- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- workreform
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- workreform
The company that chartered the cargo ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was recently sanctioned by regulators for blocking its employees from directly reporting safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard — in violation of a seaman whistleblower protection law, according to regulatory filings reviewed by The Lever.
Eight months before a Maersk Line Limited-chartered cargo ship crashed into the Baltimore bridge, likely killing six people and injuring others, the Labor Department sanctioned the shipping conglomerate for retaliating against an employee who reported unsafe working conditions aboard a Maersk-operated boat. In its order, the department found that Maersk had “a policy that requires employees to first report their concerns to [Maersk]… prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities.”
A Singaporean company owns the ship, from what I’ve read, Maersk just “rented” the ship for this cargo load, how does this in any way make it Maersk’s fault? This is a genuine question because from what I’ve read, Maersk would have zero to do with the upkeep or maintenence of the ship, the owners would be responsible for that, especially if they had Just chartered this ship for this most recent load. Honestly, I haven’t read this full article, unless it’s the same I read somewhere else, but the gist is that people should be outraged that a company not responsible for maintaining the ship was able to rent the ship and the engine/ electronics failed on their rented ship so its their fault? I’ll gladly retract this if there is new evidence that Maersk was responsible for the repairs and didn’t do them, but I personally don’t get brakes replaced or oil changes done for enterprise when I rent their cars…
I just deleted this whole spiel about how “in aviation there’s a role we call the operator” but the general gist of it is “why is it okay to hire negligent subcontractors?”
Name checks out
You bet your plunger it does.
Ok, now imagine Enterprise gave you a car with no brakes and an engine about to catch on fire… You go out and kill a fam of 6
Then Enterprise reveals it’s not really their car, it’s a sub lease form a shady third party and therefore not their responsibility at all?
I’m not involved in the industry in any way so I would obviously have no access to their contract, but if the contract stated Maersk was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the ship while it was chartered by them, then I can fully understand holding them at fault. That would be similar to us leading a car, for all intents and purposes, it’s our car and our responsibility to ensure it’s safe to drive, if we remove the brakes and kill a family of 6, that’s entirely in us. But going back to enterprise, I don’t look at the maintenance records and inspect if they fully or correctly installed the brakes before driving off the lot. And this is where I go back to not knowing shit about their contract, maybe it was in there and they neglected to perform an inspection, or maybe it was in there and the documents were altered, we might or might not find out in the future. My whole comment was that this reporter wrote this article as click- bait, Maersk may have been found to be silencing whistle-blowers, but it doesn’t seem to me like that has any bearing on this incident in particular.
There are different types of standard charter agreements in the shipping industry. In a “barebone” charter the ship is chartered without a crew and the company renting it is responsible for staffing, maintenance, etc. What Maersk used, at least according to sources reporting initially, was a time charter, where the owner of the ship provides the crew and maintenance, and Maersk only tells them where to go and what cargo to pick up, as well as providing supplies (e.g., fuel). So I agree that the reporting seems clickbaity and misleading.