Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221

Employment characteristics of UK seafaring officers in 1999

David Glen*, James McConville

Centre for International Transport Management, London Guildhall University, 84 Moorgate, London, EC2M 6SQ, UK

Received 24 January 2001; accepted 9 April 2001

Abstract

Although UK deck and engineer officers numbers and age distribution are now well known, certain other aspects of this group ofseafarers are not. This paper presents some new findings concerning their disposition across UK and non-UK companies, and

provides a fresh estimate of the proportions of UK officers working at sea. The findings are based on a survey of members ofNational Union of Marine Aviation Shipping Transport. The evidence provides additional confirmation for the assumption that90% of all officers are actively engaged at sea, and the numbers working for UK based companies are higher than previously

thought. Policy implications are discussed. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: UK seafaring officers : Employment patterns

1. Introduction

This paper presents an analysis of some qualitativeaspects of the UK Officer labour force, derived from theresponses of National Union of Marine AviationShipping Transport (NUMAST) deck and engineerofficers to a questionnaire [1].1 This essential qualitativedimension integrated with recent quantitative analysiscreates a clearer picture of the composition of theseagoing officer workforce. Such information is indis-pensable in determining contemporary macro trendsand highlighting potential manpower supply problems.The survey was timely, in the light of recent Govern-ment policy initiatives aimed at revitalising the UKindustry, namely the White Paper on the future of UKShipping, and the new Tonnage Tax [2].2

These initiatives have been developed with theobjective of reversing the decline in the size andimportance of the UK’s maritime sector. The sector isdefined as including both the capital and labourresources directly employed in the UK shippingindustry, and those resources employed in shore-based

maritime activities. Recent research has improvedunderstanding of the interaction between the supply ofseafarers from the sea-based sector to posts requiringsea experience in the shore based sector [3–6]. Thesestudies have led to a considerable expansion in thequality and range of information available on UKseafarers, particularly officers. The research reported inthis paper resolves a number of issues left open by thesestudies.

The earlier research examined the seafaring labourforce in its totality, whereas the present study concen-trates solely on deck and engineer officers. A proposalfor a wide ranging survey was presented to NUMAST,which gave it their full support. In what follows, resultsderived from the questionnaire will be called ‘TheSurvey’, whilst those derived from the previous researchwill be called ‘The Analysis’.

The Survey concentrated on four main areas: firstly,an examination of the proportion of the workforceemployed on-shore; secondly, to discover the proportionof officers employed in UK and foreign owned orcontrolled companies; thirdly, an investigation into thegender composition of the labour force; finally, thevoyage patterns of those officers responding to thesurvey were analysed. This final element is not reportedon in the present paper. In this way it has been possibleto build up a profile of the UK officer labour force andits distribution across the international maritime in-dustry [7].

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-207-320-1605; fax: +44-207-320-

1463.

E-mail address: glen@lgu.ac.uk (D. Glen).1A second paper analyses the recent patterns of employment of

serving NUMAST officers. See Ref. [1].2See, for example Ref. [2] and the implementation of the Tonnage

Tax by the UK Government in the 2000 Finance Act.

0308-597X/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 0 8 - 5 9 7 X ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 2 - 4

The United Kingdom Seafarers Analysis [3–6] pre-sented an accurate picture of the number, age andqualification profile of UK deck and engine roomofficers who have gained, or revalidated, their certifi-cates to maintain their seagoing capability and compe-tency. The picture that emerges from this analysis is of ahighly qualified but ageing workforce. Using the dataderived from the certification process it was found that71% of the workforce was aged 40 years or above, andthe weighted average age was 45 years. A comparisonbetween the age profile of the Analysis and the Surveyrevealed an approximately identical pattern acrossofficers in general and in terms of deck and engineerofficers.

The first question addressed the proportion of officerswho were employed at sea and on-shore, working inkindred industries. This information was previouslyunknown because the data for active seafarers is basedon valid certification with some of these holders workingfull time on shore, usually in related industries such asport authorities. The present Survey was the firstopportunity to address the issue directly.

The initial Analysis in 1997 estimated that some 91%of officers were employed at sea, with the remaining 9%working ashore.3 This figure was constructed aroundestimates that had been made on the number of jobs on-shore, requiring the necessary qualifications. This rathersuperficial calculation proves to be a very closeapproximation to those revealed in the survey, bothgenerally, and in relation to the departments in whichthe officers are employed.

The attempts to analyse employment by the nation-ality of the employees’ company proved to be one of themost problematic areas of the survey. Previous research[8] had suggested that approximately 55% were em-ployed within UK based companies, and 45% were withforeign companies. These calculations were radicallyaltered by the survey, where, using a number of criteria,the proportion employed in UK companies representingsome 65%, with the combination of contracts withforeign employers accounting for the remaining 35%.

There has been very little research on the gender mixwithin the industry. What is surprising is just how fewfemales appear to work at sea, which is estimated at lessthan 0.5%.

2. Methodology & sample validity

A questionnaire, consisting of seven sections, wasdesigned and ‘piloted’ by being reviewed by a number ofseagoing and ex-seagoing seafarers among the staff atLGU and NUMAST. This process was invaluable in

clarifying the precise meaning of each question asked, tomaximise the chance of an accurate response. Themajority of questions were very industry specific. Thesurvey was posted to some 13,400 relevant members ofthe union in December 1999, the census date being 1November 1999. The number of responses totalled 2700,which represents 20% of the relevant categories ofNUMAST members. The sample used for the analysisconsists of 2000 valid replies (15% of the population)which were input into a database and processed usingSPSSv10 [9]. The sample was tested to ensure it wasrepresentative of the population by comparing thecharacteristics of the sample with the known character-istics of UK deck and engineer officers, as measured bythe analysis database for 30 June 1999 [6].

In order to ensure that the survey results are asreliable as possible, questions were asked of therespondent’s age, gender, qualifications and endorse-ments, along with details of certification dates. Thisinformation enabled a comparison to be made withdata from the LGU Seafarer database, an exercisewhich cannot normally be performed with samplingframes.

The 1999 Analysis provides detailed data on thenumbers and age profiles of all UK deck and engineercertificate holders. A comparison of the age profile withthat obtained from the Survey is shown in Table 1.

There were 1961 valid cases in the Survey sample.Validity is defined as being a male UK national, whoholds a valid current seagoing certificate at the censusdate of the survey. In this total there were 39respondents who do not fit these criteria. Both themean and standard deviations are age frequencyweighted. The data presented in Table 1 confirms thatthe sample survey is an extremely accurate profile of theage distribution of the population. This was furtherexplored by examining the age profile in more detail inTable 2.

This table reveals some differences in the distributionsof the two data sets, even though the mean values areidentical. There appears to be some under weighting ofyounger seafarers in the Survey data, and an over-emphasis of officers in the age group 45–55 years. Everypercentage share of the 20–30 year cohorts in the Surveyis less than found in the Analysis data (e.g. 2.8% for20o25 years compared to 4.45%), whilst the share of

Table 1

Comparison of age characteristicsa

Analysis Survey

Observations 15,897 1,961

Mean age (years) 44.46 44.93

S. D. (years) 10.85 9.3

aSource: Analysis 1999 & Survey.

3This figure was arrived at by using the information published in

Gardner B and Pettit, S [3].

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221216

the 45–50 year olds is 21% in the Survey data and only17.4% in the Seafarer database. At the other extreme ofthe age range, it is notable that only 2.1% of the Surveyrespondents are aged between 60 and 65 years,compared to 6.2% of the population in the Analysisdatabase.

Both sources confirm that a large proportion ofofficers cluster around the top end of the age scale, thatis in excess of 40 years of age, which means there is asubstantial group of officers close to retirement. Thissuggests that within a comparatively short period oftime shortages of particular skills will or could appear.Whilst the differences in the Survey and Analysis profilesmay be significant, it is not certain that the populationof officers from which NUMAST draws its membershipis identical to that of the Analysis database. Indeed,there are three reasons for expecting some differences.Firstly, engineer officers may well start their training andemployment in industries that lead them to join theAssociated Union of Engineering Workers (AUEW),and they remain with this union throughout theircareers. If this is the case, engineers will be a smallerproportion of the workforce in the Survey than is thecase for the Analysis database. Secondly, unionisationhas declined in the UK over the past 20 years, so it maybe the case that younger officers who are working at seahave failed to join a union. Thirdly, the differences inproportions of the 60–65 cohort may reflect the simplefact that sea-going personnel are more likely to be inNUMAST than non-seagoing personnel, and a greaterproportion of non-seagoing personnel are likely to befound amongst those in the oldest age categories. Thesefactors go some way in explaining the observeddifferences in the age profiles.

A number of other comparisons were made betweenthe Survey sample and the Analysis database. Theseincluded examining the responses by officer type andcertificate grade, as well as comparisons between

STCW’78 and STCW’95 certificate proportions.4 Theresults of these comparisons are not reported here, butare available in Glen and McConville [7]. The conclu-sion arrived at was that the sample did not need to bereweighted in any way: in what follows, each responsehas been weighted equally.

3. Estimating the proportion of officers working at sea

The majority of active officers within the industriesare employed in a sea-going capacity, but the questionis, what is the size of this majority?

In what follows, a subset of the Survey responses isemployed. This subset includes all UK male officers whoheld a valid seagoing certificate of competence at thedate of the survey. The number of valid responses fallsfrom 2000 to 1929. Of these, some 1702 provided validresponses to the following key questions. The questionswere:

1. Which of the following best describes your employ-ment situation as at 1 November 1999? Thecategories were: Routinely working at sea (1); Mostlywork at sea, some work on-shore (2); Some work atsea, most work on-shore (3); Routinely working on-shore (4); Unemployed (5); Retired from full-timeemployment (6).

2. Which category best describes the organisation thatemployed you on 1 November 1999? The categorieswere: Shipping Company (1); Ship ManagementCompany (2); Manning/Crewing Agency (3); PortAuthorities or related services (4); EducationalEstablishment (5); and other (6).

Cross tabulation of the above questions permits ananalysis of the proportions of officers of various types byorganisational type and regularity of employment.

A strict interpretation of ‘working at sea’ wouldcorrespond to those answering that they routinelyworked at sea. A more generous interpretation wouldalso include category 2. By relating the number ofresponses in these categories to the response to thesecond question above, a detailed picture of theproportions of NUMAST officers working at sea is onthe basis of valid responses constructed. The results arepresented in Table 3.

Taking ‘Routinely at Sea’ as the measure, some 1503deck and engineer officers out of 1702 fitted thiscategory, a proportion of 88.3%. If the definition werebroadened to include the ‘Mainly at Sea’ category, theproportion rises by an additional 4.5, to 92.8%.

Table 2

Age profiles analysis and the surveya

Age (years) Analysis (%) Survey (%)

o20 0.07 0.10

20o25 4.45 2.80

25o30 7.74 4.40

30o35 6.33 5.90

35o40 10.86 13.00

40o45 17.08 18.00

45o50 17.40 21.00

50o55 17.46 20.90

55o60 12.44 11.50

60o65 6.15 2.10

65 plus 0.0 0.30

Total 100.00 100.00

aSource: Analysis 1999, Survey.

4STCW’78 and STCW’95 are the acronyms for Seafarer’s Certifica-

tion and Watchkeeping regulations governing the issuing and

validation of officer competencies. The two systems have different

classification categories.

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221 217

This is a surprising result. The Analysis first publishedin 1997 [3] arrived at an estimate that 91% of all officerswere seagoing, that is worked at sea. This was achievedby using a model constructed around the estimatednumber of jobs on-shore that required valid certificateholders, and a calculation of the number of officers‘leaving the sea’. The figure arrived at was 9%, that is tosay 91% of officers were assumed to be at sea. TheSurvey figure suggests that this estimate was very closeto the correct one.

Turning to the proportion across different organisa-tional types, the table shows unsurprisingly but quiteclearly that there are only three categories worthy ofconsideration. The relevant proportions are 91.3% forShipping Companies, 89.9% for Ship Management, and88.2% for Manning/Crewing Agencies. There is thus avery small variation in this proportion across therelevant employing organisations.

The above analysis was also undertaken for deck andengineer officers individually. The proportion of deckofficers who are routinely at sea is 86.9%, which variesfrom 94.3% for Manning/Crewing Agencies to 84% forShip Management Companies in the three mainorganisational types related directly to shipping activity.

For engineers, the picture is very similar, with 90.3%being routinely at sea overall, and variations between88.0% and 94.3% in the main organisational type. Itshould be noted here that engineer officers employed byManning/Crewing Agencies were much more likely tobe at sea than deck officers in the employed in similarcircumstances, (94.3% compared to 84.4%). Overall, thedifferences do not really seem to warrant the making ofseparate assumptions about the time spent on-shore,except perhaps in the case of Manning/Crewing employ-ment [6].

When the broader definition of ‘being at sea’ isemployed, the following percentages for deck andengineer officers are obtained from the Survey. 91.4%

of deck officers and 94.7% of engineer officers were ‘atsea’ on this definition. Note that engineer officers appearto have fewer opportunities to work on shore than deckofficers do, if the difference is significant.

4. Estimation of employment by company nationality

The second core issue discussed in this paper is thedetermination of the pattern of NUMAST officeremployment between companies of UK and Foreignnationality, followed by an examination of flag registra-tion. There are of course severe difficulties attached tothe concept of a ‘national’ company, that is employerorganisational structure in any industry, which is theessence of multi-national companies, particularly themaritime industry. Any detailed debate about thenationality of any company is a rather sterile andpointless one. Nevertheless, determining the division isimportant for policy matters and government strategy,in that the identification of the numbers who may becalled upon in cases of emergency is made easier if thedivision is known.

Research carried out by the UK Chamber of Shippingestimated a general division of some 55% employed byUK companies, 45% ‘foreign’ [8]. This is the statisticthat is to be corroborated or modified. As soon as thisissue is addressed, the question of control becomesparamount. As one respondent noted, they wereemployed by a company run from Holland, but werepaid through a company registered in Bermuda.Employees of P&O Nedlloyd faced a similar confusion,in that operational decisions were being made by acompany of one nationality, and employment decisionswere being made by a company with different nation-ality, control is therefore unclear!

In order to try to resolve some of the potentialambiguities in this area, two different questions were

Table 3

Cross tabulation classified by types of employmenta

Type of employing organisation

Employment

situation

Shipping

company

Ship Management

company

Manning/Crewing

agency

Port

authorities

or related

Educational

Establishment

Other Total %

Routinely at sea 924 356 201 13 2 7 1503 88.3

Mainly at sea 38 20 12 4 0 2 76 4.5

Some work at sea 10 5 4 5 3 2 29 1.7

Mainly on-shore 23 9 2 15 6 4 59 3.4

Routinely on-shore 5 4 8 0 0 1 18 1.1

Unemployed 11 2 1 1 0 2 17 1.0

Total 1011 396 228 38 11 18 1702

(%) 59.4 23.3 13.4 2.2 0.6 1.1 100.0

aSource: Survey.

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221218

asked at different points of the questionnaire. Therelevant questions were:

1. What is the nationality of the company effectivelycontrolling your employment at 1 November 1999?

2. As at the 1 November 1999, what is the nationality ofthe company that effectively controls the operation ofthe vessel which you are employed on?

In both cases, only three boxes were provided: UKbased, non-UK based, and unknown.

As already argued and judging by the comments madein the last part of the questionnaire, some respondentsfelt that these questions did not permit a full range ofanswers. Several officers, who were employed by P&O/Nedlloyd, commented on the fact that ship operationalcontrol was vested in a UK registered company, whilstpersonnel decisions were being determined by a Dutchregistered organisationFso the answers to the twoquestions may not exactly correspond. Indeed, it is amoot question as to whether the ‘nationality’ of anylarge multi-national company really means anything atall. On the other hand, the country of domicile doesdetermine the regulatory regime under which its employ-ment and tax affairs are determined, and these are thefundamental issues that are of concernFnamely, whocontrols the capital resources, and who controls thelabour resource?

Table 4 shows the analysis of responses to thequestion concerning the nationality of the companythat effectively controls officer employment.

This table shows quite clearly that around 64% of allofficers surveyed are employed by UK based companies,with a slightly higher proportion for deck officers(65.5%), and a lower proportion for engineer officers(61.2%). These proportions are computed including the3% unknown responses. If these are excluded from thecalculations, the overall share for UK based companiesbecomes 65.8%, whilst for deck and engineer officers itbecomes 67.6% and 63.1%, respectively.

A similar analysis of the responses to the secondquestion is presented in Table 5. There are a number ofinteresting points. First, the proportion of officers whodo not know the nationality of effective operationalcontrol is much greater than in Table 4 (11% comparedto 3%). Second, the estimates, as presented, are muchcloser to the 55% and 45% UK:Foreign split employedby the UK Chamber of Shipping. Third, if theproportions are computed ignoring the ‘unknown’ (orin effect, assuming that the unknown will also split in thesame proportion as the known), the revised proportionaldivision is 64.6% and 35.4% for deck officers, 63.9%and 36.1% for engineer officers, and 64.3% and 35.7%for all officers in the Survey.

To summarise this section, two different questionswere asked in an attempt to measure the proportion ofofficers employed by UK based companies. The firstquestion used control of employment, while the secondused control of the vessel. After adjusting for the‘unknown’ responses, it was found that 65% of allofficers were employed by UK based companies, or

Table 4

Officer employment by nationality of companya

Officer Nationality of company effectively controlling employment

UK based Foreign Unknown Total

Deck 752 359 36 1147

(%) (65.5) (31.2) (3.1) (100.0)

Engineer 479 280 23 782

(%) (61.2) (35.8) (2.9) (100.0)

Total 1231 639 59 1929

(%) (63.8) (33.1) (3.1) (100.0)

aSource: Survey.

Table 5

Effective operational control by nationalitya

Officer Nationality of company effectively controlling the vessel worked on

UK based Foreign Unknown Total

Deck 648 354 145 1147

(%) (56.5) (30.9) (12.6) (100.0)

Engineer 463 262 57 782

(%) (59.2) (33.5) (7.3) (100.0)

Total 1111 616 202 1929

(%) (57.6) (31.9) (10.5) (100.0)

aNB percentages are relative to row totals. Totals may not add up to 100 because of rounding.

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221 219

worked on vessels controlled by UK based companies.This proportion is significantly larger than that used bythe UK Chamber of Shipping. The difference may bedue to a combination of factors: notably to the structureof Chamber membership, and possible bias in thecharacteristics of employment of NUMAST members,who may be more UK company oriented than of all UKSeafarers as measured by the 1999 Analysis. The latterfact is of course possible, but seems at best unlikely.

5. Gender Analysis

The 1999 Analysis was unable to estimate theproportion of female officers in the population, becausethe data which was used to construct the database didnot include information about gender. Some estimateswere available from the UK Chamber of Shippingsurvey, but this related only to member companies ofthe Chamber [8]. Table 6 provides the analysis of thesurvey’s findings on the gender divide by officer type, forUK nationals who hold a valid seagoing certificate.

The percentage of female officers is extremely small inthe sample, being 0.5% for deck officers, and 0.3% forengineers. If these figures are applied to the estimatednumbers of UK officers in the 1999 Analysis, therewould be 44 female deck officers, and 22 engineerofficers, a total of 66 officers (to the nearest wholenumber!). The equivalent figures, based on the UKChamber of Shipping returns and scaled up in a similarfashion, yielded 78 deck and 29 engineer officers. Whilstthe percentage difference is large in the case of femaledeck officers, the absolute numbers are so small that theerror is not very significant. Hence, it could be arguedthat the industry’s attempts to draw recruits from thefemale labour force and retain them has had, at best, alimited impact.

6. Policy implications

The information contained in the annual publicationsof the Analysis [4–6], together with the results presentedin this paper, provide a rich picture of UK deck andengine room officers. The revised estimates of Active

Seafarers, compared to the 1999 Analysis figures, arepresented in Table 7.

A number of points are worth commentary. First,using the 88% figure for officers working routinely atsea, a revised estimate of 14,037 ‘Active’ officers isobtained, 3% less than previously assumed. Second, thenumber of officers who are effectively employed by UKbased companies rises to 8956 from 7956, because of theincrease in proportions observed in the survey.

An implication of this is that the pool of UKnationals who can supply services to companies takingadvantage of the new tax regime for Shipping Compa-nies is correspondingly lower than previously thought.This places increased emphasis on the need to both raiserecruitment of new officers through increased cadettraining, and to reduce the wastage rates of existingofficers [10].5

Finally, the extremely low numbers of female officersgive grounds for both negative and positive comment.On the negative side, it is clear that many women havefaced real cultural difficulties in forging successfulcareers as officers. NUMAST is currently campaigningamongst its members to change the prevailing male-oriented culture that exists in this sector. The positiveside is the fact that such small numbers imply that theremay be real scope for improving officer numbers bytargetting women as potential future officers.

7. Conclusions

This paper has presented some of the results of anextensive survey of UK deck and engineer officers whoare NUMAST members. The survey results haveincreased the level of information on three main areas:the proportion of officers working at sea, their deploy-ment between UK and foreign companies, and theirgender mix. It was shown that the proportions of officerswho were routinely or mainly at sea varied between 88%and 93%, figures which straddled the value of 91% usedin previous research. It was also shown that theproportions of UK officers whose employment waseffectively controlled by UK companies was much

Table 6

Gender composition of survey respondentsa

Certificate type F M Total

Deck 6 1147 1153

Engineer 2 782 784

Total 8 1929 1937

aSource: Derived from Survey.

Table 7

Revised estimates of UK officer disposition 1999a

Analysis Survey

Total Numbers 15897 15,897

At Sea 14,466 14,037

UK Companies 7,956 8,956

Foreign Companies 6,510 5,081

aSource: 1999 Analysis and Survey.

5See Ref. [10] for a discussion of the implications of shortfalls for

land-based maritime services.

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221220

higher than had been assumed hitherto. When thegender composition of the respondents was analysed,only 0.04% were found to be female. The policyimplications of these findings were discussed.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their grateful thanksto all the seafarers who participated in this Survey. Wealso wish to acknowledge the contribution of NUMASTwho not only encouraged their membership to take partin the Survey, but also sponsored it by providing theresources for distributing the questionnaire. Specialmention is also due to Dr. K. Al-Haimus, who providedinvaluable research assistance.

References

[1] Glen D, McConville J. An analysis of employment durations of

UK seafaring officers, 1999.

[2] DETR British Shipping. Charting a new course. London: HMSO,

1998.

[3] Gardner B, Pettit S. The UK Economy’s requirements for people

with experience of working at sea. Report to the Department of

Transport, Chamber of Shipping and Marine Society. University

of Wales, Cardiff, 1996.

[4] McConville J, Glen D, Dowden J. United Kingdom

Seafarers Analysis 1997. The Centre for International

Transport Management, London Guildhall University, London,

1998.

[5] McConville J, Glen D. United Kingdom Seafarers Analysis 1998.

The Centre for International Transport Management, London

Guildhall University, London, 1999.

[6] Glen D, McConville J, Dowden J. United Kingdom

Seafarers Analysis 1999. The Centre for International

Transport Management, London Guildhall University, London,

2000.

[7] Glen D, McConville J. Employment characteristics of UK

seafaring officers. The Centre for International Transport

Management London Guildhall University, London, 2000.

[8] Dowden, J. Fleet and manpower inquiry. UK Chamber of

Shipping, London, 1999.

[9] SPSS Inc. SPSS for Windows, v10. Chicago: SPSS Inc, 1999.

[10] Gardner B, Pettit S. The land-based jobs market for seafarers:

consequences of market imbalance and policy implications.

Marine Policy 1999;23(2):161–75.

D. Glen, J. McConville / Marine Policy 25 (2001) 215–221 221