7 ms·

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 count

• nickff 6y ago
  It seems like the court basically enslaved him.
  • lmm 6y ago
    That's how contempt of court rules generally work in common-law countries, even in the west.
• lolinder 6y ago
  Egypt definitely has fault here, but the company that owns the ship could have gotten the ship out of there if they cared about him at all. Yes, it might have been expensive, but I would expect a US based company to have rescued him within weeks of this situation starting, not years.
  • nickff 6y ago
    The article says the parent company is in financial difficulties, and the individual in question was basically being held for ransom (along with the ship). Depending on the ordering of debts (for the company), they may not have been able to compensate the Egyptians. All of that being said, I agree an American company likely would have had this sorted out faster, because the USA tends to deal with bankruptcies and the like very quickly.
    • worldsayshi 6y ago
      Seems to me that corporations owning ships having financial difficulties would be a natural consequence of outsourcing behaviour. You want to outsource risk and responsibilities. So the big companies get rid of their ships and hire small companies on the edge of profitability. I assume it's not always the most sound way to do business but some should get away with it.
      • andromeduck 6y ago
        Name me a country where logistics orgs never run out of money or resources.
        • labster 6y ago
          The United Federation of Planets doesn’t even use money, and it’s post-scarcity so they don’t run out of resources.
          • zoshi 6y ago
            Ships, planets, space, etc. are scarce and owned by various actors. The Federation is an interplanetary government made of sovereign member states, many of which do trade and use money. Even without the use of trade, there must be systems for determining who controls what.
            • robotbikes 6y ago
              This discussion makes me wish that I had borrowed the book Trekonomics from my friend when he offered to loan it to me. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
          • edoceo 6y ago
            replicators tho. makes a huge difference. we're headed away from UFP and more towards DOOP.
          • imagineerschool 6y ago
            They run out of resources all the time and it drives many plots!
          • dexterous 6y ago
            I had a feeling someone was eventually going to pull this one out. :)
          • drdeca 6y ago
    • rfrey 6y ago
      Most of these ships are owned by single vessel companies, much like power plants. This allows the massive shipping companies to walk away from individual vessels.
      • account42 6y ago
        > are owned by single vessel companies This legal fiction is only true as long as it is allowed to be. Egypt can see who was operating and using the ship and block their other ships until they fix the issue - they don't need to hold a scapegoat hostage for years.
    • ornornor 6y ago
      There is also back channeling. I also believe that if the shipping company and the sailor were from a different country (not necessarily the US but not failed states either), he would have gone home a long time ago.
  • FpUser 6y ago
    Depends on what company. One headed by people like Ross Perot ( RIP ) definitely will. The other that runs private jail would most likely let people expire if it makes them extra dollar.
    • munk-a 6y ago
      It reminds me of the court case that was controversial when Gorsuch was confirmed involving a trucker - "TransAm Trucking v. Dept. of Labour" in particular. It's another case where company property is valued over individuals lives - the case itself hinged on the fact that the employee was free to leave the site on foot but that it was illegal for him to use the tractor half of the truck owned by the employer to reach safety without authorization from the employer. Essentially the ruling of that case leads to the learned lesson that all truck drivers should strap private motorcycles to the sides of their trucks - doing otherwise is irresponsible.
      • beaconstudios 6y ago
        in case anyone else wants to know the details of this case: https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996 https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996
      • dahfizz 6y ago
        Am I misunderstanding something? The courts ruled in the truckers favor. Besides, I'm not sure a motorcycle would have saved him from the extreme cold.
      • girvo 6y ago
        I must be reading it backwards, but wasn't the order eventually upheld that the employee be reinstated? Gorsuch dissented, but he wasn't the one making the ruling. At least thats what the article I just read on it said, but I could be wrong -- it's early in the morning and I only just had my coffee! > TransAm appealed, but in a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s reinstatement order (TransAm Trucking v. Department of Labor, 2016). Judge Neil Gorsuch dissented. https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996 https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/477996
  • fallingknife 6y ago
    Given the excessive "compensation" demand that Egypt is making for the ship that blocked the canal, I'm going to assume the fault lies with Egypt.
    • throwaway2037 6y ago
      Let's get more specific. What is reasonable compensation that should Egypt demand?
      • fallingknife 6y ago
        The canal was blocked for 6 days and revenue is $15 million per day, so that's $90 million. But many of the ships that were held up eventually transited anyway, so $90 million is an absolute upper bound. Then there is the cost of the operation to free the ship, which I don't know. But Egypt is asking for $1 billion, so the rescue operation would have had to cost at minimum $900 million for the price to be justified. And I know it didn't cost $900 million, because if split evenly over 6 days that would be $150 million per day, which would be > 50% of Egypt's entire government spending over the time period. So I can say with confidence that the rescue was at least an order of magnitude less than that, so another $90 million (and that's still a massive over estimate). So absolute upper bound for losses is $180 million. If I were making odds I would guess that only 1/3 of the ships diverted around Africa, so $30 million, and that the rescue cost another $15 million, so over/under $45 million. And that's without even bringing up that there was a canal pilot on the ship at the time who may share some portion of the responsibility for the accident. So, yeah, it's extortion.
        • Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
          Egypt is likely using treble damages in their calculation.
      • vasco 6y ago
        A pilot from the canal was on board, how is it not their fault? (Zero compensation)
  • zp33 6y ago
    the article says it's a middle eastern company that owns the ship: Tylos Shipping and Marine Service
  • malandrew 6y ago
    Egypt is using the violation of human rights as extortion here. I’m sorry, I’m this is in no way the fault of the shippers. A fair discussion is two entities sitting at the table and negotiating. Not two sitting at the table with one being cruel to the other that the other might care about. That’s pure extortion.
    • lolinder 6y ago
      If a ship were straight-up captured by pirates and the crew held for ransom, I would still expect the company that sent the crew out to do everything in its power to bring them home. If said company simply shrugged and said "we tried to come up with the ransom money, but couldn't", I would consider that behavior unethical. The same applies here: yes, Egypt is corrupt. Yes, this is a massive violation of human rights. But the company took on a moral responsibility when it sent out that crew. We can't excuse someone from their ethical duty simply because other people neglect theirs. Ethics is meaningless if it stops applying as soon as there's corruption outside.
  • efitz 6y ago
    There’s a time honored solution for this - bond. You’re not allowed in port until you post a bond that would cover whatever - crew repatriation, port fees, whatever. This could be formalized, eg through a holding company (Lloyds?) that the port could verify the bond with, etc. I don’t have any knowledge of the shipping industry but from hearing this and other stories it sounds like a cluster f*k.
    • Breza 6y ago
      That makes sense. If I want somebody to change my locks or cut down a tree at my house, they need to post a bond first.
  • Breza 6y ago
    Plus the United States probably would have sent a diplomat as soon as the press found out what was happening.
  • LorenPechtel 6y ago
    They didn't have money they were *allowed* to spend. The problem lies with the courts who were more interested in protecting the creditors than the crew.
• zaphirplane 6y ago
  > Mohammed, they said, should never have signed the order in the first place. I wonder what would have happened if he refused to sign
  • mkhalil 6y ago
    I am not certain but from my expierence, it would most likely consist of detention, fear, and likely some torture; to say nothing of the torture it is to take someone's passport and trap them onboard a ship for 4 years.
    • zaphirplane 6y ago
      The other crew left and presumably the captain after this guy signed to stay and be the custodian, there is nothing to indicate in the article he of all the crew was singled out (from memory) Obviously it doesn’t change the tragic situation, had he not signed up as custodian we’d be reading an article about a ship captain stuck on a ship Not to victim blame there is a difference between someone stole x thousands from my home vs I lost x thousands investing in an ostrich farm Both are sad, but ...
      • mkhalil 6y ago
        Whether or not he signed a form making him custodian is irrelavent. The matter of the fact is, nobody - custodian or not - should be forced to live on a ship against there will and/or have their passport taken/be detained for years for anything not a criminal offense [and in this case ultimately not their responsability, but even if so].
• csomar 6y ago
  Someone is always going to bear responsibility. This is why, when you are incorporating an off-shore company, you need some kind of "representative" in the country itself. These people might be making "free" money but if things turn sour they might find themselves in trouble. The court did not do some random detention (they did let the rest of the crew) but they declared him the responsible party. In that case, he did break the Egyptian law. If you are getting a job where you bear a certain responsibility, you have to make sure that the company is not breaking the law through you. You'll be responsible, and worse, if the company is headquartered overseas, you might bear the whole responsibility.
  • throwaway2037 6y ago
    You wrote: <<This is why, when you are incorporating an off-shore company, you need some kind of "representative" in the country itself.>> Absolutely not. All kinds of shell corporations are setup with nothing more than a letterbox. Look at the Carribean (incl. Bermuda), Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Langkawi, Singapore, Hongkong (the list goes on and on!). Literally, they have huge numbers of off-shore corporations registered with no one on-shore. In places with stronger regulation and rule of law, these letterbox shell corporations are not allowed or strictly regulated.
  • fennecfoxen 6y ago
    > Someone is always going to bear responsibility. "Powerful people demand that there is always some scapegoat who they can abuse, even if they aren't at fault and it doesn't really help make things better." Blood for the blood god, I suppose!
• anigbrowl 6y ago
  You can find examples of such bad behavior in pretty much every state; it's by no means unique to Egypt.
• Popegaf 6y ago
  I disagree, ultimately, we the consumers are at fault. We buy the cheapest products (or the flashiest: see Apple) and these are the consequences. Companies have to save costs to compete because we won't agree to pay more. We won't vote for politicians that make everybody's life better: we will vote for politicians who promises that "the other guys" are going to suffer and that "you or your group" is going to have an easy life. Somewhere down the line, yeah, Egypt is to blame, but we are the source of the problem - we are to blame. If you want these kind of things to decrease, try to buy local products, try to buy second hand, try to vote for the benefit of everybody (not just you or your group), try to pollute less, try to be conscious about the effects of your actions, and be less egoistic.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • 1337shadow 6y ago
    You are Nongqawuse :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nongqawuse
    • Popegaf 6y ago
      You are Ken M :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_M
      • 1337shadow 6y ago
        You mean I'm amagogotya :P
  • cardanome 6y ago
    > I disagree, ultimately, we the consumers are at fault. Nope. This is a lie fabricated by big corporations so that they don't seem responsible. People have limited money and time. Just because you buy a more expensive product does not mean it is produced more ethically. If two companies are selling their product for the same price then the one using non ethical behavior to lower production cost will still make more profit. It has a competitive advantage and will take over the market. Increasing the base price because you as a consumer are willing to pay more does not help the situation. Some companies advertise with certain labels that imply that they are more ethical. One example of this is called green washing. Most of the time it is an advertisement stunt and does not improve the situation. The research necessary to ensure the product you buy is ethically produced is way above the scope for an average consumer having a job and other obligations to do. > We won't vote for politicians that make everybody's life better Lobbyists have way more power over politicians than the common man trying to vote for the smaller evil. Only if they are organized do they have a voice. For this they need to first understand that blaming consumers is a lie and that the industry needs to be regulated.
• Crashbat 6y ago
  The article states there are more than 250 of these cases all throughout the world, it's nothing to do with 'bureaucracy' or Egypt.
• raducu 6y ago
  I wonder if sailors can get two passports for this reason (I know in my country you can get two if you plan on visiting both Israel and some other country that's hostile towards Israel). Not that it would help much, because you'd have to phisically escape anyway.
• BBC-vs-neolibs 6y ago
  Less outsourcing means being less beholden to Egypt, too.
• MR4D 6y ago
  Do you really think that same event would have happened to an American?