a number of the Officers Union reps in cnew cars.
When they shifted us to offshore contracts in mid 80's the head of personnel flew out to Mexico with the Union guy (we had a number of ships working on the west coast of Mexico at the time) who explained to us what a great deal the Union had done in getting such a good offshore contract!!, this was after he was lamped by a certain Engineer who belted him as soon as he walked into the bar and who then left in disgust.
After he ad trawled himself around the ships, the company gave the bugger a further fortnights holiday in Mexico!!, so yes the Unions were pretty piss poor in looking after their members but they never suffered.

rgds
Capt. John Arton (ret'd)

[Capt Bill Davies]

Hi Bill

There is another post where-in the loss of the MN has been discussed in depth, laying blame at economics of scale, larger ships smaller crews, containerisation. The unions shooting themselves in the foot, but the union leaders still having nice union homes and cars whilst their members are jobless. Seamens strikes which tied up ships when shippers needed to move goods. UK dockers strikes which forced shippers to consider using foreign flag ships, who gave them good service.Ex colonial countries whether they be British, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc all wanting their own merchant navies to protect their foreign exchange earnings and carry their own exports.

There was and still is a multiple set of factors that contributed to the "natural" decline of the size of our merchant navy, but there are those who still want to lay the blame at the door of one woman who wasn't even in politics when the natural evolution started its course in the new world order after WWII.

Good afternoon Ivan,

I do recall we touched on this topic a while back and that is why I kept my comment brief.
However, whilst writing I would agree with you re Margaret Thatcher. She was a convenient distraction for many ailments in our economy at the time. On a personal level I think she did a fine job which is more than I can say for the present encumbants.

Brgds

Bill

[Ivan Cloherty]

Good afternoon Ivan,

I do recall we touched on this topic a while back and that is why I kept my comment brief.
However, whilst writing I would agree with you re Margaret Thatcher. She was a convenient distraction for many ailments in our economy at the time. On a personal level I think she did a fine job which is more than I can say for the present encumbants.

Brgds

Bill

Thanks Bill, tried to use "Thankyou" button, but it wont let me