Case Overview, Recreation Marine Employment Act

 

           The difference between a "boat" and a "ship" may seem to be of little importance except to language purists. It turns out, however, that there is an important difference in law. If a vessel is no more than 65 feet in length, it's a boat; more than 65 feet and it's a ship. More to the point, a ship falls under the requirements of the Longshore and Harbors Worker Compensation Act. Those who work in one way or another on ships, must have federal longshoreman coverage and participate in state workers compensation programs. The law includes companies that build vessels of more than 65 feet, as well as those who are involved in manufacturing related products and servicing such craft. As a result, a small business on a marina that services small and medium size craft comes under the law if a single vessel it works on exceeds 65 feet.

           The businesses in the small pleasure craft industry believe that they should be exempt from this law because which they feel does not technically apply to them. They have to pay money to participate in an insurance program they believe was not intended for them. There's no question that the primary target for the law are longshoreman-the workers that unload cargo ships after they dock at a port. Longshoremen work in environments full of heavy containers and equipment. Today, with an array of safety standards in place, workers are surely better protected from injury than when the Longshore and Harbors Act first became law in the late 1920s. There wasn't workman's compensation in every state then either so the federal law was intended to provide coverage to those who would not otherwise receive it.

           In the 107th Congress trade groups representing small businesses began working on an amendment to the law with the Recreational Marine Employment Act. A lobbyist for one of the groups explained: "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 [our member businesses] need to have the federal longshore coverage and state workers comp, and it is very expensive and we don't believe it's applicable to the recreation and marine industry. [We shouldn't] be paying these expenses and we don't really have the injuries." She noted that there were many pleasure craft that were a bit longer than 65 feet and that length seemed to be a wholly arbitrary demarcation between a boat and a ship.

           Those with an interest in amending the law created the Recreation Marine Employment Coalition and began working with a few legislators on the House Education and Workforce Committee. The legislation proceeded slowly as few members saw the bill as a major priority for the committee. The Coalition knew that it would be considerably easier to get the bill through the House if there was bipartisan support. Consequently, it reached out to Representatives of both parties serving on the Education and Workforce Committee. No immediate opposition emerged and organized Labor, which might seem to be a natural antagonist to legislation designed to weaken worker protection, didn't mobilize against the bill at this early stage. Possibly it was waiting to see any serious movement on the legislation before it committed resources. Indeed, the legislation failed to progress and no new law had emerged when the final gavel was brought down on the 107th Congress.