US Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushes law to help boaters

Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
Boatyards get boost in workers' comp bill

WASHINGTON — Smaller boatyards would save tens of thousands of dollars a year on workers' compensation insurance under a bill passed by the U.S. House on Tuesday — a long-awaited boost for a big industry in Florida.

Florida lawmakers led by U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed the bill through the House to clarify the definition of "recreational vessel" so that smaller boat builders and repair shops are exempt from federal coverage required for longshoremen.

If approved by the Senate as expected, boatyards that service yachts and other recreational vessels can rely instead on much cheaper state coverage.

Boatyard owners in Florida who have lobbied for the legislation since 2008 say the change will save money that can be used to expand their businesses and hire more workers.

"We want to create jobs and keep boats coming to Florida, but we can't increase our labor costs because of these workers' compensation costs," said Kristina Hebert, chief operating officer for Ward's Marine Electric of Fort Lauderdale. She estimated the legislation would save her business $150,000 a year.

"With that money," she said, "I can hire two more electrical engineers."

The legislation is especially important in Florida, home to the nation's biggest cluster of boatyards.

"Put simply, this bill is about protecting jobs while keeping workers covered," Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston, said after the bill passed by voice vote.

"With 300-plus miles of inland waterways and 50,000 registered yachts, Fort Lauderdale is the yachting capital of the world," she said. "In Broward County alone, there are over 90,000 jobs in the recreational marine industry. These jobs allow workers to buy homes, provide for their families and contribute significantly to local economies."

Co-sponsors included Lois Frankel, D-Boca Raton; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami; Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter; Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami; Ted Deutsch, D-Boca Raton; and Frederica Wilson, D-Winter Gardens.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/fl-boatyards-insurance-savings-20140729,0,1094756.story
Vote for the other candidate
«1

Replies

  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,254 AG
    ...but raising minimum wages wont hurt a thing... fascinating.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    Boatyard owners in Florida who have lobbied for the legislation since 2008 say the change will save money that can be used to expand their businesses and hire more workers.

    but won't..... unless there's an increase in demand for their services. Otherwise, the change will save money that the boat yard/builder owners will pocket. Nice to see congress pass something for a change.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    so that smaller boat builders and repair shops are exempt from federal coverage required for longshoremen.

    why do longshoremen need more coverage than a smaller boat builder?
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil Posts: 14,632 AG
    so that smaller boat builders and repair shops are exempt from federal coverage required for longshoremen.

    why do longshoremen need more coverage than a smaller boat builder?

    Good question. Perhaps the entire requirement should be eliminated. Now there's a step towards a "smaller government" if there ever was one. Afterall, somewhere in the constitution it says the federal government can't require longshoremen to have worker's comp. I swear I saw it in there somewhere.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Good question. Perhaps the entire requirement should be eliminated. Now there's a step towards a "smaller government" if there ever was one. Afterall, somewhere in the constitution it says the federal government can't require longshoremen to have worker's comp. I swear I saw it in there somewhere.

    if its needed its needed, so should be there across the board. If its not needed then its not needed, should be removed across the board. Not sure how the size of the business makes things more or less dangerous to work at.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    so that smaller boat builders and repair shops are exempt from federal coverage required for longshoremen.

    why do longshoremen need more coverage than a smaller boat builder?

    It has been federal law since 1972, that employers that had workers working on or over navigable US waterways, if injured in the course of employment, were cover by federal law rather than state.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • mikevmikev Posts: 10,822 AG
    Mister-Jr wrote: »

    "With that money," she said, "I can hire two more electrical engineers."

    No she can't. One of them, but not two.
    "The only people that tell you it can't be done are the people who haven't done it themselves."
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    mikev wrote: »
    No she can't. One of them, but not two.

    Did you miss the point?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • It has been a mess for years. On our work over water, (Artificial reef construction) we carry normal workers comp, USLH coverage, and Jones act coverage. WC when working on the land, USLH when working at a dock on water or in inland navigable waterways, and Jones act when we leave the dock for offshore deployment.
    It get really tricky when we dive inland, Is it workers comp, USLH, or Jones? Often depends on navigable vs non navigable which isn't always a simple definition.

    Will this new reg change anything for us, NO!
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    It has been federal law since 1972, that employers that had workers working on or over navigable US waterways, if injured in the course of employment, were cover by federal law rather than state.

    so the feds are basically saying they don't really have jurisdiction over the smaller builders because they basically are staying in one region (state)? Where as with the longshoremen the thought is they travel (or potentially can travel) across states, or even outside state waters, therefore need to fall under federal jurisdiction?

    that would make sense
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    so the feds are basically saying they don't really have jurisdiction over the smaller builders because they basically are staying in one region (state)? Where as with the longshoremen the thought is they travel (or potentially can travel) across states, or even outside state waters, therefore need to fall under federal jurisdiction?

    that would make sense

    The law was originally written for stevedoring and ship building operations, but was expanded though the court system.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    will the senate pass it? Or even take it up?

    Are the longshoremen union going to fight it?
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    will the senate pass it? Or even take it up?

    Are the longshoremen union going to fight it?

    If approved by the Senate as expected, boatyards that service yachts and other recreational vessels can rely instead on much cheaper state coverage.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,430 AG
    Good for Sarge. Sometimes pandering to backyard interests is good for the economy. She's making sure she gets that industry's vote.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    If approved by the Senate as expected, boatyards that service yachts and other recreational vessels can rely instead on much cheaper state coverage.

    Jr???? that in no way addressed the question
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    navigator2 wrote: »
    Good for Sarge. Sometimes pandering to backyard interests is good for the economy. She's making sure she gets that industry's vote.

    There is no question that has been a big issue for businesses associated with boating, plus a number of other types of business. USL&H coverage is expensive and difficult to buy for smaller operations.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    Jr???? that in no way addressed the question

    Your questions were already answered in the article. Put your hands together :applause for Debbie and the supporters of this legislation that may make it easier for marinas, boat builders and other businesses impacted.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    Your questions were already answered in the article. Put your hands together :applause for Debbie and the supporters of this legislation that may make it easier for marinas, boat builders and other businesses impacted.

    where? the article says if the senate passes, but doesn't say anything about whether or not there's opposition or if they will even take it up
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    where? the article says if the senate passes, but doesn't say anything about whether or not there's opposition or if they will even take it up

    What does this say?

    If approved by the Senate as expected
    Vote for the other candidate
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    What does this say?

    If approved by the Senate as expected

    crap, read it three times and finally saw the "expected". Kept getting hung up on the "if"

    sounded like something the longshoremen would oppose though. guess not
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    good grief jr, really?????

    Really Homer.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    Really Homer.

    edited it, like i said, read the **** thing three times and couldn't see the expected. Just the if
  • SAENoleSAENole Posts: 10,319 AG
    I haven't read the bill and imagine no one has, but it sounds like it makes good sense.

    Would Barry put his mark on it?
    Warning Level 2
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    that's what my first question was. Kind-of thought obama was friends with the longshoremen's union. So if they objected i could see this as being lost in the senate.
  • JBondJBond Posts: 5,039 Officer
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    If approved by the Senate as expected, boatyards that service yachts and other recreational vessels can rely instead on much cheaper state coverage.

    Why is state coverage much cheaper?
    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    - Frederic Bastiat
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    JBond wrote: »
    Why is state coverage much cheaper?

    Smaller benefits. USL&H was required in addition to state coverage.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • JBondJBond Posts: 5,039 Officer
    So cutting benefits and shifting costs to the state is a good thing in this case?
    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    - Frederic Bastiat
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    JBond wrote: »
    So cutting benefits and shifting costs to the state is a good thing in this case?

    How are they shifting costs to the state?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • JBondJBond Posts: 5,039 Officer
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    How are they shifting costs to the state?

    Maybe shifting is a poor choice of words, but the union will want to keep the benefits in their contract, including the amount of worker's compensation, right? Can the feds just take it away? I'm asking because I am not clear on a few things, obviously. It seems the law in 1972 was poorly thought out to start with.
    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    - Frederic Bastiat
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,464 AG
    JBond wrote: »
    Maybe shifting is a poor choice of words, but the union will want to keep the benefits in their contract, including the amount of worker's compensation, right? Can the feds just take it away? I'm asking because I am not clear on a few things, obviously. It seems the law in 1972 was poorly thought out to start with.

    I doubt there are many union workers in the trades effected.
    Vote for the other candidate
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.