Advocate Summary

Issue:  Recreation Marine Employment Act
Advocate:  National Marine Manufacturers Association – Kelly Bobek
Date of Interview: 6/25/02

Basic Background
About a year ago we started working on an issue that deals with Longshore and Harbors Workers Compensation Act and recreational boating. The way the last amendments in the 80s had it was for 65 feet and under you’re a boat, for 65 feet and larger you’re a ship and ships fall under Longshore and Harbors Worker Compensation Act. And so the recreational marine industry is interested in it because they decipher between a ship and a boat definition wise with footage, and we obviously here don’t believe that to be accurate; the length of a boat shouldn’t indicate whether it’s a boat or a ship. We feel that a better definition needs to be put forth in the law, because basically you need to have the federal longshore coverage and state workers comp, and so it is very expensive and we don’t believe it’s applicable to the recreation and marine industry to be paying these expenses and we don’t really have the injuries and we don’t hire longshoremen to be included. So about a year ago we started talking about amending the act, to remove ourselves, or at least to define what a recreational boat is versus a ship and then if you fall under that category you could be removed and you wouldn’t have to purchase the insurance. 

I represent the boat builders, the accessory manufactures and the engine manufacturers so the builders, the marina people, who are also in this office as well, but they are an affiliate, they represent all the marinas. The marinas are the ones that if somebody comes onto their property and they have to monitor these people, and contractors have to have longshore insurance, if they don’t they could be liable because, because if an accident happened on their property they would fall into the lawsuit because they weren’t checking to make sure they were properly covered.  And then the subcontractors would have to have this insurance, some do and some don’t which makes for an un-level playing field, so some people are taking their chances and aren’t covered, which means their rates could be a lot lower, and you have people paying insurance and that’s just not competitive. So internally we thought, lets just remove ourselves from this act, considering we think we have enough rational to say why we don’t deserve to be in it and that we don’t hire longshoreman and we don’t build ships.

If you are a longshoreman you work by the docks, and you put stuff on the ships, whatever the cargo happens to be if you are a longshoreman you are working usually around ports. I don’t think it was really meant to be for someone you know, fixing carpet or fixing an engine at a marina. The longshoreman jobs are more inherently dangerous, you are working on ships and a typical ship isn’t made of fiberglass like a recreational boat would be. It is welding and cranes and things like that it is not your pleasure craft. So inherently you probably have more accidents and injuries in the ship building. And the reason they have this federal coverage is because in like 1927, I think was when the act was introduced, state workers comp wasn’t in every state or it wasn’t adequate, so they needed federal protection and so Congress said we need to protect these longshoremen with federal coverage, so that’s how that came to be. In the 20s the recreational boating industry wasn’t really an industry and it wasn’t even a consideration to define a ship and a boat. They opened the amendments in the 80s and they tried to define it. And they included marinas because they realized marina functions didn’t really need to be there, but if a marina employee works on a boat they suddenly aren’t exempted anymore so that’s not really clear. I think if you are handling food and pumping gas you are exempted but the minute you go and turn a wrench you’re not. And most marinas are small mom and pop shops and they do everything there, and so technically in the big scheme of things they’re not being excluded because they’re still having to pay for it. And it is a really expensive insurance. We think we should be considered land based workers under state compensation. All the laws that apply to everyone else we think should apply to us, we don’t think we should need this separate longshore insurance. So that brought in the subcontractors, the marine operators, the boat builders, the doc builders. We found out that if you have a boat show and you have to build up your doc for your crafts to come in you have to pay for longshore insurance. So it gets expensive and complicated and most people don’t know they need it. It’s kind of a mess, so we decided we needed to try to clarify it. And we went to our member of congress, who was very interested in the issue and he agreed to introduce it, it got introduced maybe a month ago. 

Prior Activity on the Issue 
None mentioned.

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
It’s kind of a mess, so we decided we needed to try to clarify it. And we went to our member of congress, who was very interested in the issue and he agreed to introduce it, it got introduced maybe a month ago. That’s Congressman (Richard) Keller (R-FL) from the Orlando area in Florida. So he introduced the bill and we have like 13 co-sponsors on it right now including a good broad range of Republicans and Democrats alike. We’re not unionized so the unions didn’t really care, or so far haven’t, and if we aren’t unionized it doesn’t bother them one way or the other. So we haven’t really had too much opposition, we’re still doing case studies because, to show people who have concerns about moving a section of the people out – to justify why we’re doing what we’re doing. So we’re still not there yet; still doing a lot of the leg work. In the coalition, we have over a 100 people in the coalition, all different types of people, the marine related people, people from the insurance industry – we thought they would have a problem with it, they’ve actually joined the coalition they’d like us to be removed as well because they can’t insure people, because if you are too small they can’t even sell you this coverage so there are some businesses that can’t even purchase it even if they wanted to. So it’s really putting a lot of people at competitive disadvantages, so the entire industry, even the insurance people that could stand to make money off of it, have just united and said let’s clarify this. 

It is the Recreational Marine Employment Coalition, and the act it the Recreational Employment Act, we didn’t want to call it Longshore because we don’t hire longshoreman and so we didn’t want that to be the focus of the title. The reason we called it the Recreational Employment Act, is because it would save the average small business nearly a 100 thousand dollars a year, and that’s a lot of money for a small business. And so we’ve surveyed them, “ok what would you do with the savings” and they said they would retain more people because they are having to let people go because they can’t afford to keep the workforce they have or they would hire more people. So the savings, and basically the costs aren’t benefiting anybody, would actually go into hiring and retaining a stronger workforce and if you know anything about boating and our industry that would be just fabulous for the boater, for the end user because usually when you need to work on your boat, it doesn’t come right away, you have to get in line and this and that so we feel that the boater would actually have better service in the end. And training opportunities would be there to benefit the boater and the boating experience, and so that’s kind of why the bill is named how it is. 

We basically looked at the key people, members of Congress, that we’d like to support it and then we’ve gone to our coalition, to try to figure out who would have the contacts in those areas so it’s been a grassroots outreach effort. So that’s our focus right now. Internally I think there’s been three or four leaders in the coalition that have been more involved dealing with the language of the legislation, working with committee staff. That would be me, somebody from MOAA (Marine Operators Association of America), and somebody from the Marine Industries Association of South Florida, who took the lead on saying, you know saying this is a big problem – how can we solve this, and work with them to do that. So I think our grassroots out reach has been the most important. And when you can tell your member of congress that you can create and save jobs, it became a jobs bill. It’s in the Education and Workforce Committee because it’s a workforce protection issue. We really have been putting the grassroots to work right now.  And yeah so we work with the committee staff basically to try to make sure we can sure up as many people as possible, because we don’t think this should be considered a controversial bill. But if you don’t have the Democrats and Republicans agree that it’s not controversial then it is, so that’s really where we are right now. We have Democrats on the committee that are supporting it as well as republicans on the committee, we have Democratic leadership on the bill so it is a pretty good number.  

On our website, we’ve used our website, on it we have you can write your member we call it “Making Waves” it is through Capitol Advantage a lot of associations use them, but if you go there you can click on the Recreational Marine Employment Act and here we explain what the issue is, and you can even tell a friend, and you can compose a letter and the letter is written for you and you can edit it and then you can either mail it or email it to your member of congress. And we have all our other issues and if we support it or don’t support it. We wanted to show that it is a bi-partisan issue and that it’s not a Florida issue, because a lot of the industry is concentrated in Florida because there is a lot of boating there. But federal Longshore insurance is obviously a federal issue, everybody, no matter what state you’re in, it’s applicable to you. I think Florida got more interested in it because there were more lawsuits in Florida. One of our member companies was sued because they didn’t have federal longshore insurance and they don’t build 65 foot boats, but the way the Department of Labor and the Coast Guard measures boats are two different measurements, said you should have had it – meaning that the bowel front, that thing out in front, they didn’t put it down as footage and so the Department of Labor said, oh yeah you have to include that. So basically you’re getting a 55 foot boat. And larger boats are extremely common now, and we are finding a lot more people then are needing the insurance. And my company I was speaking of lost both their lawsuits, they fought it because they didn’t think they were applicable and they still didn’t but they lost the lawsuit. 
 
Future Advocacy Activities Planned
We definitely have to work with the committee staff more on both sides of the aisle to make sure they’re comfortable with it. Right now they have raised questions with it and we are researching all their answers right now and hopefully when we do that they’ll sign off on it, if not, we’ll have to go from there, but we’re not at that stage yet, this is something very new.  

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
Rep. Richard Keller (R-FL)

Targets of Direct Lobbying
None mentioned.

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
None mentioned.

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
Recreational Marine Employment Coalition

In the coalition, we have over a 100 people in the coalition, all different types of people, the marine related people, people from the insurance industry – we thought they would have a problem with it, they’ve actually joined the coalition they’d like us to be removed as well because they can’t insure people.

Internally I think there’s been three or four leaders in the coalition that have been more involved dealing with the language of the legislation, working with committee staff. That would be me, somebody from MOAA (Marine Operators Association of America), and somebody from the Marine Industries Association of South Florida.

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
I personally haven’t talked with the Department of Labor but our people in Florida have been working with the state OSHA but they’ve also talked with federal. And basically what they say is that they don’t have a problem with changing the law, but as the law stands as it is they have to enforce it. So I don’t think they’d be in opposition I think they would have said something by now, no one has opposed it. 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
We show two things, we show why we shouldn’t be in this act and why basically the definition of a boat needs to be clarified. And then we show, and with that savings this is how the industry would improve. And it would basically create jobs. We have letters from companies that have gone under and have shown why, and it is this insurance, they couldn’t keep up with it. And if they don’t have it they face criminal and financial liabilities so they had to close up their doors. And finding qualified service people in the waterway and marinas or wherever you need to fix your boat is extremely difficult. So that is the intent of the legislation. 

We define what a recreational marine facility would be, because we want to exclude that – so that would be you build, repair and maintain accommodate, you can sell, buy, it is basically describing a marina where recreational boats would be. And for a recreational vessel it means a vessel manufactured and operated principally for pleasure use. Ships are for commercial use, but we didn’t want to get involved in commercial versus recreational use because you could buy a recreational boat and use it for commercial use, but it still is a recreational craft, the manufacturers intent was for recreation. Luxury cruise liners aren’t exempted by this definition because the intent was never recreational, it was commercial, even though you pay money for a recreational experience that ship was built for commercial purposes. So they’re not excluded. And that was a big thing, if you have somebody having fun on the boat that’s a recreational purpose, like a dinner cruise – like the Odyssey, even though you pay 100 dollars to have a pleasurable experience the intent of building that thing was obviously for commercial purposes. So even if I bought the Odyssey because I wanted to always host parties and make it my pleasurable experience the intent of that manufacturer was still for commercial purposes. So we’re just saying like an 85 foot Viking or a SeaRay or a yacht are obviously recreational crafts, so that’s kind of how that definition came to be. It may prove to be controversial maybe not, this may not prove to be the definition we get at the end of the game, we don’t know. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
None mentioned.

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
We don’t really see any opposition, no. We definitely have to work with the committee staff more on both sides of the aisle to make sure they’re comfortable with it. Right now they have raised questions with it and we are researching all their answers right now and hopefully when we do that they’ll sign off on it, if not, we’ll have to go from there, but we’re not at that stage yet, this is something very new.  

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
Not applicable. 

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
Not applicable. 

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
Not applicable. 

Described as a Partisan Issue
No they have supporting co-sponsors from both parties

Venue(s) of Activity
Education and Workforce Committee

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
It hasn’t been in the Senate yet, like I said it is brand new, so I don’t know where it will go this year. As much as I’d like to think it could pass this year, it is probably something we will work on in the next Congress but we will have built up a lot of name ids before. 

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Working to pass the Recreation Marine Employment Act that would amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act to exempt recreational marine industry workers. 

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
I was a political science major, this was my first job out of college, pretty entry level and I worked here for probably 4 years, and I got some political experience elsewhere and about two years ago my former boss called me up and told me there was a director position and would I like to come back, and this is just a really neat industry, the accessory parts people need the boat builder, the engine manufactures need the boat builder, they all sort of work together. And if you have an engine issue it leads to a boat building issue and vice versa because it all leads to one product and so it is kind of a small intimate type of industry. So I like that, I like that I work with people that there is always a connection, it’s not like a doctor who doesn’t need the next doctor to perform his duties, everybody needed each other and it’s small business rather than major corporations and so I liked the industry so much I came back, so I’ve been here a total or 7 or 8 years. 

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
We have a law firm with us, that is helping us to strategize and guide us. We are doing a lot of work in-house meaning no-body knows the answers to these questions better than our members, so we’ve been going out to them to help with the research. So we are doing a lot of the work internally, but we do have a law firm that we talk to and that goes to the strategic meetings with us, and helps us keep on track. 

We did a survey to find out our statistical numbers like how much this will save the average company, about how many people they would employ, we did a couple of surveys on that. We need to do more of a national survey, but because state workers compensation is different in every state that it is a little more difficult to get those numbers but we are working on that. And we hired a lobby law firm. And then we’ve been building up the coalition. We haven’t hired a PR firm because we’re not the tobacco industry, it’s not that high of a profile issue. We’ve done a lot of trade press, the trade press has really liked this issue and picked up on it. Here’s an example, this is the Soundings Trade Only, in the last issue we had like the front story, and this goes to anybody and everybody in the industry, so it is a boat business newspaper, and there are tons of other papers like this, but we haven’t got into like the Washington Post or anything like that. We haven’t tried to raise the press really because we haven’t been stalled yet, once we start seeing some apprehension about it then we’ll have to see how we can get over that. Right now they’ve just asked us to answer a couple questions for them and we are going back to do that, we’re at step one. 

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
Two 

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
In our office we have an NMMA lead on the issue which is the manufacturers and then the marinas have a lead on it and so they reach out to their MOAA (Marina Operators Association of America) members they have staff here as well. They represent different people but they are an affiliate of the larger association. So there are two lobbyists and two from the law firm. 

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)
Businesses

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous
Also separate but related is that OSHA would come in and inspect boat building facilities, and site them for ship building violations, but they weren’t building ships, so they worked with the Department of Labor and the showed them that boat building and ship building are separate and that they should follow a general industry regulation. And OSHA changed their policy and said don’t go in and site boat builders for ship building violations, because they don’t build ships. So even though it is a separate issue we kind of – we can say you know, the Department of Labor recognizes that boat building and ship building are different but half of longshore isn’t the building but most of longshore is the usage, the marinas.