« Interesting mandatory sentencing case | Main | Suicide in DC »
Insider thoughts on piracy and arming crews
Reader Diogenes emails (his original command having been blocked, for some reason, by the spam filter):
I work in the insurance industry as a large property underwriter and work closely with our marine underwriters. I understand that the issues with armed crew on merchant vessels are mainly with insurance premiums and crew pay. Current marine rating rules classify any armed merchant vessel as a warship and the hazard premiums increase. In addition, arming the crew incurs additional training costs and often an increase in pay for the increased "hazard". Thus for the shipping company, it's a matter of economics. It's less expensive for them to lay off the risks(hull, cargo and ransom) to the insurer and the insurer is a willing accomplice.
Insurers, while often slow learners, do in fact learn. As more shippers tire of the current situation and either arm their crews or take on private security personnel; such as the Italian cruise ship, insurers will note higher losses on the unarmed vessels and reduced losses on the armed ones. The grey hairs at Lloyds will rapidly revise their rating rules shortly thereafter.
As a sidebar, it's been reported that the Chief Steward from the Maersk Alabama has filed suit against Maersk Lines alleging that they created a hazardous work environment. His requested damages is only $75,000, so it appears that he's trying to force Maersk into providing arms for their crews.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Lloyds Bloggers!
blogs.lloyds.com
I read the complaint, and if I recall correctly, he states that his damages are at least $75k, which appears to be some kind of statutory minimum to get the court to hear him, but he states that his actual damages have yet to be determined and may be greater than $75k.
So you have to pay more to crews of armed ships because of the increased danger of serving on an armed ship. If the navy used this logic then we could lessen the risk of casualties during war by removing all arms from our war ships. Swat teams would be much safer if they raided drug houses with fire hoses and no guns. Wow, why didn't anyone think of this before?
And by the way, why is the navy having a hard time tracking these pirates. As far back as the sixties the US had a network of sonar tracking nodes covering the entire planet. Have we actually lost that capability? How hard would it be to set it back up off the coast of Somalia and intercept all homebound pirate vessels, and thus completely deny the pirates the ability to return to port with hostages or loot? If no pirates could bring anything home then soon none would venture out, at least from Somalia.
A cheaper alternative might be to station some guard rental boats where ships enter and leave dangerous areas. You pick up guards as you enter the danger zone and drop them off as you leave. The guards get shuttled back and forth by vessels going each way, and the ships don't have to carry arms into ports or train their crews. The crews can get higher pay just during the period when they're under arms. The rental boats would have to find a port before a storm, but that's not too much of the time.
Don Hamrick - I can use a copy of the marine rating rules of "Lloyds of London" or "Lloyd's List" for my forthcoming lawsuit. Can you provide full documentation?
I'll inquire discreetly here to see whether the Lloyds rules are published. Lloyds is a freewheeling marketplace and much of this may be "tribal knowledge".
Joshua - ...he states that his damages are at least $75k, which appears to be some kind of statutory minimum to get the court to hear him...
Of course - the good merchant marine's altruism might have been overstated...
To Joshua: The "at least $75,000" is likely so that he can get the case into federal court.
75k is required for diversity jurisdiction (and thus entrance into federal court). I would imagine the real amount is somewhat higher though I wonder why he doesn't name it.
While no problem is insurmountable with the right will, guns are a big hurdle with lots of changes required in law in many countries.
1. Possession of weapons when entering a port - impacted by national and local gun control laws as well as importation laws. Take the US - possession of firearms by non-resident aliens is prohibited, even for the hunting exception a permit from the ATF is required. Possession of NFA firearms is strictly controlled. Local laws impact possession of firearms where ports are located, i.e., try taking a M-4 in the port of NY/NJ? How about handguns?
2. Crew may be permanent employees of shipping company or may be a hire out of the union hall or may have been provided by a crewing company. A felony record does not necessarily prohibit the issuance of a USCG Merchant Mariners Document. So even for American crews, you have to sort out who can be permitted a firearm and who can't. Remember a US flagged ship is subject to US law.
3. Crew who would be provided firearms during an attack would require certification in the handling and use of firearms. Lack of certification would create risks of unseaworthiness claims should their be an injury since failure to require training would be a lack of ordinary care. Crew certified in firearms would expect a premium in pay for the extra skill. They would also expect a premium in pay when they are required to perform armed duties.
Just to permit a vessel carrying small arms into say the port of NY/NJ would require changes in the gun laws of the City of New York, the state of New York and the US. Of course, Congress could preempt the NY laws and permit the southeast Asian crew of the Liberian flagged ship docked in Brooklyn to have firearms(although under seal) while the city and state deny such possession to their citizens. Anybody want to venture the chances of that happening?
What ever happened to "don't ask don't tell?
Probably works better for having weapons on a large cargo or cruise ship than it does for a homo serving in the military.
Just thinking out loud here.
For non resident aliens only a hunting license is required. No ATF permit is necessary. Also only US convictions count for felon and DV in possession crimes (Supreme Curt ruling.)
Paratrooper, I don't believe that is correct. If memory serves there was just such a question before the court a few years ago, whereby a prohibited person challenged in court his status because the crime he was convicted of was a misdemeanor in the U.S. but a felony in the country where he was tried. He lost, if I am not mistaken.
Does anybody remember the case?
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 5/2/2009, at The Unreligious Right
I can use a copy of the marine rating rules of "Lloyds of London" or "Lloyd's List" for my forthcoming lawsuit. Can you provide full documentation?