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.”

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    207
    ·
    3 months ago

    Revoke their corporate charter.

    We need to start “executing” bad corporate actors, full stop.

    • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      87
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

        • PP_GIRL_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          67
          ·
          3 months ago

          “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?

          • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            81
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

              • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                23
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

              • Tyfud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                21
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

              • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Whoa, shifting goal posts. We were talking about what Biden said, not if we believed it. Slow your roll.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Good to see you consistently having the most brain dead takes on all of lemmy lol

          • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            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

    • yarr@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      104
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • MB420GFY@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      as long as the republican party is a force in politics, these companies will continue to get away with this shit.

  • knightly@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Sanctioned” is such a weird word.

    It either means “formally condemned”, or “formally authorized”. XD

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ah I see they made the newbie mistake of not assassinating the whistleblower like Boeing.

    • gibmiser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      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…

  • CptEnder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Man everyone should watch that West Wing episode that was almost exactly about this: corporate lawyers for cargo ships minimum liability.

    • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    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

  • Itsamemario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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…

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      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?”

    • exanime@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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?

      • Itsamemario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Xeminis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

  • zigmus64@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    Weren’t these the same incompetent cunts who tried drifting down the Suez Canal sideways?

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, and you can still build some foundation around bridge pillars to protect it by either stopping or deflecting incoming ships

          • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            When you get too close to bridge pillars? Yes, as bridge pillars themselves are navigation hazards, exhibit A above.

        • exanime@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

            • exanime@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              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

              • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                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.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Even then, dump heavy concrete blocks around it, anything to protect it.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      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)

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • cum@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The only way they could make the bridge heavier to withstand that boat collision is if your mom was on it

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    89
    ·
    3 months ago

    Don’t worry guys,

    Biden said he’s going to fix it with taxpayer money instead of holding the multi billion dollar global corporation accountable.