View Full Version : Gulf coast fishermen being screwed by government/BP
rickrock305
07-17-10, 13:19
THis sh*t is enough to make your blood boil.
Any payment they receive for cleanup work they do for BP will be taken out of their claims against BP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg/print
Gulf coast fishermen angry over oil claims ruling
By Leigh Coleman Leigh Coleman Sat Jul 17, 12:46 am ET
BILOXI, Mississippi (Reuters) – Fishermen in Mississippi say they are angry that under the terms of BP's $20 billion oil spill fund, money they earn doing clean-up will be subtracted from their claim against the company.
The fishermen reacted after Kenneth Feinberg, the federal official in charge of administering the compensation fund, announced the decision at a town hall meeting in Biloxi on Friday.
Some walked out of the meeting in protest, arguing it was pointless to work under the Vessels of Opportunity program, set up by BP to help clean up the damage from the deepwater leak that started in April.
Oil stopped flowing from the leak on Thursday.
"I am furious about this," said Tuget Nguyen, who works with family members as a fisherman in Pass Christian, Mississippi.
"If he takes away the money we are making from BP when we get our claims, then nobody is going to work for BP to clean up this oil and we will not rent our boats to BP either. It is not fair," Nguyen said.
Thousands of fishermen in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, out of work because federal authorities have closed much of the Gulf to fishing, are working for the Vessels of Opportunity program, skimming oil from the water and protecting coastlines.
Vessels of Opportunity "workers can file a claim, but we will subtract the amount they are paid from BP from their claim. That is how it has to work .... Of course you can file a claim. You must file a claim, but you cannot get paid twice," Feinberg told the meeting.
Fishermen can earn between $1,000 and $3,000 a day renting their boats under the program and individuals can earn upward of $1,400 a day. Charter boat captains can make even more.
The figures represent less than what could be earned at the peak of a shrimping season, curtailed because of the spill, but more than fishermen who have claimed against BP for economic losses have been paid.
As a result, the program has created division in some communities between those working on it and others still unemployed. Local fishermen also complain that outsiders have profited from the program at the expense of those who have lost their livelihood.
"This (Feinberg's ruling) means I am actually losing money because I have to pay my crew out of the money BP is paying me to clean up this oil," Larry Dossett from Biloxi said.
"If he only pays me the difference, I am in the hole. We are financially dead already."
(Writing by Matthew Bigg, editing by Stacey Joyce)
I don't see a problem. You either get paid not to fish because you can't or you get paid more than you have earned fishing for doing clean-up why should they be entitled to both?
Don Robison
07-17-10, 13:49
I don't see a problem. You either get paid not to fish because you can't or you get paid more than you have earned fishing for doing clean-up why should they be entitled to both?
I agree, they had to pay their crews to fish, now they are paying them to clean, either way they have to pay their crew or lay them off.
It is like car insurance. You get in a car wreck with your 2000 Ford Escort, it gets fixed or you get the value of a 2000 Escort, not a new Buick as a replacement.
arizonaranchman
07-17-10, 15:00
Geez what morons. So it's a no-brainer: don't help with the oil spill cleanup I guess. You induce wear and tear on your boats and equipment, put your employees at risk, etc for BP.
Same as socialism: eventually those that work hard realize it doesnt pay to bust your a$$ to feed the slugs who don't work... Incentive to work hard vanishes as there's no reward for it.
rickrock305
07-17-10, 16:59
"If he takes away the money we are making from BP when we get our claims, then nobody is going to work for BP to clean up this oil and we will not rent our boats to BP either.
exactly. why would they want to work or put their boats through that crap when they could do absolutely nothing and get paid MORE?
There simply needs to be some sort of incentive established to compensate for any issues or damage done to the vessel while it's utilized for something it's not designed to do either effectively or efficiently.
If not it looks like they will lose a lot of civilian help.
Don Robison
07-17-10, 17:45
exactly. why would they want to work or put their boats through that crap when they could do absolutely nothing and get paid MORE?
These are made up numbers for illustration purposes.
If they normally make $20K a week and BP pays them $10K for the use of their boat to do clean up. Why should BP also pay them $20K that they would have lost had they not done the clean up? They should pay them the other $10K that they would have lost since they didn't have a loss of $20K; they only lost $10K. If BP isn't paying them enough to cover paying their crew and to maintain their boats then they need to renegotiate or stop working, but IMHO they aren't entitled to more money than they have potentially lost.
Nathan_Bell
07-17-10, 17:47
There simply needs to be some sort of incentive established to compensate for any issues or damage done to the vessel while it's utilized for something it's not designed to do either effectively or efficiently.
If not it looks like they will lose a lot of civilian help.
Considering it is the federal government, I imagine that they will do exactly the wrong thing and end up costing us 5X as much as doing it the common sense approach.
Business_Casual
07-17-10, 18:04
Isn't RickRock our resident liberal troll?
B_C
Nathan_Bell
07-17-10, 18:17
Isn't RickRock our resident liberal troll?
B_C
yes, but even a stopped watch...
"This (Feinberg's ruling) means I am actually losing money because I have to pay my crew out of the money BP is paying me to clean up this oil," Larry Dossett from Biloxi said.
"If he only pays me the difference, I am in the hole. We are financially dead already."
This guy has no clue what he is even talking about. In that program the owner of the boat gets paid for the rental of the boat, the captain gets paid and the crew gets paid all by BP. If the owner is the captain, he gets paid the rental and gets paid for his time.
rickrock305
07-17-10, 19:12
What exactly is so liberal about my views? Because i'm not anti Obama all the time and jump to blaming all the problems of the world on him? I'm sorry its not the simple. I'm actually pretty damn middle of the road. Maybe you've missed all the posts where I've been quite critical of Obama and the Democrats in general? Maybe you've missed me opine on my hatred of Pelosi? Its funny, on more liberal forums I'm viewed as right wing. The polarization from both sides is retarded and really counterproductive to any sort of progress or good for our nation as a whole. I guess everything is liberal if you're viewpoint is coming from the extreme right...and vice versa.
And please, maybe you should go look up the definition of a troll. I'm far from it. Merely disagreeing with you politically does not constitute a troll.
There were some other articles about the fishing business and the BP impact. Part of the whining comes from the fact that the majority of fisherman and fishing boats operate on the "cash business" model. No payroll taxes, no FICA, workmans comp, etc.; like contractors. Much of their "earnings" were hidden from the government. Now the "G" and BP are using their "reported earnings" as the baseline for setting payment bars so that leaves the fisherman a little "short".
VooDoo6Actual
07-17-10, 19:20
Wish I could say I'm surprised.
Sure glad I turned down the protection contract @ their barges in the Gulf regarding this entity.
Sour taste in my mouth for sure.
Business_Casual
07-17-10, 19:25
What exactly is so liberal about my views? Because i'm not anti Obama all the time and jump to blaming all the problems of the world on him? I'm sorry its not the simple. I'm actually pretty damn middle of the road. Maybe you've missed all the posts where I've been quite critical of Obama and the Democrats in general? Maybe you've missed me opine on my hatred of Pelosi? Its funny, on more liberal forums I'm viewed as right wing. The polarization from both sides is retarded and really counterproductive to any sort of progress or good for our nation as a whole. I guess everything is liberal if you're viewpoint is coming from the extreme right...and vice versa.
And please, maybe you should go look up the definition of a troll. I'm far from it. Merely disagreeing with you politically does not constitute a troll.
If you can't see it, I don't know how to explain it to you. Thinking people should be paid to not work as well as for any work they actually do? You don't see that as wrong?
What if the reason they couldn't fish was because of a natural disaster? Should we, BP, the .gov or someone else compensate them? How many legitimate reasons are there for being paid not to work?
If that's middle of the road, the road has swung hard left and a pretty long time ago.
Yes, in my opinion, you disagreeing with me does make you a liberal troll. I don't know why it bothers you or what you are worried about, because my opinion and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
B_C
Nathan_Bell
07-17-10, 20:44
If you can't see it, I don't know how to explain it to you. Thinking people should be paid to not work as well as for any work they actually do? You don't see that as wrong?
What if the reason they couldn't fish was because of a natural disaster? Should we, BP, the .gov or someone else compensate them? How many legitimate reasons are there for being paid not to work?
If that's middle of the road, the road has swung hard left and a pretty long time ago.
Yes, in my opinion, you disagreeing with me does make you a liberal troll. I don't know why it bothers you or what you are worried about, because my opinion and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
B_C
You need to get out of NoVA. I can still get an ok cup of coffee and a danish for that.
rickrock305
07-17-10, 23:22
If you can't see it, I don't know how to explain it to you. Thinking people should be paid to not work as well as for any work they actually do? You don't see that as wrong?
In this case, no I don't see that as wrong. Because BP has screwed up these people's livelihood for a long time to come due to their negligence. How many years of lost work are they going to pay for with these settlements? People from the Exxon Valdez disaster still have not recovered. And this is magnitudes larger.
And then consider all the health problems that come from assisting with the cleanup. Migraines, respiratory issues, cancer, etc.
Yes, I think the settlement should be different from the payment they get for helping to clean up. The settlement is to cover BP's negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihoods. The payment to clean up their mess is separate.
What if the reason they couldn't fish was because of a natural disaster? Should we, BP, the .gov or someone else compensate them?
No, because no entity is liable for that. Although there is disaster assistance from the government for folks in that situation. This is just a red herring and has no place in the discussion. This was not a natural disaster. It was man made, a result of negligence.
If that's middle of the road, the road has swung hard left and a pretty long time ago.
You may be right about that. The majority of the world would be considered quite left wing by American standards.
Yes, in my opinion, you disagreeing with me does make you a liberal troll.
how utterly childish.
I don't know why it bothers you or what you are worried about,
who said it bothered me? this is a discussion forum, we're here to discuss. did you expect me not to respond to your personal attack? i recognize your post for what it is, clearly nothing but baiting. but i wanted you to explain what makes me so liberal. apparently you can't. enough said i guess.
Yes, I think the settlement should be different from the payment they get for helping to clean up. The settlement is to cover BP's negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihoods. The payment to clean up their mess is separate.
Why should it be different? They are getting paid to use their boat or to clean up oil, which if they choose to do it is a livelihood. If your boss closes the place you work you get unemployment, if you get another job you dont still get to collect unemployment just because your boss took your livelihood away.
Plus if you do the math they will be making alot more money cleaning up than any settlement they will get or what they would fishing.
exactly. why would they want to work or put their boats through that crap when they could do absolutely nothing and get paid MORE?
Some people are still above being paid to do nothing.
I would still like to see some figures as to what individual fishermen make, how much the average ship clears for the owner in profit, etc.
Yes, I think the settlement should be different from the payment they get for helping to clean up. The settlement is to cover BP's negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihoods. The payment to clean up their mess is separate.
You know, I kind of agree with rickrock on this one. The settlement should be to cover the negligence, not just one season's worth of lost fishing. Kind of like in a lawsuit where judgement has actual and punitive damages that get awarded to the victim...
I severely doubt that next year everything will be back to normal. The damage done to these fisherman is more than just the lost wages/profits from the season and probably should be compensated. BP did the "crime" and should do the "time" (roughly said, obviously I am not talking real time but compensation)
Some people are still above being paid to do nothing.
I would still like to see some figures as to what individual fishermen make, how much the average ship clears for the owner in profit, etc.
I dont know what they make but I do not think they are getting rich shrimping. I know last year where I live, coast of GA, alot of the local guys were about going out of business because of low shrimp prices.
So like I said these guys that are cleaning up are most likely making way more money. A boat owner/captain gets 1000-3000 a day boat rental, plus 1400 a day, PLUS he doesnt have to pay his crew.
Why should it be different? They are getting paid to use their boat or to clean up oil, which if they choose to do it is a livelihood.
A livelihood? They are fisherman in fishing boats working through an environmental catastrophe, not Hazmat experts on vessels designed to skim oil. There is no livelihood comparison here to be made here, as they are improvising out of pure necessity. Who knows what type of unfamiliar, unexpected issues they may deal with as a result.
Plus if you do the math they will be making alot more money cleaning up than any settlement they will get or what they would fishing.
Sounds great. Now do you have any data to back this up?
variablebinary
07-18-10, 09:15
Same as socialism: eventually those that work hard realize it doesnt pay to bust your a$$ to feed the slugs who don't work... Incentive to work hard vanishes as there's no reward for it.
Never happen in America. The allure of wealth, and the belief that wealth is attainable by anyone is far too prevalent.
For every disgruntled tax payer, there are thousands chasing the dream, and enough make it to keep the cycle going.
There simply needs to be some sort of incentive established to compensate for any issues or damage done to the vessel while it's utilized for something it's not designed to do either effectively or efficiently.
If not it looks like they will lose a lot of civilian help.
But you cannot compensate for respiration issues. People are showing up at local hospitals with respiration issues and headaches. I don't know what's required to get it through peoples' heads that oil is toxic; the gases emitted in the deep Gulf are toxic and the oil is radioactive from deep in the Gulf, too. *I* would not assist...
Business_Casual
07-18-10, 09:23
The settlement should be to cover the negligence, not just one season's worth of lost fishing. Kind of like in a lawsuit where judgement has actual and punitive damages that get awarded to the victim...
No, not "kinda" like a lawsuit, exactly and only in a lawsuit. That's my whole point, there shouldn't be any compensation fund run by a trial lawyer appointed by Obama or any payments made to fishermen that don't pursue redress in the courts. That is what the rule of law means. Where does the Constitution give any of these people any of the power they have stolen from the people?
If you are a landscaper and you don't work because it rains, should the shareholders of a grass seed company compensate you?
Does it suck for the fishermen? Yes. But it doesn't mean we should subvert our system.
B_C
Nathan_Bell
07-18-10, 09:30
Never happen in America. The allure of wealth, and the belief that wealth is attainable by anyone is far too prevalent.
For every disgruntled tax payer, there are thousands chasing the dream, and enough make it to keep the cycle going.
But those with the drive and vision, those that see the chance and have the ability to capitalize on it, will sit out once they have made themselves comfortable.
That is the real danger of socialism, the loss of the leaders that build things, not the schlub who would rather sit on his ass than earn minimum wage.
No, not "kinda" like a lawsuit, exactly and only in a lawsuit. That's my whole point, there shouldn't be any compensation fund run by a trial lawyer appointed by Obama or any payments made to fishermen that don't pursue redress in the courts. That is what the rule of law means. Where does the Constitution give any of these people any of the power they have stolen from the people?
If you are a landscaper and you don't work because it rains, should the shareholders of a grass seed company compensate you?
Does it suck for the fishermen? Yes. But it doesn't mean we should subvert our system.
B_C
I don't disagree with you. But that is a different question and not the one being discussed. Given that the "compensation fund" exists and is being used, the question is if it is being used fairly and in a manner it should be to actually compensate people for their losses and damages.
Whether the compensation fund should exist in the first place is a different question and debate. I agree with what you said, myself, on that question. The fact is, that it does exist.
variablebinary
07-18-10, 09:54
But those with the drive and vision, those that see the chance and have the ability to capitalize on it, will sit out once they have made themselves comfortable.
That is the real danger of socialism, the loss of the leaders that build things, not the schlub who would rather sit on his ass than earn minimum wage.
More likely, those that attain some degree of comfort will seek greater comfort through increased output, sales, investments and consumption.
But you cannot compensate for respiration issues. People are showing up at local hospitals with respiration issues and headaches. I don't know what's required to get it through peoples' heads that oil is toxic; the gases emitted in the deep Gulf are toxic and the oil is radioactive from deep in the Gulf, too. *I* would not assist...
Uhmmm you realize that on average 41 million gallons of the same oil/cude/gas SEEPS NATURALLY into the gulf of Mexico every year? Just so you know oil was not discovered by drilling. By your TOXIC definition the la brea tar pits should be shut down and sealed because the same toxins are being emitted.
montanadave
07-18-10, 10:13
What bugged the shit out of me was seeing a church file a claim with BP for $50K to make up for reduced donations from the unemployed church members. Sounds reasonable on the face of it until you consider that the unemployed church members are also filing claims with BP to compensate for lost wages, etc. If BP settles the claim with the worker, shouldn't the church get their donation from the worker, not BP? And what about the guy with the shoe store or ice cream shop who have seen sales slump while the unemployed are waiting for a settlement from BP?
Believe me, I'm no fan of BP--they really screwed the pooch on this one and have reeked havoc with the Gulf and its inhabitants. But how many times is BP supposed to pay out the same dollar?
Nathan_Bell
07-18-10, 10:51
More likely, those that attain some degree of comfort will seek greater comfort through increased output, sales, investments and consumption.
Not working that way. Once a lot of these folks hit low to mid six figures they are stopping the growth of their businesses. Not worth the hassle to take it to the next level.
As they have gotten their businesses more efficient they are going on 'early retirement' going from 60-80 hour work weeks down to 40 or so and just coasting.
rickrock305
07-18-10, 11:06
Why should it be different? They are getting paid to use their boat or to clean up oil, which if they choose to do it is a livelihood. If your boss closes the place you work you get unemployment, if you get another job you dont still get to collect unemployment just because your boss took your livelihood away.
It should be different because the payment is for two different things. I keep seeing this comparison to unemployment and it is not valid. The settlement money is payed by BP to cover their negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihood for years to come, much different than insurance or unemployment. The payment for the cleanup is a separate issue, it is payment for work done for BP. They are separate issues and should be kept as such.
Plus if you do the math they will be making alot more money cleaning up than any settlement they will get or what they would fishing.
I highly doubt that, considering that the people from the Exxon Valdez have yet to recover full capacity. You think BP is going to pay for a decade of these people's livelihood? Doubtful.
Business_Casual
07-18-10, 11:10
I predict that the media will magically shift to stories about how the spill isn't as bad as everyone thought and it will be really easy to clean up - right before November 2.
B_C
variablebinary
07-18-10, 11:24
I predict that the media will magically shift to stories about how the spill isn't as bad as everyone thought and it will be really easy to clean up - right before November 2.
B_C
Indeed. Expect a whitewashing in the near future, or an attempted shift in accountability.
MSNBC was trying damn hard to make this spill about Dick Cheney at first, with nightly pieces of Cheney's big oil ties pre-election
It should be different because the payment is for two different things. I keep seeing this comparison to unemployment and it is not valid. The settlement money is payed by BP to cover their negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihood for years to come, much different than insurance or unemployment. The payment for the cleanup is a separate issue, it is payment for work done for BP. They are separate issues and should be kept as such.
Hrmm did BP remove their boat? Did BP stop them from working in the Gulf of Mexico?
You are kinda slow so I will answer for you. They still have their boats. They can still work in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas opened their shrimp season this weekend.
Don Robison
07-18-10, 11:50
Originally Posted by rickrock305 View Post
It should be different because the payment is for two different things. I keep seeing this comparison to unemployment and it is not valid. The settlement money is payed by BP to cover their negligence that lead to the loss of these people's livelihood for years to come, much different than insurance or unemployment. The payment for the cleanup is a separate issue, it is payment for work done for BP. They are separate issues and should be kept as such.
There is nothing stopping them from not doing the clean up work and suing BP in court for damages, lost income etc. Maybe I seem callous, but they can't have it both ways. Either they work and have less lost income or they don't work and file a lawsuit for total damages. They are taking the money because it's here and now. People lose their livelihood everyday because of various things; other people's negligence, there own negligence, the business they are in just goes away. Most of them pull their britches up and figure out a new way to earn an income; the rest bitch about what they are owed and how they got screwed.
That said, I don't agree with the way BP has handled this disaster, but if people are signing legal documents agreeing to the terms then they need to look in the mirror to find who is at fault.
"There is nothing stopping them from not doing the clean up work and suing BP in court for damages, lost income etc. Maybe I seem callous, but they can't have it both ways. Either they work and have less lost income or they don't work and file a lawsuit for total damages. They are taking the money because it's here and now. People lose their livelihood everyday because of various things; other people's negligence, there own negligence, the business they are in just goes away. Most of them pull their britches up and figure out a new way to earn an income; the rest bitch about what they are owed and how they got screwed.
That said, I don't agree with the way BP has handled this disaster, but if people are signing legal documents agreeing to the terms then they need to look in the mirror to find who is at fault. "
Very well said, Sir.
What bugged the shit out of me was seeing a church file a claim with BP for $50K to make up for reduced donations from the unemployed church members. Sounds reasonable on the face of it until you consider that the unemployed church members are also filing claims with BP to compensate for lost wages, etc. If BP settles the claim with the worker, shouldn't the church get their donation from the worker, not BP? And what about the guy with the shoe store or ice cream shop who have seen sales slump while the unemployed are waiting for a settlement from BP?
Believe me, I'm no fan of BP--they really screwed the pooch on this one and have reeked havoc with the Gulf and its inhabitants. But how many times is BP supposed to pay out the same dollar?
Yeah that is totally bogus.
You know, I kind of agree with rickrock on this one. The settlement should be to cover the negligence, not just one season's worth of lost fishing. Kind of like in a lawsuit where judgement has actual and punitive damages that get awarded to the victim...
Punative damages are nonsense, especially in this case where BP will spend trillions cleaning this up for a long time.
They get their regular wage. If that regular wage gets paid by them, you know, actually working, then that's how they get it.
Many of these people are going to have even bigger problems because fishing is a hugely cash business with thousands of people getting paid under the table. With no tax records to prove what you made last year, no BP money for you!
Business_Casual
07-19-10, 08:18
Let's not forget that this was an accident, not a deliberate act. Also, they wouldn't have to drill in mile-deep water if the inshore fields were opened.
B_C
Punative damages are nonsense, especially in this case where BP will spend trillions cleaning this up for a long time.
Their cost to clean up is irrelevant. BP is responsible for the damage they caused and needs to make restitution.
They get their regular wage. If that regular wage gets paid by them, you know, actually working, then that's how they get it.
Many of these people are going to have even bigger problems because fishing is a hugely cash business with thousands of people getting paid under the table. With no tax records to prove what you made last year, no BP money for you!
Let's not forget that this was an accident, not a deliberate act.
This is also irrelevant. BP is responsible for their actions, whether deliberate or accidental. And if news reports have any truth in them, BP was cutting corners, so it is not entirely an "act of God" type of accident.
Also, they wouldn't have to drill in mile-deep water if the inshore fields were opened.
B_C
This is also irrelevant to the question on how they make restitution.
Their cost to clean up is irrelevant. BP is responsible for the damage they caused.
If their cost to cleanup is irrelevant then the bonus to the "victims" should be equally so.
If their cost to cleanup is irrelevant then the bonus to the "victims" should be equally so.
Why would the cost to clean up be relevant to their need to make restitution?
We are not talking about a "bonus" either. We are talking about restitution to those who have lost their livelihood due to BPs negligence.
Now you're going in circles.
They have a new "livelihood", cleaning up the spill.
This is not supposed to be some windfall for the "victims". If they are working then they are working, and especially if that work is being paid for by the company that caused the problem to begin with then there is no reason to give them a check for not working and then turn around and pay them to work.
ForTehNguyen
07-19-10, 09:19
I think it was smart for BP to handover $20B to the govt instead of managing it themselves, despite no federal authority to request these funds. Now you have to blame govt if you don't get fair compensation.
Nathan_Bell
07-19-10, 09:53
I think it was smart for BP to handover $20B to the govt instead of managing it themselves, despite no federal authority to request these funds. Now you have to blame govt if you don't get fair compensation.
Yup.
I found it humorous that one of the talking heads on a Sunday political theatre show was bitching about BHO "allowing" them to get away with such a "blame deflecting stunt".
Now you're going in circles.
They have a new "livelihood", cleaning up the spill.
But Rob, these are fisherman on fishing boats. The vessels are not ideally equipped to remove oil from the sea, nor are the fisherman.
Yes, the boats may have been altered in some way and the men will learn as they go, but what about all the unexpected complications that are likely to arise out of such hasty improvisation? I simply don't see this as an apples to apples comparison, but I could be overthinking it.
Now you're going in circles.
They have a new "livelihood", cleaning up the spill.
This is not supposed to be some windfall for the "victims". If they are working then they are working, and especially if that work is being paid for by the company that caused the problem to begin with then there is no reason to give them a check for not working and then turn around and pay them to work.
Not going in circles. Just looking at the big picture. Restitution needs to be made, and since BP cannot physically restore things, our society allows for cash compensation instead.
It is more than just this season's wages. There are the following seasons as well. Will they be able to fish next year, or the next?
And there are other effects on the people besides lost wages that need to be compensated for.
In other words, the whole range of effect on the people involved needs to be compensated for to make it equivalent to it not having happened in the first place.
I think it was smart for BP to handover $20B to the govt instead of managing it themselves, despite no federal authority to request these funds. Now you have to blame govt if you don't get fair compensation.
The feds can request the funds all they want. They have/had no legal authority to demand and require. If .gov and BP come to an agreement then there is no problem.
And I agree, it was smart of BP to agree. Better PR and may help them in the long run pay less since the argument can be made that they did what was required and were not in charge of administering it so cannot be held at fault if it was mismanaged and was not enough.
Business_Casual
07-19-10, 11:05
Sure, until the shareholder lawsuits pour in - Obama and BP didn't own those shares they aren't going to pay dividends on.
B_C
Sure, until the shareholder lawsuits pour in - Obama and BP didn't own those shares they aren't going to pay dividends on.
B_C
I am not a lawyer of any sort and not an expert on securities law. But I don't believe that there is any legal obligation to pay a dividend. Boards of Directors, from what I see in the news, declare a dividend or rescind a dividend on a regular basis. So I am not sure how shareholders can sue on a dividend that got rescinded.
I would appreciate being educated on this matter.
rickrock305
07-19-10, 11:31
Let's not forget that this was an accident, not a deliberate act. Also, they wouldn't have to drill in mile-deep water if the inshore fields were opened.
B_C
it was an accident that could have been prevented entirely but was not due to the negligence and corner cutting by BP.
rickrock305
07-19-10, 11:38
They have a new "livelihood", cleaning up the spill.
Two points here.
First, this is not a livelihood. Its temporary employment at best. What happens when the oil has been cleaned up, yet all the marine life is still dead or toxic? Like I pointed out before, the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill say they still have yet to recover capacity.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10548872
Second, this new temporary work these guys are having to do is hazardous to their health. Much more hazardous than fishing.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/07/oil.spill.valdez.workers/?hpt=C1
This is not supposed to be some windfall for the "victims". If they are working then they are working, and especially if that work is being paid for by the company that caused the problem to begin with then there is no reason to give them a check for not working and then turn around and pay them to work.
But when the oil is cleaned up, there will be no more work and the environment still will not be able to support fishing like it once did. And that is a direct result of BP's negligence and something they should be financially responsible for.
it was an accident that could have been prevented entirely but was not due to the negligence and corner cutting by BP.
exactly
Their cost to clean up is irrelevant. BP is responsible for the damage they caused and needs to make restitution.
Nobody said BP should not pay for the damages.
Punitive damages are a form of punishment in excess of actual damages, making it a "bonus".
Nobody said BP should not pay for the damages.
Punitive damages are a form of punishment in excess of actual damages, making it a "bonus".
There is a reason I put "punitive" in quote in my original comment and said something along the lines of "like "punitive" damages". I was not trying to draw strict equivalence, but rather show that mere lost wages is not the extent of the damages. There are other, perhaps somewhat intangible damages incurred by the fishermen and others. Massive disruption of life, for example. That is what I was talking about. The people impacted by this need to be made completely whole, not just partially.
Business_Casual
07-19-10, 13:33
Who or principle led you to think they should be made completely whole?
Who or principle led you to think they should be made completely whole?
Ethics and honesty. If someone hurts someone else, they need to make them whole. Common sense.
Don Robison
07-19-10, 13:55
If someone hurts someone else, they need to make them whole.
And rarely if ever happens.
And rarely if ever happens.
Happens a lot more than you think.
For example. I buy a car and get a loan for the car, using the car as collateral.
For some reason, I stop making payments on the car. Total outstanding on the loan is $14000. The bank repossess the car and sells it at auction for $8000. They then sue me for $6000 and win, and the Sheriff comes and seizes my property up to that value to enforce the judgement.
The bank was made completely whole.
Happens a lot more than you think.
For example. I buy a car and get a loan for the car, using the car as collateral.
For some reason, I stop making payments on the car. Total outstanding on the loan is $14000. The bank repossess the car and sells it at auction for $8000. They then sue me for $6000 and win, and the Sheriff comes and seizes my property up to that value to enforce the judgement.
The bank was made completely whole.
That is not how it works. Yes they will take the car, auction it, and you owe them the difference. The rest is wrong. The bank does not need to sue you, you already signed the loan agreement. Also a sheriff is not going to come to your house and start seizing random property.
After the car is sold they send you a bill for the balance. If you dont pay they send it to collections.
That is not how it works. Yes they will take the car, auction it, and you owe them the difference. The rest is wrong. The bank does not need to sue you, you already signed the loan agreement. Also a sheriff is not going to come to your house and start seizing random property.
After the car is sold they send you a bill for the balance. If you dont pay they send it to collections.
I am sorry, but it does work that way (not that I know through personal experience). I did gloss over a few steps. They will send a bill for the balance. When it is not paid, they will send it to collections. One option they have and which is done in real life, when the collections agent has no luck, is to sue the offender when he does not pay. Once they have a court judgement, then they can get the Sheriff to enforce that judgement. The Sheriff can seize property (including bank accounts) to cover the judgement. It does not always work that way. But it can and sometimes does.
Don Robison
07-19-10, 15:09
Happens a lot more than you think.
For example. I buy a car and get a loan for the car, using the car as collateral.
For some reason, I stop making payments on the car. Total outstanding on the loan is $14000. The bank repossess the car and sells it at auction for $8000. They then sue me for $6000 and win, and the Sheriff comes and seizes my property up to that value to enforce the judgement.
The bank was made completely whole.
1. They don't sue you for the difference. They simply bill you for it and if you don't pay they turn it over to the IRS and garnish any refunds you may have coming.
2. The sheriff doesn't work for the bank and doesn't randomly seize property because a bank wants it's money.
3. Unless there was some type of fraud and you were convicted in court; it's a civil matter in most places and law enforcement doesn't play in civil matters
Now for my example.
A person loses and arm in an industrial accident because of company negligence; that person sues and is awarded enough money to live the rest of his life in relative comfort. Have they been made whole?
1. They don't sue you for the difference. They simply bill you for it and if you don't pay they turn it over to the IRS and garnish any refunds you may have coming.
No, the IRS is not involved with civil matters that are not related to IRS business like taxes.
No, they sue you civilly and get a judgement against you, if their other scare tactics don't work and you don't cave beforehand.
2. The sheriff doesn't work for the bank and doesn't randomly seize property because a bank wants it's money.
That is right. But the sheriff IS the enforcer of the court. Once the bank has a court order/judgement, it is enforcing the order of the court, to the benefit of the bank.
3. Unless there was some type of fraud and you were convicted in court; it's a civil matter in most places and law enforcement doesn't play in civil matters
Sure it does. You get a court judgement against someone, the Sheriff can be used to enforce it. I have been researching small claims court here in Utah due to a couple needs I may have, and that is exactly how it is described as happening. The court rules, and if the loser does not pay up, the Sheriff can be tasked with enforcing the order.
Now for my example.
A person is loses and arm in an industrial accident because of company negligence; that person sues and is awarded enough money to live the rest of his life in relative comfort. Have they been made whole?
Yes. Since they do not have a physical capability to make the person whole (ie, restore the arm to full function or any function perhaps), our society and system has come up with a system of cash equivalence instead to make people whole. The court gets to decide what level of payments that is for specific cases and when it does, the level of money that is equated to that specific instance is set and the victim is made whole.
Don Robison
07-19-10, 15:29
Yes. Since they do not have a physical capability to make the person whole (ie, restore the arm to full function or any function perhaps), our society and system has come up with a system of cash equivalence instead to make people whole. The court gets to decide what level of payments that is for specific cases and when it does, the level of money that is equated to that specific instance is set and the victim is made whole.
I'll concede the rest because you are correct; it does take a court order for them to garnish you tax refund, but no amount of money makes the person whole. I lose my arm and the court couldn't put a fair market value on it, but they can make life easier with cash; lots of it.
I'll concede the rest because you are correct; it does take a court order for them to garnish you tax refund, but no amount of money makes the person whole. I lose my arm and the court couldn't put a fair market value on it, but they can make life easier with cash; lots of it.
I agree that it does not really in a physical sense make you whole. God alone has that in His purview. But I guess it is the next best thing and is what our society has come up with to try and make the victim whole.
I am for a LOT less government involvement in our daily lives. But I am for strict liability and restitution. People and companies won't do as many stupid things if they believed that they would really have to pay for it and make it good again.
Look at the Goldman Sachs thing. They are laughing all the way to the bank because their $550M fine was a lot less than they earned through their nefarious practices. They are not afraid to do stupid and immoral and unethical things because they know that if caught, they will get a slap on the wrist only.
Back to the Gulf. While I am not at all thrilled with how it happened (the $20B slush fund for recompense), it is what it is and needs to be used as best as possible to make the victims whole. Not just this years lost wages either. But as whole as possible for the massive disruption that has happened in their lives due to negligence on the part of BP. That is all I am talking about.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.