![COLUMN | Life at sea in the 21st century: redundancy, DP training and harassment [Offshore Accounts]](http://media.assettype.com/bairdmaritime%2F2025-12-01%2Fkie3dca3%2FUntitled.jpeg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
Last week’s exclusive on the redundancies at DOF was surprisingly ignored by the rest of the industry press. I am guessing that the DOF press team’s policy of declining to reply to any journalists’ questions has paid dividends for now.
Traditional shipping industry publications like to be fair and balanced, and annoying a major shipowner carries a price for journalists in terms of access and invites to newbuilding launches and other freebies (which is why this column is anonymous). Therefore, if some seafarers come forward and say they have been sacked before Christmas (albeit in scrupulous accordance with Danish rules), the natural reaction for most journalists (myself included) is to write to the company for its point of view. We tried that and got nothing back from DOF, so we ran the story anyway.
Of course, the DOF press team is busy telling analysts how much filthy cash the subsea company will generate in profits this year, and if two hundred or so Danish, British, Polish and Croatian seafarers have been sacrificed (we hear different numbers from different sources) to make the company even more profitable in 2026, CEO Mons Aase probably thinks, “so be it.”
Rather than diving straight into our Twelve Days of Christmas on Advent, we will begin that next week and close with our offshore take on twelve drummers drumming before Epiphany.
One of the ironies is that every offshore company seems to offer the cant that their people are their most important asset. Also, every industry group seems to fret that nobody wants to go to sea anymore.
Strange, because if the industry truly aligned itself with the interests of seafarers, they might not come across as so hypocritical or self-interested.
Give a little respect to your crew, please.
This week we cover three aspects of life at sea – firstly, the impact of being made redundant by companies like DOF, because too often, glib CEOs neglect the human impact of their actions. This Advent, we want to bring this first and foremost to the picture.
Secondly, an assessment of the continuing professional development requirements which the Nautical Institute made mandatory at the start of last year for Dynamic Positioning Officers (DPOs). We predicted a pointless exercise in money-making by the Nautical Institute and its affiliates, and what we are reading from seafarers suggests that this is exactly what it has become.
Quite why the unions, the ITF and the Nautical Institute in particular, are happy to let their members be gouged in an exercise that appears to have done nothing to raise safety is not clear to me.
Finally, we look at the introduction of mandatory training for all seafarers on preventing and responding to violence, harassment (including sexual harassment), bullying, and assault. This certification will be required from January 1, 2026 and will become part of the essential competencies every seafarer must meet. Is yet another obligatory course really going to make life at sea safer and better?
If you look at any offshore HR and crewing people’s posts on social media, their life appears to be one of joyful vessels visits where they meet seafarers and express admiration for all their hard work, with hashtag same team, same dream, blah blah blah.
The reality is often less positive, but all the fair-faced personnel officers never post that they laid off thirty European officers by email to replace them with cheaper crew from other countries so that the CEO could pay himself an extra large bonus. Strange that.
As a reminder of the human consequences of redundancy, we give a voice to a seafarer who was laid off by DOF. Let’s hope the HR department and the office of the CEO read it, and can adjust their behaviour and provide more support.
His words have been edited for clarity in places and all identifying personal information has been removed.
“The story starts in early October when DOF announced at a town hall meeting about the mass redundancy in the latter part of October, affecting some 130 permanent employees.
"When Maersk Supply Service (MSS) merged with DOF, we were assured that nothing would change and that it would be business as usual. Little under half a year later, they are laying people off, some of which have been employed previously by MSS for up to 20 years. They stated that after the redundancies were sent to people, clarity would be provided for any and all.
"There was a supposed criteria for who would be selected to keep their jobs; the criteria were [allegedly] as follows: 1) appraisals; 2) experience on project vessels; and 3) promotability.
"[I had worked on project vessels] and my appraisals were good, always stated that I would be welcome back, not many negative comments, just room for improvement, especially in the earlier days of my career. That’s two parts of the criteria that I was able to meet.
"So, meeting two of the company’s main criteria, I was fairly confident that my experience and good graces would be enough to maintain my employment; however, I was one of the unlucky many. I believe that DOF’s agenda was entirely money driven when choosing the people who would be laid off.
"The very concept of redundancy is that my position on this vessel that I work on is no longer a position, it has been made redundant, therefore I am no longer needed in the role. I have talked with my chief engineer, and he assured me that when this vessel is on project, he will have need for at least two junior engineers. If I leave my role and I am replaced by an agency engineer, I believe this will be illegal.
"I’d like to point out a couple more things. I’ve never ever missed a day of work since my career started, never missed a trip due to illness, only using my accumulated leave days and paternity leave, both of which I’m entitled to… I’ll now struggle to support [my family] if I can’t find a job within my meagre notice period, which they have asked me to work anyway, despite my termination.
"Any questions I have asked about my termination with the company, namely, 'Why?' have been met with corporate responses and no reason has been given whatsoever despite their original plan to 'provide clarity'. They won’t tell me why I’ve been sacked; the typical response is, 'this is a mass redundancy and Danish law has been followed'.
"I believe a man is entitled to know why he’s losing his job, at the very least, and I think the reason they aren’t telling me is because their so-called criteria was a load of nonsense, which they created to hide the fact they’re cutting out skilled workers for a cheaper option in the future.
"I’ve lost sleep and a great deal of weight since my dismissal and now all I want is the answer to my question: 'Why?'”
As we said last week, the ball is back in DOF’s court to improve the insensitive handling of this mass redundancy.
From the lack of denial from the company, we can assume that, yes, cost savings by replacing European officers and crew with lower cost alternatives is a motivation despite the company’s record profits and multi-billion dollar order book.
Likely, you are going to experience the five stages of grief, known as the Kübler-Ross model, which was introduced by Dr Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in 1969. Losing your job is stressful and emotional, and there are five stages of grief that you may experience when dealing with redundancy or firing, especially if you have been at a company for a long time, and especially if the news came as a surprise.
These stages are:
Denial: Refusing to accept the reality of the loss
Anger: Experiencing frustration and anger towards the situation or others
Bargaining: Attempting to negotiate a way out of the grief, often involving promises to change
Depression: Feeling deep sadness and regret as the reality of the loss sets in
Acceptance: Coming to terms with the loss and finding a way to move forward
In the DOF case, a lot of crew seem to have skipped straight to the anger stage immediately, mainly because of how badly the company handled the process.
CEO Mons Aase bragging about the company’s record profits for 2025 to officers in a seminar in Copenhagen the day before they were fired by email is sh*tty behaviour of the highest order, and you have the right to be angry. No surprise he and his insensitive lackeys don’t want to make a comment on the record to us. But you will need to move on.
Don’t expect anything from the ITF or your union if the redundancy was carried out legally with the proper notices and correct procedure.
Don’t blame yourself. This is not personal. This is not about you or your skills and competence. This is a corporate exercise in cost-cutting. The knife falls where it falls.
You were on the wrong vessel, you have the wrong salary, you were unlucky. You have skills and experience and value as a human being, and you need to work on your next career step, now.
Do turn to your support network, your colleagues and your friends and family. You would be surprised by how many unexpected new doors may open when you tap your network and look to people you know even tangentially. Support one another, pass opening to your friends. Maybe you don’t want the second engineer vacancy you saw, but someone you know might, so reach out to them.
Don’t fall into self-pity, or self-medicating via drinking or drugs or other self-destructive behaviour. It hurts, yes, but looking after your mental and physical health will help you deal with it better.
In 2023, we ran a piece on the decision by the Nautical Institute (NI) and the International Marine Contractors' Association (IMCA) to require mandatory annual continuing professional development training for dynamic positioning officers (DPOs), which came into force in 2024.
That piece received very positive feedback from readers, who were anxious that it was yet another pointless money-grabbing exercise that would cost seafarers another day of leave and few more hundred dollars of cost for no tangible benefit.
Nobody appeared to have consulted actual seafarers on the decision to make these extra training modules mandatory, or to empower a select group of industry insiders to charge for such NI-accredited courses. We published a well thought out piece by industry expert Paul Kerr on the topic.
Nearly two years on from the introduction, it seems that the sceptics were right. Captain Aleksandr Vasko posted a searing account of his experience of the process in action on Linkedin and received a torrent of support online from other offshore officers who shared his frustration.
Here’s what he said (with emojis removed):
“Is DP license revalidation process a joke?
"First – It cost now approximately £350-£400 (US$460-US$530) for the whole process instead of previous scheme with pricing of £160 (US$210).
"Second – Absolutely useless educational plan with totally nothing new about DP, just quick reminder about freely available IMCA bulletins/guidelines [that] any dumb should know. You spend hours of your time for nothing.
"Third – The interviewer's demeaning manner (during exam), without any hint of respect, is completely disgusting. By exposing everything, down to your underwear and everything around you, while charging money for the exam, the interviewer doesn't reveal himself at all. They won't even let us drink coffee at our own house during the exam, only water. And put all our things away lol. Wallet, keys, calculator — all of this will definitely help us pass this bullsh*t exam. We are paying for our humiliation.
"This was supposed to help seafarers improve their professional skills, expand their knowledge and keep enjoying the work we do with full dedication for [their] clients. And it has just become [a] money-making scheme with nothing to do about improving safety at offshore business. What are you The Nautical Institute turning the process into?”
The reader response was strong positive, with close to 500 likes, 53 comments, nearly all supportive of his points, and 16 reposts.
Just as we suspected would be the case in 2023, not one single person in the 53 comments supported the scheme. Not one single person defended the value of the training provided. Not one single person said the training offered value for money. Instead, officers were scathing.
The commentators were senior DPOs, experienced master mariners in many cases. Many of them felt completely ripped off, their time wasted, and the training pointless.
Here is what some of those officers said:
“It's nothing personal, it's just business.”
“When NI introduced it, it was met with a lot of protest, but... they have a monopoly, so they do whatever they want.”
“NI wants money!!!”
“Actual revalidation process is just a waste of time and humiliation.”
“[The NI] had the opportunity to have training sent to each vessel on DP incidents, what the failures were, how to avoid them, or actually train what to do in an emergency situation. Instead, they’re repeating the basic DP course and charging 20,000 people £50 (US$66) apiece; now that’s smart business. Likely the examiner has never even been to sea. It’s a complete failure and doesn’t teach a thing. Congratulations to all involved.”
“It’s shocking, totally agree!”
“Same as many other certificates, just money collectors.”
“Absolutely should not be like this. As almost everything else, it turned to money making business with zero respect to those who give them this money... sad and disgusting.”
“It’s an absolute disgrace the way it’s done. If you have a discharge book, a DP log and a letter of DP time you should pay your money and revalidate. We now have these ridiculous courses [that] I have begun. I get two out of the way and I’m told oh now a new rule has come in you must wait four months before continuing with the next two. Absolutely pathetic…”
“It’s about time that DP finds its way into STCW part A.”
“Revalidation should strengthen competence, not turn into a revenue model. Real DP refreshers need practical lessons from incidents and system behaviour, not expensive procedures with little operational value.”
“Totally agree. I was angered, infuriated and frustrated by the whole abysmal process and gained absolutely nothing but a hole in my wallet.”
“Just another squeeze. NI nailed it. Same as asking for an annual fee to keep your driving license valid.”
“They could just tell that, 'guys, we need money'. Revalidation now let's say 500 pounds and that's it instead of all this useless BS.”
“Yes, it’s a joke.”
“It’s just a money making scheme!”
“Said it before, it’s a money-making machine forced upon us who have to have the certificate! Shame on NI.”
This Christmas time is it too much for IMCA and the NI, the two main instigators of this training, to admit they were wrong? Maybe they could refund the fees they have collected from thousands of seafarers, and either scrap the scheme, or rethink a brand-new system with the input of seafarers?
Admitting that you are wrong is the ultimate sign of maturity, of listening to your customers, of respecting your members and demonstrating that you are open to feedback. Will anyone take the feedback on board?
I stress this again, the NI and IMCA need rethink the scheme with the input of seafarers, not training centres seeking to make a quick buck, not industry bodies representing employers looking to posture on quality at no costs to themselves, and not retired consultants trying to secure a lucrative flow of revenue.
Thousands of professionals are using DP systems day to day, every day, on board vessels, and their voices should be heard. Their expertise and skills should be respected, not placed secondary to the accountants trying to gather revenue for the NI, or training specialists looking to grift profit from the sale of courses.
I have never seen so many senior mariners agree on this point. The industry gurus who came out to Baird in 2023 to defend the training to us and to justify the concept of continuous professional development are all now utterly conspicuous by their absence.
I have not seen a mention that these mind-numbing and simplistic DP continuous professional development modules have prevented an accident, nor is there any evidence that these courses have combated the mythical problem of “skill fade.” Skill fade was never a problem, as those who had not accrued enough hours on the console under the old system before 2024 needed to take a refresher course at an actual DP training centre to revalidate their DP tickets.
Actual, living seafarers who depend on their DP certification for their livelihood have spoken. The current system is broken. However, I hesitate to demand changes for one reason: based on everything we have seen in this blighted offshore industry, what comes next will likely be worse.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe the courses are brilliant and only malcontents and ingratiates are complaining. If so, drop us a line and we will take your feedback on board, because that is what listening, learning and leading is all about.
The NI DP training fiasco brings us nicely onto the new requirement that the IMO has introduced a month from now: a new universal training requirement that ensures every seafarer, regardless of rank or vessel type, understands how to identify harmful behaviours, intervene safely, and follow proper reporting and support procedures.
Cheerleaders say, “These updates represent a global commitment to safer, more inclusive maritime workplaces.”
I am not a cheerleader; I am a realist. The horrific case of Hope Hicks, a Maersk Line cadet who was raped at sea by a senior officer in 2019 aged just 19, showed the horrible abuses that can occur.
But I don’t think another tick box course and another meaningless piece of paper will change the sad reality that ships are places where often the law fails to operate successfully. Ms Hicks was an American citizen serving on an American flag vessel and working for an American company, who sought redress in the American courts in New York.
Her heroism to come forward and to sue is exemplary, but her case is unrepresentative of the reality many seafarers face.
Good luck to any mariner on a vessel operated by a flag of convenience/“open registry”, let alone on a "dark fleet" ship run by a shady private registry on behalf of a rich entrepreneur, to come forward and seek redress for assault, bullying or rape on board. Good luck to anyone lower down in the hierarchy who reports a senior officer with years of experience.
What legal rights do seafarers have under the laws of Panama, Liberia or the Marshall Islands or wherever with a claim for even the most heinous abuse? In cases where crimes are alleged, jurisdiction is often hard to prove, and investigations are often delayed or non-existent. You were assaulted by a foreign national in international waters on a Comores flag vessel, you say, and the first port of call is Luanda? Good luck with getting any redress there.
Often there are no witnesses, often the individuals have left before the crime can be investigated, often DNA evidence is not available, often companies are simply not interested, especially when a serious claim threatens the career of someone who should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Who investigates a crime on a ship calling briefly in some terminal in the middle of nowhere? What company is willing to delay a ship for a week whilst a reliever is sent to take off the alleged malefactor at the heart of a claim that is very difficult to prove?
Rapists rape on ships, bullies bully and harassers harass because they believe that they can get away with it. No amount of training, certification, multiple choice online tests or IMO waffle can change the sense of impunity that many with power on board ships feel.
Those who rape, bully or harass their colleagues do so because they believe that they will not be punished. They can deny the claims, they can write negative performance reviews against their victims, they can pressure and isolate them on board. Until that perception changes and until the bad guys are held to account, no amount of theoretical training will be effective.
Sean Combs, Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville didn’t get away with what they did for so long because those around them lacked knowledge that what they did was wrong, both morally and criminally. They got away with it because they could.
Abuse, harassment, and even assault are not issues amenable to training. This is an issue about having the right systems and procedures at corporate level and at flag state level to prevent abuse, not making it incumbent on individuals.
Drink driving was not drastically reduced in most rich countries because bystanders were to taught, “to identify harmful behaviours, intervene safely, and follow proper reporting and support procedures.” The situation changed because drink drivers were checked by the police and breathalysed, were held accountable for their actions, and the culture around the acceptability of drink driving changed. The bad guys got sent to prison and everyone’s behaviour changed for the better.
Unfortunately, in a fragmented world of disinterested flag states, disinterested companies and often disinterested port states, culture change in maritime is hard. Maybe the new training will raise awareness and encourage people to speak up. I hope so. But we should be under no illusions that another piece of paper will change the world, sadly.
