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.”
Clear enough for you?
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.
Okay but, I mean, ask yourself what’s most likely to happen?
You mean that the shipping company is going to be filing for bankruptcy protection in the relatively near future?
The crew operator or subcontractor may file for bankruptcy. Maersk isn’t going anywhere.
Anything to get out of paying, I suppose.
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
Wow. How dense you are to think the US govt is going to hold corporations responsible for absolutely anything.
The amount of money this company just cost the US economy is why they are going to hold whatever company is ultimately found to be at fault accountable.
In this case one company just brought shipping from one of the largest ports on the eastern seaboard to a complete halt. If maersk is at fault they will have hefty fines to pay. But we don’t know the ultimate cause of the ship losing power yet.
The money being lost is more important than corporate privilege.
You mean like the time they held Wall Street Bankers responsible for intentionally creating a global recession? Oh, wait…
Remind me who was President then?
oh, i see. you’re one of those lurkers whose sole purpose is to shit talk about democrats. are you working from a propaganda farm, or do you do this for fun in your spare time?
if you’ll look back, it was actually bush that was in office when the '08 crash started and he said he wasn’t going to do shit. obama just toed the line after him, you disingenuous fuck.
don’t come back with your both sides BS either. or do. i’ll school you on that line of reasoning too.
I am neither a lurker or a democratic shit-talker. I am the most genuous fuck who calls out bullshit when I see it and doesn’t suck the teat of my favorite shit-brained politician.
But I can see name-calling in lieu of actual facts is important to you.
If you look back in this conversation we weren’t talking about what caused the ship to crash, but the punishment that would be rendered to the perpetrators afterwards.
The point is, Obama was 10x the President Biden could ever hope to be. If Obama did not or would not hold responsible bankers for intentionally causing a global recession, Biden sure as shit isn’t going to go after a ship took out a bridge.
Removed by mod
We were talking about both turd-nugget
Maybe not if it were an American company on the brink of collapse, but Maersk is a Danish company - and an exceptionally wealthy/profitable one at that. The cities, governments, and companies that are all affected by this will be eager to collect their pound of flesh from Maersk.
And how do you suppose they’ll do that?
Uh, the normal way. Fines, lawsuits and potentially sanctions, if needed.
Removed by mod
This happened in port, not international waters. Normal rules will apply. Seizing assets from a foreign company may be a little more difficult if it comes to that, but it’d probably be in Maersk’s best interest to pay up rather than lose the ability to do business in the U.S.
Lol I’m with ya bud. Corporations being held liable doesn’t happen in the US. $$$$ makes the rules.
Removed by mod
Making the democrats the only viable party would be the worst possible outcome besides repubs being the only viable party. The Democrats are just as beholden to corporate ownership as the repubs. Democrats unopposed would be fucking monsters.
someone doesn’t understand how politics work. look into the whig party and get back to me. don’t spread misinformed opinions, it’s dangerous.
Look up the definition of “viable” before you spout off like you understand anything at all
Removed by mod
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.
I didn’t say that.
And Biden didn’t say the company wouldn’t be held responsible.
No, you simply parroted someone else who did say that. Don’t fucking try to “but ackshually…” out of being called out.
LOL umadbro?
I didn’t “but ackshually” anything. I just provided a source. You can take your argument up with the person who made it.
Go back to reading comprehension classes, bro.
Sick insult bro 🤙
Not an insult. A suggestion.
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.