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.”
Revoke their corporate charter.
We need to start “executing” bad corporate actors, full stop.
thank you for saying this. get rid of republicans and we’re halfway there.
💯
But that’s socialism. /s
Instead the WH has said that they’re not going to be held financial responsible for any of the rebuilding and let’s just check in in about five years to see that literally nothing happens to Maersk because of this.
Yeah that’s not what he said.
“It is my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge"
Please illustrate how Biden isn’t literally saying that Maersk will not be forced to pay for the cost of rebuilding?
He didn’t say that the government won’t go after Maersk, just that the federal government is fronting the cost. If the bridge had to wait for Maersk to pay up it could be years before they begin rebuilding.
If you believe that will happen I’ve (literally) got a bridge to sell to you
Is everything you post this uninformed?
Looking at their post history, yes.
They also spend a lot of time in NSFW communities while preaching how bad porn is.
It happens all the time, a lot of things get handled this way because the infrastructure still needs to be fixed in a reasonable timeline.
There’s thousands of examples of this working correctly in America, and very few of it not working.
Please kindly stop spouting nonsense that’s not backed up by data.
Whoa, shifting goal posts. We were talking about what Biden said, not if we believed it. Slow your roll.
How do we know Maersk is actually at fault at this juncture?
Good to see you consistently having the most brain dead takes on all of lemmy lol
Oh, there are worse
Whose at fault and whom should pay what damages will be decided over the next few years after a long ass lawsuit. The process of clearing the wreckage, speccing out, and rebuilding will get started soon. It was always going to be the government paying for the rebuild and any lawsuits winding down years later. Biden’s statement is that the federal government rather than city or state will bear the cost. This is just you not understanding what’s going on.
They has no info on if charges or fines are coming to the company.
It just says the feds will pay for the new bridge
Source: your ass
deleted by creator
Quote him
Seconded. Sauce or stfu
deleted by creator
Honestly, no: it’s clear that Biden intends to use Federal money in the short term to get the bridge back in service as quickly as possible, but it is not at all clear that he intends to let the shipping company (or whoever is ultimately responsible) off the hook for restitution after-the-fact.
deleted by creator
Wow, how dense to read these words and think “Biden isn’t going to hold Maersk accountable.” He’s telling the people and governments of Baltimore and Maryland that the federal government is going to back them up so they don’t have to rebuild on their own. How can you seriously read those words and think “Well I guess they’re not going to hold Maersk accountable?” Any investigation into what happened is going to take time, but the bridge needs to be rebuilt ASAP. Money the government spends on this will be recouped later through insurance settlements, fines, and/or lawsuits
deleted by creator
Yeah but that’s not what you said. You said the White House said the company wouldn’t be financially responsible, Biden said the federal government would provide funding to get the bridge rebuilt as soon as possible, meaning not wait for the company to pay for the damages, which will of course take years (which is the real problem here). You’re spinning it in a very different way.
deleted by creator
It’s pretty clear. We don’t have time to deal with lawsuits, which will take years. Nowhere in his speech does he say they won’t be trying to recoup the money.
He means as opposed to the state picking up the costs. He is talking about supporting the state in the immediately preceding sentence.
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.
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.
Yep, it’s nearly always local pilots to drive in and out of ports. They know the area best.
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.
as long as the republican party is a force in politics, these companies will continue to get away with this shit.
They were not even at the wheel… Local crew manoeuvres these boats out of port
Is it even the local pilots job to verify the ship is, well, ship shape?
No clue, but that is not the point was replying to
“Sanctioned” is such a weird word.
It either means “formally condemned”, or “formally authorized”. XD
It’s a pretty vague word in this context too. Something official was done. As you can see, the sanctions solved the issue.
Going to have to sanction the use of sanction in these situations going forward.
It’s a near auto-antonym.
A ‘stern talking-to’
Oh boy. Now the shit storm begins, Randy. Its gonna be shit all the way down.
Oh yeah some mid level manager will get thrown in gaol and life will go on as usual.
You hear that boy, the shit winds are a blowin.
Ah I see they made the newbie mistake of not assassinating the whistleblower like Boeing.
Boeing paid them to make a bigger mess to take some heat off.
The next article headline will be: Feds SLAM Danish company for destroying Key bridge.
“Danish company claps back at the feds”
I felt dirty typing that.
Feds decimate Danish company with debilitating damages
One of the very few places which mentions that it was a Maersk ship
Fat lot of good that did obviously
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…
Man everyone should watch that West Wing episode that was almost exactly about this: corporate lawyers for cargo ships minimum liability.
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.
Yep that’s the one. I think it’s Manchester Pt 1.
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
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…
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?”
Name checks out
You bet your plunger it does.
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?
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.
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.
Wow too bad they aren’t going to do anything about that Boeing whistleblower who “committed suicide”.
Came here to mention Boeing.
Weren’t these the same incompetent cunts who tried drifting down the Suez Canal sideways?
They are not, that was a Tiawanese ship, Maersk is a
DutchDanish companyNope, that was the ship Ever Given from the company Evergreen, this accident is with a ship from Maersk.
Am I the only one who also would like to look at that bridge?
If you have traffic infrastructure, you want it to be able to either resist accidents and collisions, or that there is protection that will avoid total collapse from a single impact.
Why did this bridge just tossed over like a deck of cards when a single cargo ship ran into it? How many hundreds of those ships sail under it every day? An accident was bound to happen, by sheer chance, and that bridge, any bridge, any infrastructure, should be ready to receive an impact like that, and not immediately crumble.
I think you’re vastly underestimating the size of that boat.
A New Panamax ship (a type that can go through the new locks built at the Panama canal) has a max tonnage of 120,000. That’s 121,900,000kg. If it’s traveling at only 0.5 m/s, that’s 15 MJ of energy. New Panamax ships aren’t even the biggest types out there.
There’s no such thing as “just a soft bump” with large cargo ships. They hit something, they cause damage.
Yes, and you can still build some foundation around bridge pillars to protect it by either stopping or deflecting incoming ships
So now we have additional navigation hazards? This is not the win you think it is.
When you get too close to bridge pillars? Yes, as bridge pillars themselves are navigation hazards, exhibit A above.
Buddy, you clearly do no understand the magnitude of these ships or what 15 MegaJoules of energy is… You cannot “deflect” a ship this size even if a second Pilar of reinforced concrete would magically pop up in front of the bridge
It may in fact be possible to protect bridge supports from ship collisions. Bridges in the San Francisco Bay have some state of the art protections that have worked in the past: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/bay-area-bridge-safety-collapse/3493000/
Ehmm… Not from collisions like this one
From your link:
Shahbodaghlou said Bay Area bridges are engineered to withstand massive earthquakes and even typhoons. But he admits you cannot design for every possibility, like a direct hit from a massive container ship.
The San Francisco bridge is “protected” by the fact the water is too shallow for such large ships… So I guess the answer for Baltimore would be to ban ships this large
From the video I saw, it looked like the ship hit the support nearly straight-on. If they built some sort of underwater pile of rubble to cause ships to run aground earlier, or perhaps bumpers that extend further out to redirect ships, that could potentially work. But yeah, it was basically a head-on collision. An edge case.
When the bridge was designed, cargo ships were much, much smaller.
Even then, dump heavy concrete blocks around it, anything to protect it.
Given the design of the bridge and the forces involved, it’s reasonable to expect it would fall down. Check out this thread in the Civil Engineering subreddit.
(Hate to link to Reddit but sometimes that’s where an active community is)
It weighs 116 million kg and can travel up to 12 meters per second. The bridge was absolutely going down. Any bridge would be going down. You say it was bound to happen by chance and yet as far as I’m aware its the first calamity of its scope and type to ever happen in our history.
The only way they could make the bridge heavier to withstand that boat collision is if your mom was on it
Removed by mod
Oh, there you go again
It’s givesomefucks so while they are wrong 99.999% of the time, this time, they are right.
You realize that Maersk is one of the largest shipping companies in the world, right?
There’s 100% going to be a serious civil and criminal investigation into this. Both of those are going to take a long time. Meanwhile Biden pledging to rebuild the bridge as fast as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Givesomefucks cynically claiming “Biden bad” for this incident that happened yesterday is just not based in reality
It’s a cynical hot-take but history has shown that the Whitehouse [GOP and neolibs alike] usually does bail out the multi billion dollar conglomerates so historically speaking, they are probably right.
But there isn’t even any reason to think Maersk needs a bailout right now. We have no idea what went wrong with the ship that sent it adrift. And Maersk has insurance that is likely going to be paying a pretty penny in damages to the families of the people who died, the State of Maryland, and other injured parties, and even after that they have incredibly deep pockets
The “bailout” will come when the bill for the bridge needs to be paid. Mark my words, I’ll consume a shoe if taxpayers pay nothing.
Maersk is not going to literally pay the bill for rebuilding this bridge because that’s not how this works. The government will recoup the money through fines and lawsuits. Maersk isn’t even a US company; while it’s an important company in global trade, there’s not going to be an appetite to not hold them accountable for this, and they have plenty money to pay whatever fines or damages may be coming down the pipe.
Bailouts have only happened when a company is nearing insolvency, and Maersk is nowhere near insolvency. If it were to at some point in the future, which is unlikely, the EU would be responsible for any intervention, not the US
I guarantee you that we’ll see bankruptcies & a billion dollar fine over this.
Maersk? Bankrupt? Homie stop embarrassing yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk
The company’s 2023 annual revenue was US$51.1 billion.[2] In the 2023 Forbes Global 2000, Møller-Maersk was ranked as the 174th largest public company in the world.[5]
Maersk will, of course, be fine. Their “independently owned” subsidiary responsible for maintenance might have to shutter until they can file the paperwork to recreate it with a new name and the same “standard” policies and “experienced” people.
I don’t know if this resembles their cooperate structure, but one thing I do know is that the company and it’s shareholders will not suffer any significant inconvience.
How exactly is the DOJ supposed to hold them accountable without using taxpayer money to conduct the investigation and prosecute the case? It’s not like they can take their money first and then do those things.
Payday loans, my man
The salaries for those positions is not dependent on revenue from investigations.
No, they come from taxpayer money. Which was what the person above was implying shouldn’t be spent investigating and prosecuting this case. And salaries are not the only thing necessary for that. Courts aren’t free.
Yeah, its givesomefucks, they are a crayon eating moron, but that’s not the point I am making, which is a bit more nuanced and has to do with the fact that at the end of the day, tax payers will make a new bridge and Maersk and a team of lawyers will appeal any and all monetary violation down the a mere fraction of the total cost the whole thing will end up costing. Indeed, court costs will be astronomical, and you bet your fucking dick hole that it won’t be the corporation paying for any of it.
