Union rivalry and crew reform in shipping: A United States—Australia comparison

The national-flag fleets of most of the traditional martitime nations have, in virtually every case, been in decline in the 1980s and 1990s, despite the continued growth of ocean shipping. They have declined in terms of numbers of vessels and numbers of sea-going jobs, although not necessarily in terms of cargo carried. However, a number of those nations have responded to the changed technological and competitive conditions with some success by attempting to adjust crewing and work practices on vessels at sea. Neither the USA nor Australia has been in the forefront of such change. However, considerably more progress has been made in modernizing crewing practices and work rules in the Australian-flag fleet than in the US-flag fleet. There are a variety of reasons for this, inluding government policy. However, it is our argument that one of the principal reasons the US fleet lags behind the Australian fleet in the adoption of modern crewing practices and work rules is the much greater degree of union rivalry in the US shipping industry. In fact, while the degree of fragmentation and rivalry among unions in the Australian flag fleet has declined dramatically since 1980, their US cousins have continued, and in some ways expanded, their pattern of fratricidal behavior. First we shall discuss some of the technological and competitive imperatives that are driving human resource management practices in shipping and the crewing and industrial relations adjustments that are being made around the world to adjust to them. Then we shall indicate how the Australian and US fleets have responded to these challenges. This will be followed by a discussion of unionism in the Australian and US maritime industrics as it has devloped in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Finally, we shall draw conclusions about the impact of different patterns of unionization.     

British Shipping and World Competition[1] revisited

The object of my book British Shipping and World Competitionwas to answer the question: 'Why has the tonnage of ships registered in the United Kingdom declined from over 45% of the world total in 1900 to about 16% of that total in 1960?'. There was never any normative element to this question, a point which has been much misunderstood. In answering the question, two different methodologies were used. Chapters II through VIII are industrial economic history, whereas Chapters IX through XIV are applied economics. When the two groups are thought of as siblings, not as Siamese twins, it can be seen that the first group has worn rather well, but that the applied economics chapters have a distinctly dated air. Most of this article is concerned with the applied economics chapters, where I try to examine what is said in the book in the light of my subsequent experience and thinking. There is one absolutely gross error in the material. Unfortunately, this is implicitly reflected in the Code of Conduct and in the EC Maritime Regulations. The original answer to the question has been rephrased in the article; I hope this will put to rest the idea that the question was normative in intent. The rephrasing does not alter the answer: the decline which needed to be accounted for can be explained solely in terms of internal constraints. The remainder was a 'natural' result of changing international patterns in resource allocation.     

The social psychological consequence of a life at sea: A causal model

This paper explores the influence of this occupation on alienation and social integration of its members. Data were collected using a survey instrument from a sample of 293 seamen, both officers and crew. Factors determining variance in levels of alienation are examined using multiple regression technique. Results indicate that variance in several occupational features of life at sea affect the degree of alienation experienced by seamen, and a number of social characteristics were found to mitigate these influences. Supplementary qualitative data are also used.     

Applying Human Systems Integration to the Rapid Acquisition Process

The rapidly changing complexity of the Global War on Terrorism has changed the approach to equipping forward-deployed military forces. Combatant Commanders conducting operations now require timely materiel solutions to enhance mission capabilities and reduce the risk for individual soldiers. To address this challenge, the US Army established the Rapid Equipping Force to assess emerging requirements, to propose solutions to those requirements, and to implement those solutions in an expedient time frame. Unfortunately, the REF lacks a consistent analytical methodology for assessing alternative materiel solutions. To address the need for a human systems integration (HSI) analysis method, the authors developed an Assessment-Based Rapid Acquisition HSI Analysis Method (ABRAHAM) capable of generating tailored surveys and evaluating these surveys for unacceptable risks to soldiers. To validate ABRAHAM's concept and content, ABRAHAM was showcased in three Department of Defense settings: the Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group, the REF, and the US Marine Corps' Operational Test and Evaluation Activity. The ABRAHAM appears to fill a gap in the current library of HSI tools. Based on the feedback provided during the product showcases, there is sufficient interest and technological maturity to further develop ABRAHAM to serve both the traditional and rapid acquisition processes.