Posted:
July 22, 2013
Despite the fact that American Maritime Officers represents all licensed officers aboard approximately 70 percent of the vessels operated for Military Sealift Command by private sector ship managers, and the fact that AMO officers account for approximately 85 percent of the contract civilian licensed manpower aboard MSC vessels manned by U.S. merchant mariners, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots have attempted to claim they are the dominant officers' unions in seagoing government program work involving contract-operated vessels, and have attempted to impose conditions on the bidding process for government contracts that could jeopardize the availability of seagoing work under MSC charter for all contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners.
Seeking to impose an outmoded and simplistic formula combining vessel power and tonnage - essentially a holdover from contracts dating to the 1960s and 1970s - for determining base wages for bidding on all MSC contracts covering newly-built or newly-acquired vessels, MEBA and MM&P have tried to convince the Department of Labor (DOL) that they are the dominant officers' unions in government program work and that wage scales based upon their calculation should govern 'Wage Determination' - a required process exercised when newly-built or newly-acquired government vessels enter contract-operated service. Wage Determination for vessels already in operation is governed by the previous contract.
AMO has petitioned the DOL, challenging the claim of dominance by MEBA and MM&P and asserting that Wage Determination should consider not only power and tonnage, but also a vessel's propulsion type, the complexity of installed machinery and the vessel's mission - a process known as 'Class Determination.' Although Class Determination requires more work from the government in developing a request for proposals, AMO contends the process provides the most equitable compensation for U.S. merchant mariners and the best value for the customer, the U.S. military.
AMO's petition to the DOL set off a flurry activity, including the filing of a Freedom of Information Act request by MM&P.
Unlike deep-sea commercial vessels, ships operated for MSC by private sector ship managers do not service lucrative markets and trades. The performance of vessels operating under MSC charter is gauged by successful mission service to the military. Seagoing work under MSC charter remains the largest source of deep-sea employment for contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners, and the sustainability of this job base depends upon the successful and cost-effective service provided to MSC by the U.S. merchant marine.
Particularly in the current budgetary atmosphere of federal cutbacks, sequestration and drawdown, the ability of the U.S. merchant marine to continue to provide the best value to the government is extremely important. Over the past five years, a trend has emerged in which MSC has maintained more of its new jobs for government-employed civil service mariners (CIVMARs), rather than contract civilian merchant mariners. In that time, the CIVMAR job base has expanded by approximately 650, while, according to the Maritime Administration, the overall U.S.-flag deep-sea job base has contracted by nearly 1,100.
The application of an outmoded formula for determining base wage scales in government contracts, as advocated by MEBA and MM&P, may very well result in wage rates that are inappropriate for a particular vessel, department budget and military mission. Such circumstances could rapidly undermine the best value now provided to MSC by private sector ship managers employing contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners, and exacerbate the trend of retaining new seagoing job opportunities exclusively for CIVMARs.
Both MEBA and MM&P represent CIVMARs in some capacities, while their representation of contract civilian merchant mariners in the MSC fleet remains on a much smaller scale than that of AMO.
As the dominant U.S. officers' union, AMO petitions to keep seagoing government program work available to contract civilian merchant mariners
Despite the fact that American Maritime Officers represents all licensed officers aboard approximately 70 percent of the vessels operated for Military Sealift Command by private sector ship managers, and the fact that AMO officers account for approximately 85 percent of the contract civilian licensed manpower aboard MSC vessels manned by U.S. merchant mariners, the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association and the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots have attempted to claim they are the dominant officers' unions in seagoing government program work involving contract-operated vessels, and have attempted to impose conditions on the bidding process for government contracts that could jeopardize the availability of seagoing work under MSC charter for all contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners.
Seeking to impose an outmoded and simplistic formula combining vessel power and tonnage - essentially a holdover from contracts dating to the 1960s and 1970s - for determining base wages for bidding on all MSC contracts covering newly-built or newly-acquired vessels, MEBA and MM&P have tried to convince the Department of Labor (DOL) that they are the dominant officers' unions in government program work and that wage scales based upon their calculation should govern 'Wage Determination' - a required process exercised when newly-built or newly-acquired government vessels enter contract-operated service. Wage Determination for vessels already in operation is governed by the previous contract.
AMO has petitioned the DOL, challenging the claim of dominance by MEBA and MM&P and asserting that Wage Determination should consider not only power and tonnage, but also a vessel's propulsion type, the complexity of installed machinery and the vessel's mission - a process known as 'Class Determination.' Although Class Determination requires more work from the government in developing a request for proposals, AMO contends the process provides the most equitable compensation for U.S. merchant mariners and the best value for the customer, the U.S. military.
AMO's petition to the DOL set off a flurry activity, including the filing of a Freedom of Information Act request by MM&P.
Unlike deep-sea commercial vessels, ships operated for MSC by private sector ship managers do not service lucrative markets and trades. The performance of vessels operating under MSC charter is gauged by successful mission service to the military. Seagoing work under MSC charter remains the largest source of deep-sea employment for contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners, and the sustainability of this job base depends upon the successful and cost-effective service provided to MSC by the U.S. merchant marine.
Particularly in the current budgetary atmosphere of federal cutbacks, sequestration and drawdown, the ability of the U.S. merchant marine to continue to provide the best value to the government is extremely important. Over the past five years, a trend has emerged in which MSC has maintained more of its new jobs for government-employed civil service mariners (CIVMARs), rather than contract civilian merchant mariners. In that time, the CIVMAR job base has expanded by approximately 650, while, according to the Maritime Administration, the overall U.S.-flag deep-sea job base has contracted by nearly 1,100.
The application of an outmoded formula for determining base wage scales in government contracts, as advocated by MEBA and MM&P, may very well result in wage rates that are inappropriate for a particular vessel, department budget and military mission. Such circumstances could rapidly undermine the best value now provided to MSC by private sector ship managers employing contract civilian U.S. merchant mariners, and exacerbate the trend of retaining new seagoing job opportunities exclusively for CIVMARs.
Both MEBA and MM&P represent CIVMARs in some capacities, while their representation of contract civilian merchant mariners in the MSC fleet remains on a much smaller scale than that of AMO.