Cruise ship law questions.

[MariaW]

I've been on a cruise ship once in my life, it was a free trip on Royal Caribbean. We departed from and returned to Miami. Most of the passengers were Americans. During my week on the ship, I talked to a lot of the staff who were working there, and it was an eye-opener. Most of the staff and crew aside from the entertainers were not Americans. The officers and management were from northern Europe. The desk staff from eastern Europe. The cabin cleaning crew were from the Caribbean, the waiters and servers from the Philippines and other Asian countries. The deck crew was from the Philippines too.

The staff sign on for 6 month stints, get paid next to nothing, and never get a day off for the entire 6 months. Most of the time they have to work 12-16 hours or more every day, no overtime. I think the thing that bothered me the most is the lack of a single day off in six months. You can never get sick or have an "off" day.

I'm wondering why these cruise ships, even those from "all-American" companies like Disney(!), are allowed to operate under foreign flags under these conditions from U.S. ports, despite the fact that they mostly cater to U.S. customers and have offices in the U.S. Even more baffling is the fact that the ships are required to comply with strict U.S. health and safety regulations, but are not subject to U.S. labor laws. Can someone tell me about the history of this practice? Why don't the ships have to comply with labor laws? Why don't they hire american crew? Is there anyone out there trying to change these laws?

(I did some research when I came home and found out that Royal Caribbean has a gigantic profit margin so you can't say it's because the company won't survive if it treats its crew better)

[New3M]

I've been on a cruise ship once in my life, it was a free trip on Royal Caribbean. We departed from and returned to Miami. Most of the passengers were Americans. During my week on the ship, I talked to a lot of the staff who were working there, and it was an eye-opener. Most of the staff and crew aside from the entertainers were not Americans. The officers and management were from northern Europe. The desk staff from eastern Europe. The cabin cleaning crew were from the Caribbean, the waiters and servers from the Philippines and other Asian countries. The deck crew was from the Philippines too.

The staff sign on for 6 month stints, get paid next to nothing, and never get a day off for the entire 6 months. Most of the time they have to work 12-16 hours or more every day. I think the thing that bothered me the most is the lack of a single day off in six months. You can never get sick or have an "off" day.

I'm wondering why these cruise ships, even those from "all-American" companies like Disney(!), are allowed to operate under foreign flags under these conditions from U.S. ports, despite the fact that they mostly cater to U.S. customers and have offices in the U.S. Even more baffling is the fact that the ships are required to comply with strict U.S. health and safety regulations, but are not subject to U.S. labor laws. Can someone tell me about the history of this practice? Why don't the ships have to comply with labor laws? Why don't they hire american crew? Is there anyone out there trying to change these laws?

(I did some research when I came home and found out that Royal Caribbean has a gigantic profit margin so you can't say it's because the company won't survive if it treats its crew better)

I guess you don't work in the industry. You're shocked that the crew doesn't get a single day off in 6 months? Neither do I! Neither does anybody else who works on any ship in the world! When you sign on, you work every day (usually 12 hours) until you get off. I've done 6+ month trips without a day off. That's life on the sea. When I take a day "off" I only work 8 hours instead of 12.

Disney is not an "all-American" company. Their cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, along with many others. Why? Yes, it's all about money. Taxes, labor, inspections, etc. A Filipino crewmember costs pennies compared to an American crewmember. I sailed on a foreign flag tanker where the Filipino crew were making $4/hour for overtime. I challenge somebody on here to post that they make less than that! Then again on that ship the Chief Mate was making ~$60k/year. Not many US Chief Mates make that little either.

What you don't realize is that these crew from the cruise ships work their 6 months very happily, and go home rich. They take a couple months off, and go right back to work again. The money that they make, while it may seem like a small amount to you, goes a long way in their home countries.

[MariaW]

I guess you don't work in the industry. You're shocked that the crew doesn't get a single day off in 6 months? Neither do I! Neither does anybody else who works on any ship in the world! When you sign on, you work every day (usually 12 hours) until you get off. I've done 6+ month trips without a day off. That's life on the sea. When I take a day "off" I only work 8 hours instead of 12.

What you don't realize is that these crew from the cruise ships work their 6 months very happily, and go home rich. They take a couple months off, and go right back to work again. The money that they make, while it may seem like a small amount to you, goes a long way in their home countries.

That would be fine if the cruise ship was in the Philippines. It's not, it's in the U.S. Why aren't there any american crew? Also, my impression was that the crew on the ship got paid a fixed rate per month or week, not an hourly wage. One crew member told us they made $300 a month. That's much worse than $4 an hour for the amount of time they work. One woman had a 9 month old child at home, and she was on the ship for 6 months. She'd been doing the crewing thing for a while. If she was so rich, why would she leave her tiny infant with her mother at 3 months to go work?

[New3M]

Because American crew cost wayyyyyyy more than the Filipino crew! It's all about $$$$$$$$.

It's not required because the ship is foreign flag. If it was US flag it would be required to have American crew, like the ONE NCL ship that runs out in Hawaii. MEBA mates and engineers.

[seadog6608]

Maria, the $3-500 that a Philipino makes per month after six months of working every day. After six months of NOT going ashore and spending any of it becomes $1800-$2500 when he goes home. That goes a long way on the PI economy.

[rjbpilot]

What you don't realize is that these crew from the cruise ships work their 6 months very happily, and go home rich. They take a couple months off, and go right back to work again.

Quite often they don't even go home but rather, attend some school or training. That was the case for some foreign crews I met while piloting. 9 or 12 month contracts at 1200/month for officers. They were happy to have it.

[mslilith2000]

That would be fine if the cruise ship was in the Philippines. It's not, it's in the U.S. Why aren't there any american crew? Also, my impression was that the crew on the ship got paid a fixed rate per month or week, not an hourly wage. One crew member told us they made $300 a month. That's much worse than $4 an hour for the amount of time they work. One woman had a 9 month old child at home, and she was on the ship for 6 months. She'd been doing the crewing thing for a while. If she was so rich, why would she leave her tiny infant with her mother at 3 months to go work?

Maria,

If a ship goes from one US port directly to another US port then the ship must carry the US flag and hire US personnel. Our pay rates are substantially higher than those of 3rd world and less developed countries. As is our cost of living.

Most companies register their ships in other countries and carry the flag of that country. Examples are the Bahamas, Liberia, and Panama. The ship may be owned by someone in London, Houston, or Stockholm, but they will carry another country's flag. This is called carrying a "flag of convenience" (FOC). It means that the ship has relatively little to do with the Bahamas, Liberia, or Panama (etc.) other than being registered there. This provides many tax advantages, allows for lower safety standards (only counts if the CG catches you), non-US lower wage crews (sometimes US personnel who need the job or sea time and will work for a lot less money), and many other perks that lower the bottom line and increase profit. I am only familiar with how this situation applies to the US. Ship owners in other countries may have different or additional perks for using a FOC. Maybe someone else will chime in here.

If you look you will notice that there are no cruise ships that go from US port to US port (ie: Miami to NY; SF to San Diego) except for the American Pride which goes from island to island in Hawaii. That is the only US flagged cruise ship left. Even Disney carries a flag of convenience. ( I think all their ships are flagged in the Bahamas but I'm not sure). And don't even get me started on all the eastern European "hospitality students" who work in their theme parks for peanuts. But that's another story.

$300 a month or $4/hr is a HUGE sum of money in a place like the Phillipines, Guatemala, or Ukrane. These are just a few of the countries where ship operators can find eager crew willing to work for what we would consider pathetic wages. Even an entry level cashier in the US earns more than an experienced seaman in many places. Men AND women leave their children, families, and homes because this is the highest paying job available to them. If you are supporting kids or parents or anyone else it takes money, whether you work selling cars in landlocked Omaha or ship out from southeast Asia.

Take that situation and multiply it 100 or more times and you get a small feel of why people who are from poor countries are willing to work for crap wages on any sort of vessel, not just the cruise ships. It must be very difficult to be surrounded by the luxury of your passengers accommodations and then go back to your tiny 4 or 6 occupant cabin to try and sleep in between your shifts. I'm not sure it is any easier to work long hours at a time on a noisy, rusting hulk carrying highly flammable cargo where the only item in your safety kit is a crucifix. Then going back to your tiny 4-6 person cabin and trying to get some sleep between your shifts. You have to be pretty hungry to consider these "good" conditions. Or crazy.

I once sailed with a woman from TX who chose to leave her kids with her mom and work as a cook in the Gulf of Mexico because that paid more than she could make in her small and isolated home town. Sure she felt bad about losing time with her kids but she was also glad she could provide a better life for her children while raising them in the same place she was raised. There, in her family's home, she felt safe and comfortable - something she wanted her kids to have too.


As for US based sailors who willingly get on ships for sometimes less than desirable wages (but far more than $300/mo) and work for months on end without a break, sick day, or trip home to see the family, it's hard to explain why. For some mariners, yes, this is a better wage than they can earn anywhere else close to home so they put up with it. For most of us, however, it's in our blood. We are drawn to this crazy life of 12 hour shifts, ridiculously long commutes (try flying from the east coast to Singapore), and lack of privacy on board a ship. We do it because no two days offshore are really alike. We do it because we like hanging out with people as crazy as ourselves. We do it because we are adrenaline junkies who long for the next storm. We do it because we'd be bored stiff doing just about anything else. It really is hard to explain.

If, on your first cruise, you had an overwhelming urge to polish stuff, grind out rust from the hull and repaint it (repeatedly), spend hours glued to a radar screen until your eyes bleed, work in a hot, sweaty, and deafening room keeping vigil over obstinate machinery, and write long redundant reports; if you had a hard time enjoying yourself because you needed to be responsible for something on the ship and therefore found it impossible to relax, you will be able to understand the "call of the sea". If not, you'll have to take my word for it.

FYI... If you came here to ask questions about life offshore, there are more than enough seasoned mariners here to give you good information and colorful stories. But be aware that this is a forum for professional mariners and for those interested in joining this industry. Some members may not wish to devote a lot of time to questions that for the rest of us we've asked and answered a long, long time ago. Just sayin'...

P.S. Haven't been on here in a long time. Apologies for the rambling and the soapbox. I'm done now.

[mslilith2000]

Maria,

My apologies. I should have looked at your profile before inferring you had no other interest in this industry beyond taking a cruise. My bad.

[MariaW]

I know about conditions on a ship. I just want to know why the U.S. doesn't make these cruise lines hire american crew. I don't think it's right. There are a lot of abuses of desperate people. No one here would accept $300 a month in wages for 12 hour days (that's .83 an hour btw), why are people defending what these cruise lines are doing? They can afford to hire americans at decent wages. Why do they have to follow health laws but not labor laws in the U.S.? The U.S. could just tell them "just as you adjusted your health and safety standards to fit our laws, now you're going to have to comply with our higher labor standards". I'm sure the Norwegian captain gets paid plenty to drive the ship. I'm just trying to understand this industry. I'm trying to find out if this is a concern at all for anyone, if there's any kind of legislation happening. I would have hoped that a site for professional mariners is full of people who hope for better conditions for everyone in the industry. There are lots of sites on the internet that talk about the abusive conditions on these cruise ships. If they were held to higher labor standards, maybe the ships would have an american crew. More jobs for people in the U.S. serving on ships that cater to american consumers, and leave and come back to american ports. That seems only fair, doesn't it? I wanted to get the mariner's perspective and opinion.

[DeckApe]

Why don't the ships have to comply with labor laws? Why don't they hire american crew? Is there anyone out there trying to change these laws?

We American mariners are worried about the regular attempts to overturn the laws that protect what jobs we have left. If the forces of business had their way all of us would be replaced by overseas crews tomorrow.

There are lots of sites on the internet that talk about the abusive conditions on these cruise ships.

Abusive by whose standards? Theirs, ours or yours?

Mariners, even American mariners, maintain work schedules and living conditions many Americans would consider abusive.

[cmakin]

I know about conditions on a ship. I just want to know why the U.S. doesn't make these cruise lines hire american crew. I don't think it's right. There are a lot of abuses of desperate people. No one here would accept $300 a month in wages for 12 hour days (that's .83 an hour btw), why are people defending what these cruise lines are doing? They can afford to hire americans at decent wages. Why do they have to follow health laws but not labor laws in the U.S.? The U.S. could just tell them "just as you adjusted your health and safety standards to fit our laws, now you're going to have to comply with our higher labor standards". I'm sure the Norwegian captain gets paid plenty to drive the ship. I'm just trying to understand this industry. I'm trying to find out if this is a concern at all for anyone, if there's any kind of legislation happening. I would have hoped that a site for professional mariners is full of people who hope for better conditions for everyone in the industry. There are lots of sites on the internet that talk about the abusive conditions on these cruise ships. If they were held to higher labor standards, maybe the ships would have an american crew. More jobs for people in the U.S. serving on ships that cater to american consumers, and leave and come back to american ports. That seems only fair, doesn't it? I wanted to get the mariner's perspective and opinion.

To echo what Deck Ape and the others posted, it isn't just foriegn seamen that work long hours without any days off. US merchant mariners do get paid a bit more, but it is pretty much relative when compared to the home economies of the seamen. As far as why aren't there US crews on ship that serve US interests? Well, the FOC issue is more than just an issue in the cruise industry. Just read a few threads here and see that it effects the offshore construction and drilling industry as well as the shipping industry as a whole. The US mariner was outsourced long before the rest of the country felt that kind of pressure. In the past, in order to make US shipping companies more competitive, the government offered building and operating subsidies to shipping companies for construction of vessels in the US and for operating costs. These were looked as as "corporate welfare" and dropped some time ago; effectively decimating the shipping industry. Now, this treads in political waters and that really isn't my point.

What is my point? Well, just like the others that have posted here, working conditions in the shipping industry are far and away different from what most "9 to 5ers" experience ashore. And, like others have posted, the demand for individuals in the business as well as the hardships are part of the attraction to a career. I know that when I came ashore, I was concerned about not having that kind of demand to keep me interested. I have been lucky (?) enough to have employment that can often have me working around the clock, traveling at the last minute to strange, far away places and still deal with offshore and other marine equipment. If anything, I don't get as many vacation days as I used to when I was sailing. . . . .These are the things that are common to all facets of a life at sea, whether on a foreign or US flag cruise ship, cargo ship, supply boat, DSV, drilling unit and/or vessel, tugboat, etc. Should those very same cruise ship be US flag? Well, that is a very old debate that doesn't seem to be ending any time soon.

[Capt.Felix]

We American mariners are worried about the regular attempts to overturn the laws that protect what jobs we have left. If the forces of business had their way all of us would be replaced by overseas crews tomorrow.

Abusive by whose standards? Theirs, ours or yours?

Mariners, even American mariners, maintain work schedules and living conditions many Americans would consider abusive.

I have to agree. While i served in the navy many thought the procedures were sub_human. I myself enjoyed it.

[MariaW]

Please stop talking about lifestyle, I know about that. I know it's all work, and then lots of idle time. That's what attracts me as well. But the cruise ship crew thing is a different kettle of fish. U.S. maritime jobs pay well by comparison. I'm talking about the flag issue and jobs for U.S. mariners that pay a good wage, not how I don't understand the lifestyle choice of mariners.

I think I need to change my name to "Uboatkillr" or "Supermanlymariner" or something to keep people from talking down to me about how tough it is to be a mariner. That isn't the point here.

(Oh, and before someone decides to bring it up, I know that tall ships pay little to nothing. Obviously, there are different motivations and rewards for working on a tall ship.)

[Capt. Phoenix]

People are obsessively telling youabout the lifestyle because you repeatedly talk about their long hours, no time off, and bad conditions. People keep telling you about foreign economies compared to the US economy because $300 per month for them is like $10,000 per month for an american. They are more than happy to be away from home working on shops because it is more money for less work than anything they can get on shore.

To answer your other question, people aren't outraged over the flags of convenience because they *are* legal. Before worrying about changing the laws you need to get outraged over the vessels that are given Jones Act waivers because they "can't find US seamen" (willing to work for filipino pay) and the agency that is supposed to verify these claims just rubber stamp them.

[New3M]

Please stop talking about lifestyle, I know about that. I know it's all work, and then lots of idle time. That's what attracts me as well. But the cruise ship crew thing is a different kettle of fish. U.S. maritime jobs pay well by comparison. I'm talking about the flag issue and jobs for U.S. mariners that pay a good wage, not how I don't understand the lifestyle choice of mariners.

I think I need to change my name to "Uboatkillr" or "Supermanlymariner" or something to keep people from talking down to me about how tough it is to be a mariner. That isn't the point here.

Do you understand the Flag of Convenience (FOC) issue? Because that is the issue here. Companies are allowed to register their ships with (pretty much) whatever flag they want, hence why they are called FOC's. In doing so, they save all sorts of money. For a ship to be required to carry a US crew, it must be built in the US, owned by a US company, and crewed by US sailors. All of that costs a fortune. The taxes alone save the cruise companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Thus, they build overseas, are registered in the Bahamas or Libera or pick any of the other FOC's that are out there (there's actually one without a single mile of coastline, but I can't recall the name now), and employ a variety of nations onboard.

We had 3 US cruise ships for a while. They were crewed up by MEBA and run by NCL. NCL figured out pretty quick that they didn't need 3 cruise ships running a Hawaii route, so they sent 2 of them away, and there is only 1 left now. Compared to the rest of the US fleet - tankers, container ships, oil field, etc. - it's not a very good job. The contracts are long, the money and vacation is short. Most people that work there either love the cruise industry or are desperate for a job. I know some folks that did 1 tour there and vowed to never go back. There's all sorts of bullshit that you have to put up with that the rest of us don't. I don't wear a uniform, I don't have to deal with customer service, I don't have tourists watching over my shoulder on the bridge as they go on tours and watch through the little glass window.

Why would NCL pay a US 3/M (i'm guessing here) $60k a year when they can pay an Indian/Russian/Filipino/etc. 3/M $30K a year if they don't have to? Does that sound like good business sense to you? Sure doesn't to me. If I'm the guy sitting atop the Royal Caribbean food chain, I want to make as much money as I possibly can. The only reason NCL was forced into it was they're running a Jones Act route. No other cruise ship does - sure, they leave from the US, but then they go foreign, and come back. Doesn't require a single American onboard. Except for maybe the pilot on the way in and out.

[Capt.Felix]

Please stop talking about lifestyle, I know about that. I know it's all work, and then lots of idle time. That's what attracts me as well. But the cruise ship crew thing is a different kettle of fish. U.S. maritime jobs pay well by comparison. I'm talking about the flag issue and jobs for U.S. mariners that pay a good wage, not how I don't understand the lifestyle choice of mariners.

I think I need to change my name to "Uboatkillr" or "Supermanlymariner" or something to keep people from talking down to me about how tough it is to be a mariner. That isn't the point here.

(Oh, and before someone decides to bring it up, I know that tall ships pay little to nothing. Obviously, there are different motivations and rewards for working on a tall ship.)

i do not believe i talked down to you, I didnt even notice your user name until now that u mentioned it..

[Capt.Felix]

Do you understand the Flag of Convenience (FOC) issue? Because that is the issue here. Companies are allowed to register their ships with (pretty much) whatever flag they want, hence why they are called FOC's. In doing so, they save all sorts of money. For a ship to be required to carry a US crew, it must be built in the US, owned by a US company, and crewed by US sailors. All of that costs a fortune. The taxes alone save the cruise companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Thus, they build overseas, are registered in the Bahamas or Libera or pick any of the other FOC's that are out there (there's actually one without a single mile of coastline, but I can't recall the name now), and employ a variety of nations onboard.

We had 3 US cruise ships for a while. They were crewed up by MEBA and run by NCL. NCL figured out pretty quick that they didn't need 3 cruise ships running a Hawaii route, so they sent 2 of them away, and there is only 1 left now. Compared to the rest of the US fleet - tankers, container ships, oil field, etc. - it's not a very good job. The contracts are long, the money and vacation is short. Most people that work there either love the cruise industry or are desperate for a job. I know some folks that did 1 tour there and vowed to never go back. There's all sorts of bullshit that you have to put up with that the rest of us don't. I don't wear a uniform, I don't have to deal with customer service, I don't have tourists watching over my shoulder on the bridge as they go on tours and watch through the little glass window.

Why would NCL pay a US 3/M (i'm guessing here) $60k a year when they can pay an Indian/Russian/Filipino/etc. 3/M $30K a year if they don't have to? Does that sound like good business sense to you? Sure doesn't to me. If I'm the guy sitting atop the Royal Caribbean food chain, I want to make as much money as I possibly can. The only reason NCL was forced into it was they're running a Jones Act route. No other cruise ship does - sure, they leave from the US, but then they go foreign, and come back. Doesn't require a single American onboard. Except for maybe the pilot on the way in and out.

I work within the private yacht sector and you find the same. U.S. Owned yacht registering under a foreign flag in order to avoid having to pay U.S. Luxury taxes and avoid hiring U.S citizens because this way they save $$ thats all its about. Dont know how else to put it for you... Is it right ?? I dont know, depends who you ask. I personally do not agree because foreigners are reiceveing many of the jobs that U.S. citizens would otherwise have a chance at landing.

[Sweat-n-Grease]

Maria,

If a ship goes from one US port directly to another US port then the ship must carry the US flag and hire US personnel. Our pay rates are substantially higher than those of 3rd world and less developed countries. As is our cost of living.

Most companies register their ships in other countries and carry the flag of that country. Examples are the Bahamas, Liberia, and Panama. The ship may be owned by someone in London, Houston, or Stockholm, but they will carry another country's flag. This is called carrying a "flag of convenience" (FOC). It means that the ship has relatively little to do with the Bahamas, Liberia, or Panama (etc.) other than being registered there. This provides many tax advantages, allows for lower safety standards (only counts if the CG catches you), non-US lower wage crews (sometimes US personnel who need the job or sea time and will work for a lot less money), and many other perks that lower the bottom line and increase profit. I am only familiar with how this situation applies to the US. Ship owners in other countries may have different or additional perks for using a FOC. Maybe someone else will chime in here.

If you look you will notice that there are no cruise ships that go from US port to US port (ie: Miami to NY; SF to San Diego) except for the American Pride which goes from island to island in Hawaii. That is the only US flagged cruise ship left. Even Disney carries a flag of convenience. ( I think all their ships are flagged in the Bahamas but I'm not sure). And don't even get me started on all the eastern European "hospitality students" who work in their theme parks for peanuts. But that's another story.

$300 a month or $4/hr is a HUGE sum of money in a place like the Phillipines, Guatemala, or Ukrane. These are just a few of the countries where ship operators can find eager crew willing to work for what we would consider pathetic wages. Even an entry level cashier in the US earns more than an experienced seaman in many places. Men AND women leave their children, families, and homes because this is the highest paying job available to them. If you are supporting kids or parents or anyone else it takes money, whether you work selling cars in landlocked Omaha or ship out from southeast Asia.

Take that situation and multiply it 100 or more times and you get a small feel of why people who are from poor countries are willing to work for crap wages on any sort of vessel, not just the cruise ships. It must be very difficult to be surrounded by the luxury of your passengers accommodations and then go back to your tiny 4 or 6 occupant cabin to try and sleep in between your shifts. I'm not sure it is any easier to work long hours at a time on a noisy, rusting hulk carrying highly flammable cargo where the only item in your safety kit is a crucifix. Then going back to your tiny 4-6 person cabin and trying to get some sleep between your shifts. You have to be pretty hungry to consider these "good" conditions. Or crazy.

I once sailed with a woman from TX who chose to leave her kids with her mom and work as a cook in the Gulf of Mexico because that paid more than she could make in her small and isolated home town. Sure she felt bad about losing time with her kids but she was also glad she could provide a better life for her children while raising them in the same place she was raised. There, in her family's home, she felt safe and comfortable - something she wanted her kids to have too.


As for US based sailors who willingly get on ships for sometimes less than desirable wages (but far more than $300/mo) and work for months on end without a break, sick day, or trip home to see the family, it's hard to explain why. For some mariners, yes, this is a better wage than they can earn anywhere else close to home so they put up with it. For most of us, however, it's in our blood. We are drawn to this crazy life of 12 hour shifts, ridiculously long commutes (try flying from the east coast to Singapore), and lack of privacy on board a ship. We do it because no two days offshore are really alike. We do it because we like hanging out with people as crazy as ourselves. We do it because we are adrenaline junkies who long for the next storm. We do it because we'd be bored stiff doing just about anything else. It really is hard to explain.

If, on your first cruise, you had an overwhelming urge to polish stuff, grind out rust from the hull and repaint it (repeatedly), spend hours glued to a radar screen until your eyes bleed, work in a hot, sweaty, and deafening room keeping vigil over obstinate machinery, and write long redundant reports; if you had a hard time enjoying yourself because you needed to be responsible for something on the ship and therefore found it impossible to relax, you will be able to understand the "call of the sea". If not, you'll have to take my word for it.

FYI... If you came here to ask questions about life offshore, there are more than enough seasoned mariners here to give you good information and colorful stories. But be aware that this is a forum for professional mariners and for those interested in joining this industry. Some members may not wish to devote a lot of time to questions that for the rest of us we've asked and answered a long, long time ago. Just sayin'...

P.S. Haven't been on here in a long time. Apologies for the rambling and the soapbox. I'm done now.

No apologies needed ..
Keep your rambling ..
You are with your brothers and sisters in the US Merchant Marine.
I'd thoroughly enjoy going ashore with you, perhaps a imbibing a few beers, but my days at sea are gone.
I was, still am, a Merchant Seaman, just like you.

[mslilith2000]

I work within the private yacht sector and you find the same. U.S. Owned yacht registering under a foreign flag in order to avoid having to pay U.S. Luxury taxes and avoid hiring U.S citizens because this way they save $$ thats all its about. Dont know how else to put it for you... Is it right ?? I dont know, depends who you ask. I personally do not agree because foreigners are reiceveing many of the jobs that U.S. citizens would otherwise have a chance at landing.

Geez! And all they used to have to do was register in Deleware. That's not a foreign country by now is it?

[mslilith2000]

Why do they have to follow health laws but not labor laws in the U.S.? The U.S. could just tell them "just as you adjusted your health and safety standards to fit our laws, now you're going to have to comply with our higher labor standards".... I'm trying to find out if this is a concern at all for anyone, if there's any kind of legislation happening. I would have hoped that a site for professional mariners is full of people who hope for better conditions for everyone in the industry....

Maria,

I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of our Government and how laws are made. I do know that offshore labor is treated differently than working onshore. For the same reason I don't know why "illegal immigrants" are able to work in the US picking crops. I'm using quotes because I'm not sure what the exact status of migrant farm workers is called. But the pay and conditions for that work are pretty bad too.

I am fairly certain that enforcement of health laws and enforcement of labor laws (offshore and onshore) are two different things handled by different agencies. I would guess that health and sanitation would have a greater impact on people wanting to take a cruise than whom is hired to man the ship. At least you noticed - many people don't notice and don't give a damn! But as always, the cruise companies wish to make a profit so they will comply with those rules that may have an effect on their public image. While many mariners are used to toilets backing up and bilge water sloshing where it isn't supposed to be sloshing, I doubt people on a cruise would be so tolerant. Having paid for my ticket, I doubt I would be.

Yes, there are plenty of people who care about FOC issues and the loss of US jobs in the maritime industry. There are many opinions as to what the solution might be and to be honest, I don't completely understand the ins and outs of many of these philosophies. I don't know what current legislation is pending or proposed right now because I have not paid much attention lately. Lack of time rather than lack of concern. Many other people on this site will have much better information (and stronger opinions) than I can offer. To avoid conflict, some folks may wish to express their opinions in a PM rather than in a forum. It is a discussion which can get pretty heated at times.

Hope this helps.