The Pool

[Charlie Hannah]

John Maritime unions were very strong out here especially the S.U.A. We got a lot of our conditions in the seventies,and they were well thought out arguments we put forward,sometimes we had to back up those arguments
with stoppages 24 &48 hours,walk offs.Things started to go down hill around the eighties we started getting Johnie come lately's in the industry who had no idea of the life at sea,and were not really unionist anyway beats me how a lot of them got into the game!Then in the er lie 90s we amalgamated with the wharfies in my opinion it was a big mistake,one of the things that happened they sold just about every thing the S.U.A. had,and paid hundreds of wharfies off,left a big hole in the kitty,people were turned against the unions by the news papers and of course the ship owners them selves also lots of shore workers through shear envy,of the conditions we had won.Also as we all know container ships had a big part of the play, bringing every thing undone jobs were cut right across the board.I could go on for ever with this but i guess we all know how it got to be as it now is.THE End.

[Roger Dyer]

Hello Hugh.....your #39 refers.

Whilst I've no burning desire to belabour the point, your gentle rebuttal of my comment would suggest I am in error, however, having thoroughly read the results of your research I think it a tad misleading to suggest some WWII seamen were often given latitude to sail in the ship of their choosing. Certainly, as your research shows, 40 per cent of merchant seaman opted to bypass the 'Pool' and directly seek employment with one company. This had been common practice for many seamen before the war and would continue to be long after the war ended. (Personally, in the 60's I preferred this option when seeking employment with G.S.N.C., MacAndrew's or U.B.C., even when under contract to the Shipping Federation). For those seamen adopting this practice during the war it may well have given rise to expectations of good fortune, but that alone would not necessarily guarantee work on a ship of one's preference. In a general sense, the majority of seaman (60 per cent) had little say in which ship they would sail and it is, I think, misleading to imply anything to the contrary. However I suppose we must, each of us, draw our own conclusions about this.

Now, putting all that to one side, Hugh, may I take this opportunity to thank you for the exhaustive research you carry out for the benefit of BMN members and others who may seek your advice and assistance. Your research has long been a major source of information and interest for those on this site and, surely, you deserve the sincere appreciation of us all. Thanks again.

.............regards Roger

[Des Taff Jenkins]

Hi Charlie.
I knew many of the delegates in the Aus seaman's union as a delegate on the Union Companies NZ ships and back in the 50s 60s they were the best, they would always back seamen never mind from which country they're ships came from.
As for the tanker now held up in Melbourne, the Company that has bought out the Shell Company business in Aus says it no longer needs the ship to take oil from Melbourne to Adelaide, the reason, it has to go to Singapore as they have a Vietnamese crewed tanker waiting to take over the run, that's more Aussie jobs gone to overseas cheap labour. Vale Australian jobs.
Cheers Des

redc.gif

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Louis.
His name was Inky, I signed on my first ship the Trevose one of Hain's in Cardiff straight out of the Vindi, and he was the one who was in the pool, I believe he was well liked in Cardiff and had an amazing memory for seamens names and faces.
Cheers Des

[j.sabourn]

#41... Charlie one of the conditions out here when I arrived was that if you had 6 hours or more flying time to join a ship, this was on top of all the other travel you may have had, you had to have a night in a hotel before joining. This was in 1991. In 2002 I was flying up to Singapore frequently to bring ships down here and never saw the night in a hotel. Having to jump on strange ships and take them straight away more or less. They talk about safety only when it suits them. The RnR periods disappeared, a cook on a vessel disappeared if had 9 or less of a crew, and only got one if had surveyors and such on board. One of the ABs had to take turns with the cooking, this was assumedly to attain better wages. A lot was given away during my time which was later than yours, so were many on the decrease then. The best thing the unions out here can do is to keep Australian jobs for Australian people. That is the ultimate aim of any shipowner is foreign crews as is the only thing he has control of. Everything else he doesn't Insurances, Food, Depreciation on ship etc. etc. It is pointless argument and will finish up like the uk where the foreign populance in jobs at lower wages, but their money is going out of the country, and they are reeming in all the benefits. JS

[happy daze john in oz]

After three years with UCL I went to the poll to see what was about. Very nicely told that as I had left UCL the only way I would now get a ship was if I signed an agreement to be part of the pool. I did so ignorant of what it really meant. Thankfully the ships after that were not too bad, apart from the Uraguay Star and more queens than you could poke a stick at.

here in Oz when the MN was still going there would be a notice in the paper each day. It would say seamen with the following numbers must now report to the shipping federation.

[j.sabourn]

#43... I don't know if the Offshore agreements here were different than regular shipping, but no foreign seamen were allowed offshore unless under special circumstances. Ships I brought on coast were usually manned by Australians before entering Australian waters, however in one incidence I brought a ship down with Indonesian crew , phoned the Union about the legality and they were off within 24 hours. The American oil rigs usually kept their key men on board such as the OIM and the barge masters, however they had a 6 months visa only and had to leave at the end of that period. Any shifting of rigs under tow had to have a complement of Australian seafarers on board, from picking up the last anchor, to the first anchor going down. Wasn't liked by the yanks but who cares what they like and don't like that was the maritime jaw here. Same with all survey and seismic vessels, thats how I sailed under Russian, Norwegian and American flags, plus a few more. JS

[Captain Kong]

My brother emigrated to OZ as an AB in 1963, and worked on the coastal ships out of Sydney.
He went to the Union one day, No Jobs, and after a week or so still no jobs, then the Union man told him there was a job on a Sailing ship, Powder boat, non Union, but take that until the job situation improves, so he did, a couple of months later he went back to the Union to find a job and they threw him out. They told him because he sailed Non Union he was banned.
So he got a Pier Head jump on the Northern Star and came back to our ships.
Cheers
Brian

[cappy]

an interesting thread from gordon mumford ....a recognised aythority on the mn states rhat seamen in wwii had the choice of one of three ships ......it was interesting also to read in the book the real cruel sea that .....of the four hundred men on the halifax pool......not one would admit to being able to steer when a qm was required....as an ab must be able to steer ....and in those times many would have sailed in sailing ships .....surely the choice must have been applicable then .....regards cappy

[Ivan Cloherty]

an interesting thread from gordon mumford ....a recognised aythority on the mn states rhat seamen in wwii had the choice of one of three ships ......y

Now was that a choice of three ships that were all in port at the same time, which is understandable, or was it having a choice of waiting for number three ship after one and two had sailed, as I understood it any able bodied seamen who was ashore too long was likely to be drafted or become a Bevan Boy unless he had a named vessel to join

[cappy]

Now was that a choice of three ships that were all in port at the same time, which is understandable, or was it having a choice of waiting for number three ship after one and two had sailed, as I understood it any able bodied seamen who was ashore too long was likely to be drafted or become a Bevan Boy unless he had a named vessel to join

#######i can only assume that it was the choice of 3 ships at a time ...as the crews for merchant ships were very short ie the taking of prisoners from barlinnie prison to man ships and who were offered a hundred pounds to do the same .....to the great upset of this to merchant seamen .....i believe the choice of 3 ships just carried on after the war as i can see no change of agreement leading me to think otherwise......but stand to be corrected regards cappy