# Surprise, surprise! [ODIN]



## SN NewsCaster (Mar 5, 2007)

Activities of ITF and affiliated national unions made them, long ago, much more risk to world shipping, than all pirates of the world, taken together.


More...


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

The subject of this story is no surprise to people who go to sea, but it probably would be to most landsmen, for whom the maritime world might as well exist on another planet.

However, that being said, I disagree vehemently with the author’s thesis that paying a living wage to seamen endangers shipping companies, and that the International Transport Worker’s Federation is somehow a threat to the international maritime industry. In fact, the ITF is the only organization in the world that makes any effort whatsoever to uncover and correct these sort of abuses among Third-World maritime workers. Nobody else even cares, certainly not the London-based International Maritime Organization, which represents solely the interests of the ship-owners, not the crews.


----------



## Varley (Oct 1, 2006)

Klaatu83 said:


> The subject of this story is no surprise to people who go to sea, but it probably would be to most landsmen, for whom the maritime world might as well exist on another planet.
> 
> However, that being said, I disagree vehemently with the author’s thesis that paying a living wage to seamen endangers shipping companies, and that the International Transport Worker’s Federation is somehow a threat to the international maritime industry. In fact, the ITF is the only organization in the world that makes any effort whatsoever to uncover and correct these sort of abuses among Third-World maritime workers. Nobody else even cares, certainly not the London-based International Maritime Organization, which represents solely the interests of the ship-owners, not the crews.


I'm very sorry to mark one complete disagreement but to claim IMO as a slave of owners is so enormously bollock* that bollock* can't describe the situation adequately. IMO, a UN treaty organisation, has driven standards of seafarer downwards by giving those nation states which had inadequate internal standards and naturally wanted to see those states with higher requirements disadvantaged so as to more easily compete. 

In the case of the red ensign club owners have prevailed upon their native marine administrations not to apply native regulations more stringent than those of IMO. There are also native chambers of shipping lobbying native marine administration and its international brother - in both cases these have only observer status. That is as far as it goes.

As far as it being in London (as if that were perjorative in some way) if you look at the recent passed the owners has been assaulted by several Chapter 5 requirements forced upon them, AIS and UAIS for example, by the federal seascouts bulldozering IMO as a pretext of navigational safety - so obviously bogus that they are both now claimed as security measures - SSAS? a servants call bell would have been better received - this, again, national authorities had to be seen to do something, nothing effective mind you, just 'something'.

I do not argue that fair pay can be anything but good for seafarer standards in general and raising the average towards that paid to staff of deveoped nations would, perhaps, wrest some business back. I am not sure the motives of the ITF are aimed at this 'though, either. I fear it would be a long time before we could re-establish the infrastucture required to handle the business on a scale similar to that 'we' were doing when I started out but maybe it will prove to be a cycle after all.

I am also not saying that the developing nations are not improving their seafarer standards, that does not alter the history. 

But IMO for owners? bollock* to the power of bollock* squared with bollock shaped knobs on.

(I see we are allowed testicles provided they are singular)

In edit I see I have been rude to Klaatu83. Rude but still more or less accurate. I apologise, again, however I believe it is better to be kind rather than allowing unbridled prejudice (also a guilt of my own) to go unchallenged.


----------

