OMSA General Membership Meeting, February 1, 2001
New Orleans Hilton Riverside
#2 Poydras St.
New Orleans, LA

I. COMMITTEE MEETINGS: 10:00-12:00 Noon (Ballroom B, 1st floor)
Committee Chairmen are to prepare their respective agendas and provide a copy thereof to the OMSA staff. The staff will update issues of interest to all committees and, subsequently, meet with individual committees on specific problem areas or projects.

II. SPECIAL UNION PRESENTATION: 1:30 - 3:00 P.M. (Salon C, 1st floor)

Special Meeting / Panel of Labor Specialists/Attorneys to Discuss

· Union Issues/Tactics/Responses
· Access to property
· Potential unfair labor practice and environmental crimes allegations by unions
· Discussion of fatigue/worker abuse issues
· Discussion of PTI "TRAIN the TRAINER PROGRAM"
· Vulnerability Audits/Corporate "Appraisals"
· Review of Recent Developments, viz. OMSA Web Site with UNION CORNER
· OMSA Union Reference Library, UNION AVOIDANCE Resource Catalogue,
· OMSA "UNION FREE" Video Library, etc.
· Policy Manuals
· What changes, if any, can "business" expect at the DOL based on Republican "victory"
· Member requested items & General question/answer period (Contact us @ OMSA if you have specific subjects you wish to have covered during panel session)

III. GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING: 3:30-5:30 P.M. (Ballroom A, 1st floor)

Special Presentations:
· Special Financial Presentation by OMSA's Auditors, Wegmann Dazet & Co.: The Three Routes to Profit, by Mr. Ralph Dazet. A common goal of virtually every company is to increase its bottom line profit. In this presentation, designed for non-accountants, you will learn how to use the numbers in your financial statements as a management tool to achieve this goal You will also learn how much you must sell and bring in in gross/net revenue in order to offset each dollar of unnecessary expense you incur.
· NOAA "Print on Demand" Chart Developments; Report by NOAA and Baker, Lyman & Co. You will be able to have corrected charts printed as you need them, for lower cost;
· Dual Certification of OFFSHORE VESSELS: Speaker - LCDR Bill Daughdrill, USCG;
Report on recent Union Activity by Attorney Norman Mott
(Re: Raceland Nursing Home Unionization Attempt by American Maritime Officers Union);

Also, Important business will be discussed and Status Reports presented on the following topics to update members on developments since the October meeting:

· Progress of USCG/OMSA STCW Task Force; STCW Issues Remaining: viz U.S. OSV Near Coastal/Foreign and OSV Oceans; also, license bridging to other vessels (non OSV) of equal tonnage. (Removal of OSV trade restriction) There will be IMPORTANT announcements about new developments in this area (STCW standards re overseas operations);
· NOSAC "Fatigue" Study;
· Vessel Boarding by USCG in response to GCMA/UNION Charges of Unsafe Operations
· Update on U.S. Customs Ruling regarding Crew/OSV Service to Pipelay other vessels
· Discussion of selected subjects re: OMSA Member Survey; Regular AND Associate Member Issues Emphasized
· DOE Workshop on Deepwater Development

IV. COCKTAILS: 5:45-7:00 P.M. (Ballroom B, 1st floor) Brilliant Chit-Chat!

V. DINNER: 7:00-9:00 P.M. (Ballroom A, 1st floor)

"Implications of Presidential/Congressional Elections of 2000." - Speaker to be announced

· OMSA now has a webpage (limited) and email. The OMSA website is under development. Currently, it is limited to contact information but we plan to grow it in the next few months and to have the format fairly well established by January 31. At the February 1 OMSA Business Meeting we will reveal the format and structure of the site. We invite any OMSA member company that wishes to do so to contact us about linking up to the OMSA website. We hope to use this channel, for one thing, to do more to help our associate members. Meanwhile, you may contact us at www.offshoremarine.org. Our email addresses are as follows:
Robert Alario, President, Robert@offshoremarine.org
Ken Parris, Regulatory Affairs, Ken@offshoremarine.org
Mitzi Ray, Finance, Mitzi@offshoremarine.org
Lillie Licciardi, Admin, Lillie@offshoremarine.org

________________________________

· Congressional Elections/Presidential Election: Looking for Answers!

There was good news - and there was bad news. Depends upon your political "persuasion." Liberal? Conservative? Moderate? Fanatic? Green? Independent? Libertarian? Confused Voter. Non-Voter? Half-Chadder? Hanging Chadder? Clam Chadder?

Enough already. Let's "break away" before we get too carried away, shall we?
On February 1, at the dinner meeting, we will explore the mysteries of the political process and attempt to discern if and how the post elections bode well or ill for OMSA member companies in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and even some states with fewer members resident therein, but potentially helpful still. We will ask the eternal question - will we be better off under this administration and congress than "the other?" If so, how? If yes, why? If not, damn it, why not?
We obviously won some and lost some. Depends upon your political "persuasion." (Relax. We're not going back there.)

OMSA here calls upon its politically astute men and women - a virtual challenge, this is - to develop and send to us, or come to the February 1 dinner meeting PREPARED to expound personally on the impact - that is, to give us your own astute, personal analysis of what you feel the impact of the presidential and congressional elections in your state (U.S. House and U.S. Senate, as well as the Presidency) will potentially be on our industry and our beloved OMSA family.

If you have ever longed to, and desire, now, in the depths of your soul, to be OMSA's version of Wolf Blitzer or Greta Van Susteren for one night - your own 15 minutes (make that 5 minutes) of fame, come prepared to expound on the elections in your state. (Call us - seriously. We need help. And, if you are crazy enough to do this, you probably need help, too!)

Seriously. No, I mean it. Seriously! Call me to discuss what could be your big break, even possibly leading to your own political talk show. Hmm. Can see the headlines now! "New Rush Limbaugh discovered at meeting of Offshore Marine Service Association!" Wow! Think about it!
For discussion purposes, we need at least one analysis/analyst from each state, particularly from politically, savvy folks outside Louisiana. (Since this challenge or request is directed to OMSA members, we do not require that our respondents be smart or honest. Jut politically savvy.)

Please. We need you. Call us. (504/734-7622 or fax 504/734-7134 or email Robert@offshoremarine.org)

_______________________________

· Photos and stories are needed. This is your association and your newsletter. We search the pages of industry periodicals for stories about and information useful to our members to print in this newsletter. We sometimes receive press releases from our members. You can help us by sending in photos and newsworthy stories or announcements by mail or email of your business in action. Interesting work photos of boats, shipyards, people and etc. are what we need, and if your people happen to make a rescue at sea, let us know. (No "commercials" please) Thanks.

"NOW THAT WE'RE "HERE", WHERE ARE WE EXACTLY?"

First and foremost, the OMSA staff and I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of our members and friends a wonderful, prosperous New Year.

We feel particularly compelled to give sincere thanks, to the good OMSA members who serve unselfishly on our various industry committees and task forces, and our generous associate members who invest so much time and trouble to make our golf, fishing and shooting tournaments a success, all of which work to the benefit of the entire membership. Know, good people, that you are much appreciated.

You know, over the past twelve months, we have witnessed extraordinary, even bizarre circumstances, not the least of which have been the unpredictability of the price of oil and gas, the weather and even presidential elections. Furthermore, no one is certain whether the year of the millennium just ended, or has just begun. The past year has been some strange.

In any event, we enter the year 2001 just as we did 2000 A.D.: Full of positive expectations, emanating variously from gut instinct, cautiously optimistic predictions of an upturn in offshore activity, strong demand, short supply and a general perception that "it" (another boom) can't possibly be that far off, eh, what with all the prevailing "signs" and all. Oh yeah?

Anyone who has been in this business for more than one "season" and who does not automatically become nervous when things begin to look this "good' must have amnesia. Or dementia. Sometimes, it is quite difficult to recognize whether we are ascending from, or descending into, a depression. As Janis Joplin once remarked, "Now that I'm here, where am I?"

Nonetheless, having expressed that quirky note of caution, we must be determined - indeed, we are determined - to translate 2001 from the year that was to "be to"…to the year that is! We must be determined - indeed, we are determined - to successfully meet the numerous, diverse challenges facing us as we forge hopefully and purposefully into 2001. We must - indeed, we are determined - to take and play the hand that this always exciting, frequently painful, never predictable, perpetually peculiar offshore industry deals us. We do not, after all, have any other choice. But, we do have a say in how, and how well, we will deal with the issues and problems of the offshore industry in the new millennium. After all, "In God's economy nothing is wasted. Through failure, we learn a lesson in humility, which is probably needed, painful though it is."

During the last "recovery", the pace of industry growth, in every offshore sector, became so intense and "accelerated" that many if not most providers of services or products, from ship and rig builders to drilling and boat contractors, attempted to stretch their capabilities beyond their actual physical capacities and limitations. Many attempted to overcome or circumvent the very obvious and acute shortage of properly trained, experienced and certified people in ways that would ultimately not serve them or the industry well. In essence, the law of supply and demand was allowed to be driven by a less realistic, short-term "perception" or " estimate" of demand. This "soft", perhaps even "greedy" vision of "growth" business and profits lying over the horizon caused many industry experts, and those of us who react to the prognostications of the experts, to react in ways that were less than realistic and rational. We aimed too high, built too fast, bought and paid too much, hired too many, trained too loosely and expected too much. And in the end, it appeared we had learned too little, and that much only briefly, from the catastrophe spawned by the last down cycle during which were exhibited the same industrial habits and reactions to "apparent" signals of recovery and prosperity. It seems the old bumper sticker created by the true prophets of this industry, "Give us one more chance, Lord - and this time we won't screw it up!", may have appeared on the scene prematurely and that it's message may still have another cautionary tale to tell and life to live.

As they say in football, (New Orleans Saints football, at least) "Wait until next year! Well, that was last year. Now we get to start anew! They say you can't change the past, and that you can ruin the present by worrying over the future. But, "Perhaps the best thing about the future", said Dean Acherson, is that it comes one day at a time." So, let's not - this time - get ahead of ourselves if we can help it.

We can get "downfield" in a number of ways. With a well conceived, measured, game plan, tailored to clear and present demand, rather than blind pursuit of unlikely goals with desperate Hail Mary passes, designed by undisciplined, big play mentalities, which dependent more on luck than sober, long range planning.

So, I say, into 2001 we must go; not too fast, not too slow; chin up, chest out, but careful not to take another poke in the snout!
Bob Alario

We regret that we routinely feel compelled to try to "energize" many of the companies in our industry (not only the boat companies but others, as well) to more actively mobilize against the threat to our industry from organized labor.

It is truly difficult to understand why many of the business leaders in this industry do not see the need for, a more definitive, tangible commitment, financial and otherwise, to the resistance that is fundamental to an effective defense against intrusion by labor unions into our industry….or if they do, why more of them do not respond more forcefully.

Some have come to the conclusion they either are not in imminent danger, so there is no need to worry (at least not yet), that the unions are only after the "big guys," or that the union intervention does not seem to be "succeeding" greatly, so there isn't any urgency to act. I know that for many of us, me included quite often, "if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done". But in this case, such complacency and/or limp reactions to union initiatives can prove very expensive. Some, according to recent events, are learning the hard way that this philosophy does NOT pay off. Don't ignore the risks here.

For instance, these "warnings" by David Eckstein, Field Director of Offshore Mariners United, might (should) be of interest. In one quote, Mr. Eckstein said, "You'll see a more intense (organizing) campaign and a lot more active stuff going on next year. We're here for the long haul. We've dropped anchor."

Also, consider the following article from the January 9, 2001 Wall Street Journal.

Gulf Coast Unions Make A Push For Oil-Patch Workers

As the region's energy business has grown stronger with consolidation and rising energy prices, unions see a chance to organize in a traditionally union-bereft area. Last year, five maritime unions formed Offshore Mariners United, a Houma, LA group that campaigns on behalf of unions. So far, the group (claims it) has helped organize about 8,000 energy construction workers and helicopter pilots. But the group also has its eye on the maritime crews supporting offshore energy activity, and a push is under way.

Unions "are putting their resources together to make this stuff happen," says Dave Eckstein, the group's field director."

Consider, too, this quote from the Seafarer's Log (Seafarer's International Union (510), AFL-CIO.
"For the last two years, five maritime unions have worked together to organize the offshore mariners sailing in the Gulf of Mexico oil patch…This is the biggest maritime organizing battle since the 1950s. The oil patch is the largest area of unorganized maritime workers in the country. All five unions are devoted to making this drive a success."

NOTE: The unions are clearly united, well funded and devoted to their objective…………………………… And us?

The Offshore Marine Service Association (OMSA) is determined that we will do everything in our power to coordinate an industry wide defense. Consequently, OMSA has been working diligently on the development of the "Offshore Union-Free Operations Program" designed for OMSA members and other companies within the offshore industry to collaborate, share resources and collectively combat these union forces and keep our companies "Union Free". At the October regular meeting we unveiled the first in a series of videos. The tape titled "The Offshore Industry Union Free Operations Program" provides an executive level overview of the union threat and the OMSA developed program. Along with the video was a PowerPoint presentation designed to fill in details on the essence of the program in conjunction with the film. The videotape and PowerPoint presentation were jointly developed by PTI Labor Research of Houston and OMSA. This video, PowerPoint and full description of "The Offshore Industry Union Free Operations Program" was sent last week to over 250 company executives with a view toward alerting them to the problem and inviting them to join us and support the initiatives we have developed to date. Next in line for the program is the completion of our "Union Avoidance Resource Catalogue"; opening of the OMSA Library and File Center, (Feb.1) and, finally, development of a series of videos designed for employees, followed in short succession by a training video specifically adapted for offshore supervisors (rigs/boats/etc) and human resources personnel. We are also evaluating co-production of a video for use by community groups. We intend to have a full presentation to illustrate the status and concrete developments on our program on February 1, during our regular quarterly meeting. Also, see the announcements below relative to other aspects of the program (special training seminar/workshop) and its implementation date(s).

The OMSA OFFSHORE "UNION-FREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" developed and presented by PTI Labor Research, Inc. begins February 19. An identical workshop/training session is scheduled March 19. This program begins with a proven two-day workshop. "POSITIVE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS," is 1) designed to help companies understand what makes unions attractive to employees and 2) identifies specific, tested steps you can take to make unions unnecessary and your company less of a target. This critical two-day workshop is highly recommended for management personnel, including a select group of Boat Captains, and individuals with human resource responsibilities. Having a common, consistent message from management is a key to keeping unions out. For this reason, we would also encourage senior executives to attend one of these two-day workshops (PTI plans to offer the same course monthly through April, 2000). PLEASE NOTE: THESE SESSIONS, while more expensive than other "seminars" that will be scheduled (20 max/ 1st 3 days; 5 only trained trainers at final 2 day session) ARE SPECIALLY DESIGNED FOR LIMITED ATTENDANCE in order to provide more personal attention and focused one on one training and role playing. It is a different type of workshop.

In addition to the two-day workshop described above, PTI will offer a third Day of training that will focus on labor law (for non-lawyers). This optional session will give participants a broad but helpful legal foundation concerning union organizing, which will serve to help better protect the employer.

Finally, in a third, independent block of time (2 days), companies may enroll representatives (who have attended the first three days of training described above) in a "Train the Trainer" certification program. Individuals who complete the full five days will then be certified as TRAINERS, qualified to independently present the "POSITIVE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS" workshops to other employees within your company, at no further cost to the employer. We are encouraging each company to send at least one representative through the five day Train the Trainer Workshop/Training Program. That relatively small investment will allow your Trainer, from that point forward, to train others within your company at no additional cost and, therefore, at a significantly low per man cost.

The Union-Free Management Workshop is taught by PTI's nationally recognized staff of expert instructors. The program has been taught to thousands of company's in diverse sectors with great success for over 20 years. BLOCK I & BLOCK II will be taught respectively. Options include attending both blocks or just one block. If you are an individual who would like to become licensed to teach the course internally, you must attend Blocks I, II & III. Each block is described more fully below.

BLOCK I, "Positive Employee Relations" The length of the workshop is two full days. Offshore industry professionals will spend these two days assessing their company's vulnerability to a union organizing attempt, being briefed on recent changes in union organizing strategies and corporate campaign strategies, analyzing new methods for improving fair and consistent treatment of employees and learning how to avoid unfair labor practice charges. Participants will learn how to use the four skills that are critical for maintaining a union-free environment and increasing productivity.

Block II, "Labor Law for Non-Lawyers" The length of the workshop is one full day. It provides participants the opportunity in a small group setting to fully explore every issue pertinent to their environment. The dynamics created by the combination of expert labor lawyers and enlightened management personnel are substantial and rewarding.

BLOCK III, "Train the Trainer" The two day "Train the Trainer" program is characterized by intensive PTI team interaction, small group setting, professional one-on-one coaching and videotape feedback critiques. Candidates who receive their certification will be certified and qualified to teach the two-day training program "Positive Employee Relations" as in BLOCK 1.

For more information; please contact OMSA (ask for IRA SNYDER) @ (504) 734-7622 or FAX (504) 734-7134 or contact PTI, directly @ (281) 893-9996.

A survey was conducted at 24 large companies. 730 supervisors and 34,000 employees were surveyed and asked to rank the top 10-workplace morale factors. The top three results -

Supervisors -
1. Good Wages
2. Job Security
3. Promotion within the company

Employees -
1. Full appreciation of work done
2. Feeling included
3. Sympathetic help on personal problems.

What do the employee's top three have in common? Effective Communication.

Source: "The Labor and Employment Tip Sheet", Jones Walker, October 2000

A major part of our union avoidance program is the development of a reference library listing each possible resource that we can find that is pertinent to and useful toward maintaining a union free workplace for offshore workers. Our desire is to identify and provide members with a list of every possible source and type of resource available to combat devious union tactics and deflect the union threat. While OMSA has already collected an impressive list of companies that can assist you in your fight, we are continuing our search. We would like to include information on as wide an array of products or services as possible to our members. If you have names, descriptions or any samples of materials, products or programs that you can send, and that participants perusing the OMSA reference library and web site could examine, it would be most beneficial. By January 31st, we propose to complete and have available a thorough "catalogue" of services and products available on union avoidance. We will exhibit the catalogue at our meeting on February 1. It will be one heck of a tool, which you will be able to use to great advantage.

The seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a company did not commit an unfair labor practice by stating in its employee handbook that it intended "to do everything possible to maintain our company's union-free status for the benefit of both our employees and the company." At our OMSA meeting on February 1, we will discuss pertinent guidelines for corporate policy manuals relative to union free status.

Source: "The Client Letter," The Kullman Firm, October 31, 2000

The unions have brazenly demanded access to member's vessels and facilities. They have filed Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) claims against Trico and Seacor because of their failure to grant access. The essence of the Workers Justice Board complaints was the difficulty that union organizers have in getting face time with mariners. The unions will continue to demand access to your facilities.

You need to know your rights. Walter Christy of Frilot, Partidge, Kohnke & Clements wrote a memo on union access to company property that was distributed at the last meeting. For all of you who did not attend, this excellent memo has been mailed to your HR personnel, along with other information. A reading of Walter Christy's dissertation of the issue of access and the means by which unions could force access sounded like the "testimony" given at the November 11th union meeting. For the purpose of this article I leave you with a few of Mr. Christy's comments on the issue.

"Union access to private property for the purpose of organizing employees has gone through significant analysis by the courts and the Board. It is now clear that the property rights of the employer are primary and that non-employee Union organizers will be denied access to private property unless the Union can prove that it has no reasonable alternative means of access to the employees other than entering the employer's property. The cases discussed outline the various arguments that have been raised concerning whether other means of communication do or do not provide reasonable alternative access. With regard to its efforts to organize employees on workboats in the Gulf of Mexico, the Union will no doubt argue that the employees are working in isolated areas which are not accessible to the Union and that providing the Union with access to the boats is the only available reasonable means of communicating with them. The boat companies can counter this argument with the following:

1. The Union has established a radio station by which it sends out its message on an ongoing basis - the employees the Union is seeking to organize have access to the station.
2. The Union can advertise in newspapers, as it has, and deliver its message.
3. The Union can deliver and has delivered videotapes to the boats setting forth its message to the employees.
4. The Union can and has established facilities at the various ports where the vessels call and has delivered handouts and engaged in other means of communication with the employees.
5. The Union has established meeting places for employee's places at hotels and other facilities to deliver its message.
6. The Union can and has made home visits to the employees. The situation involving workboats in the Gulf of Mexico is certainly not the same as existed in the Nabors case, although there are some similarities. The employees on the rigs in the Nabors case were much more isolated than the crews on the workboats and they did not have access to the media, radio and television. Further, the Union did not have direct access to them at the ports where the employees board and leave the vessels. The boat owners could strengthen their position that the Union has other reasonable means of access by providing the Union with the names and addresses of their employees, but of course, this gives the Union a major advantage it would not otherwise have. While all of these arguments can be raised, if a complaint is filed it will be heard before an Administrative Law Judge of the National Labor Relations Board, a person who undoubtedly will be pro-Union in his background and in his rulings. The present Board is distinctly pro-labor and will be for some time after the coming presidential election. Thus, it will not be unexpected if a decision such as was rendered in Nabors would be forthcoming on any charge filed over failure to grant the Union access to the boats."

In addition, G. Phillip Shuler of Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy has provided us with an additional NLRB case, issued after Walter Christy wrote his memo, that strengthens an employers right to withhold the names and contact information of employees from the unions.

Phillip Shuler's memo was also mailed to your HR personnel. He analyzed the impact of the October 31, 2000 ruling in Technology Service Solutions, 332 NLRB No. 100. The NLRB ruled that an employer of a widely dispersed workforce which did not report to work at a centralized location was not required under the Lechmere "lack of reasonable alternative means" test to provide names and addresses of employees to the IBEW in an organizing campaign.

The Board majority ruled that employee's privacy rights were equivalent to the employer's property rights in Lechmere and that these rights trumped the IBEW's access to this employer held information. The Board majority did not agree with the Union's claim that it had no reasonable alternative means to reach the employees. The Board majority concluded that the Union could easily have asked employees with whom it had previously established contact for assistance in obtaining names and addresses, particularly since the employees met at periodic training sessions conducted by the employer.

The Board majority noted that where the Union, as here, has "...achieved a fair measure of success in communicating with the [employees by using certain methods] in the past it is particularly necessary for a showing to be made that, in the organizing campaign at issue here, this would have been futile." Citing, SCNO Barge Lines, 287 NLRB 169, 171 (1987) review denied sub nom. National Maritime Union v. NLRB, 867 F.2d 767 (2d Cir. 1989). Thus, while providing names and addresses might mitigate the access to property argument of the Union, the TSS decision strengthens the boat owners' position overall by applying Lechmere to union access to names and addresses and by emphasizing employee privacy. TSS is another weapon in our arsenal to limit the Union's access to property or other information.

For additional information on this issue we suggest you contact your labor law attorney, or Messer's Walter Christy or G. Phillip Shuler.

In order to maintain the integrity of its independent status, Sea School has decided to decline acceptance of funding from the maritime unions for STCW-95 training. Sea School is concerned that the grants provided to the unions by the Federal government may be used to promote unionism within the traditionally non-union Gulf of Mexico. Oil field workboat owners, with capital at risk are concerned with the quality of safety training and are satisfied with the existing schools that supply their training now. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SPEND ENERGY and MONEY TO KEEP YOUR COMPANY UNION FREE AND THEN SEND YOUR EMPLOYEES TO A TRAINING FACILITY WHERE THEY ARE, BY DESIGN, EXPOSED TO UNION ORGANIZERS, (d.b.a. (doing business as) peer counselors. In any case, most companies have been providing or paying for their employee's training at schools with Coast Guard approved courses.

"The U.S. labor movement is gearing up to play an increasingly aggressive role in the offshore support sector, using union shareholdings in individual companies to pressure boards on key issues of corporate governance. This tactic was demonstrated when representatives of the union umbrella group AFL-CIO attended a Trico Marine shareholder's meeting, one month after the formation of Offshore Mariners United, a strongly funded and broadly backed new union spearheading an organizing drive in the US Gulf offshore support sector. Though union officials deny any direct connection between the two, the labor movement's new activism at the shareholder level is the opening of a second front in the battle to open up a highly resistant US Gulf offshore support sector to union representation." More recently, the union shareholder trustee (AFL-CIO Reserve Fund) submitted a proposal to TRICO to demand changes in how corporate directors would be selected. They have also indicated they intend to advance their attack on Trico before the IMO and ILO, international forums through which the AFL-CIO hopes to increase the pressure on TRICO globally. TRICO, meanwhile, has diligently resisted and successfully countered the union's thrusts.

Source: "Offshore Accountability Watch", Volume 1, Issue 1, September 2000, Gulf Coast Mariners Association.

It is only a matter of time before labor organizations, largely stymied in their efforts to communicate with offshore employees, take advantage of Corporate America's increasing reliance on the Internet and email. Just as with bulletin boards and telephones, a company can limit the use of company Internet and email to company business, for now. But just like other policies limiting the use of bulletin boards and soliciting on company time, corporate policy controlling employee use of email on company time must be enforced uniformly and legally. Get appropriate guidance.

Source: "Client Alert", October 2000, Proskauer Rose, LLP.

The Offshore Mariners web site, among other things, recently detailed the activities of the Workers Justice Board and reports on the "day of solidarity" against Trico. It may be accessed at www.offshoremarinersunited.org. The GCMA web site has copies of their newest attack, the "Corporate Accountability Campaign." This is simply a rehash of everything they have put out so far in a very slick, professional magazine format that they are mailing out. You can see the GCMA web site at http://www.gulfcoastmariners.org/gulf/. It is important that our companies, to the extent possible, track what is being said on the union website (OMSA is tracking the propaganda). The points of attack you can expect to see the GCMA and OMU, AFL-CIO et al consistently advance against us over the next few months will revolve around 1) 12 hr. rule and claims of abuse of work hours on our vessels 2) arguments that overtime should be paid for anything over 8 hrs. 3) unsafe working and living conditions aboard vessels and rigs 4) treatment of Gulf Coast workers like third world employees 5) "unfairness" of time required away from home 6) absence of a voice 7) sharing profits ("give it back") 8) the allegation that mariners are forced to violate the law to keep their jobs.

On November 11th the OMU launched its latest attacked against our industry through a Union Kangaroo Court self-servingly named, The Gulf Coast Workers Justice Board. The union collected a diverse selection of pro-union advocates from clergy, government, academia and the public across the Gulf region. The purpose? To hold a pseudo-legal proceeding where David Eckstein presented scripted "evidence" against member companies, alleging violations of workers rights. This board was populated singularly with union associates, and met with the sole purpose of attempting to provide a seemingly legitimate forum for union organizers to complain about how difficult employees make it to organize this industry. It was a self-created, self-serving, union public relations spiel, viz. a union "spin" machine. The board has no legal or moral basis. This is yet another part of a calculated, cynical union "corporate campaign" strategy to propagandize and, thereby, mislead the public. The union wants the public to believe its efforts are something other than what they truly are, which is to expand its dues paying membership. Judging by the fact the meeting hall was empty except for the board, associates of the board and one reporter, the difficulties encountered by the OMU in organizing may have more to do with a lack of mariner support than any other factors. The companies that received "invitations" to the proceedings did not send representatives and should not. The Offshore Marine Service Association does not recognize the board or any legal or moral authority it may assign itself. To respond to allegations and pseudo-legal proceedings conducted by a union "Justice formed Board, the sole purpose of which is publicity, simply gives it a semblance of validity it does not deserve.

The "Justice" Board members are:

William Quigley, Professor
Loyola Law School
Director of Law Clinic

Dr. Mike Robichaux
Louisiana State Senator

Pat Yancy
Attorney, Houma

Sibal Holt
Secretary/Treasurer
AFL-CIO, Baton Rouge

Father Sinclair Oubre
Diocesan Director
Apostleship of the Sea

Cornelius Seaton
Alderman, Moss Point, MS

Joanne Bland
Tour Director
Voting Rights Museum

Gordon McCall
Florida

Carol Burnett
United Methodist Minister -
Director of Family and Children
Services, State of Mississippi

Speaking of Senator Mike Robichaux, citing obligations to his medical practice, Robichaux announced his resignation, effective March 1st, from the Louisiana State Senate. Senator Robichaux, an Ear, Nose and Throat specialist from Raceland was first elected to the Senate in 1995. Over the past two years, Senator Robichaux has actively encouraged and supported the designs of the GCMA, OMU, AFL-CIO and affiliated labor groups to organize the offshore oil and gas industry, which is, of course, his personal and political privilege. Robichaux has shown his staunch support of unionization of the offshore industry and the trucking industry. Senator Robichaux is a self-avowed populist who became convinced that the employers within our industry, and others, had and were taking unfair advantage of workers. He apparently believed that the labor unions presented an option which was superior to those available under the system that has served our regions, our industry and our employees very well in past. While we have problems in this industry, and are not always able to give everyone what they want or what an employer would like to provide, labor unions are hardly incorrupt examples of what employees need to advance their interests. Unfortunately, Dr. Robichaux chose to assist labor organizers against people who have provided jobs and opportunity to people in this area for years.

Now that he has resigned, a special election will be held on February 10, 2001. Currently, at least nine candidates have announced. The two principal candidates seeking the office are Chris Bollinger of Lockport, an executive at Bollinger Shipyards. Bollinger is a dedicated pro-business, Republican candidate with roots in our industry. Sen. Robichaux's cousin and legislative assistant, Ms. Leslie McVeigh, will oppose Bollinger. Ms McVeigh, we understand, recently registered as a Republican. However, she was active in Senator Robichaux's (Liberal Democrat) campaign, which enjoyed aggressive union backing. Ms. McVeigh has been registered as an officer and/or director of the Gulf Coast Mariners Association Education Fund. She is a supporter of, and is supported by the GCMA and unions active in the organizing campaign within our industry.

It is expected that this election will not have a large turnout of voters. Remember Florida! It is important that people in that area get the vote out to support the candidate who can most effectively and honestly represent both employers and employees.

There is a (false) perception the unions are only going after the large companies. Not so. Union personnel are reported to be visiting and "salting" small companies in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida to organize them and/or "market" their STCW training programs. They are emphasizing "free" training. (We urge you to tell your people that they should not be fooled by the offer of "free" STCW training. This is simply a ploy to get your personnel into a union school, or a school "affiliated" with the unions, where trained operatives (peer counselors) will attempt to convince them to unionize your company. (This will be an important point of discussion at the OMSA meeting (Union Session @ 1:30 - 3PM) on Feb. 1. Remember, the STCW is not applicable to vessels under 200 gross tons operating domestically. If you get a call or visit from a union "marketing rep," call OMSA before you agree to send your personnel to their school. Let us help you determine whether or not the training is really necessary for your operations. Most operators provide training with incumbent worker gratis. We can help you to obtain training funds, as well. You must take precautions not to let these unions in through the back door. Come to the meeting on Thursday, Feb. 1. Much will be learned.

Last June the Department of Labor gave the unions a $4 million grant to conduct "free" STCW training. A key concept of the grant proposal was mariner outreach. OMSA has discovered that most, if not every "peer counselor" involved in outreach is also a paid union organizer. OMSA, along with several concerned members, has been collecting information to dispute the basis for this grant and/or, at least the controls that are in place associated with the grant. We believe, among other things, that the basis for DOL issuing the grant was flawed and, among other things, that the use of funds to pay union organizers as "peer counselors" is questionable. OMSA will be meeting with DOL officials to discuss the terms and conditions of this grant. We are asking you to send us all the information that you have collected on this subject and to cooperate with our efforts to ensure that this federal grant is not misused or abused.

In the September issue of "Workboat," Capt. Edward Walker, commented that neither Bob Alario nor David Eckstein were qualified to speak on issues important to Gulf Coast mariners. Bob responded to Mr. Walker's comments with a view to clear the air on his qualifications and the contributions and benefits to the offshore industry and offshore mariners that he and OMSA had been involved with. If you haven't read the response and would like a copy, you may contact the OMSA office.

Salting is the process where union organizers attempt to gain employment with your company. The tactic has two purposes, (1) to get a union organizer inside your doors (2) if they are denied employment, to file an Unfair Labor Practices complaint. People who told OMSA that there was no union threat or activity at their company have recently learned that they have hired a mariner prominently featured on the OMU recruiting videotape. OMU recruitment packages are now showing up. Also, OMU organizers recently appeared at a company demanding employment. On their applications they stated the following: previous employer - OMU, previous position - organizer, referred by - David Eckstein. You must come to the February 1st special meeting from 1:30-3:00, and listen to a panel of attorneys discuss this and other union tactics, if you want to know your legal responses to this and other tactics.

TO ACCESS THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION ON LEGISLATION LISTED IN THIS SECTION GO TO THE THOMAS LEGISLATIVE WEB PAGE AT HTTP://THOMAS.LOC.GOV/ AND ENTER THE BILL NUMBER IN THE ARTICLE

Senate Bill S893, Introduced by Slade Gorton in April 1999 became Public Law 106-489 on 11/9/2000. This law amends Federal shipping law to subject an individual to income tax liability only in the State where such individual resides with respect to income derived by the individual while: (1) engaged as a pilot on a vessel performing duties in more than one State; or (2) performing regularly-assigned duties as a master, officer, or crewman on a vessel operating on the navigable waters of more than one State.

Senate Bill S2934, introduced by Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) and its companion bill HR5077 introduced by Frank Pallone (D-NJ), provides for the assessment of an increased civil penalty in a case in which a person or entity that is the subject of a civil environmental enforcement action has previously violated an environmental law or in a case in which a violation of an environmental law results in a catastrophic event. The repeat violator shall be assessed up to an additional penalty of 25 percent of the maximum penalty assessable per day of violation for the first repeat violation under the applicable environmental law; an additional penalty of 50 percent of the maximum penalty assessable per day of violation for the second repeat violation under the applicable environmental law; and an additional penalty of 100 percent of the maximum penalty assessable per day of violation under the applicable environmental law for the third and each subsequent violation. The bill adds penalties for certain quantities of pollutant released, with a maximum penalty of up to $10,000,000 dollars.

SENATE BILL S2944 introduced by John Breaux (D-La) and its companion bill HR5100 introduced by David Vitter (R-La) are intended to make the Oil Spill Act of 1990 the exclusive source for criminal penalties for oil spills. S2944 and HR5100 are in response to the recent use of the strict liability standards of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Refuse Act by law enforcement personnel, such as EPA, to bring criminal charges for sometimes-minor oil spills.

We urge our members, along with OMSA to write your Congressional representatives in support for S2944 and HR5100, and against S2934 and HR5077. Guidelines on how to write, and addresses of your congressional representatives can be found in your OMSA Membership Directory, "Useful Information."

H.R. 5025 introduced by Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) would require that all vessels over 300 grt have an approved vessel response plan (oil spill) to operate in U.S. waters. If enacted this law would also require voyage data recorders and transponders (similar to aircraft) on certain vessels (including small passenger vessels and towing vessels).

We urge our members, along with OMSA to examine this proposal carefully and respond to your Congressional representatives. The response plans could be difficult to produce, update and maintain.

On December 12, Bob Alario met with officials of the U.S. Customs Service to clarify certain recent, Customs rulings relative to clearance and reporting procedures. We are very pleased to advise that Customs agreed with the arguments of OMSA, contained in our letters of Sept. 7 and Dec. 18, on the following:

1. That "special purpose" vessels such as pipelay barges, derrick barges, etc, in addition to drilling rigs, may constitute a point in the U.S.,
   
2. That Jones Act qualified vessels are required to transport "merchandise" and personnel to such points within the U.S.,
   
3. That said U.S. Flag, Jones Act qualified vessels are not required to file reports of arrival and clearance with Customs when servicing such points within the U.S., except for foreign origin articles that have not yet cleared Customs.

Note: This does NOT change the fact that an offshore, special purpose vessel such as a pipelay barge, which may be deemed a "point in the U.S.", CAN be a foreign flag, non Jones Act qualified vessel. It means simply that, if such a vessel is deemed a "point in the U.S., whether U.S. or foreign flag said vessel, must be serviced by Jones Act qualified U.S. flag vessels, when the two tests depicted below have been met.

Essentially, two "tests" determine whether or not the offshore rig, platform or "special purpose" vessel is a point in the U.S.:

1) Is the installation permanently or temporarily attached to the OCS? (this includes dynamic positioning.)
2) Is the installation positioned on the OCS for the purpose of exploring for, or developing the resources therefrom?

In an October 6, 1998 letter to OMSA, following discussions with U.S. Customs, the Customs Service added four clarifications to the two tests to determine whether or not an offshore rig or platform is a "point in the U.S.":

1. Is the drill stem is inserted into the seabed;
   
2. Is the support or anchoring system is in place but the drill stem is not yet inserted into the seabed;
   
3. While dynamically positioned over a drill site with only the drill stem expected to be in contact with the seabed, the stem is temporarily withdrawn for reasons of safety, service adjustment or repair;
   
4. A platform or production facility is attached to the seabed by any means.

Now, following the meeting between Bob Alario and Customs, in the last paragraph of the U.S. Customs' letter of January 5, 2001, the Customs Service agreed with the OMSA interpretation that under the appropriate operational and physical circumstances, a range of "special purpose" vessels, such as pipelay barges, derrick barges and other special purpose offshore vessels may be considered a "point in the U.S." and, accordingly, that all appropriate Customs' rules and attendant Customs procedures apply regarding transportation of merchandise/personnel thereto and therefrom by Jones Act qualified vessels:

Each vessel operator has been mailed copies of the pertinent letters between OMSA and U.S. Customs.
Therefore, please keep for your file and carefully read the OMSA mailing of January 11 to determine:

1. whether your specific operation(s)/circumstance(s) may be considered a point within the U.S. for Customs purposes,
   
2. whether Jones Act/Coastwise Trade qualified vessels are required to transport "merchandise" and personnel to/from your offshore point and
   
3. whether your operation may be exempt from reporting arrivals and "clearing" customs when in support of Gulf of Mexico Activities, and what exceptions apply.

These are important developments decided in favor of our OMSA members.

The Coast Guard National Maritime Center Policy Letter 7-00 details the requirements for issuance of STCW endorsements for service on Offshore Supply Vessels. According to this Coast Guard policy, the only program relative to licensing and rating of mariners who commend sea service after August 1, 1998 currently approved, to our knowledge, is the OMSA OSV program. This Coast Guard policy letter is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/marpers/pag/policy.htm.
The Coast Guard has acknowledged that some of the STCW requirements for vessels other than OSVs may be unnecessary for operators of OSVs. Therefore the Coast Guard has approved OMSA's program for a more tailored, less onerous licensing process for mariners seeking licenses as Master, Mate and/or Engineer (OSV) - Domestic and endorsements for Rating Forming Part of a Navigation (vessels over 500 GRT) Watch. However, OMSA is not stopping there. We are in the process of providing to the Coast Guard a "bridging" program detailing those additional skills the operator of an OSV will need to operate on International/Near Coastal and Ocean Routes, and on other (non-OSV) vessels of similar tonnage. .

In a related story, the IMO recently published its "white list" of country's whose STCW programs were deemed to comply with international standards. The "white list" was developed so that port state control officers would supposedly know which STCW certificates were a valid representation of mariner knowledge and skill. The United States was on that list. According to some, a few "questionable" countries also made the "White" list. Union opponents of the OMSA OSV Program in their attempts to derail our program, had argued that our program was a threat to U.S. inclusion on this list.

The Coast Guard will not conduct vessel inspections in some countries. These are generally places where the U.S. State Department has determined that non-diplomatic U.S. Government officials should not visit. The Coast Guard refers to these as "Closed Countries." A closed country that many of our members operate in is Nigeria. In September of 1996, at the urging of OMSA, the Coast Guard and American Bureau of Shipping entered into an agreement whereby ABS will conduct inspections, on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard, in Nigeria. Coast Guard vessel inspections must still be applied for through the cognizant USCG office. For Nigeria, when applying for an inspection, you must request approval from Coast Guard Activities Europe for ABS inspection in lieu of USCG inspection under the USCG/ABS Memorandum of Understanding of January 12, 1995 and USCG/ABS Letter of Agreement September 3, 1996. Once you have received Coast Guard approval for an ABS inspection in lieu of USCG inspection, you must contact ABS to schedule a surveyor. The penalties for missing a scheduled inspection can exceed $100,000.

Several of our members have been exposed to or paid substantial penalties recently for missing scheduled inspections in closed countries. Since this agreement has gone into effect, the USCG is much more serious about penalizing companies that miss scheduled inspections in closed countries. OMSA spent long hours negotiating with the Coast Guard and ABS to initiate this agreement. Without this agreement between the Coast Guard and ABS, you would not have been able to receive required inspections in Nigeria. Your options would have been to move the vessel to an adjacent country for inspection or face significant penalties for non-compliance. Use this program prudently and appropriately to streamline your compliance programs and reduce your exposure. For copies of the applicable Coast Guard and ABS policies, contact the OMSA office.

The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) has adopted a task statement to examine the issues surrounding mariner fatigue and fitness for duty. OMSA will participate in an examination of the issue for NOSAC. It should be noted that several legitimate, scientific studies are already in process, with which our industry is cooperating. This study and task statement is a redundant, unnecessary exercise which is a direct result of unsubstantiated allegations and pressure by the GCMA to have the Coast Guard define work hours, work hour limitations and manning levels offshore. Nevertheless, we will participate in good faith. Please contact the OMSA office to discuss this matter and prepare, please, to discuss the subject at the OMSA committee meeting on Feb.1.

The Coast Guard has proposed a change to the marine casualty reporting requirements. Under the proposed rule, anything that results in "significant harm to the environment" requires immediate reporting to the Coast Guard as a marine casualty. This rule adds a second reporting requirement and potential for you to be cited for an oil spill. "Significant harm" is defined as anything that is in violation of the Clean Water Act such as a sheen, sludge or emulsion. Comments are due by January 31, 2001. You are encouraged to submit individual comments or forward your comments to OMSA for inclusion in our comment to the docket. This is an item that our OMSA Safety and OSV committees should discuss at the Feb. 1 meeting.
http://dms.dot.gov/search/ - Enter 6927

The Marine Safety Office in Morgan City publishes a quarterly newsletter. The newsletter is full of interesting and informative Coast Guard interpretations of law and regulation. You can now have the newsletter delivered directly to your desktop via email. For email delivery, send a message to BMayon@msomorgancity.uscg.mil. Our compliments to MSO Morgan City. Excellent resource.

The Coast Guard Marine Safety Center (MSC) is now publishing guidelines for vessel plan review online. To date the MSC has published over 100 plan review topics. These guidelines were developed to aid in the preparation and review of vessel plans and submissions. http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/customerstds.html or http://www.uscg.mil/hq/msc/PRGuidance.htm. Thank you MSC

The Coast Guard has published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the installation of fixed fire-extinguishing systems in towing vessel engine rooms. The proposal also requires towing vessel owners or operators and their masters to ensure that voyage plans are complete before they commence a trip with any barge in tow. Comments are due by March 8, 2001. Owners of existing towing vessels would have five years after the effective date of these rules to install the required fixed fire-extinguishing systems. The voyage-planning requirement would likely go into force on the effective date of the rule. The Coast Guard estimates that the cost to retrofit vessels with fixed fire-extinguishing systems will be $55,000-$100,000 per vessels. The Coast Guard estimates that voyage planning will only take 30 minutes per trip. This is grist for a committee task force, if we had a towing vessel committee. http://dms.dot.gov/search/ - Enter 6931 and 4445

If you operate towing vessels, the implementation date for new towing vessel licenses has been delayed until May 21, 2001 so that the Coast Guard can issue guidelines and implementation instructions for mariner training and assessment programs. Towing vessel operators should send representatives to the committee meeting scheduled Thursday Feb. 1, at 9:30 AM, Hilton Riverside. (Register OMSA meeting date.)
http://dms.dot.gov/search/ - Enter 6224

Equipment suppliers may be interested in the latest from the national GMDSS implementation task force meeting on October 20. The record of that meeting was emailed to OMSA. If you are interested in obtaining a copy, send an email request to ken@offshoremarine.organd the record will be sent by return email.

Texas has recently enacted new rules on oil spill prevention, response and reporting. Visit the Texas General Land Office web site at www.glo.state.tx.us/oilspill/ for details. You may contact the office by phone at (512) 463-8530 or email (vessel.plan@glo.state.tx.us). Vessel owners and operators are required to file oil spill response plans with the state.

These articles are intended for information purposes only and are not intended to be a substitute for legal consultation with respect to any specific matter. For such opinion or advice, you should contact legal counsel. See you OMSA membership directory for the names of member firms.

Federal contractors and subcontractors take note the OFCCP has issued new regulations for affirmative action plans. These regulations setting forth the requirements for your Affirmative Action Plans took effect December 13, 2000. The most significant changes are as follows:

• The current workforce analysis will be replaced by a one-page organizational chart of each establishment.
• The eight-factor availability analysis will be replaced by two factors: external availability and internal availability.
  
• Each year, the OFCCP will select half of all non-construction federal contractors to complete the mandatory EEO surveys showing personnel activity and compensation data.
  
• Federal contractors will be allowed to maintain Affirmative Action Plans on a "functional" as well as a site-specific basis.

Even though many federal contractors have expressed concern over the OFCCP's interpretation of the term "applicant," the new regulations do not change the definition of an applicant. This is a matter of importance because the OFCCP requires covered employers to maintain race and sex data on all applicants; the OFCCP considers any person who shows an interest in a job to be an "applicant," without regard to whether the individual completes an application form.

Thus, according to the OFCCP, persons who submit unsolicited resumes through the mail or who show up and ask about a job at times when you are not hiring are applicants who must be included on your applicant flow chart along with their race and sex. So how do you determine the race and sex of "applicants" who submit unsolicited resumes through the mail? The OFCCP offers some "guidance" in the new regulations.

According to the OFCCP, you should send a form or postcard to such persons and request them to fill in their race and sex and return the form to you. Perhaps the best thing to do is adopt a policy requiring all interested persons to apply in person, which is acceptable to OFCCP and gets you off the hook from having to send out postcards or forms to solicit race and sex information from "applicants" who submit unsolicited resumes through the mail. For persons who apply in person, the preferred method is still self-identification by using a "tear-off sheet," but the OFCCP says visual observation is okay, too. The new regulations also provide that federal contractors are not required to redraft their current Affirmative Action Plans to conform to these new requirements. Therefore, you can retain your current plan and implement the new regulations in the next plan year.

Source: "THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT TIP SHEET," Jones, Walker, November 2000

The above headline appeared above a December 5, 2000 article in USA Today regarding who pays qualified retirement plan expenses. It indicates that these expenses are receiving increased scrutiny, both by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the public at large. The article noted that an investigation by the Kansas City DOL office found that 65% of the companies investigated were in violation of laws regarding the allocation of plan expenses to qualified plans.

Source: "THE LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT TIP SHEET," Jones, Walker, December 2000

A New York City beauty consultant who was fired six days after she told her boss that she might have children may proceed to trial with her pregnancy discrimination claim, a federal district court recently decided. The employee, who was not pregnant, said the following, among other things, to her boss during a conversation about birth control pills: "I think I will have some [children] soon." After she was fired, she filed suit, alleging that her termination was in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The company filed a motion to dismiss her claim. But the court rejected that motion, explaining that the PDA protects not only pregnant individuals from discrimination but, more broadly, protects all individuals from decisions made "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." Thus, the court said: "If a jury believes both that [the employee] made the statements and that the statements were interpreted by [her boss] to mean that [she] would become pregnant in the immediate future, then she is protected by the [PDA]. However, if a jury determines either that the statements were not made or that they were made in such a way that would prevent a reasonable person from inferring imminent pregnancy, she is not protected by the PDA."

Source: "CLIENT LETTER," The Kullman Firm, Volume LV, No. 11

The Department of Labor has adopted final regulations under ERISA to require faster processing of claims and imposing new requirements on the manner in which claims are processed. The new regulations are effective for benefit claims filed on or after January 1, 2002. The most sweeping changes affect group health plans. Initial claims generally must be processed within 72 hours for urgent claims, 15 days for pre-service claims, and 30 days for post-service claims. One 15-day extension is allowed for pro- and post-service claims. This replaces rules allowing up to 90 days (which could be extended an additional 90 days). Decisions on appeal would generally have to be made within 72 hours for urgent claims, 30 days for pre-service claims, and 60 days for post-service claims

The new rules also require full disclosure to participants. For example, plans not only must provide the specific reason for denial but must also identify and provide access to any guidelines, rules, or protocols relied on in making the adverse determination. Plans must provide participants access to all documents, records, and oth