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.”

  • PP_GIRL_
    link
    fedilink
    -683 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_
        link
        fedilink
        -593 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
          823 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.

          • PP_GIRL_
            link
            fedilink
            -763 months ago

            If you believe that will happen I’ve (literally) got a bridge to sell to you

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart
                link
                fedilink
                113 months ago

                Looking at their post history, yes.

                They also spend a lot of time in NSFW communities while preaching how bad porn is.

            • @Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              233 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
              203 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
              link
              fedilink
              143 months ago

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

        • @michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          93 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
          73 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

            • @grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              42
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

            • @protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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

              • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                -47
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Wow. How dense you are to think the US govt is going to hold corporations responsible for absolutely anything.

                • @Kalysta@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  73 months ago

                  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.

                  • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -5
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    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.

                    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?

                • @24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  73 months ago

                  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.

                  • @helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -73 months ago

                    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?

            • @AngryishHumanoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              163 months ago

              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.

            • BeardedBlaze
              link
              fedilink
              113 months ago

              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.

            • TipRing
              link
              fedilink
              93 months ago

              He means as opposed to the state picking up the costs. He is talking about supporting the state in the immediately preceding sentence.