# Loyalty: Company or Crew?



## kernewekmarnor (Aug 20, 2007)

Hi There

I was interested to gauge the opinion of any fellow ships Master's out there on where your loyalty really lies; with the company or your crew.
I know we are to be seen as the company representative and must ensure all policies are adhered to etc while in command, but in a slightly awkward situation recently I felt my loyalty tested. After spending several hours considering the issue, decided my main loyalty will always be to my crew.
Any comments please on this subject. Apologies if you find this rather a futile thread.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

"decided my main loyalty will always be to my crew."

I sincerely hope every shipmaster on S.N. agrees.


----------



## Ron Stringer (Mar 15, 2005)

Surely this is a question faced by any manager, in any organisation? 

Whilst he has to treat the crew fairly, surely he has to respect the organisation which gave him the job and pays his wages? If they pay him to do a job but his loyalties lie elsewhere, what are they paying for and how does he reconcile taking money for pursuing their interests while putting the interests of others first?


----------



## Binnacle (Jul 22, 2005)

kernewekmarnor said:


> Hi There
> 
> I was interested to gauge the opinion of any fellow ships Master's out there on where your loyalty really lies; with the company or your crew.
> I know we are to be seen as the company representative and must ensure all policies are adhered to etc while in command, but in a slightly awkward situation recently I felt my loyalty tested. After spending several hours considering the issue, decided my main loyalty will always be to my crew.
> Any comments please on this subject. Apologies if you find this rather a futile thread.


I share your opinion, however there are situations where a master must make difficult decisions, bearing in mind that his first loyalty in my opinion should be to his family. Sometimes to show loyalty to your shipmates you must be prepared to resign. Fortunately my only experience of this was when sailing master of mv Carchester, an unseaworthy vessel, confirmed when I called in a classification surveyor in the USA. I was conveniently put on leave when the vessel returned to the UK with a restricted certificate of seaworthiness. Left the company shortly afterwards and never worked for a shipowner again.


----------



## lakercapt (Jul 19, 2005)

Binnacle said:


> . I was conveniently put on leave when the vessel returned to the UK with a restricted certificate of seaworthiness. Left the company shortly afterwards and never worked for a shipowner again.


Yes Bill the lesson that we learn, sometimes too late that Shipowners have that strongest "Union" in the seafaring fraternity and to go against them is fraught with danger for your career whither you are right or wrong. 

I agree that your own interest come first and then the crew and at the bottom of that list is your employers whatever their business.


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

When I was a cadet I was taught that our priorities should be the safety of the crew, the safety of the ship, and the safety of the cargo, in that order. During the 2000s they changed that, placing the safety of the environment above the safety of the crew, but I never agreed with that. As for the shipowners, crews have no more loyalty to shipowners than the shipowners have to their crews. I learned that lesson long ago, too. 

When I was a cadet most of the oil companies, such as Exxon, hired their own officers and crews, who had no union representation. They used to be very contemptuous of Union seamen, claiming that their companies always looked after them just fine, without the unnecessary expense of Union dues. 

I also recall how the press lambasted the captain of the Exxon Valdez, for having a history of drunkeness, after his ship went aground in Alaska in 1989. Like all Exxon captains, that captain was a long-time Exxon company employee. So where do you suppose the press got hold of all that negative information about that captain? From Exxon, of course! They hung the captain out to dry, as a scapegoat, in order to deflect any blame from themselves. And, since the captain had no union representation he had no recourse, except for his own private resources, to rely upon for his defense.


----------



## Burntisland Ship Yard (Aug 2, 2008)

Don't often call in here, anyway there is a distinct difference between loyalty and safety, loyalty, yes the old man has to fly the company hat, however safety ALWAYS his / her crew has to come first !!!


----------



## Leratty (Jun 3, 2012)

Wow Binnacle was that because of your actions? If so seriously harsh almost blackballing?
Klaatu83 my God that is I say naively appalling but recognise that is the sort of thing that could-would occur though with respect doubt any union would have been able to assist the Capt. in that incident. It always had me bemused as to if he was indeed a 'serious drinker' how he could have been on a US ship as I thought they were dry? How many drunk Capt.'s did we all sail with let alone other officers, for me quite a few. Always wondered why they were, boredom possibly who knows?


----------

