Merchant Marine Act of 1920
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Merchant Marine Act of 1920 is a United States Federal statute that requires U.S.-flagged vessels to be built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and documented under the laws of the United States. Documented means "registered, enrolled, or licensed under the laws of the United States." In addition, all officers and 75% of the crew must be U.S. citizens. Vessels that satisfy these requirements comprise the fleet".
- Cabotage
Cabotage restricts the carriage of goods between United States ports to United States flagged vessels. Although the act dictates what ship owners must do if they wish to be U.S.-flagged (which, given U.S. labor standards and prevailing wages, might not be so desirable in the eyes of some fleet owners), many would argue the ability to carry passengers or cargo between two U.S. ports is really the linchpin of the Act, and that the Act's other requirements (i.e., ships engaged in cabotage must be U.S. flagged, crewed at least 75% by U.S. citizens, and built in the U.S.), are, in fact, designed to restrict the lucrative domestic shipping business.
- Injury
The act allows injured sailors to obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the shipowner, the captain, or fellow members of the crew. It operates simply, by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. 688(a), which provides:
Any sailor who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right to trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply. . . .
An injured sailor has three legal remedies. A simple analogy which, while not completely accurate, provides an easy way to distinguish between the three remedies is this: Maintenance (living expenses during recovery) and cure (medical care) is like workers' compensation. A shipowner is required to provide maintenance and cure regardless of whether or not it was negligent in causing the seaman's injuries. There is a negligence cause of action. If the shipowner isn't negligent, it has no liability. Unseaworthiness is like products liability law--if the ship or any of its appliances are defective, the seaman can sue the shipowner if he is injured due to the defect.
Entitles injured sailors to recover past and future wage losses, medical care, and pain and suffering--elements of damages which are generally unavailable under maintenance and cure. Under maintenance and cure the shipowner is only required to provide medical care until the seaman reaches maximum medical cure, after which the duty comes to an end.
- Applicability
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (1995), has ruled that any worker who spends more than thirty percent of his time in the service of a vessel on navigable waters qualifies as a seaman under the act. An action under the act may be brought either in a U.S. federal court or in a state court.
Should not be confused with the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which is a Federal statute that defines the workers' compensation rights of dockside employees whose work affects shipping upon navigable waters. The Death on the High Seas Act governs remedies for the surviving kin of sailors who die on the job.
[edit] Criticism
Critics point out that the legislation results in costs for moving cargoes between U.S. ports that are far higher than if such restrictions did not apply. In essence, they argue, the act is pure and simple protectionism. Another consequence that they illustrate is that the U.S. shipbuilding industry has suffered. Ship operators are incented to maintain veteran U.S.-built vessels rather than replace them with new tonnage, and U.S. shipyards have adapted to building only those ships that are needed by act operators, with price tags that reflect their all-American workforces. U.S. shipbuilders have therefore long since priced themselves out of the international market for merchant ships. U.S. shipbuilders customarily quote prices more than twice those offered by the most efficient shipbuilders in Asia for the equivalent vessels, a reflection of both the act and the high cost of labour in the U.S.A. Moreover, critics point to the lack of a U.S.-flagged international shipping fleet; because of the act, these critics claim, it is economically impossible for U.S.-flagged, -built, and -crewed ships to compete internationally with vessels built and registered in other nations and manned by crews willing to work for wages that are a fraction of what their U.S. counterparts would demand.
[edit] Benefits
The three main benefits are preservation of a viable U.S. merchant marine workforce, support to maintain shipyard capacity in the U.S., and maintaining national security by having ships available to meet commercial and U.S. military cargo needs. Without the act fleet and the U.S. merchant marine, there would not be enough available cargo capacity to move U.S. military cargoes in times of national need. In the two most recent Middle East conflicts, the majority of U.S. military cargoes moved aboard U.S. flag commercial ships crewed by U.S. merchant seamen. If the U.S. were to rely on foreign companies and foreign crew members to move cargo essential to conduct military operations, then those operations would be subject to political risk, especially in an unpopular operation.
