587
submitted 7 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 207 points 7 months ago

Revoke their corporate charter.

We need to start "executing" bad corporate actors, full stop.

[-] MB420GFY@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

thank you for saying this. get rid of republicans and we're halfway there.

[-] Bremmy@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

But that’s socialism. /s

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 147 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] yarr@feddit.nl 102 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Yep, it's nearly always local pilots to drive in and out of ports. They know the area best.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 18 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] MB420GFY@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

as long as the republican party is a force in politics, these companies will continue to get away with this shit.

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 13 points 7 months ago

They were not even at the wheel... Local crew manoeuvres these boats out of port

[-] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 months ago

Is it even the local pilots job to verify the ship is, well, ship shape?

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago

No clue, but that is not the point was replying to

[-] knightly@pawb.social 53 points 7 months ago

"Sanctioned" is such a weird word.

It either means "formally condemned", or "formally authorized". XD

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

It’s a near auto-antonym.

[-] meyotch@slrpnk.net 4 points 7 months ago

A ‘stern talking-to’

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 44 points 7 months ago

Oh boy. Now the shit storm begins, Randy. Its gonna be shit all the way down.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 27 points 7 months ago

Oh yeah some mid level manager will get thrown in gaol and life will go on as usual.

[-] Denalduh@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

You hear that boy, the shit winds are a blowin.

[-] Binthinkin@kbin.social 36 points 7 months ago

The next article headline will be: Feds SLAM Danish company for destroying Key bridge.

[-] elbarto777@lemmy.world 28 points 7 months ago

"Danish company claps back at the feds"

I felt dirty typing that.

[-] macaro 4 points 7 months ago

Feds decimate Danish company with debilitating damages

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago

Ah I see they made the newbie mistake of not assassinating the whistleblower like Boeing.

[-] hglman@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 months ago

Boeing paid them to make a bigger mess to take some heat off.

[-] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 33 points 7 months ago

One of the very few places which mentions that it was a Maersk ship

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 51 points 7 months ago

Oh, there you go again

[-] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Fat lot of good that did obviously

[-] gibmiser@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago

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...

[-] Itsamemario@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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...

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 21 points 7 months ago

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?"

[-] Syringe@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago
[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

You bet your plunger it does.

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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?

[-] Itsamemario@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] Xeminis@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Man everyone should watch that West Wing episode that was almost exactly about this: corporate lawyers for cargo ships minimum liability.

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 10 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Yep that's the one. I think it's Manchester Pt 1.

[-] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

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

[-] zigmus64@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Weren’t these the same incompetent cunts who tried drifting down the Suez Canal sideways?

[-] protist@mander.xyz 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

They are not, that was a Tiawanese ship, Maersk is a ~~Dutch~~ Danish company

this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
587 points (100.0% liked)

News

23276 readers
3597 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS