5 ms·

This seems like pretty important information if correct. A huge portion of the HN discussion is moot if the Mr. Aisha chose to remain. Seems like he could have

This seems like pretty important information if correct. A huge portion of the HN discussion is moot if the Mr. Aisha chose to remain. Seems like he could have continued his fight for the outstanding wages elsewhere.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
If I understood that correctly, "chose to remain" because if he didn't, he would lose his claim for wages for the time he was stuck on the ship. That's a fair amount of money.
- gwright 5y ago
  Sure if that is the case, it is not a good trade-off. But that is a much different situation than the one that was communicated by the reporting, which suggested he had no legal way to leave. I'm still not sure I have an accurate picture of the situation.
klint 5y ago
This article says local officials were also holding his passport so that he couldn’t legally leave: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/chief-mate-stranded-on-abandoned-freighter-for-four-years https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/chief-mate-strand...
- mycall 5y ago
  I wonder if embassies can intervene under these conditions, when a foreign government will not release passport.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    They can, but will they? It is really tricky to handle this type of thing without declaring war. It's is also tricky for the other country to do this without getting war declared on them.
cmeacham98 5y ago
I totally disagree. Based on sibling comments it seems like some people think this would have legally screwed up his claim to the lost wages, and even if not, giving up your only leverage in this situation is probably not the optimal strategy. I can see a parallel world where he decided to get off the boat and we're reading an article about how he lost all that time and won't be able to recover wages, and some HN commenter goes "oh well he should have just stayed on the boat, he got off willingly, so all this discussion is moot". The reality is this guy was put into a nightmare situation by a combination of his company not appearing to have planned properly (or cared enough about this outcome to prepare for it) and Egypt's ridiculous law where someone can be legally responsible for a ship they have no ownership of. Expecting him to correctly navigate international laws to determine what the action is for him to get off the ship but get paid for the time as he deserves seems somewhat ridiculous. In reality, this situation should never have happened in the first place and I place the vast majority of the blame for that on the company and Egypt.
- gwright 5y ago
  My point was that "I have no legal way to leave" is a different scenario than "I won't leave until I get paid". Both situations have a tremendous unfairness about them but they aren't the same and I don't think it is unreasonable to think that those details are an important part of the story.
  - cmeacham98 5y ago
    Depending on thtle situation, there is little to no difference between "I have no legal way to leave" and "I have no legal way to leave and be paid for my work". The vast majority of the world's population is not in a financial situation where they can just write off months of work for no pay, so they might as well have been legally trapped there.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      As opposed to spending four years on the boat, then leaving without getting paid? Cut your losses, man.
ljp_206 5y ago
I thought this video was pretty clarifying, including words from Aisha himself: https://youtu.be/1zD-KjuGuiM https://youtu.be/1zD-KjuGuiM It definitely sounds like he got at the very least a shitty deal. If you don't have time to watch, he mentions he feels he signed something he didn't fully understand, leaving him liable as guardian, passport seized and all.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

If I understood that correctly, "chose to remain" because if he didn't, he would lose his claim for wages for the time he was stuck on the ship. That's a fair amount of money.

gwright 5y ago
Sure if that is the case, it is not a good trade-off. But that is a much different situation than the one that was communicated by the reporting, which suggested he had no legal way to leave. I'm still not sure I have an accurate picture of the situation.

klint 5y ago

This article says local officials were also holding his passport so that he couldn’t legally leave: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/chief-mate-stranded-on-abandoned-freighter-for-four-years https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/chief-mate-strand...

mycall 5y ago
I wonder if embassies can intervene under these conditions, when a foreign government will not release passport.
- bluGill 5y ago
  They can, but will they? It is really tricky to handle this type of thing without declaring war. It's is also tricky for the other country to do this without getting war declared on them.

cmeacham98 5y ago

I totally disagree. Based on sibling comments it seems like some people think this would have legally screwed up his claim to the lost wages, and even if not, giving up your only leverage in this situation is probably not the optimal strategy. I can see a parallel world where he decided to get off the boat and we're reading an article about how he lost all that time and won't be able to recover wages, and some HN commenter goes "oh well he should have just stayed on the boat, he got off willingly, so all this discussion is moot". The reality is this guy was put into a nightmare situation by a combination of his company not appearing to have planned properly (or cared enough about this outcome to prepare for it) and Egypt's ridiculous law where someone can be legally responsible for a ship they have no ownership of. Expecting him to correctly navigate international laws to determine what the action is for him to get off the ship but get paid for the time as he deserves seems somewhat ridiculous. In reality, this situation should never have happened in the first place and I place the vast majority of the blame for that on the company and Egypt.

gwright 5y ago
My point was that "I have no legal way to leave" is a different scenario than "I won't leave until I get paid". Both situations have a tremendous unfairness about them but they aren't the same and I don't think it is unreasonable to think that those details are an important part of the story.
- cmeacham98 5y ago
  Depending on thtle situation, there is little to no difference between "I have no legal way to leave" and "I have no legal way to leave and be paid for my work". The vast majority of the world's population is not in a financial situation where they can just write off months of work for no pay, so they might as well have been legally trapped there.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    As opposed to spending four years on the boat, then leaving without getting paid? Cut your losses, man.

ljp_206 5y ago

I thought this video was pretty clarifying, including words from Aisha himself: https://youtu.be/1zD-KjuGuiM https://youtu.be/1zD-KjuGuiM It definitely sounds like he got at the very least a shitty deal. If you don't have time to watch, he mentions he feels he signed something he didn't fully understand, leaving him liable as guardian, passport seized and all.