Folks - this is what we are outsourcing and externalizing.
When foreign entities are able to bid for a lot less, and pay a lot less, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they will not bother with 'end of life' for ships, or getting insurance, or worrying about the lives of people who are 'expendable'.
Those very nice buildings in Dubai come from some nasty labour practices.
If every piece of this puzzle from end-to-end were to have happened in a 'rich country' there'd be legal issues, PR/media, litigation, and a separate kind of bureaucracy altogether, meaning the 'alternative' for a lot of corporations is just 'wash their hands' of it, pay 1/2 the price, and get all the ugly parts 'off the books'.
We are to the point now where we have ample material surplus - we don't need any more 'plastic stuff from China' - it'd be worthwhile to start integrating a lot of 'off the books' stuff into trade deals. Ironically, it would be good for 'them' as well, because in chaotic, quasi-lawless systems it doesn't make sense for participants to invest in anything further ahead than what is in front of their noses (i.e. don't hate the Lebanese shippers for doing the only thing they can do to remain profitable, i.e. don't hate the player, hate the game) ... forcing some degree of transparency and accountability in these systems might raise prices a little bit, but the benefits would likely be immensely positive in the system overall.
It's nice that the story is made personal, about a real individual (think: that Tom Hanks film about someone stuck in international airport limbo) but that's not really the story here is it.
The fault here is ultimately with egypt. They were not letting him leave, they took his passport and not even letting him get 'deported' back to his home country.
This is not from outsourcing, this is Kafkaesque bureaucracy created by Egypt itself.
Read a story of a ship's captain, stuck on the ship at anchor in New Jersey.
There is a mariner's charity in Greater New York that would help out. They would post a bond with ICE and drive the sailor to an airport or another ship.
Well, whether 9/11 security or what, they weren't allowed to do this. So the captain had been on the ship for over a year.
Err here in the United States you have people pissing in bottles and bags because they can't take a break without missing targets. The West is not immune to predatory hiring and employment practices.
Nasty labour practices... It's just slavery. This poor gentleman was forced into slavery.
You're right that this is what we're outsourcing. All of the corporate trade agreements - American manufacturing was shipped overseas, and American labor forced to compete with what is often a modern form of slave labor.
Ultimately it’s a tragedy of commons situation and in these instances the only solutions are rigorous regulation or internalization of the costs of externalities. Both won’t happen, because the politics behind it are also a tragedy of commons.
> Those very nice buildings in Dubai come from some nasty labour practices
I’ve spent the past few months taking a deep dive into the Dubai real estate market. Excluding some villas, there are maybe 2 or 3 “very nice” buildings.
Many look nice on the outside, but rarely on the inside.
Exactly! And I know hardcore capitalist apologists who would say it was his free choice to agree to be legally bound. If you ask me, that’s some next level mental gymnastics, redefining the term “free choice.” But, there are those who disagree with me, and I expect you’ll see some of them show up to react to my comment.
Edit: a few more story details here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv... When he rows to shore to get supplies he can only stay for two hours at most as the area is a restricted military zone. Other crew members were repatriated in September 2019, so Mohammad was not alone for 2 years but only for 7 months (which is no less unacceptable). The only reason Mohammad was allowed to leave was thanks to a local union representative who agreed to take his place as the ship’s guardian.
The BBC article makes it feel like he was alone for 4 years and somehow was able to stay alive with no food/water for 3 of them before the ship drifted closer to shore where he could now 'buy food and water'.
The article says he swam ashore to buy supplies. Why can’t he simply walk away and not return to the ship. The article does not clarify that point. Anyone knows?
Is there something that could be done by people otherwise uninvolved - like myself, or my fellow HN readers - to help the other ~250 people who are currently stuck in similar situations?
I don’t even know how to go about enumerating who those people are, their ships, or where they are anchored. With that information a well-organized and/or funded group could at least get someone out to these people to check on them, provide basic supplies, and perhaps some form of reliable communications.
A lot of problems seem insurmountable large and complex, and even this one seems so if your goal is to free these people of their legal liabilities - but if you set aside trying to solve the reason they’re stuck onboard these ships in the first place, providing basic humanitarian aid to them seems doable.
It is supremely unfair for the court to assign him full responsibility for the ship, but without any power over it. If the court were serious about the situation they should have handed the ship over to him entirely. He could then put the ship up on the market for whomever wanted to buy it or sell it to a scrapping company.
If you think this would be unfair to the ships owners this is exactly the point. Force them to fix the situation or lose control of it entirely. Don't leave an actual human in some Kafkaesque nightmare of being jailed on a derelict vessel because you are terrible at running a shipping company. The article says there are hundreds of these cases around the world, and because only regular people are being harmed nobody is trying that hard to fix it. This is unconscionable.
Edit: Fixed my faulty memory about the number of ships in this situation.
Yeah I don't understand what value there is here in assigning it to the crew member who apparently can't decline?
Even if he could manage the ship, a random crew member is highly unlikely to have resources to care for a ship like that... what value is there in assigning him this responsibility? They just punishing someone for the sake of it?
Isn't there a law at sea where if you find an abandoned ship, it is basically yours? Perhaps this law doesn't apply in Egyptian national waters?
If he is the legal guardian of the ship, why wouldn't he be able to just sell it for profit and move on? Was it just that there would be no buyer for it, even to scrap it? Or could there have been fines/liens on that ship such that no one would want to buy it? If that is the case it seems odd that he couldn't himself abandon the ship to the lien holders.
The problem was that this man >>signed<< a document where he agreed to be "legally bound to this ship"... So be careful before you are signing something...
> It is supremely unfair for the court to assign him full responsibility for the ship, but without any power over it. If the court were serious about the situation they should have handed the ship over to him entirely. He could then put the ship up on the market for whomever wanted to buy it or sell it to a scrapping company.
This doesn't really solve the problem, it just moves the problem around to the free market. What if no one wanted to buy it for scrap? Would he be responsible for cleaning up the situation himself? The court should have impounded the ship using Egypt's own coast guard and billed the company for the coast guard's time.
A friend of mine who's working on installing multimedia systems on luxury yacht told me a recent story today: a woman came from Florida to work on a yacht that was called by his owner to some place. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to her she had COVID. all of the 12 crew members went sick; the boat stopped at Malta, and 2 stewards died. As the ship was late and stranded, the owner simply fired all of the remaining people onboard, sick as they were, because he wanted his boat back. Then, the lady, stranded without resources in La Valette and probably under crushing guilt committed suicide.
Not to compare bad vs worse, but when I get bored for ten minutes I tend to remember that at least I'm not in Otokichi's crew:
> The ship, without a mast or a rudder, was carried across the northern Pacific Ocean by currents. It drifted for 14 months, during which the crew lived on desalinated seawater and on the rice of their cargo.
I saw this video from Chief MAKOi (who has an excellent youtube channel in general) about this situation a week ago. It seemed rather hopeless for him at the time considering that it was going on for four years already. I wonder if that video contributed to pressure to fix the situation, it does have almost a million views.
I'm not clear what Egypt's goal was by forcing this man to stay aboard the ship. Simply declaring him the guardian never made it so. He was never going to be able to resolve the issues himself and it appears the owners have simply abandoned it and written it off. If Egypt can't get money from the owners, then, as owners of the canal, deny other of their ships passage through it.
If he had silently sneaked off the ship, would someone have noticed? How long would it take for anyone to notice that a ship without power and crewed by just 1 person was actually abandoned?
Why would you write an article like this without a word describing the legal consequences of leaving the ship? What consequence would be worth four years of your life?
Edit: a more useful video linked below explains that the authorities confiscated his passport. That would make it difficult to leave. Though I'd probably try anyway after a year of that.
I saw this video[1] on Youtube that goes a bit more in depth into the situation. Apparently after he became the legal guardian of the ship, the Egyptian govt took his passport to prevent him from leaving.
I imagine that a legal system that forces a random guy to stay trapped on a ship for four years would do something worse to someone who defies their order.
The saddest part of this unfair ordeal is that his mother died while he was confined to this ship, and he couldn’t go visit her or attend the funeral. This article notes, he contemplated suicide then.
Shipping companies regularly do this to their crew, abandoning them when the costs of properly managing the situation aren’t worth it to them. Note that ship abandonment is also what led to the devastating explosion in Beirut, Lebanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Rhosus
If you are at the point where your family is dying, and you are contemplating suicide, the only rational choice is burn down the ship to smithereens and leave it at the bottomn of the ocean. Or rip it to bit and sell the parts.
I hope he is able to profit from his story with book and/or movie rights. It's a fascinating story and I bet would make a great movie a la Captain Phillips or 127 Hours.
> The Aman's owners, Tylos Shipping and Marine Services, told the BBC they had tried to help Mohammed but that their hands were tied.
> "I can't force a judge to remove the legal guardianship," a representative told us. "And I can't find a single person on this planet - and I've tried - to replace him."
Well, obviously nobody would volunteer unless things were going to change.
But surely the ships operating company had violated their operating agreement, giving the owner grounds to "evict" them, find a new operator, get the updated safety equipment and classification certificates, and pay for the fuel. Once that was done surely the ship would be unseized, and with a new crew installed, Egypt ought to be happy to cancel the guardianship.
This was all especially true back before it ran aground.
It would also seem like this all would be very much in the owner's interest as letting the ship decay cannot be good for the ships value, and they probably were not getting paid rent by the current operator for this.
But I'm guessing there is a lot more to this that the BBC article has left out.
Even more surprising that there’s one situation still ongoing:
> Meanwhile, at the Iranian port of Assaluyeh, 19 mostly Indian crew members of the bulk carrier Ula are on hunger strike after their vessel was abandoned by its owners in July 2019.
If you're interested in shipping I highly recommend the YouTube channel of Chief Engineer Makoi https://www.youtube.com/c/ChiefMAKOi. He has been talking about Mr. Aisha's situation for some time now. Really awesome to see that he's been relieved.
I don't understand what use he was on that ship? And can't they find any out of work person from shore to take his place? I'm sure there are dozens lining up to get that job for a few pennies an hour. And they might just have family in the area that can help sustain them.
[+] [-] jollybean|4 years ago|reply
When foreign entities are able to bid for a lot less, and pay a lot less, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they will not bother with 'end of life' for ships, or getting insurance, or worrying about the lives of people who are 'expendable'.
Those very nice buildings in Dubai come from some nasty labour practices.
If every piece of this puzzle from end-to-end were to have happened in a 'rich country' there'd be legal issues, PR/media, litigation, and a separate kind of bureaucracy altogether, meaning the 'alternative' for a lot of corporations is just 'wash their hands' of it, pay 1/2 the price, and get all the ugly parts 'off the books'.
We are to the point now where we have ample material surplus - we don't need any more 'plastic stuff from China' - it'd be worthwhile to start integrating a lot of 'off the books' stuff into trade deals. Ironically, it would be good for 'them' as well, because in chaotic, quasi-lawless systems it doesn't make sense for participants to invest in anything further ahead than what is in front of their noses (i.e. don't hate the Lebanese shippers for doing the only thing they can do to remain profitable, i.e. don't hate the player, hate the game) ... forcing some degree of transparency and accountability in these systems might raise prices a little bit, but the benefits would likely be immensely positive in the system overall.
It's nice that the story is made personal, about a real individual (think: that Tom Hanks film about someone stuck in international airport limbo) but that's not really the story here is it.
[+] [-] novok|4 years ago|reply
This is not from outsourcing, this is Kafkaesque bureaucracy created by Egypt itself.
[+] [-] JJMcJ|4 years ago|reply
There is a mariner's charity in Greater New York that would help out. They would post a bond with ICE and drive the sailor to an airport or another ship.
Well, whether 9/11 security or what, they weren't allowed to do this. So the captain had been on the ship for over a year.
So, yes, it can happen here.
[+] [-] Ar-Curunir|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevmo|4 years ago|reply
You're right that this is what we're outsourcing. All of the corporate trade agreements - American manufacturing was shipped overseas, and American labor forced to compete with what is often a modern form of slave labor.
[+] [-] protoman3000|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goodpoint|4 years ago|reply
Who has the power to push for better working conditions, transparency and accountability? Let's see:
- A sailor from poor a countries
- A customer from a wealthy country
- A cash stripped shipping company from a poor country
- A successful and massive company from a wealthy country
- A billionaire owning such company
- A politician in the same country
[+] [-] ryanlol|4 years ago|reply
I’ve spent the past few months taking a deep dive into the Dubai real estate market. Excluding some villas, there are maybe 2 or 3 “very nice” buildings.
Many look nice on the outside, but rarely on the inside.
[+] [-] Stephanie123d|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TheButlerian|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justinator|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pmiller2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimbob45|4 years ago|reply
I doubt that you could find even one person on here who wouldn't support a blanket ban of outsourcing/externalization tomorrow.
[+] [-] mrb|4 years ago|reply
Edit: a few more story details here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv... When he rows to shore to get supplies he can only stay for two hours at most as the area is a restricted military zone. Other crew members were repatriated in September 2019, so Mohammad was not alone for 2 years but only for 7 months (which is no less unacceptable). The only reason Mohammad was allowed to leave was thanks to a local union representative who agreed to take his place as the ship’s guardian.
[+] [-] irjustin|4 years ago|reply
The BBC article makes it feel like he was alone for 4 years and somehow was able to stay alive with no food/water for 3 of them before the ship drifted closer to shore where he could now 'buy food and water'.
[+] [-] pivo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hi41|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bagacrap|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tempest1981|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnord77|4 years ago|reply
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9322048,32.5328029,607m/data...
[+] [-] coolreader18|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Black101|4 years ago|reply
what is this circle, anyways: https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%86%D...
[+] [-] Ancapistani|4 years ago|reply
I don’t even know how to go about enumerating who those people are, their ships, or where they are anchored. With that information a well-organized and/or funded group could at least get someone out to these people to check on them, provide basic supplies, and perhaps some form of reliable communications.
A lot of problems seem insurmountable large and complex, and even this one seems so if your goal is to free these people of their legal liabilities - but if you set aside trying to solve the reason they’re stuck onboard these ships in the first place, providing basic humanitarian aid to them seems doable.
ETA: This looks like a good place to start - https://www.ilo.org/dyn/seafarers/seafarersbrowse.home
[+] [-] jandrese|4 years ago|reply
If you think this would be unfair to the ships owners this is exactly the point. Force them to fix the situation or lose control of it entirely. Don't leave an actual human in some Kafkaesque nightmare of being jailed on a derelict vessel because you are terrible at running a shipping company. The article says there are hundreds of these cases around the world, and because only regular people are being harmed nobody is trying that hard to fix it. This is unconscionable.
Edit: Fixed my faulty memory about the number of ships in this situation.
[+] [-] duxup|4 years ago|reply
Even if he could manage the ship, a random crew member is highly unlikely to have resources to care for a ship like that... what value is there in assigning him this responsibility? They just punishing someone for the sake of it?
[+] [-] mgolawala|4 years ago|reply
Isn't there a law at sea where if you find an abandoned ship, it is basically yours? Perhaps this law doesn't apply in Egyptian national waters?
If he is the legal guardian of the ship, why wouldn't he be able to just sell it for profit and move on? Was it just that there would be no buyer for it, even to scrap it? Or could there have been fines/liens on that ship such that no one would want to buy it? If that is the case it seems odd that he couldn't himself abandon the ship to the lien holders.
[+] [-] newsclues|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pulse7|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Invictus0|4 years ago|reply
This doesn't really solve the problem, it just moves the problem around to the free market. What if no one wanted to buy it for scrap? Would he be responsible for cleaning up the situation himself? The court should have impounded the ship using Egypt's own coast guard and billed the company for the coast guard's time.
[+] [-] wazoox|4 years ago|reply
My friend knew several members of the crew.
[+] [-] aasasd|4 years ago|reply
> The ship, without a mast or a rudder, was carried across the northern Pacific Ocean by currents. It drifted for 14 months, during which the crew lived on desalinated seawater and on the rice of their cargo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokichi (from a recent-ish HN thread).
[+] [-] AdamJacobMuller|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD-KjuGuiM
[+] [-] sizzzzlerz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dilippkumar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaughnegut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] modeless|4 years ago|reply
Edit: a more useful video linked below explains that the authorities confiscated his passport. That would make it difficult to leave. Though I'd probably try anyway after a year of that.
[+] [-] _fat_santa|4 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD-KjuGuiM
[+] [-] codezero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patentatt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sargos|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwawaysea|4 years ago|reply
Shipping companies regularly do this to their crew, abandoning them when the costs of properly managing the situation aren’t worth it to them. Note that ship abandonment is also what led to the devastating explosion in Beirut, Lebanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Rhosus
[+] [-] ClumsyPilot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanberger|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsmith45|4 years ago|reply
> "I can't force a judge to remove the legal guardianship," a representative told us. "And I can't find a single person on this planet - and I've tried - to replace him."
Well, obviously nobody would volunteer unless things were going to change.
But surely the ships operating company had violated their operating agreement, giving the owner grounds to "evict" them, find a new operator, get the updated safety equipment and classification certificates, and pay for the fuel. Once that was done surely the ship would be unseized, and with a new crew installed, Egypt ought to be happy to cancel the guardianship.
This was all especially true back before it ran aground.
It would also seem like this all would be very much in the owner's interest as letting the ship decay cannot be good for the ships value, and they probably were not getting paid rent by the current operator for this.
But I'm guessing there is a lot more to this that the BBC article has left out.
[+] [-] codeisawesome|4 years ago|reply
> Meanwhile, at the Iranian port of Assaluyeh, 19 mostly Indian crew members of the bulk carrier Ula are on hunger strike after their vessel was abandoned by its owners in July 2019.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] markbnj|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakub_g|4 years ago|reply
The way the world's maritime shipping system works is really screwed up.
https://www.stableseas.org/blue-economy/explosion-beirut-sea...
[+] [-] INTPenis|4 years ago|reply