The company that chartered the cargo ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore was recently sanctioned by regulators for blocking its employees from directly reporting safety concerns to the U.S. Coast Guard — in violation of a seaman whistleblower protection law, according to regulatory filings reviewed by The Lever.
Eight months before a Maersk Line Limited-chartered cargo ship crashed into the Baltimore bridge, likely killing six people and injuring others, the Labor Department sanctioned the shipping conglomerate for retaliating against an employee who reported unsafe working conditions aboard a Maersk-operated boat. In its order, the department found that Maersk had “a policy that requires employees to first report their concerns to [Maersk]… prior to reporting it to the [Coast Guard] or other authorities.”
Revoke their corporate charter.
We need to start “executing” bad corporate actors, full stop.
thank you for saying this. get rid of republicans and we’re halfway there.
💯
But that’s socialism. /s
And racists were posting bile against the Indian/Sri Lankan crew on the ship.
As if they were responsible for disaster and not the greedy rich pricks.
And racists were posting bile against the Indian/Sri Lankan crew on the ship.
You’ll notice they disappeared pretty quickly when it was revealed pilots from the harbor were at the helm… ah, such is the life of a racist. Quickly running from one manufactured outrage to another… don’t let facts get in the way of a good rage session.
Yep, it’s nearly always local pilots to drive in and out of ports. They know the area best.
It’s almost too bad, in a way.
Indian racists/casteists will mutter about DEI themselves. Would have been hilarious to see the cracks in that alliance start to widen.
as long as the republican party is a force in politics, these companies will continue to get away with this shit.
They were not even at the wheel… Local crew manoeuvres these boats out of port
Is it even the local pilots job to verify the ship is, well, ship shape?
No clue, but that is not the point was replying to
“Sanctioned” is such a weird word.
It either means “formally condemned”, or “formally authorized”. XD
It’s a near auto-antonym.
A ‘stern talking-to’
Oh boy. Now the shit storm begins, Randy. Its gonna be shit all the way down.
Oh yeah some mid level manager will get thrown in gaol and life will go on as usual.
You hear that boy, the shit winds are a blowin.
The next article headline will be: Feds SLAM Danish company for destroying Key bridge.
“Danish company claps back at the feds”
I felt dirty typing that.
Feds decimate Danish company with debilitating damages
One of the very few places which mentions that it was a Maersk ship
Ah I see they made the newbie mistake of not assassinating the whistleblower like Boeing.
Boeing paid them to make a bigger mess to take some heat off.
Don’t worry guys,
Biden said he’s going to fix it with taxpayer money instead of holding the multi billion dollar global corporation accountable.
Oh, there you go again
Fat lot of good that did obviously
Well, in theory now in court there is more evidence of a pattern of behavior that can be used to justify harsher penalties.
In theory…
A Singaporean company owns the ship, from what I’ve read, Maersk just “rented” the ship for this cargo load, how does this in any way make it Maersk’s fault? This is a genuine question because from what I’ve read, Maersk would have zero to do with the upkeep or maintenence of the ship, the owners would be responsible for that, especially if they had Just chartered this ship for this most recent load. Honestly, I haven’t read this full article, unless it’s the same I read somewhere else, but the gist is that people should be outraged that a company not responsible for maintaining the ship was able to rent the ship and the engine/ electronics failed on their rented ship so its their fault? I’ll gladly retract this if there is new evidence that Maersk was responsible for the repairs and didn’t do them, but I personally don’t get brakes replaced or oil changes done for enterprise when I rent their cars…
I just deleted this whole spiel about how “in aviation there’s a role we call the operator” but the general gist of it is “why is it okay to hire negligent subcontractors?”
Name checks out
You bet your plunger it does.
but I personally don’t get brakes replaced or oil changes done for enterprise when I rent their cars…
Ok, now imagine Enterprise gave you a car with no brakes and an engine about to catch on fire… You go out and kill a fam of 6
Then Enterprise reveals it’s not really their car, it’s a sub lease form a shady third party and therefore not their responsibility at all?
I’m not involved in the industry in any way so I would obviously have no access to their contract, but if the contract stated Maersk was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the ship while it was chartered by them, then I can fully understand holding them at fault. That would be similar to us leading a car, for all intents and purposes, it’s our car and our responsibility to ensure it’s safe to drive, if we remove the brakes and kill a family of 6, that’s entirely in us. But going back to enterprise, I don’t look at the maintenance records and inspect if they fully or correctly installed the brakes before driving off the lot. And this is where I go back to not knowing shit about their contract, maybe it was in there and they neglected to perform an inspection, or maybe it was in there and the documents were altered, we might or might not find out in the future. My whole comment was that this reporter wrote this article as click- bait, Maersk may have been found to be silencing whistle-blowers, but it doesn’t seem to me like that has any bearing on this incident in particular.
There are different types of standard charter agreements in the shipping industry. In a “barebone” charter the ship is chartered without a crew and the company renting it is responsible for staffing, maintenance, etc. What Maersk used, at least according to sources reporting initially, was a time charter, where the owner of the ship provides the crew and maintenance, and Maersk only tells them where to go and what cargo to pick up, as well as providing supplies (e.g., fuel). So I agree that the reporting seems clickbaity and misleading.
Man everyone should watch that West Wing episode that was almost exactly about this: corporate lawyers for cargo ships minimum liability.
Wasn’t it oil tankers? Sam was negotiating the deal when Josh approached him about joining the Bartlett campaign. At the 11th hour he suggested they could spend a little more money and make it safer. When they refused to even consider it he quit. Then there’s a callback in a later episode where the ship he negotiated the deal for has an accident and causes a big oil spill.
Sorry. I think I’ve watched the entirety of west wing at least 4 times lol.
Yep that’s the one. I think it’s Manchester Pt 1.
This will somehow be used as further evidence by conspiracy minded people that this was intentionally done by the government even though it is directly contradictory to that
Weren’t these the same incompetent cunts who tried drifting down the Suez Canal sideways?
They are not, that was a Tiawanese ship, Maersk is a
DutchDanish company
