To Everyone Concerned:

If it's not dangerous enough that we have thousands of foreign-flagged vessels pulling into American ports every year, Maersk has decided to make it moreso. In an effort to save what amounts to nothing, really, in labor costs, Maersk has introduced HR 899. How thoughtful of them to consider America's security before their profit margins. HR 899 allows foreign nationals from God knows where to replace American sailors aboard American-flagged vessels operating in American waters in Maersk's effort to undermine the Jones Act.

Thanks in large part to Seafarers International Union, a corporate-funded scab union ship owners and ship management companies turn to when their non-union employees vote in favor of unionizing, as well as American Maritime Officers--the so-called union managed by Michael and Robert McKay, both up on charges for labor racketeering, election tampering, and the list goes on--"professional" American sailors are abandoning the maritime industry en masse as they watch their wages spiral downward. And why wouldn't they? Who in their right mind wants to leave their family and friends eight to ten months per year to risk their lives aboard American-flagged tankers carrying the most lethal chemicals known to man for Third World wages? Allegedly, both SIU and AMO are controlled, either directly or indirectly, by organized crime figures. If this is true, then we all realize their purpose in the equation: wage management. Who better to keep wages at an absolute minimum than people who have the power to break dissenting members' knee caps, but essentially no power at the negotiating table?

Personally, I don't know if Mike Sacco, Auggie Tellez, Michael and Robert McKay are, in fact, linked to organized crime, nor do I particularly care. It's not like "made" members are exactly forthcoming when it comes to mob affiliation.

What I do know, however, and can prove, is that the SIU's Leadership is completely non-effective in terms of negotiating fair labor Agreements on their Membership's behalf. When an SIU sailor earns $2,100 per month base pay, while onboard SIU's "best" ships, and $14.83 overtime, while their counterparts sailing with Sailors Union of the Pacific earn $3,250 per month base pay, and $23.50 an hour overtime, it's no wonder that 80% of SIU sailors abandon the industry two years after completing SIU's year long apprenticeship program. McDonald's has a better retention rate than SIU, and McDonald's employees aren't responsible for the safe navigation of a tankers carrying millions of gallons of MTBE (the equivalent of ether) in and out of ports like New York and New Jersey, San Francisco and Long Beach, Baytown and Ft. Lauderdale.

SIU's Leadership can twist and manipulate those numbers any way they like to make them look comparable to what sailors with Sailor's Union of the Pacific and Marine, Firemen, Oilers, and Watertenders earn, but the bottom line is: they're lying. I've worked with both unions, and I can show you numerous pay stubs that prove I was working twice as many hours for half the money when I sailed aboard SIU-contracted vessels.

The exact numbers Companies are required to skim off the top of sailors' paychecks and hand over to the SIU Leadership are nearly impossible to come by. I've tried, but from what I gather an SUP sailor costs a Company, on average, $500 per month more to employ than an SIU sailor. However, what that SUP sailor sees reflected in his paycheck is more like $2,500 difference, and that's if the SUP sailor in question is only working mandatory overtime.

Where does that $2,000 margin go? If everyone's playing by the rules, it goes to support SIU's incredibly inefficient and massive infrastructure: The Paul Hall School of Maritime Training, SIU's corporate headquarters in Camp Springs Maryland, the 3,000 acre spread called "The Farm" that Mike Sacco lives on at Union expense, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

SIU represents some of the finest "professional" sailors in the industry, there's no question about that. The problem is those "professional" sailors are either retiring, abandoning the industry, or they're being marginalized and ignored by their own Leadership, so they're not nearly as content--and therefore productive to Capital--as they most certainly could be. Sailors who feel they're grievances are being ignored by their own Leadership tend not to do anybody any favors, their Leadership or Capital--so if they're non-productive, that's why. Another problem is that the number of "professional" sailors is being diluted by "turn-key" sailors, the kind who get pissed off, refuse to work overtime, and don't stick with the industry more than a couple of years.

Ironically, Chevron employs by far the most professional sailors around--and what's sad is they're non-union. It's not hard to understand why Chevron sailors stick with the industry long enough to learn their trade back and forth, inside and out. They're paid $3,800 per month base pay compared to the $2,100 per month base pay they'd earn if they signed pledge cards with SIU. I'm as pro-Organized Labor as it's possible to be, but if I was working non-union aboard a Chevron vessel, and an SIU patrolman came aboard and said we should do the right thing and unionize, I'd turn a water cannon on him, too.

In any case, to Maersk, SIU just isn't cheap and submissive enough for their liking.

With 300 vessels bought and paid for, Maersk is, without question, the largest shipping behemoth in the world. They dwarf CSX, Sealand, even Tidewater Marine, the United State's largest shipping company (besides Choest, which would be the largest if it wasn't fragmented into inconspicuous subsidiaries). Since ships span the globe, Maersk is in a position to pick and choose from whatever labor market they choose, and therefore pit one labor pool against another.

I've worked aboard one of Maersk's ships--and it was dangerous as hell. In 2002 we had a massive oil spill onboard the M/V Florida because, from what I understand, Maersk refused to fund replacing one of the bunker lines in No. 5 hold. If you walked aboard the ship and saw its dilapidated condition first hand, you wouldn't question how an oil spill could happen. If you stuck around and spoke with the crew--not the Captain, the Company spokesman, but the crew--you'd soon realize that they were severely shorthanded to begin with, underpaid, and therefore refused to work overtime, which might have prevented the oil spill in the first place.

Maersk would have everyone believe that outsourcing maintenance and repair work to foreign labor pools is common practice--and it is, aboard SIU-contracted vessels, like the ITB New York, for example, and the ITB Mobile, both of which exploited Polish nationals while I was aboard. That, however, doesn't make it right--or legal. Those poor Polish men were worked like slaves, and they were paid an unapologetic $6.00 per hour by Hess-Sheridan.

Our Captain aboard the ITB Mobile was a stuttering drunk, but that didn't stop him from firing four Polish nationals who had been flown into the country for maintenance and repair work the last night they were aboard for celebrating their departure with a shot of Vodka, knowing that firing them meant they'd have to pay their own way home on a moment's notice. Or perhaps that was the plan all along--to fire them for whatever, on the Company's behalf. When I told an SIU port agent about it, I was early on in my career and naive, and was told it was perfectly legal for Hess-Sheridan to outsource my work to foreign nationals. Obviously, that port agent was lying. It was and, to date, still is illegal to import foreign-labor to handle maintenance and repair aboard American-flagged ships, but that will all change if Maersk has their way.

Strangely--that's sarcasm, by the way--Maersk, a foreign conglomerate, wields massive influence over American politicians. Otherwise, I wouldn't need to write this letter, would I. Why? Why are companies with absolutely no allegiance to this country dictating law for our politicians to sign? Doesn't that seem, oh, I don't know, a bit ludicrous? Because they have money, that's why, and plenty of it.

The only way to make American ports more dangerous is to implement Maersk's proposed HR 899. During "Operation Drydock," the Coast Guard, FBI, et cetera, accessed the files of every American sailor to see if they had links to terrorist organizations--and twelve American sailors, if I recall correctly, actually did, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. I mean, what better way to bring the American economy to a virtual standstill than to recreate the Exxon Valdez disaster in the lower 48? Might I remind everyone that the Exxon Valdez laid waste to 1,200 miles of otherwise pristine coastline in Alaska? I imagine that an oil slick that extensive in the lower 48 would happily drown every beach from The Hamptons to Key West in sludge. Hurricane Katrina blasted the Gulf Region in a huge way, but it can be cleaned up. Drowning the entire shoreline in the Gulf of Mexico--including Pascagoula, Mr. Lott--with crude oil would likely prove a bit more difficult for the region's tourist economy to absorb, especially now.

The point is, American law-enforcing agencies had reasonable access to sailors' information. If HR 899 is passed, however, that won't be the case at all--and we all know it. Often times we can't even figure out who, exactly, owns some of the foreign-flagged rust buckets that pull into American ports, much less keep track of who's onboard. Granted, most of the sailors aboard these hypothetical ships would probably be reasonably decent people--people who can't make a living in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or whatever hell hole they escaped from--but why would we allow them easy-access to tankers operating in a country some of them might very well hate? So that Maersk can save what amounts to nothing in labor costs? That's absurd, and the American public will go absolutely bonkers if HR 899 is passed, and something horrible does happen, when they realize that their public servants--that's you--were warned ahead of time by an otherwise unknown--that's me--typing frantically away at his keyboard in the middle of the night.

HR 899 comes up in the Senate in less than two weeks. I strongly, strongly encourage every policy maker reading this to tell Maersk and every other shipping company that wants to exploit cheap labor markets that HR 899 is not going to fly here: we've got enough problems ridding the unions of corrupt and/or inept Labor leaders. As for my friends in the press, I hope you'll do everything in your power to encourage our friends in the political arena to make the right decision.

Fraternally,
P.R. Kuhn
(Read below, and enjoy the pictures.)

HR 899, A BILL TO OUTSOURCE U.S. SEAFARING JOBS

SEC. 425. CITIZENSHIP AND NAVAL RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.

Section 8103(b) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by adding the following paragraph at the end
of that subsection:

`(4) Paragraph (1) of this subsection and section 8701
of this title do not apply to individuals transported
on international voyages who are not part of the crew
complement required under section 8101 or a member of
the Stewards department, and do not perform
watchstanding functions. However, such individuals
must possess a transportation security card issued
under section 70105 of this title, when required.'.'"

With these seemingly innocuous words, the amendment,
Section 425, to HR 899 put forward by Congressman Don
Young of Alaska (Rep. Don Young), has put the jobs of
many U.S. Seamen in jeopardy. By permitting U.S. Flag
vessels to carry foreign seamen to perform a variety
of work previously performed by Americans, we are
being outsourced on board our very ships!

The Bill HR 899 cited as the "Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Act of 2005" passed the House of
Representatives by a vote of 415 For to 0 Against on
September 15, 2005. The Bill goes to the US Senate
within two weeks.

The U.S Coast Guard has for many years held a strict
interpretation of the laws regarding what the term
"Seaman" means. Since the last few years the Coast
Guard has received a number of requests to change
their interpretation to suit interests in opposition
to the Members of Maritime Unions. In the meantime,
some shipping companies have employed foreign
nationals in violation of the law and without the
Unions' opposition.

The Coast Guard has stepped in from time to time and
dealt with the situation by repatriating the workers
in question. But the Coast Guard has many tasks in
these times and cannot visit every single ship in
order to determine whether or not all is in order, nor
should they have to.

The Unions, it would appear have not addressed this
issue either, although language setting out work
jurisdiction is common to every collective bargaining
agreement. Clearly such violations of basic and
foundational contract terms merit the most strenuous
of protests.

At this writing the Sailors Union of the Pacific is
the only Union to have taken action on this important
issue:
>
>
>

www.mebaunited.org/news/modules.php