What benefits do you all think you are missing?

[Scott Beveridge]

Dear all offshore trash,

Do you think that we ROVers as a group should have benefits / more benefits such as our office staff have? Such as proper insurance, Biz class flights on flights longer than 5 hrs.?

Safety courses, HUET, medicals, and a few specialty courses that are sometimes required would also be worth a mention.

And what about retainers? Say 30 – 40% of our monthly worth whilst "Waiting For Work". Fair or not?

Out of work lads??????

[boroman]

i thought that was the beauty of being a dayrater, so that your not tide to any one company. Sounds to me that you want your cake and eat it as well 🙂

[Scott Beveridge]

Do you want to keep getting the stale crumbs? Why not have at least half a cake?

[Excableguy]

Business class flights….. Paid for "Waiting" for work?
WTF – You are a day rate ROV tech not a bloody banker…… Go get an MBA if you want business class flights.
No wonder industry managers do not take ROVWorld seriously, forum posts like these do huge damage.

Dream on.

After that employers will be demanding that those flying more than 5 hours to a job, show a recent tax statement before getting issued with the ticket. I prefer to stay just exactly where I am…. sitting quietly in economy, keeping my head down and keeping away from the tax man!

[James]

I have to agree with Excableguy.

I have worked for Oceaneering for 15 plus years, they may not (do not) pay top money but then I have never been with out work, had to pay for any training (in fact paid full rate for training, mileage or airfare, plus expenses), Passport or Transportation Workers Identification etc.

Benefits include but not limited to:
Internet Access at home paid for, Door to Door travel, Uplift for Overseas, Bi-Annual Bonus based on % of gross (% dependent on position/years of service).

Besides a Dodgy ROV the Company as a whole is pretty good to work for.

IMHO.

[James McLauchlan]

Safety courses, HUET, medicals, and a few specialty courses that are sometimes required would also be worth a mention.

The rest I have chopped out as a non starter, but the above is pretty much covered in the existing divers agreement as the bulk of it is built into the agreement by way of additional sums on top of the day rate.
I would expect to see similar in a combined subsea agreement.

[James McLauchlan]

No wonder industry managers do not take ROVWorld seriously, forum posts like these do huge damage.

Let me just state…..

Whilst I agree that some forum posts have been known to be off beat, as an independently run website ROVworld was not created to be taken seriously by industry managers. It has never purported to do so.

ROVworld was created by two offshore people primarily to supply general information on the offshore ROV industry free of charge to those that may be in need it. We believe it meets it’s primary role.

Industry managers should create their own website if they wish to be impressed by their own achievements. Then I could post on their website and post an equally benign comment.

[Excableguy]

James,
If you believe that there are no company managers looking at your site and trying to gauge opinion, then I think you underestimate what you and Gina have put together.
ROVWORLD will assist with formation of opinions (whether by accident or design – it is what forums are for after all!). The current union info shows more organisation than has ever been shown previously in the ROV industry and a glance at the page view numbers indicates how many are interested (or concerned).
So well done for what you have achieved.
Totally ridiculous and unachievable demands do not enhance the case for sensible union debate.

Look at what happened, no so long ago in uk, to the miners and car workers. Public opinion and sympathy does not swing behind crazy demands or whingers.

P.S. I am not advocating recommendations in OI

[James McLauchlan]

For sure some industry management reads what goes on here.. It’s probably not high on their agenda, but I do see a greater read rate of late and that’s not necessarily as a results of our general membership getting interested all of a sudden. However, the site is mainly geared around offshore ROV types, as you can see by the way the forum boards are named/structured.
I am, these days, somewhat aware of the way the site has become known in the industry but, I guess, with it having been around in one form or another since 2000, it had to register somewhere.

Totally ridiculous and unachievable demands do not enhance the case for sensible union debate.

I agree wholeheartedly with the excerpt I quoted above from, Excableguy’s post, and am very mindful of trying to counteract wacky suggestions with constructive arguments on my part.
Actually, I’m beginning to run out of steam (not patience) in that respect.

Where do I stand in all this?
I’m not pro-union, but I am pro collective bargaining.
I’m not for massive pay rises, but do look for pay and conditions to be regulated as per terms similar to the current divers agreement.
I’m not for tabling unreasonable demands, but do agree with all parties coming to a reasonable arrangement by way of (if I had my way) a combined blanket subsea agreement.
I do object to the companies having it all their own way with ROV. They don’t with the divers, they don’t in Norway and they don’t in Oz and they shouldn’t in the UK sector of the North Sea either. It should be a two way deal.

Retainers are off my agenda as a non starter.
Business class flights are off my agenda as a non starter.
All other daily allowances that would be pertinent to ROV should be adopted from the divers agreement.

I keep harking on about the divers agreement, but with little modification ROV and other subsea vocations could also be subject to it’s terms along with the divers and others.

How much longer can we keep debating this?
Just get behind it and it’ll happen. Dither too many more months and the initiative will be lost.. game over. The companies will be laughing all the way to the bank and we’ll still probably have people on here asking if joining the OILC branch of the RMT is the right thing to do!

It will be around that point onwards that you may start hearing very little from me on the matter as I really do have plenty else to get on with in my life and can’t afford to sit around endlessly debating what the right move should be.

I made a decision. I got behind it. If people can’t see the way forward, or make a decisive decision themselves, then OK I’ll drop the idea and make another plan and get behind that, but you can guarantee it will not be me spending the same amount of time and effort supporting something that I will not gain from personally!

[luckyjim37]

The big problem with what benefits we do or do not get comes down to how we are contracted.

I see no reason why a company should pay for my medical or survival courses as I am an agency/self employed contractor.

If I was employed by a company then I would expect it as would everyone I hope.

I do think that if companies offer the office staff gym memberships to a specific local gym in the city where the office is then they should at least offer some kind of scheme to the workers who do not live in that city. Which at the very least would subisdise a gym membership for them. After all we have to pass medicals to work the majority of the office staff don’t.

An offshore worker should if they are on a company salary contract be given the same benefits as office staff or a version of these benefits taking into account where they live.

[James McLauchlan]

I see no reason why a company should pay for my medical or survival courses as I am an agency/self employed contractor.

If the deal can be made, take it. Don’t give it away though.

That many divers can’t all be wrong

From the divers agreement:

6 Allowances and Ancillary Payments

The following allowances apply from 1 November 2006.
a) Travel, Subsistence, Protective Clothing and Dental Certificates
A payment of (£ see Appendix2.3) per day for each day or part day spent working offshore will be paid by the Employer for:
(i) the cost of all travel from home to the point of mobilisation and return and associated subsistence costs. (The point of mobilisation and return shall be a port or airport on the mainland of the UK). In the event, however, that actual travel and associated subsistence costs are reimbursed by the Employer then (£ see Appendix 2.3) in respect of the daily travel and subsistence allowance will not be paid, so long as the totality of the reimbursement is not less than the multiple of (£ see Appendix 2.3) times the number of days or part days spent working offshore. With effect from 1 November 2006, where a tour of duty is such that the actual cost of travel and subsistence is not fully covered by the daily travel and subsistence allowance, approved travel and subsistence costs will be reimbursed by the Employer against documented expenditure.
(ii) Employees will be required to provide their own Safety Boots for which the Employer will compensate the employee an allowance for which is included in the above figure.
(iii) the cost to the employee of obtaining dental certificates.
b) Medical and Offshore Survival Training
An allowance of (£ see Appendix 2.3) per day for each day or part day spent working offshore will be paid by the Employer to the employee in compensation for the employee obtaining medical and offshore survival training certificates at their own expense.
c) ROV Personnel Additional Training Allowance
With effect from 1 November 1988 an allowance has been paid to ROV personnel in respect of the costs of all training. This allowance was based upon the costs of obtaining CSWIP 3.3u and CSWIP 3.4u Inspection Qualifications but was payable to personnel even if they did not have such qualifications or whether they had other qualifications as the allowance was intended to encourage ROV personnel to undertake training courses.
These rates will be paid to ROV personnel for the type of operations on which they are employed (i.e. the particular job) and NOT in respect of the ROV qualifications which they hold.
These training allowances have been increased on 1 November each year in accordance with the index of retail prices provision in September of that year as set down in Clause 6 (d). With effect from 1 November 2006 these new training allowances will be (£ see Appendix 2.3):
d) The allowances in a) b) and c) above will be uplifted on 1 November of each year based upon the actual percentage increase of retail prices between September of the preceding year and September of the year for uplift (the RPI index that shall be used throughout this Agreement to determine the percentage increase shall be that published by the National Statistics Online http://www.statistics.gov.uk reference CHAW RPI: All items retail prices index.
e) Mobilisation
With effect from 1 November 1991 when an employee is required to mobilise to a worksite (i.e. a DSV, rig, barge, etc) that is moored inshore or alongside a harbour, he shall be paid at 100% of his normal rate of pay for that day. However, if the employee is required to mobilise between midnight and 06:00hrs at such a worksite, then they will also be paid at 100% of their normal rate of pay for the immediately preceding day.
For all further days of mobilisation alongside, the full offshore day rate (including any appropriate offshore increments) will apply.
f) De-Mobilisation
With effect from 1 November 2003 when an Employee is demobilised from a worksite and arrives onshore after 18:00hrs they may reclaim agreed overnight accommodation expenses if incurred.
g) Offshore Crew Changes
The full offshore day rate shall apply in all circumstances for offshore crew changes.
In the event that an offshore crew change is delayed due to inclement weather or any other factor preventing offshore transportation of the employee out with the Employer’s control then the full offshore day rate (including any appropriate offshore increments) shall apply. All personnel shall be in possession of the relevant certification and an in-date passport valid, as a minimum, for the anticipated duration of their tour of duty.
h) Onshore mobilisation or Onshore crew change.
A minimum of 3 (three) days notice shall be given prior to mobilisation. For any days less than three days notice the employee will be paid full day rate plus 25%
i) With effect from 1 November 2006 all personnel covered by this Agreement will be paid
• an additional 100% of their relevant day rate if they work on January 1, January 2, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, last Monday in August, December 25, December 26
For the avoidance of doubt, these uplifts to be paid for work on the stated days will only apply:
a) to the relevant day rate set down in Appendix 2.1 and will not apply to any other allowance or payment made under this Agreement.
b) on the stated days and if for any reason a public holiday falls on another day, then the additional payment will be made for work only on the stated day.

[Scott Beveridge]

James,

These debates seem to be a healthy sign of interest – from both sides (pro / con). Perhaps there may be signs of an ROV Yuni0n sooner rather than later.

Back to benefits…. there are many places in the world that do not give one smidgen of interest of workers rights / benefits. So bear with me here… if these folks who are so used to being treated like dog droppings appear at a large companys’ doorstep and the company has SOME benefits offered to their contractors, then what is actually stopping them from: 1.) hiring the "expats" at a much lower rate 2.) withhold some or ALL of the benefits offered to the "local" ROV guys/gals presently employed by the co. 3.)retrench "expensive" and "pampered" (one plonker in mngmt. actually used that term….!!!) ROVers.

The snowball effect will happen for a while – until the major loss / damage of expensive ROV equipment is finally assessed as a "risk / loss" factor at shareholders mtgs. and in due course the "old – expensive" ROV hands are recalled.

Counting my days to retirement but without the "I’m Awright Jack" attitude.

[luckyjim37]

So if I read the Divers agreement right as from the 1st of November 2006 the benefits mentioned within the divers agreement are applicable to the ROV industry since the word ROV appears to be there in several places.

As a contractor who works as a ltd company as I understand it I cannot under the IR35 rules receive benefits as an from the client otherwise the inland revenue would claim I should be an employee of that company.

Also as an agency worker as I understand it you are not contracted by the company but by the agency. So does that mean agencies are in fact supposed to demonstrate within your dayrate that all of these apparently mandatory benefits are being covered?

The agreement you attached does seem to be aimed more at staff employees of companies more than agency contractors or direct contractors from there own ltd companies.

[James McLauchlan]

So if I read the Divers agreement right as from the 1st of November 2006 the benefits mentioned within the divers agreement are applicable to the ROV industry since the word ROV appears to be there in several places.

Are you kidding me, or just trying to show me up on a public forum???

I screwed up. It’s all my fault and it certainly is my (seemingly very obvious) error for cutting and pasting from the draft ROV agreement. For that I am deeply sorry!

In answer to your somewhat surprising question…..

Of course ROV is not included from 2006. There is no ROV agreement as you (and just about anyone else in the UK ROV scene) full well know, otherwise you would have heard about it and this thread wouldn’t exist!! Even you should know that, having been heavily sceptical on the whole idea and posting on that very subject for months now.

Divers don’t have CSWIP 3.3u ROV inspectors qualifications either. Surprised you missed that!

I’ll tell you what …… if you really want me to, I will find the original diver agreement and substitute it for the one above to save any more silly remarks.

Jesus! 🙄 We are trying to move forwards here, not backwards!

As a contractor who works as a ltd company as I understand it I cannot under the IR35 rules receive benefits as an from the client otherwise the inland revenue would claim I should be an employee of that company.

Divers are treated, for tax and Class 1 national insurance purposes, as employees whilst they are on day rate, therefore they are entitled to receive the benefits you mention. It’s a very simple mechanism. Ergo there is no need to run a limited company and all that entails.
If you want to argue against that idea as well and stay as a limited company you will probably not receive those benefits, under rule IR35 as you say. That is your choice.

Also as an agency worker as I understand it you are not contracted by the company but by the agency. So does that mean agencies are in fact supposed to demonstrate within your dayrate that all of these apparently mandatory benefits are being covered?

You can work for an agency if you wish but in short: Yes.
Divers don’t work through agencies as, with an agreement in place, there is no need.

The agreement you attached does seem to be aimed more at staff employees of companies more than agency contractors or direct contractors from there own ltd companies.

The agreement was written for divers who are day rate direct and fall under the tax and NI rules mentioned above. They are not staff employees, as you might view them as an ROV bod. As I said before, think out of the box a little here.

Before the agreement was in place, divers worked freelance/day rate direct, which is no different to the way many ROV types are currently employed (or what ever hair you want to split and call it) in Asia and many other parts of the world.

Right now, we have a total mess of some ROV people working as limited companies, some as day rate direct and some as employees of the operators. The tax man has a field day and the operators love every seconds of that weakness in cooperation too!

Divers saw a slight change in the approach to their employment methods as the agreement came into effect, but the longer term the consolidation and benefits have by far exceeded the short term benefits of not being party to the agreement, as any diver will attest to should you happen to talk to them about it.
They know what they get paid and they know what they are taxed. They also know that their Class 1 NI covers them just as it would any UK employed person.

[luckyjim37]

Thanks for clearing those points up it makes a lot more sense now.

[Author]

Posts