Office Types and Sea Types

In this area, you can comment on employers, trends, jobs, rumors affecting the jobs and job prospect of Marine Engineers.
User avatar
The Dieselduck
Administrator
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:41 pm
Currently located: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada (West Coast of Canada)

Office Types and Sea Types

Postby The Dieselduck » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:38 pm

Bridging the gap between ship and shore
29 October 2007 Lloyds List

HOW, asked some thoughtful person the other day, can we do something about the yawning gulf that exists between ship and shore?

The ‘them and us’ attitude which decrees that everyone aboard a ship is in some way intellectually inferior to those higher beings ashoree — there is nothing new about any of this.

Indeed, one would not even be the slightest bit surprised if undersea archaeologists diving on the wreck of some Phoenician galley discovered fragments of waxed tablets from some impatient shipowner in Tyre, criticising the master for his choice of course around Cape Malea, shortage of cargo lifted and the overtime payments to the crew, marked ‘we fail to understand’.

Who knows, it could have been the ship-shore gulf of understanding that so drove the wretched master to carry so much canvas on his amphora-larden bark, that he was overwhelmed before the Etesian gale and offered the archaeologists such a treat several millennia later.

But, surely, several generations beyond the age of enlightenment in the 21st century, this gulf of incomprehension should have been bridged?

Evidently not, and it is a perennial cause of complaint from senior officers who have decided that enough is enough and there are more fulfilling ways of earning a crust. In their exit interviews, amid all their other complaints about criminalization, overweening bureaucracy and being treated as an alien from outer space in too many ports these days, it is the ship-shore gulf that comes up, time and time again.

“No one ever asks me what I think about some dictat which comes winging its way down the email from the office, or the charterers,” they say.

And if it is about the operation of a ship, or the use of the ship’s equipment, you might think that the people who do the business every day might have some sensible views on the subject.

But do they ever get asked? On the contrary, they are told what they should do, regardless of whether it is even remotely sensible.

There is a little more analytical thought about these matters today as the dreaded issue of retention raises its ugly head throughout the shipping industry. You may not actually show you appreciate these salt-encrusted seafarers in terms of fulsome praise, or even a well done, after a difficult voyage but you are certainly waking up to their imminent absence when they tell you that they are not coming back next trip and no amount of money, better food, refurbished accommodation or even an amnesty on sarcastic remarks from the office will persuade them otherwise.

There are a lot of very experienced seafarers disappearing at present, some due to anno domini, but many because they are simply fed up with the increasingly unpleasant job they are asked to do.

And it is not just the old grey-haired sages who have driven ships successfully for 40 years you are going to miss. Their general unhappiness communicates itself throughout a ship, and even the junior officers, who are polled for their opinions when they undertake college courses are showing their poor opinion of the career they have chosen.

They will not be hanging around, either, transferring into the shore side infrastructure or seeking a career with less grief attached just as soon as it is feasible to do the same.

You, Mr Shipowner, may, while wringing your hands at the growing manning crisis — which is inconveniently occurring when you are making so much money — reply that it is not altogether your fault. It is not your responsibility that some slate-eyed, pistol packing bossyboots shoulders his way aboard to deny the crew any shore leave after a 40-day passage from the other side of the earth.

It is not your fault that the number of regulations cascading on to the ship from every conceivable type of authority are making life aboard a misery.

The disappearance of fun attached to 21st century seagoing may not be within your power to remedy.

But there is a great deal, I would suggest, that the shipowner can do about the general malaise and lack of morale aboard merchant ships, and many of them closely attached to the baleful presence of the ship-shore gap.

I would suggest that at least some of the distance between ship and shore is caused by the shipowner distancing himself from the operation of ship through the employment of middle men, managers and agencies, many of whom treat the crew as a commodity, like a brand of paint or a drum of luboil.

“This crew is too expensive, find us another brand” the department which pays the bills is told. The message filters down the system and eventually a cheaper crew appears, trying to make sense of the sophisticated machinery and what the departing crew might have told them.

“This manning is far too generous, cut a few hands off the scale” is a signal to the fearsome cost-cutters who pay the pipers and the chaps left behind find themselves having to fill up the gaps left behind. Might this be in some way responsible for the fact that the master and chief engineer, people who can be trusted, are for the off?

It is significant that a few perspicacious shipowners are realising that if loyalty is to be promoted and motivation fostered, not to mention morale raised, the relationship between ships and shore needs strengthening through direct employment and the close interest of an employer to the career development of the individual.

There are good managers who have realised the same, noting that casual labour is doing no one any favours and is singularly inappropriate in a high-liability business like ship operation. It is a change for the better, but one hopes that it is not all too late.

Back to the ship-shore gap again. Fundamentally it is a matter of relationship building, and of empowering people who have felt marginalised and excluded for too long.

There is no real excuse for it if we accept that the inexperienced or unmotivated should not be driving ships and that intelligent people need to feel both appreciated and involved.

There are a very few shipping companies that do it right and, for instance, have a close relationship with their seafarers who are welcomed as an integral part of the shipping company. They are asked to give their views about new ships or equipment, procedures and systems, and the owners make sure that their views count.

Senior officers are welcome visitors in the office, the directors and others who matter are welcomed aboard the ships. There is recognition of the physical distance between ship and shore, but also a genuine belief that this can be made insignificant by — that most misunderstood word — communications.

I recall reading the remarks of a master, who was able to see the deterioration of his relationship between himself and the office. A person of some years, he remembered being treated as a person of some consequence as he visited the office before taking a ship away, and at the conclusion of a long voyage when, on both occasions, he met the directors of the company.

The contrast with his present position, as he described it, was palpable as he was now received by some low-grade functionary who treated him like the man who had come to service the photo-copier and never permitted to meet anyone of any decision-making importance in the company. Somehow, if we are to persuade people of intelligence and initiative that shipping is a worthwhile career and the sea is an excellent route into this lifelong business, we have to make seafarers feel valued.

There is a very long way to go in this respect, but it is essential that we try because the alternative is appalling. And let us be quite clear about this. These are not whingeing mariners whose views are of no account, but people who are as important to the prosperity of the industry as those who work in shipping ashore. We are, quite simply, in a vortex of deteriorating manpower, with so many of the best people leaving in despair and bodies, to make up the numbers, being hired to replace them.

If we are to change the course of this particular juggernaut we really have to upgrade the seafarer’s lowly status in every country where he or she originates and every company where he or she works.

What about those areas beyond the pay grade of the shipowner to make a difference, in the shape of the ’authorities’ who often seem dedicated to make seafarers’ lives a misery in port.

But even owners and managers have a role here, as do their representative organisations, because they should energetically support their seafaring employees, making a huge fuss at the every highest level where their treatment leaves something to be desired. No one would reasonably expect a ship to enter a port where there was not an adequate depth of water alongside or the ship was physically endangered.

But why should a ship ever enter a port where the officials are corrupt and overbearing, and where the port is a nest of gruesome inefficiency?

These days we are great at publishing lists and grading our products into best buys and those you should not touch with an extra-long bargepole.

Why should not ports or even countries be so identified, named and shamed or publicly blacklisted for the disgraceful way they treat visiting seafarers? It strikes me that if a surcharge can be charged shippers for the high price of fuel or the congestion in a particular port, someone ought to pay for the wretched seafarers who are going to have to go there.

You have to exert leverage where you can and, my goodness, there is such a huge scream of pain when some sort of surcharge is levied that it is a proved and effective way of encouraging changes. Make the buggers pay, that is my prescription.

We are told, quite categorically, that an enormous disincentive to retention is the overbearing level of regulation which people at sea have to face. Every voyage there is a sheaf of fresh diktats, backed up with company advice and new requirements which must be obeyed.

At no stage, whether we are talking about international regulations at that fount of all global rules the International Maritime Organization or the regional, national or local equivalents, are those affected by the regulations, the mariners, properly consulted.

If the people on the receiving end of the regulations had ever been asked they might have suggested that new regulations were unnecessary or superfluous, and that there were better ways of arriving at the desired result.

At all these sources of regulations seafarers are conspicuous by their absence. Sure, there may be former seafarers on the national delegations or in the representative bodies or consulted in the shipping companies. But is anyone ever asked in the fleet? The answer is a firm negative, and the first that the ships ever hear of new rules is when they are put aboard with orders indistinguishable from that of a Mesapotamian despot — to tremble and obey.

Just contrast the systems for the International Safety Management Code that were constructed by seafarers themselves, and which tend to work, and those bought off the shelf and stuck aboard ships, which mostly enrage rather than engage.

Just think how much better, and how much more effective and useful the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code would have been if seafarers — and even some port managers — had been involved in its development.

One suspects that seafarers would have not ended up feeling like terrorists manque when arriving at some port.

Surely the foregoing is nothing more than common sense? But goodness me, someone had better see the light soon, lest we have to engage in a crash programme to devise the unmanned ship, because no one in their right mind will ever go to sea.

User avatar
TxMarEng
Officer of the Watch
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:48 am
Currently located: Albuquerque New Mexico
Contact:

Office Types

Postby TxMarEng » Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:07 am

Problem today Martin is that quite a few of those in the office have relatively little or no time at sea. Used to be to come ashore as a port engineer or superintendent required one to hold a Chief or Masters ticket. Today kids graduate from the schoolships and move right into the offices as port engineers or port captains. Sailing jobs in anything above a 3rd's berth are generally taken by the schoolship types as well.

I know ~ waaaaaaa waaaaaaaa - another hawespiper crying! :cry:

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2694
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Postby JK » Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:16 pm

I blame it on the beancounter mentality. The accountants or higher Management who never been to sea. They have absolutely no idea.

I am the middle person. I deal directly with the ships and see the engineers who want to make their ships perfect and the Shore Operational people who want it out in too short a time to effect repairs needed.
We bring in our young engineers for 2 years to expose them to the realities of the Shore Engineers job, get them beyond the steel walls.
It is usually a huge eye-opener for them.

User avatar
carbob
Leak Patrol
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:41 am
Currently located: St. John's, NL

Office Types and Sea Types

Postby carbob » Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:18 pm

As it has been said, companies seem to be getting away from having sea-going personnel transitioned into the office environment. Which means that when the C/E sends in a requisition for a particular piece of equipment, as often as not, a reply comes back looking for the most basic info on that particular piece of kit. It must be trying to try to explain the intricacies of the digital governor to someone who says' oh, the thing that turns the propellor and makes the ship move'. It's not always about the money, but a superintendent or technical advisor is on call 24/7, with little regard for extra hours worked handling ships' business, as we operate 24/7.

But having said that, the wage to go ashore is a hell of a lot lower than staying at sea, which is a big impediment to getting qualified personnel into the office. And also the specter of being treated as a 'dogs body' is a turn off to people as well. Hours spent logging data, or searching through mountains of files for a particular piece of information for someone who looks at you like something they stepped in on the way to the office is a bit of a turn off as well.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2694
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Postby JK » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:30 am

And also the specter of being treated as a 'dogs body' is a turn off to people as well


That well ? :shock:

User avatar
Madzng
Officer of the Watch
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:01 pm
Currently located: London

Postby Madzng » Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:59 am

I have been ashore for just over two years, after spending 17 years at sea working my way from cadet to Chief Engineer.

I enjoyed my time at afloat, but the life I saw when I started no longer exists - 31 British people on a VLCC nearly all of whom were good and proud of their job, the food was fantastic, the social life decent, we had good communication (except with some of the Geordies and Scots :P), and I will be forever grateful to every one of them who took the time to train me. The second ran the engine room and you only saw the Chief, when taking the logbook up, at meal times and on stand-by!

I would of liked to have spent a few more years as Chief, but the timing of the job offer, the quality of the officers sailing and life at sea could not be ignored and I accepted a Superintendents position. I figured I could always quit if I didn't like it! The money and leave is a lot less, I am on call 24/7 and I have less quality time with my wife than I did when sailing. But despite all of this I enjoy my job, the resposnibility I have and I'm proud of the ships I look after.

My last trip deep sea had been with a full compliment of eastern European engineers. I have sailed with a few good eastern Europeans, but this time I seemed to have drawn the short straw. Trying to maintain English as the working language in the engine room was hard enough, but getting the second to fix things or keep me updated with the various problems etc was even harder. I could give numerous examples of their abilities, but lets just say that I did not want my ticket and future to be in their hands!

I had been ashore in a previous company for a year and it was a huge eye opener, and I have always had a different opinion of the idiots ashore since returning to sea. It was not such a shock the second time I came ashore for my current job and I think it should be a requirement for every Master and Chief to spend a month or two in the office, and see how things can look from the other side.

For the saving of a few dollars, standards have declined and training cut. I am sure everyone will agree and those with a few more nautical miles under their belt would probably have been saying the same when seeing me walk up the gangway.

There are some true stereotypical Supers out there, but I did not come ashore to become one of them, to forget where I came from, or to say no to everything ordered by the ship. But this goal is getting harder to achieve.

It is easier to for sea staff to not pay too much attention to the budget when they are on the other side of the world, than the superintendent who has the MD looking over his shoulder. When he has to try and explain why the ship has blown up the same air compressor twice, or managed to buy enough paint to recoat the Golden Gate Bridge two or three times.

As standards have been erroded at sea (and ashore) the number of unjustified request sent and money wasted by inexperienced people in positions of resposnibility is scary. This is making it more difficult to spot a ships genuine needs.

At the same time, shareholders (mainly pension compaines) want more profit to provide the increased pensions being demanded, as people live longer and expect a better quality of life. This means cuts in standards, budgets, training and people. Making it harder to give the ships what they need to operate as expected.

Shipping has always been run by accountants, even more so today. The short term choices they have made over the years have put us where we are, both at sea and ashore. How much money has been spent globally on double hulled tankers? How much safer are they with todays manning, when compared to a single hulled tanker with a well trained, well rested crew - who all speak the same language?

I can only hope that the decline in standards stops soon, before it is too late. Not enough young people want to be engineers anymore, even less want to be Marine Engineers. Wages ashore have caught up significantly with sea going salaries making the job even less attractive to the people we should be encouraging to pursue a future at sea, and eventually ashore.

wes
Tanktop Cleaner
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 7:50 pm

Postby wes » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:29 pm

Madzng wrote:I have been ashore for just over two years, after spending 17 years at sea working my way from cadet to Chief Engineer.

I enjoyed my time at afloat, but the life I saw when I started no longer exists - 31 British people on a VLCC nearly all of whom were good and proud of their job, the food was fantastic, the social life decent, we had good communication (except with some of the Geordies and Scots :P), and I will be forever grateful to every one of them who took the time to train me. The second ran the engine room and you only saw the Chief, when taking the logbook up, at meal times and on stand-by!

I would of liked to have spent a few more years as Chief, but the timing of the job offer, the quality of the officers sailing and life at sea could not be ignored and I accepted a Superintendents position. I figured I could always quit if I didn't like it! The money and leave is a lot less, I am on call 24/7 and I have less quality time with my wife than I did when sailing. But despite all of this I enjoy my job, the resposnibility I have and I'm proud of the ships I look after.

My last trip deep sea had been with a full compliment of eastern European engineers. I have sailed with a few good eastern Europeans, but this time I seemed to have drawn the short straw. Trying to maintain English as the working language in the engine room was hard enough, but getting the second to fix things or keep me updated with the various problems etc was even harder. I could give numerous examples of their abilities, but lets just say that I did not want my ticket and future to be in their hands!

I had been ashore in a previous company for a year and it was a huge eye opener, and I have always had a different opinion of the idiots ashore since returning to sea. It was not such a shock the second time I came ashore for my current job and I think it should be a requirement for every Master and Chief to spend a month or two in the office, and see how things can look from the other side.

For the saving of a few dollars, standards have declined and training cut. I am sure everyone will agree and those with a few more nautical miles under their belt would probably have been saying the same when seeing me walk up the gangway.

There are some true stereotypical Supers out there, but I did not come ashore to become one of them, to forget where I came from, or to say no to everything ordered by the ship. But this goal is getting harder to achieve.

It is easier to for sea staff to not pay too much attention to the budget when they are on the other side of the world, than the superintendent who has the MD looking over his shoulder. When he has to try and explain why the ship has blown up the same air compressor twice, or managed to buy enough paint to recoat the Golden Gate Bridge two or three times.

As standards have been erroded at sea (and ashore) the number of unjustified request sent and money wasted by inexperienced people in positions of resposnibility is scary. This is making it more difficult to spot a ships genuine needs.

At the same time, shareholders (mainly pension compaines) want more profit to provide the increased pensions being demanded, as people live longer and expect a better quality of life. This means cuts in standards, budgets, training and people. Making it harder to give the ships what they need to operate as expected.

Shipping has always been run by accountants, even more so today. The short term choices they have made over the years have put us where we are, both at sea and ashore. How much money has been spent globally on double hulled tankers? How much safer are they with todays manning, when compared to a single hulled tanker with a well trained, well rested crew - who all speak the same language?

I can only hope that the decline in standards stops soon, before it is too late. Not enough young people want to be engineers anymore, even less want to be Marine Engineers. Wages ashore have caught up significantly with sea going salaries making the job even less attractive to the people we should be encouraging to pursue a future at sea, and eventually ashore.


This is an awesome post. That was an awesome read - thank you.

User avatar
JK
Enduring Contributor
Posts: 2694
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:29 am
Currently located: East Coast, Canada

Postby JK » Mon Jun 16, 2008 7:16 am

Yes, I agree. Excellent post Madzng.


Return to “General Job topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest