Bill Overview
Title: Safer Seas Act
Description: This bill addresses sexual assault and sexual harassment in the U.S. maritime industry. Among other provisions, the bill requires the U.S. Coast Guard to revoke or suspend a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner's document to an individual who has been convicted of sexual assault within the previous 10 years and to revoke or suspend such credentials to an individual who has been convicted of sexual harassment within the previous 5 years; provides protection of seaman against discrimination for those who report or intend to report sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents; directs the Coast Guard to promulgate regulations related to possession and consumption of alcohol by crewmembers aboard documented vessels; requires non-passenger carrying, ocean-going, commercial vessels to install and maintain a video surveillance system with audio capability in areas adjacent to bedrooms and limit access to the surveillance to law enforcement officials and victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment; and creates new reporting mandates and procedures for crew and vessel owners to report sexual assault or sexual harassment.
Sponsors: Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4]
Target Audience
Population: People employed in the maritime industry worldwide
Estimated Size: 400000
- The maritime industry includes commercial vessels and mariners who work at sea.
- Sexual assault and harassment policies primarily affect individuals working in environments where these issues may occur.
- Regulation of alcohol consumption aboard vessels affects crew members, likely hundreds of thousands of individuals globally.
- Video surveillance requirements impact vessel operators and crew members due to privacy concerns and monitoring.
- Reporting mandates affect the administrative burden on vessel owners/operators and could impact victims seeking justice.
Reasoning
- Maritime workers are heavily impacted by the bill, given the focus on sexual misconduct which affects their work environment fundamentally.
- Policy leads to both immediate and mid-term gains: deterring bad actors, increasing safety, and improving operational oversight, but potential impacts to privacy and administrative work.
- Potential indirect effects on mental health and job stability of mariners due to increased surveillance and stricter regulations.
- The effect of the policy could vary significantly across genders considering differing rates of sexual harassment experiences.
- Operational costs for installing surveillance may impact vessel operators differently depending on vessel size and company resources.
Simulated Interviews
Merchant Marine (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems necessary to maintain safety at sea.
- The costs for increased surveillance might be a burden on some smaller or older ships.
- I believe safety improvements can lead to better job satisfaction long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Deckhand (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am relieved there’s finally more support for victims of harassment.
- Visibility and concrete steps to protect us are very much needed.
- I am concerned about my privacy with the surveillance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Ship Owner (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes are going to increase our operational costs significantly.
- It’s crucial to prevent harassment, but the costs could hurt small operators.
- More funding from the government would be appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
First Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law is absolutely essential for changing the culture on ships.
- More needs to be done, but this is a good first step.
- I appreciate the focus on protection for whistleblowers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Marine Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m okay with the policy as long as it doesn’t hinder our operations.
- Surveillance could prevent false accusations with proper context.
- It might add stress due to being watched all the time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Marine Cook (Galveston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I just hope the policy is actually implemented and enforced properly.
- I’m not sure how this will affect my day-to-day job.
- Stricter alcohol rules could be a double-edged sword on morale.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Port Authority Manager (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementation could be tricky, but it’s a necessary change.
- I’m glad to see focus on safety and fair treatment at sea.
- The long-term impact will likely be positive if managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Compliance Officer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There’s going to be a lot more paperwork, but it’s worth it for safety.
- This could lead to a cultural shift in how these issues are handled.
- Privacy is a concern, and we need balanced implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Coast Guard Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will enhance safety and ensure offenders are held accountable.
- Implementation will require extensive resources and coordination.
- Positive shift in accountability will lead to cultural change over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Human Resources Manager (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy backs up what we’ve been trying to do in HR for years.
- It’s going to help foster a safer and more supportive environment.
- Balancing privacy with safety could be challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $240000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $210000000)
Year 10: $130000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- The implementation and maintenance of surveillance systems could face privacy objections from vessel operators and crews.
- There will be significant upfront costs in technology and infrastructure to meet the requirements.
- The Coast Guard will need to ensure adequately trained personnel are available to handle the new responsibilities imposed by the bill.
- The measures to prevent and address sexual assault and harassment will potentially improve workforce stability.