Stuck at sea for years, a sailor's plight highlights a surge in ship abandonment

https://apnews.com/article/abandoned-seafarers-labor-unpaid-wages-oceans-83ad0a42debbaf67c18373393fcea753

191 94 2 years ago

This is crazy. I’d think as soon as they stopped paying him he does not work for them, and they’ve abandoned the ship unmanned. He could claim the ship as salvage, sell it, and sue them for his back pay for anytime he did work.

sidewndr463• 2 years ago

A ship has to be found unmanned in most cases to claim salvage. If it is a hazard in navigable waters and you get permission from the local Coast Guard (or whatever authority) you can put a lien on a ship that you safely remove from those waters to restore normal traffic.

And yes, he can sue his employer. That is likely as effective as trying to get blood from a turnip

hedora• 2 years ago

If I wanted one of these ships, what would maritime law say if I were to dispose of a few thousand gallons of diesel into its tank, and the crew decided to move it into international waters then abandon it?

Presumably, it’d be up to the employer to recover damages from their former (aka my current) employees.

jdietrich• 2 years ago

As mentioned in the article, many older ships are literally worthless - the cost of cutting them up for scrap matches the value of the scrap metal.

Suppafly• 2 years ago

It seems insane that cutting up a ship costs more than mining and refining the steel in the first place.

pavlov• 2 years ago

Inhuman things happen at sea.

Sailors and fishermen are recruited internationally from poor countries, then treated like slaves. No country's law reaches these ships, and they're ultimately owned by corporations that have no reason to care.

Another example:

https://www.dw.com/en/chinese-fishing-fleets-in-indian-ocean...

complaintdept• 2 years ago

A lot of shenanigans happen at sea. Cruise ships are registered in countries favorable to them so passengers have zero chance in court when someone gets hurt or a family member disappears (its happened). If you're an American for instance, you'll never take on a cruise ship owner in an American court, it's got to go through some tiny nation of the ship's home port. Passengers agree to this when they buy the ticket.

(no I've never been on a cruise)

Scoundreller• 2 years ago

Interesting how it works so much differently for international aviation

Teever• 2 years ago

Sounds like the shenanigans aren't happening at sea, it's happening in lawyers offices and court rooms.

throw0101d• 2 years ago

No country's law reaches these ships […]

The 'flag' of the ship is the law to which it must operate (at least in international waters):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_state

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_registration

But a lot of popular flags are lax at employment rules—kind of why they're often picked. But you also have to have the resources for law suits, regardless of flag/registration.

jvanderbot3• 2 years ago

I hear so many negative things about Chinese fishing fleets. When I was in Africa, I was shown how the chinese ships would be stuck in drydock because they needed repairs or fuel and no locals would sell to them.

But the government is cozy so they are allowed to continue. In some cities, the land is literally sold to the Chinese government in exchange for funds to pad the coffers, or nominal "services" like removing piles of dirt on the land from mining activities.

It's mad neo-colonialism. Instead of armies, you just buy leaders.

pif• 2 years ago

chinese ships would be stuck in drydock because they needed repairs or fuel and no locals would sell to them.

Why do locals refuse business with them?

ajmurmann• 2 years ago

Slightly OT, but the 2019 fictional movie Buoyancy deals with these topics and is depressing and incredible.

maximinus_thrax• 2 years ago

There is an amazing book describing all of these issues and more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outlaw_Ocean. It was an eye opener for me, I had no idea what kind of awful stuff goes on in the maritime space

wisemang• 2 years ago

The podcast is great as well (I haven’t read the book).

marssaxman• 2 years ago

Funny - I thought that must be a misspelling of the book by William Langewiesche, "The Outlaw Sea", which I have read and is quite good. I'll have to check out the other one.

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

Also slavery in Thailand: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/21/such-brutality...

giraffe_lady3• 2 years ago

I believe the crew of the MV Dali are still confined to the ship, since striking the bridge in Baltimore back in March.

alistairSH• 2 years ago

The crew’s status as of last week… https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/18/us/baltimore-bridge-dali-ship...

Not as bad a situation as the main topic, but can’t be easy either.

barbazoo• 2 years ago

Does that mean they get paid overtime? /s

IncreasePosts• 2 years ago

I don't understand why you can't just get the police to put them in a van and take them to the airport, and put them on a flight back to their home country or wherever they live.

masfuerte• 2 years ago

In other cases I've read about the sailors are owed substantial back wages and they know that if they abandon the ship they definitely won't get paid.

notaustinpowers2• 2 years ago

It's most likely due to visa and immigration laws.

When a vessel is docked in a port, they are able to disembark and operate under a special visa that lasts the duration of their vessel's stay, and they are required to leave with the vessel when it disembarks from the port. Since the vessel has left the port, their visas are no longer applicable and they would be arrested if they left the vessel.

paxys• 2 years ago

Who is going to man the ship if that happens?

Goronmon• 2 years ago

I don't understand why you can't just get the police to put them in a van and take them to the airport, and put them on a flight back to their home country or wherever they live.

I'm not sure I want to give local police the power to put whoever they want on a plane to "wherever".

krisoft3• 2 years ago

Who will keep the bilge pumps of the ship running? They are not just flees on the back of a dog. They are keeping the ship working, afloat and in good condition. (as good as it can be, given the circumstances)

I understand that the situation is less than ideal, and i hope they get a crew change at the end of whatever contract period they have. And I sure hope their wages are being paid correctly. The mobile phone situation is really bad too. I hope that got rectified since.

Imagine if they haven't hit the bridge. They would be most probably still on the same ship doing the same job. Just the ship would be in some other patch of water. Would you still describe them as "stuck onboard" if that were the case?

perihelions• 2 years ago

That's true: the entire crew is indefinitely detained due to the criminal investigation. They're confined to the ship, and US agents have confiscated all of their personal electronics.

- "The crew, made up of 20 Indians and a Sri Lankan national, has been unable to disembark because of visa restrictions, a lack of required shore passes and parallel ongoing investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FBI."

- "According to Mr Messick, the crew has been left largely without communication with the outside world for "a couple of weeks" after their mobile phones were confiscated by the FBI as part of the investigation."

- "They can't do any online banking. They can't pay their bills at home. They don't have any of their data or anyone's contact information, so they're really isolated right now," Mr Messick said. "They just can't reach out to the folks they need to, or even look at pictures of their children before they go to sleep. It's really a sad situation."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-69011124

bluescrn• 2 years ago

Ludicrous and inhumane situation. Even prisoners get phone calls.

Surprised they haven't made a break for shore via life rafts

somenameforme• 2 years ago

I'm not entirely understanding this. If the ships are genuinely abandoned, what stops the crew from making them their own and/or selling them? Is it simply the paperwork or what?

giraffe_lady3• 2 years ago

They're still paying the necessary fees to keep control of the ship, because otherwise local authorities or a creditor or whatever would seize it. They simply stopped paying the crew because the consequences of that are avoidable or acceptable to them.

ToucanLoucan• 2 years ago

To put it more bluntly, they're afraid of their creditors, because their creditors can get justice, because the justice system requires money to effectively use. The workers don't have money, so they aren't a threat.

throwaway484763• 2 years ago

They don't pay them. If you want an example look up the ship involved in the Beiruit explosion.

throwaway484763• 2 years ago

When you factor in liabilities the value of the ship can be negative. Often there are port fees that the shipper doesn't pay and because they're in a different country they're unserviceable so the port takes the crew hostage.

vkou2• 2 years ago

They'll be tried as mutineers and pirates.

Marine law is optimized for the well-being of ship owners, not anyone else.

david_allison• 2 years ago

FTA: Even if they did sell the ship, it often won't make the workers whole

Abandoned ships are sometimes so old and worn that “even the scrap guys lose money stripping it of anything of value,” said Eric White, a ship inspector for the International Transport Workers’ Federation, or ITF, a seafarers’ union.
Left hanging by Teeters were the ships’ crews of mostly Ukrainian seafarers, who suddenly had no way of sending money to families back home in what was now a war zone after Russia’s invasion. In total, the 22 men were owed $130,000 covering more than three months, White said. If not for $22,000 in donations from local seafarers’ charities, none of them would have made it off the ship and back home, according to White.

fnordfnordfnord• 2 years ago

At the time of abandonment, the ship may not be seaworthy. If it requires more repairs or fuel than the crew can afford from their own resources, then they cannot move the ship.

chiph• 2 years ago

Often the crew don't have visas for the country where the ship was abandoned. So they can't transit from the port to the nearest airport and then home unless Customs/Immigration agree to allow it.

They also usually haven't been paid for that time. So they are motivated to stay (usually under deplorable conditions) because of the chance that the new owners will give them their back pay.

Sometimes the local community will ferry food out to the crews. But if the ship runs out of fuel to power the generators they'll be without air conditioning and more importantly - navigation lights to show they're anchored.

https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/charleston-communit...

ethbr15• 2 years ago

This seems like the failure: abuse of shipping/visa exemptions.

At minimum, it would be fair to mandate that port countries provide visas for the sole purposes of mariners transiting back home, at the mariners' discretion.

You're not going to keep someone from staying on a boat if they think they're going to get paid... but you can at least resolve the international red tape that prohibits them from choosing to leave the boat.

mikey_p• 2 years ago

Not an abandonment, but somewhat similar to the Dali, there were 15 ships stranded in the Suez canal from 1967 to 1975. Known as the Yellow Fleet they had problems knowing what to do with the crew over that length of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Fleet

waskip• 2 years ago

In October 1967, the officers and crews of all fourteen ships met on the Melampus to found the "Great Bitter Lake Association" which provided mutual support. Crew members continued to regularly meet on board their ships, organized social events, founded a yachting club and held the "Bitter Lake Olympic Games" to complement the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City. Life boat races were arranged and soccer games were played on the largest ship, the MS Port Invercargill, while church services were held on the West German motorship Nordwind and movies were shown on the Bulgarian freighter Vasil Levsky. The Swedish Killara had a pool.

diebeforei4855• 2 years ago

If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock.

It's not that complicated.

When driving into Saudi Arabia in your own car, you are required to show proof of insurance (or can purchase travel insurance at the border).

Simon_ORourke2• 2 years ago

That will only lead to areas close enough to land, but within international waters where these uninsured junks will just anchor and wait it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/apr/12/a...

diebeforei4855• 2 years ago

This is still arguably better. These crew aren't going to be paid by these irresponsible owners anyway. Let them abandon ship in international waters after a couple of missed paychecks.

will54212• 2 years ago

But would you even start a journey towards a port that requires insurance if you don't have it? You're not going to get the benefit of docking at that port (unloading the ship and getting paid for the cargo).

throwup238• 2 years ago

If a ship doesn't have insurance it should not be allowed to dock.

That's already the case in the vast majority of ports to pay for situations like the Baltimore bridge collapse, although most damage is a lot smaller and more pedestrian like scraping the dock on approach.

Ports generally require protection and indemnity insurance to pay for damage to third parties and the port, hull and machinery insurance so the boat doesn't get stranded in the port, and wreck removal insurance to remove it if it does. Anyone going through the Panama or Suez canal has to have even more insurance to cover the extra risk of blocking a major global shipping channel.

diebeforei4855• 2 years ago

MBS can change the rules in Saudi to require insurance if he wants to. UAE did something similar recently.

DrNosferatu• 2 years ago

What does he eat?

Who provides him fresh water?

maCDzP• 2 years ago

I believe there is a 99% invisible podcast episode about “Great bitter lake”. It’s worth a listen.

kylehotchkiss• 2 years ago

This seems like a natural progression of allowing ships to be flagged in countries that barely even have foreign affairs outside of ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience). That seems like a good place to start - ports would benefit from only allowing docking if your ship is flagged in a country with some definition of seaworthiness

tialaramex• 2 years ago

Most of the world these days has Port State Control. Starting with Europe, (the Paris MOU signed in the 1980s) and then Tokyo and most of South America. Under Port State Control the Port States (ie the countries with ports in them) enforce IMO rules for ships in their port as well as Flag States (the country whose flag is flown by the ship and whose national register they are on)

However it makes no sense to refuse entry. Instead states operating PSC will choose to inspect some fraction of the ships and detain them (which they are allowed to do under international law, though since the signatories of early MOUs are countries with serious navies it arguably doesn't matter whether it's legal anyway) if they are unsatisfactory.

The Paris MOU is particularly notable for its black, grey and white lists, which aren't bans of the sort you seem to envision but instead control inspection rates. Since inspection means time not loading/unloading/ sailing elsewhere, which means lost income, a ship wants fewer inspections, but of course if uninspected a ship with unacceptable defects might go for a long period without being detained. The fix is that the Paris MOU counts up how often ships flying particular flags were inspected and what the outcome was over a period of IIRC one year, if flag A has enough (fractionally) good inspections, they're whitelisted and next period ships flying that flag are least likely to be inspected - some still are, but fewer. on the other hand if flag X has too many (fractionally) bad inspections, they're blacklisted and ships flying that flag are much more likely to be inspected next period - though not certain.

Now, as originally conceived before the meeting to sign it, the Paris MOU was, like a lot of French things, mostly about workers rights. But, coincidentally a massive maritime accident occurred and so suddenly instead of "Boring technical conference agrees uninteresting European rules" which is maybe one column inch on page 14 of your paper, now you've got a journalist on a plane to the conference to ask government officials what they're going to do about to prevent accidents like the one on TV, which is good for at least a paragraph on the front page. So the actual Paris MOU signed is very enthusiastic about mechanical problems with the actual ship even though there's still stuff in there about the rights of the sailors.

Anyway, PSC doesn't solve these sailors problems.

ec109685• 2 years ago

Saudi Arabia should tax port fees a bit and use that to send people like this back to their home country.

Inhumane.

hi-v-rocknroll2• 2 years ago

Saudi Arabia's leadership chopped up a reporter into pieces of meat. I don't think they'll be first to make such a change until compelled to.

pk-protect-ai• 2 years ago

I can't understand ... Why can't these guys cut the losses and leave the ship, instead of leaving their families without income for years?

kazinator• 2 years ago

Crew members or the countries where the ships are registered or docked can pursue the shipowners in court. But recovering past wages can be a yearslong battle that often fails.

And if you just stay on the ship long enough, a court will appear right on the deck?

Sorry, man, this is a self-inflicted problem. Not being paid for 10 years starts with not being paid for a month, and then three and so on. At some point, it's just your choice.

Even if the money were to materialize, there is no way the guy is getting paid for the time spent on the ship after it was abandoned.

That's like continuing to show up to work to an abandoned office building after the company has folded, expecting to get paid for all that time one day.

I think that guy is just running away from something. While he stays on the ship, he has an ongoing excuse for all his inaction (in his mind) and doesn't have to face anything. Obviously, he's clothed and fed somehow, probably from doing odd jobs at the docks? And that lifestyle tied to the ship suits him fine.

superb_dev2• 2 years ago

I agree, that's a long time to stay on the boat. It's almost like they were forced to be there somehow, like maybe they don't have a visa and can't leave the port?

Stuck at sea for years, a sailor's plight highlights a surge in ship abandonment

Related Stories