US Law and cruise ships

[navybankerteacher]

Maybe as a USCG Captain YOU never had jurisdiction, but some of your previous colleagues tell me differently.

 

I'm not a US Citizen, so I really do not know how your military people operate.

But when we have USCG inspections, or the USCG gets involved in something we are doing, I ask many questions.

Your former colleagues have been very forthcoming - and very clear - that they consider the entire planet under their jurisdiction.

Our legal department has cautioned us that in dealing with these characters, we go along with their claims to avoid any "difficulties" with your government in US ports.

 

It seems you resent the efforts (which you report) of the US Navy and Coast Guard to enforce international law, possibly interdict drug runners, maybe suppress piracy - all apperantly distasteful to you. Can you give a couple of examples where you witnessed such abusive behavior - and specify whether your ship was boarded forcibly or whether boarders were invited on board by your captain? I am genuinely interested in learning the details, and contexts, of such incidents.

[greatam]

 

So in other words, we can cruise so cheap because they can legally pay the help crap?

 

What an illiterate and derogatory statement!!!!

 

I don't think you realize that those who work on ships (which are highly sought after jobs) make enough money to put children through school (a LOT of the world DOES NOT have free schooling in K-12-parents pay or the kids get no education), buy a house, help relatives buy a house and start their own businesses. Average salary in the Phillipines is about $250 per month (that includes everyone except doctors, lawyers and business owners). Same thing in Pakistan, less in Bangladesh and just slightly higher in India and in the Eastern European countries. Ship employees average $1000-2000 US per month. That places them on the upper middle income scale in their home countries.

 

Sure beats the heck out of some of the other opportunities available to people from poor, third world countries.

 

LOTS of Phillipine, Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi maids, drivers and housekeepers in the Middle East. They are basically INDENTURED servants, provided food and a roof over their head but they MAY or MAY NOT get the salaries they were promised when they left their home countries. And they are very often beaten and heavily abused both mentally and sexually by those who hire them. IF they run from their employers, they are jailed because you must be SPONSORED in the Middle East to work. Some have been in jail a long, long time in horrible conditions because their families don't have the money to pay to get them out or even pay for a plane ticket home.

 

Men from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh work in the ship breaking yards of Chittagong, Gadani and el Alang for $2-10 per day (less than what cruise passengers pay for gratuities). They OWE their bosses for their food and housing if they want decent housing and some food. Most sleep in squatter tents or tin shanties of their own making. And they get very little to eat because there just isn't enough money for proper food. They are treated absolutely horribly, the work is beyond difficult and very, very dangerous. Lots of people loose their lives every year at the ship breaking yards.

 

So don't think people working on cruise ships are slave labor just because their wages don't match US wages and benefits. They sleep in clean accommodations, get very decent food, are able to take a shower every day and meet a lot of interesting people who expand their worlds well beyond what they would get in their home countries. I personally think it is a win-win situation for all concerned.

[navybankerteacher]

Very good summary, Greatam. Sadly, there are those who, through ignorance or pretension, try to take a high ground position to support their opposition to performance-related compensation as agreed to between the cruise lines and their staff. They pretend to be egalitarian in arguing for "decent" pay - while failing (or refusing) to recognize that cruising would not exist if all cruise staff got US union scale compensation. What good would it do the thousands of people who do find gainful employment if the industry that provides such employment were destroyed? As President Kennedy put it: "Life isn't fair." We in the United States are very fortunate - but absolute fairness, as some of these "decent pay" advocates PRETEND to advocate would require redistribution of all wealth. The cruise industry does a pretty good job of separating wealthy Americans (voluntarily) from some of their wealth and distributing it - without resorting to confiscation , to some people who were not fortunate to have been born in wealthy, stable societies. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[dkjretired]

I haven't cruised from Baltimore, but your observation about how early the casino opened after leaving port doesn't jibe with my recollection of what other Cruise Critic posters have reported.

 

Perhaps because your experience was more than a decade ago, enforcement of the law at that time was different than what it is now and the cruise lines have subsequently been told they can't open the casinos that early.

 

Since its done in Alaska also, it must be a compact with the states.

[njhorseman]

Since its done in Alaska also, it must be a compact with the states.

 

In Alaska the cruise lines are permitted to have their casinos open in return for payment of a head tax ($X per passenger).

 

It is the states that regulate casino gambling, not the federal government.

[smeyer418]

one last comment, every once and a while people talk about the US coast wise trading law that prohibits foreign flagged ships under most circumstances from transporting people between 2 different US ports(the Passenger Vessel Services Act-PVSA)...and that it should be changed. The Cruise lines in general have not publicly taken a position. Privately they tell you they oppose any change because they are afraid that the price will be greater compliance with other US laws including wages, hours etc. You know the expression making laws is like watching sausages being made...you don't want to know what in to it to get the result and you don't know what will come out. and BTW the Unions had nothing to do with establishing the PSVA. It was put into place in the 1880's before Unions were a big deal to protect US Ship building interests.

Last week the Carnival Splendor was granted an exemption because of the snow storm in NY that closed the airports and they were allowed to board people in Florida---and return them to NY...

[skf]

When it comes to crimes committed in a ship or airplane, the Captain could continue on, return to point of origin, or even to a third point nobody is expecting. The police or Feds will be glad to arrest someone wherever they land.

[dkjretired]

In Alaska the cruise lines are permitted to have their casinos open in return for payment of a head tax ($X per passenger).

 

It is the states that regulate casino gambling, not the federal government.

 

I am well aware the states regulate casino gambling, I guess Celebrity made some kind of deal with the state of Maryland.

[BillB48]

one last comment, every once and a while people talk about the US coast wise trading law that prohibits foreign flagged ships under most circumstances from transporting people between 2 different US ports(the Passenger Vessel Services Act-PVSA)...and that it should be changed. The Cruise lines in general have not publicly taken a position. Privately they tell you they oppose any change because they are afraid that the price will be greater compliance with other US laws including wages, hours etc. You know the expression making laws is like watching sausages being made...you don't want to know what in to it to get the result and you don't know what will come out. and BTW the Unions had nothing to do with establishing the PSVA. It was put into place in the 1880's before Unions were a big deal to protect US Ship building interests.

Last week the Carnival Splendor was granted an exemption because of the snow storm in NY that closed the airports and they were allowed to board people in Florida---and return them to NY...

 

I wonder If you would make another comment on a related issue... I was recently following a thread on the PVSA in regards as to what was required to keep within the PVSA requirements of transporting someone between two US ports without the distant foreign port call. To remain within the confines the PVSA the poster stated that if the person disembarked with luggage, spent at least an overnight (or longer) then re-boarded the same ship then the requirements of the PVSA would be satisfied. My understanding is that it would still be an illegal voyage since the same ship would transporting you to another US port with out a stop in a distant foreign port and the length of the layover was not a factor. Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

[smeyer418]

I wonder If you would make another comment on a related issue... I was recently following a thread on the PVSA in regards as to what was required to keep within the PVSA requirements of transporting someone between two US ports without the distant foreign port call. To remain within the confines the PVSA the poster stated that if the person disembarked with luggage, spent at least an overnight (or longer) then re-boarded the same ship then the requirements of the PVSA would be satisfied. My understanding is that it would still be an illegal voyage since the same ship would transporting you to another US port with out a stop in a distant foreign port and the length of the layover was not a factor. Any thoughts?

 

Thanks

if its in the same ship its my understanding that getting off and back on for one night should not matter. The ship transported them between two different US ports. I believe that poster is wrong. But you need more of the specifics. I am not an expert on this but I am pretty sure they are wrong.

[njhorseman]

if its in the same ship its my understanding that getting off and back on for one night should not matter. The ship transported them between two different US ports. I believe that poster is wrong. But you need more of the specifics. I am not an expert on this but I am pretty sure they are wrong.

 

I agree that it's likely the poster is wrong. From page 13 of CBP's informed compliance publication temporary disembarkation would still constitute a violation. But when it comes down to fine point details like this a ruling from CBP on the specific circumstances would be needed for a definitive answer.

 

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/legal/informed_compliance_pubs/pvsa_icp.ctt/pvsa_icp.pdf

 

Coastwise transportation of passengers—19 CFR § 4.80a

 

There are three common transportation violations, set forth below, that can occur when a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports passengers between U.S. coastwise ports.

 

First, a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports a passenger directly between U.S. coastwise ports. (19 CFR § 4.80a(b)(1)). For example, a violative coastwise transportation occurs when a passenger embarks in San Francisco and is carried to Seattle, where he/she disembarks.

 

Second, a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports a passenger on a voyage solely to one or more coastwise ports and the passenger disembarks or goes ashore temporarily at a coastwise port. (19 CFR § 4.80a(b)(1)). For example, a non-coastwise-qualified vessel that embarks a passenger in Los Angeles and transports him/her to one or more of the Hawaiian Islands where he/she goes ashore temporarily and returns to Los Angeles where he/she disembarks, violates the PVSA.

 

Third, a non-coastwise-qualified vessel transports a passenger between U.S. coastwise ports by way of a “nearby foreign port.” (19 CFR § 4.80a(b)(2)). For example, a violative transportation occurs when a non-coastwise-qualified vessel that embarks a passenger in Los Angeles, transports him/her to the Hawaiian Islands and Ensenada, Mexico then proceeds to San Diego where the passenger disembarks. Ensenada, Mexico is a “nearby foreign port” pursuant to the CBP regulations. A “nearby foreign

port” is defined as "any port in North America, Central America, the Bermuda Islands, or the West Indies (including the Bahama Islands, but not including the Leeward Islands of the Netherlands Antilles, i.e., Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao)." 19 CFR § 4.80a(a)(2).

[BillB48]

Thanks to all for the replies. While I certainly don't have present plans for a cruise that might run a muck with the PVSA, I do find the discussions interesting!:)

[masspector]

That link doesn't work, but I suspect to a certain extent they may confusing the flag countries of the ships with the cruise lines' corporate domiciles. The Saturday Evening Post is hardly a heavy-hitter in the financial news business.

 

However, if you look at one of the companies I named, Apple Computer, one the the major components of their tax strategy is to route income through subsidiary corporations domiciled in other countries, notably Ireland. The combination of US tax code and Irish tax code permits them to avoid paying taxes on a substantial percentage of their corporate income, so to that extent the cruise lines are really doing nothing more than Apple is.

 

Sorry, try this. This is the CC thread, the link is in the first post.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1940615

[njhorseman]

Sorry, try this. This is the CC thread, the link is in the first post.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1940615

 

As I said, that All-American stars-and-stripes-waving corporation, Apple Computer has avoided taxation on a substantial percentage of its income by funneling profits through corporations domiciled in Ireland. Also let's not forget how most of their products are built by dirt-cheap labor in China. And Apple is hardly the only American corporation who finds clever ways to avoid paying taxes on much of their income as well as providing jobs not to Americans, but to residents of other countries with much lower labor costs.

 

So if we want wag our fingers at the cruise industry, let's also wag them at a lot of giants of American industry...companies that are so big they make the largest cruise lines look like mom-and-pop corner grocery stores in comparison.

 

The Saturday Evening Post article hardly breaks any new ground. It's nothing that hasn't been known and well-publicized for years.

[Aquahound]

Maybe as a USCG Captain YOU never had jurisdiction, but some of your previous colleagues tell me differently.

 

I'm not a US Citizen, so I really do not know how your military people operate.

But when we have USCG inspections, or the USCG gets involved in something we are doing, I ask many questions.

Your former colleagues have been very forthcoming - and very clear - that they consider the entire planet under their jurisdiction.

Our legal department has cautioned us that in dealing with these characters, we go along with their claims to avoid any "difficulties" with your government in US ports.

 

One of 2 things is happening here. You're either making this up, or you have only talked to junior personnel who do not know what they're talking about. Based on past posts I remember of yours, I'm leaning toward the first. You tend to embellish when it comes to anything American. But let's pretend for a moment it is the second. Not all USCG personal are law enforcement trained. Most of those people inspecting ships are in a department called Prevention. Ever notice they don't wear guns? That's because they're job is very specific, hence the name "Prevention." Many have never been to formal law enforcement training.

 

From time to time, I haven't seen eye to eye with Capt BJ, but what he said here is correct, and I find it hard to believe any knowledgable Coastie said otherwise unless you somehow baited them into an off-the-cuff conversation.

[Aquahound]

There are several different federal laws and regulations. The case law on the ADA and cruise ships is quite interesting. Although it has been held that the ADA applies to foreign flagged (that would be nearly all cruise ships) sailing in US waters, that seems to have tempered by statements that it applies only as long as it does not interfere with the normal operations of a ship. Bottom line is that most ships now try to accommodate some disabled but they are not fully compliant with the ADA.

 

The issue of the HAL crewman being arrested and turned over to the FBI is the result of another federal law (supported by the courts) which gives the Federal Government and FBI jurisdiction over crimes committed against US Citizens in international waters.

 

And there are quite a few other laws like the PVSA (Passenger Vessels Services Act) that also impact on cruising in or out of the USA.

 

Hank

 

...and I'll add another jurisdiction...Florida. Florida law (certain specific) applies on the high seas on cruises that start and end in Florida. It's based on state case law, defendant Stepanski. The most common example of how it's applied is Domestic Violence when the U.S. cannot arrest due to an uncooperative victim.