US Shipping in danger because of US Law and regulations
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
September 14, 2011 1:55pm CST
The Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) is causing problems for the US Consumer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
It seems that a US shipping company is in financial trouble partially because of the Jones Act.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/horizon-lines-troubles-show-need-for-reform-of-us-build-requirement/123
Is it time that Congress takes a serious look at all the Laws and regulations to see how they are affecting the creation of jobs? Do the regulations give Labor Unions special protection or special treatment? How many laws and regulations are there that are interfering with Job Creation and Job Growth?
2 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
15 Sep 11
It's kind of weird because this law has been around forever. It clearly was written right after WWI where there was a huge concern about American ships. It really isn't a Union law. However, it is clearly a protectionist law and at that particular time, America was entering a Protectionist frame of mind.
They are right on one score, it does cost US companies money to not be competitive with outside markets.
However, because of its protectionist attributes, it keeps jobs in America. Meaning the industry can't outsource its jobs to Korea, China or wherever else you get cheaper parts.
It is kind of a toss up.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
15 Sep 11
Yes, I get the regulation thing. I am not arguing that.
Boeing really isn't a good example of the law you are stating because technically all Boeing did was move from one part of the country to the other which wouldn't have been illegal under this particular law.
As far as Gibson goes, there likely will be a lawsuit.
FEMA is a totally different gripe.
But I understand why the law was passed at that particular time. It likely needs some updating. But it is not a Union law. It is a Protectionist one. There is a difference.
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
14 Sep 11
I sometimes think the name of the game is to promote ever more government dependency..
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
15 Sep 11
Many of the US laws require that the labor be done or at least paid the Union pay scale. In some places this is way above the local rate and that leads to higher costs. Why should the government say that if you want this contract you must hire only these people. If they passed a law that said you can only hire white people or white men the country would be in an uproar over it. But we can say that you can only hire Union members or as many government contracts call for you must hire minorities, the disabled and non traditional workers. Is that fair?
What we need to do is let the business hire who they want and pay the going wage. Right now ther are people who would be willing to work for less but the laws will not let that happen so nobody is hired. Is that the answer to growing more jobs?
