More BP Fund Bullshit

[InkL0sed]

Player, you are in agreement with Woodruff. He is simply saying it in a more provocative way.

As a matter of fact, I explained it myself earlier. Nobody seems to have read my post. This is the stupidest argument ever.

[Woodruff]

I find it interesting that so many here seem to believe in the broken welfare system of the United States. I wouldn't have expected so many (and specifically certain individuals...I'm looking at you, Night Strike) to believe that it's "good business" to pay someone NOT to work. Because that's precisely what's going on here...the fishermen are being paid NOT to work, given that they'll end up with the same amount of money whether they work or not...just like the broken welfare system in the United States.

NO, the fishermen are not being "paid not to work". Even aside from the fact that most (and it was far from just fishermen who were impacted, by-the-way!), they are being paid because BP screwed up and cost them their God-given and legally given right to a livelihood.

You appear to have completely misunderstood what I was saying. Perhaps if you focus on everything following the word "given".

The fishermen want to help clean up, but must essentially do so without getting paid for it.

On what planet and why? Because they were ALREADY damaged, now they have to volunteer their labor to help out the folks who damaged their income, way of life, etc? Becuase they see the need and step forward with their expertise, knowing the need is there, then they don't deserve to be paid like any other cleanup person?

This is an excellent example of removing one sentence from a paragraph and responding only to that sentence. You have failed utterly.

This is the only valid point I can see for allowing payment for the services and reimbursement for the lost fishing wages.

Usually, you are sensible. In this case you are so far off base, it is not even funny. BP CAUSED this mess. BP OWES the fishermen for their lost wages and damages because they CAUSED the damage. Whether the fishermen then also help with the cleanup is utterly irrelevant.

Read again, PLAYER...please. And I didn't make that statement, either.

Fine, put it together...

BP OWES the fishermen their livelihood, period. NO Qualifiers, no stipulations. Just recompensating them the money they would have earned is NOT truly going to bring things back to where they were, but it does get close.
BP also happened to need people to clean up the spill. That they decided to hire some of the same fishermen who's livelihood they ruined is in some ways laudible, in other ways a matter of "they have the know-how and ability, so who else are you going to hire".
You want to tie the two together. THAT is what is ridiculous. BP is not giving these fishermen a "welfare payment", they are compensating partially for damages they CAUSED. If the fishermen wanted to take their checks and then vacation in Florida, they should be able to. Except, BP has NOT paid, and almost certainly will NOT pay the real amounts they owe. This just makes it worse.

So even though you quoted what I said, you didn't bother reading it again? Is that the picture here? Perhaps if I point out that I'm using an ANALOGY it will help? Because...not only have you clearly COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED what I'm saying, you actually seem to be in complete agreement with what I said. So once again...READ IT PLEASE, this time.

Player, that's an awful lot of text.

Do you think that you could produce a quick summary for those of us who aren't 'working from home'?

summary STEAL FROM THE RICH GIVE TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK!

Reading, it does wonders... try it sometime. Because that IS DEFINITELY NOT WHAT I SAID.

How...ironic.

so to sum up what you said

IF you do anything wrong you must pay for all expanses occurred to the injured FOREVER!!!! no matter how much you spend on restoring the injured party you must support them WHILE THEY DO NOTHING AND STILL FROM YOU

so in other words stop taking risks you could have to support the people you are trying to help!!!!

You might try READING before responding.

And again...

[PLAYER57832]

The court system, which is already there, the lawyers, who are already there, and the plaintiffs and defendant should determine who gets what money. The federal government really does not need to step in and decide. If we are worried about bankruptcy, there are laws to protect creditors.

And you know how long those court battles take.

The BIG problem in this case is that a lot of the needed baseline data is missing. Beyond that, just determining the rough scope of the extent of damages and all the impacted members is a humongous task.

Sorry, this one is too big for anything other than the government. As for bankruptcy.. not even close. bankruptcy is a state function and this is an international company. We are, in some senses almost negotiating with another country that has attacked us. THAT is the kind of scope here.

Add in that a lot of the biologic information is quite specifically federal information, federal data, federal research, federal procedures.. and, again, it pretty much has to involve the government.

[thegreekdog]

The court system, which is already there, the lawyers, who are already there, and the plaintiffs and defendant should determine who gets what money. The federal government really does not need to step in and decide. If we are worried about bankruptcy, there are laws to protect creditors.

And you know how long those court battles take.

The BIG problem in this case is that a lot of the needed baseline data is missing. Beyond that, just determining the rough scope of the extent of damages and all the impacted members is a humongous task.

Sorry, this one is too big for anything other than the government. As for bankruptcy.. not even close. bankruptcy is a state function and this is an international company. We are, in some senses almost negotiating with another country that has attacked us. THAT is the kind of scope here.

Add in that a lot of the biologic information is quite specifically federal information, federal data, federal research, federal procedures.. and, again, it pretty much has to involve the government.

Believe it or not, lawyers (and their experts) have been compiling large amounts of data for hundreds of years. We're pretty good at it. The court battles could take a long time, but I would venture to say the federal government attempting to pry money away from BP could take just as long.

International companies tend to have domestic subsidiaries. I'm admittedly not sure how bankruptcy works with conglomerates such as BP, but as long as BP has a permanent establishment in the US, they are subject to our court system.

[PLAYER57832]

So even though you quoted what I said, you didn't bother reading it again? Is that the picture here?

MEA CULPA. I did reread what you wrote...and Nightstrike, etc.

However, when I went back to the very beginning, it became more clear.

If this is indeed true, this is an absolute load of crap. I would even suggest it might be illegal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg

I agree with the others, if BP is the one paying their wages as they do the cleaning, then BP shouldn't have to pay double for keeping those boats employed.

I find it interesting that so many here seem to believe in the broken welfare system of the United States. I wouldn't have expected so many (and specifically certain individuals...I'm looking at you, Night Strike) to believe that it's "good business" to pay someone NOT to work. Because that's precisely what's going on here...the fishermen are being paid NOT to work, given that they'll end up with the same amount of money whether they work or not...just like the broken welfare system in the United States.

The fishermen want to help clean up, but must essentially do so without getting paid for it.

I apologize, my comments should go to Nightstrike, not you.

I am not sure why I understood your words essentially backwards, but I did.
I apologize!

[gatoraubrey2]

I didn't suggest that the subsidy should be a one-time payment. I would not be against BP paying the difference in past year's earnings (say, a 10-year average) and the new season's yield until such time as that yield climbs back to the ten-year average mark.

I will, however, refuse to condone the notion of paying damages for species that are "not yet viable." There is simply no logical way to tabulate lost opportunity cost in this manner. If I'm a goldfish fisherman and you destroy my goldfish, pay me for them. I can't just come back and say that, even though I'd never relied on them, I also want you to compensate me for all the rainbow trout that you might have killed. I'm not losing my living due to the deaths of those rainbow trout, and only the families of the dead and injured trout have a case against you.

Also, we are still in disagreement about your idea that it is wrong to require that these fishermen work in order to have their income replaced. I will say again, that it is not justified to pay someone not to work when there is work available. If my place of work gets destroyed by a hurricane and the owners can't afford to rebuild, I have to find a new job. This job may not be in a field that I enjoy, and it may not pay as much, but I have to do it anyway. That's life. It's not fair, but it's reality.

These fisherman have it way better than that. They have a guaranteed job, and they're being compensated at levels comparable to what they were before. In the past few years of recession, this is a rarity, and a blessing. Look at the number of "underemployed" people in this country and then tell me that people who are having one form of income replaced by another form, at the same payrate, are being mistreated. I feel just as bad for them as you do, but that doesn't mean I think it's ok for them to take a Bahamian vacation while millions of other people have to continue working for their income.

It seems like you want them to have a free pass on the reality that work is a necessary evil, and even when it's not work that you enjoy or even the same work that you were doing yesterday, life doesn't grant us the opportunity to just take the year off. It's an attractive proposition, but you're advocating stealing from someone else to fund it, and that's where our disagreement arises.

[PLAYER57832]

The court system, which is already there, the lawyers, who are already there, and the plaintiffs and defendant should determine who gets what money. The federal government really does not need to step in and decide. If we are worried about bankruptcy, there are laws to protect creditors.

And you know how long those court battles take.

The BIG problem in this case is that a lot of the needed baseline data is missing. Beyond that, just determining the rough scope of the extent of damages and all the impacted members is a humongous task.

Sorry, this one is too big for anything other than the government. As for bankruptcy.. not even close. bankruptcy is a state function and this is an international company. We are, in some senses almost negotiating with another country that has attacked us. THAT is the kind of scope here.

Add in that a lot of the biologic information is quite specifically federal information, federal data, federal research, federal procedures.. and, again, it pretty much has to involve the government.

Believe it or not, lawyers (and their experts) have been compiling large amounts of data for hundreds of years. We're pretty good at it. The court battles could take a long time, but I would venture to say the federal government attempting to pry money away from BP could take just as long.

International companies tend to have domestic subsidiaries. I'm admittedly not sure how bankruptcy works with conglomerates such as BP, but as long as BP has a permanent establishment in the US, they are subject to our court system.

Back up and read that part in parenthesis in the first sentence. In fisheries, particularly ocean fisheries the expert is almost solely the government... nearshore issues are partially (but only partially) regulated and studied by the states, offshore is almost exclusively NMFS. (don't make me go into the whole tangled mess of fisheries law, please!)

Furthermore, we plain and simply, in this case cannot afford to have a lot of private attorney s making the big bucks they generally do in corporate lawsuits. I am normally in full support of "due process", even in injury lawsuits (though yes, I do put some qualifiers there). And yes, I know that attorneys do real work and need to be paid. But, this is just way, way, way too big for the plethora of private attorneys and so forth to divide up. Further, people, we as a country simply cannot wait. If the fishermen have to wait as long as the Exxon Valdese fishermen did, then we as a country, not just these fishermen are sunk. Note, I am aware that BP has absolutely paid in a higher percentage..( perhaps...the scope of this is so vast that I would suspect what they are now paying will actually prove to be a minute percentage of the overall amount due), but many, many, many people are having utilities cut off, not able to fill cupboards without help from churches and so forth, etc.

See, in most of the cases you refer to, the basic outline has already been framed. You get your leg stuck in a machine and folks pretty well know what to do. Even bring up something like a basic spill of an unknown chemical and, again, there is a framework. Here.. there is not.

[PLAYER57832]

I didn't suggest that the subsidy should be a one-time payment. I would not be against BP paying the difference in past year's earnings (say, a 10-year average) and the new season's yield until such time as that yield climbs back to the ten-year average mark.

Realize that this is likely to be more like 20 years.. or longer, and you begin to get the picture. Also figure that you have to account for inflation, etc.

I will, however, refuse to condone the notion of paying damages for species that are "not yet viable." There is simply no logical way to tabulate lost opportunity cost in this manner. If I'm a goldfish fisherman and you destroy my goldfish, pay me for them. I can't just come back and say that, even though I'd never relied on them, I also want you to compensate me for all the rainbow trout that you might have killed. I'm not losing my living due to the deaths of those rainbow trout, and only the families of the dead and injured trout have a case against you.

I agree that a fisherman cannot come up and demand payment for an undiscovered stock. However, that is not really what I was saying. I was using that to show why this situation is so much more complex than a normal liability situation.

When a young worker is injured, the payment is based not just on what they have already earned, but on projected future earnings. Someone in law school or starting out as a beginning attorney is going to get more in lost future wages than someone who is a McDonald's server. The problem with fisheries is that fisheries are ALWAYS flexible and changing. That redfish craze I talked about was just about 15 or so years ago (maybe 20, now). I can give example after example.

Now, going by your formula in this situation just doesn't work. It doesn't work for a lot of reasons. In truth to really explain would require a full-fledged ecology lesson, something I don't believe you wish to endure or I have time to empart any way. The closest I can come is to imagine you are making a freeform sculpture of toothpicks. A child comes in a grabs a handful. You then have to go back and reconstruct it. To begin, can you even remember all the parts? Then... you find that you cannot just plop in the new toothpicks, you have to reconstruct whole sections, etc... And, likely a few of the toothpicks were broken. Maybe even a big dent was put in the table or some such, so that the think simply cannot be rebuilt. Anyway.. poor analogy, but I am trying.

The damage to the fishermen is only a small part of the harm that was caused. They ONLY target specific commercial fish. However, the system as a whole depends on many, many more than just those commercial species.

Also, we are still in disagreement about your idea that it is wrong to require that these fishermen work in order to have their income replaced. I will say again, that it is not justified to pay someone not to work when there is work available. If my place of work gets destroyed by a hurricane and the owners can't afford to rebuild, I have to find a new job. This job may not be in a field that I enjoy, and it may not pay as much, but I have to do it anyway. That's life. It's not fair, but it's reality.

A hurricane is a natural cause, so yes. HOWEVER, if your business is destroyed because the chemical factory next door screwed up and destroyed your business, then they wind up having to clean the mess, repay you AND, yes repay your workers lost wages. This was not a natural disaster. This was caused by arrogance and error.

These fisherman have it way better than that. They have a guaranteed job, and they're being compensated at levels comparable to what they were before. In the past few years of recession, this is a rarity, and a blessing. Look at the number of "underemployed" people in this country and then tell me that people who are having one form of income replaced by another form, at the same payrate, are being mistreated. I feel just as bad for them as you do, but that doesn't mean I think it's ok for them to take a Bahamian vacation while millions of other people have to continue working for their income.

No, they are not being compensated anything like what they were before. A FEW fishermen have been hired, mostly boat owners. But, you don't go into fishing just for money. If it were only about money, most would long since have quite. Sure, the courts don't often judge those esoteric losses as real damage, but you compare picking up smelly chemicals to fishing and.. there is no comparison.

It seems like you want them to have a free pass on the reality that work is a necessary evil, and even when it's not work that you enjoy or even the same work that you were doing yesterday, life doesn't grant us the opportunity to just take the year off. It's an attractive proposition, but you're advocating stealing from someone else to fund it, and that's where our disagreement arises.

A year off? You have NO IDEA of the real damage here. This is not going to be over in a year. Likely it will not be over in 50 years, not really.

I said it before, the Herring and Pacific Sardine stocks have not rebounded in the 20 years its been since that relatively small Valdese spill. No one even knows if there is enough genetic stock retained of some species to even begin to heal. Sure, the Gulf will come back.. in some form. But, even that might not happen for 100 years or more.

I have seen second growth redwood forests. In some cases, after 75 years of careful management, you see something approaching like what you see in old growth forests. The conditions today are far, far better for redwoods than they have been through most of the lives of those giants. Even so, some species have plain not returned.

The marshes, the Gulf, the beaches, the reefs... all of that is far, far more complex and fragile than a redwood forest.

[thegreekdog]

Player:

(1) You contend that federal experts are the only experts.

I agree with you (simply because I do not know whether you are correct or not, and I'll defer to your knowledge in these matters).

(2) You then contend that if the federal experts are the only experts, the federal government has to be in charge of getting the damaged Gulf employees/businesses made hole.

I do not agree with you here. The attorneys can and will and do call federal government experts to testify.

(3) You contend that payments made in the course of a law suit will be spent on attorneys fees.

While I agree that probably around 30% of payments recovered, whether by settlement or judgment, will be paid to attorneys. However, that 30% will be subject to federal (and state and local) income tax. Further, that money will go towards helping out the local economies (by putting money into the pockets of local attorneys who will spend the money on things locally). We'll get the same result with less tax dollars spent by the federal government and we will have some economic benefit as well. So, those are my arguments apart from my belief that the federal government should have no responsibility to help make the economy of the Gulf of Mexico whole (and by federal government, I mean our tax dollars).

By the way, at some point we should discuss the energy deposits found in Pennsylvania. I'm kind of worried about what's going to happen to the Pennsylvania drinking water. The Pennsylvania legislature needs to get out in front of this.

[InkL0sed]

This is really mind-numbingly simple.

You are a fisherman. You are legally entitled to a certain amount of money from BP in damages. Let's call that amount X.

If you don't do anything for BP, you get X. That is a given, a fact, and is only right.

If you do work for BP to help clean up, you get Y amount in wages. Now BP wants to only pay you X - Y. In total, you end up with X money. So why did you work in the first place?

Would any of you seriously work for no money? BP is literally trying to get away with slavery. I am not exaggerating.

[gatoraubrey2]

I think, Player, that we are having two different debates here. I understood this thread to specifically address the issue of the ruling stating that a fisherman who gets paid by BP for participating in the cleanup will have to subtract those earnings from his lost wages claim. That was the subject of the article that Woodruff initially linked, and that is the topic that I have tried to address in my posts.

Many of the subjects that you broach are interesting, and I would enjoy debating them in another place. I know that one thing leads to another, and I'm not accusing you of trying to derail this thread. Though our opinions differ, I have yet in my short time here to see you stoop to that level. I'm merely suggesting that while you are making valid points about the nature and quantity of compensation, our discussion has moved away from Woodruff's original intent.

With that said, I'm not exactly sure what your opinion on this particular matter is. I have contended that it is perfectly natural not to pay a fisherman 100% of his lost wages claim, then pay him again for his work in cleaning up. My reasoning for this is that his lost wages claim includes a time frame during which he is claiming that he cannot work. If he is working during that time, he is not losing wages. If he is being paid less hourly/daily/weekly/monthly, then the BP fund will recoup the difference.

This is exactly how unemployment works (at least in my state). If you become unemployed through no fault of your own, unemployment benefits cover your lost wages. When you gain new employment, you no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, so long as the new employment provides a level of income that is at least x% of your original income. The BP fund will work the same way, except more beneficially for the fishermen, because unlike with unemployment, they don't even have to prove that they're trying to find other work. If they choose, they can just sit back and collect the claims money. It does seem like you don't believe that the fund is adequately replacing the lost wages, and that may or may not be the case, but it is not the central point of discussion here.

I can tell that you're very passionate about this topic, and I certainly can't blame you. I can see also that you believe that the fisherman are losing something more than just money, that they're losing a way of life. Also, that you believe BP to be at fault for the accident (and you may even believe, as some do, that it was not an accident). If you believe this to be true, why not suggest a civil suit against BP for pain and suffering? Punitive damages are often assessed in these cases, as well. An analysis of the merits of this suit would make for an interesting thread, and if you want to discuss, start it and link it here. However, I don't see pain and suffering or punitive damages to be at issue here, with a fund specifically designated to offset lost wages.

So, what do you think? Is it right to subtract earnings from the cleanup effort from lost wages claims?

Also:

You are legally entitled to a certain amount of money from BP in damages.

No, you're not. You're legally entitled to a certain amount of money in lost wages, which are not lost if you have other employment. Again, if you lose one job and get another, you can't continue to collect unemployment.

If you want damages, go sue for pain and suffering. When Player starts her "Should Fishermen Sue BP for Pain and Suffering?" thread, justify your case there.

[PLAYER57832]

With that said, I'm not exactly sure what your opinion on this particular matter is. I have contended that it is perfectly natural not to pay a fisherman 100% of his lost wages claim, then pay him again for his work in cleaning up. My reasoning for this is that his lost wages claim includes a time frame during which he is claiming that he cannot work. If he is working during that time, he is not losing wages. If he is being paid less hourly/daily/weekly/monthly, then the BP fund will recoup the difference.

This is exactly how unemployment works (at least in my state). If you become unemployed through no fault of your own, unemployment benefits cover your lost wages. When you gain new employment, you no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, so long as the new employment provides a level of income that is at least x% of your original income. The BP fund will work the same way, except more beneficially for the fishermen, because unlike with unemployment, they don't even have to prove that they're trying to find other work. If they choose, they can just sit back and collect the claims money. It does seem like you don't believe that the fund is adequately replacing the lost wages, and that may or may not be the case, but it is not the central point of discussion here.

The problem with your argument is that this is not a case of people just being unemployed. This is a case of someone taking away their income due to negligence. BP did not fire the fishermen, they did not lose their jobs to to an economic downturn or any malfeasance on their part. BP TOOK their jobs by failing to adequetely prepare the well.

Liability and damage claims are quite different from either natural disasters or simply unemployment. THAT is the point.

BP is not paying these fishermen "unemployment compensation". BP is paying these fishermen for taking their livelihood (and entire way of life) from them. BP is paying damages. BP is also, in some cases, paying these fishermen to clean up the mess.

I can tell that you're very passionate about this topic, and I certainly can't blame you. I can see also that you believe that the fisherman are losing something more than just money, that they're losing a way of life. Also, that you believe BP to be at fault for the accident (and you may even believe, as some do, that it was not an accident).

BP has admitted fault. They may share some liability with the other companies involved, but that BP is at fault, at least in part, is not a question, even by them.

If you believe this to be true, why not suggest a civil suit against BP for pain and suffering? Punitive damages are often assessed in these cases, as well. An analysis of the merits of this suit would make for an interesting thread, and if you want to discuss, start it and link it here. However, I don't see pain and suffering or punitive damages to be at issue here, with a fund specifically designated to offset lost wages.

In fact, that WILL happen and IS happening. In a lot of smaller claims cases, that might be how it would work. In this case the damage BP caused was so widespread, had such a profound economic impact that had they not begun to pay some things immediately, it could well have spiraled that whole area and perhaps our whole US economy. (That is not an exaggeration, but it was only a possibility, could even still happen) Even so, BP has NOT paid all these fishermen anything close to what they would have earned. Nor have they paid all the various "support" people who also lost income directly due to BP's negligence.

So, what do you think? Is it right to subtract earnings from the cleanup effort from lost wages claims?

The two have nothing to do with each other.

BP OWES the fishermen for more than just the money they would lose fishing. That BP happened to hire some of those same fishermen to so some of the cleanup doesn't remove that liability at all.

Also:

You are legally entitled to a certain amount of money from BP in damages.

No, you're not. You're legally entitled to a certain amount of money in lost wages, which are not lost if you have other employment. Again, if you lose one job and get another, you can't continue to collect unemployment.

If you want damages, go sue for pain and suffering. When Player starts her "Should Fishermen Sue BP for Pain and Suffering?" thread, justify your case there.

[/quote]

NOT when the unemployment is caused directly by the actions of another. This is true in the case of discrimination, this is true in the case of harassment, this is true in the case of someone damaging your workplace.
InkLOsed is correct. Part of the damages caused IS loss of income to the fishermen. You are attempting to equate this to unemployment insurance, which is just wrong. Unemployment is effectively insurance people working for others are usually required to purchase. This is not that at all. This IS damages. Damages in the form of lost wages.

[PLAYER57832]

I will make it simple. These "lost wages" are part of a larger damage settlement to come, but to keep these guys afloat, they had to have some money prior to the culmination of those lawsuits. That is why some money was set aside for lost wages. This is not in any way unemployment compensation. It is just a parceled piece of the eventual damage claim to come.

Work that they do for BP needs to be compensated as well.. it is irrelevant to the wages lost.

[gatoraubrey2]

The problem with your argument is that this is not a case of people just being unemployed. This is a case of someone taking away their income due to negligence. BP did not fire the fishermen, they did not lose their jobs to to an economic downturn or any malfeasance on their part. BP TOOK their jobs by failing to adequetely prepare the well.

Liability and damage claims are quite different from either natural disasters or simply unemployment. THAT is the point.

BP is not paying these fishermen "unemployment compensation". BP is paying these fishermen for taking their livelihood (and entire way of life) from them. BP is paying damages. BP is also, in some cases, paying these fishermen to clean up the mess.

That's untrue. BP is paying lost wages compensation. No one has won a lawsuit for damages (pain and suffering, etc). To be precise, no one has even won a lawsuit holding them responsible for unemployment compensation, but they have taken it upon themselves since they know they would lose such a suit. However, just because you want them to pay damages, doesn't mean that they are. And until someone wins a case requiring them to, it is unfair of you to criticize them for not doing it.

BP has admitted fault. They may share some liability with the other companies involved, but that BP is at fault, at least in part, is not a question, even by them.

I didn't disagree with you. I was trying to empathize with you. I'm not claiming that they're not partially responsible.

In fact, that WILL happen and IS happening. In a lot of smaller claims cases, that might be how it would work. In this case the damage BP caused was so widespread, had such a profound economic impact that had they not begun to pay some things immediately, it could well have spiraled that whole area and perhaps our whole US economy. That not an exaggeration, but it was only a possibility, could still happen. Even so, BP has NOT paid all these fishermen anything close to what they would have earned. Nor have they paid all the various "support" people who also lost income directly due to BP's negligence.

Good, if that's happening, start a thread about it and discuss it there. The issue of damages is not relevant here in this discussion.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

BP OWES the fishermen for more than just the money they would lose fishing. That BP happened to hire some of those same fishermen to so some of the cleanup doesn't remove that liability at all.

Whatever they owe beyond unemployment compensation, falls under Damages (pain & suffering). It doesn't fall under unemployment compensation, which is what this fund is set up to provide, and is what this thread was set up to discuss.

NOT when the unemployment is caused directly by the actions of another. This is true in the case of discrimination, this is true in the case of harassment, this is true in the case of someone damaging your workplace.

It's like we're not speaking the same language. The extra payouts that you refer to are awarded as punitive damages, awarded to a plaintiff who sues for pain and suffering.

Make that damages, pain and suffering. The wages are part of the "damages" part.

That many suits will be brought is not a question. The only question is whether BP can deduct wages for work it has contracted from payouts to those people for damages.

That is the question, which all of your post except for one sentence failed to address. Again, why should they not be allowed to do this?

[PLAYER57832]

If this is indeed true, this is an absolute load of crap. I would even suggest it might be illegal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg

I may be tired, but it could be I am changing my position on this, in part, but here is why:

These "lost wage" payments are only a small part of the ultimate payout these fishermen should recieve. In effect, it is a "pre trial judgement" already being demanded of BP. This is reasonable in this situation, given that there is no doubt that BP is largely responsible (other companies, such as Haliburton, may share some blame, but BP will bear the brunt), given the phenomenal immediate economic damage this spill is causing. If all payments were allowed to wind their way through the court, then the economy of the Gulf would collapse and likely a good many other pieces of the US as well. So, BP took the unprecidented step of actually paying the states, etc some money (though remember they did demand releases of liability from their own employees) and is now paying out some compensation , prior to a trial.

In that framework.. requiring BP to basically "float" the fishermen as an advance payment of the full liability they are to be owed, having BP deduct the wages might make some sense. BUT, ONLY IF those wages are not deducted from the ultimate settlement.

Further, I am not sure it is justified even then... as I said, I am tired.

[gatoraubrey2]

The Sandman doth claim us all

Why should the wages for cleanup not be deducted from the final settlement?

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with your argument is that this is not a case of people just being unemployed. This is a case of someone taking away their income due to negligence. BP did not fire the fishermen, they did not lose their jobs to to an economic downturn or any malfeasance on their part. BP TOOK their jobs by failing to adequetely prepare the well.

Liability and damage claims are quite different from either natural disasters or simply unemployment. THAT is the point.

BP is not paying these fishermen "unemployment compensation". BP is paying these fishermen for taking their livelihood (and entire way of life) from them. BP is paying damages. BP is also, in some cases, paying these fishermen to clean up the mess.

That's untrue. BP is paying lost wages compensation. No one has won a lawsuit for damages (pain and suffering, etc). To be precise, no one has even won a lawsuit holding them responsible for unemployment compensation, but they have taken it upon themselves since they know they would lose such a suit. However, just because you want them to pay damages, doesn't mean that they are. And until someone wins a case requiring them to, it is unfair of you to criticize them for not doing it.

Technically true, but not really.

BP is absolutely guilty here. There is no real question about that. And, they WILL pay. Exactly how much, how long, etc and to exactly whom is, in some cases, undetermined. This "lost wages" compensation is purely a set-aside.
and it is definitely not typical unemployment compensation, which is employee insurance. Most of these guys, being independent, don't have unemployement insurance.

BP has admitted fault. They may share some liability with the other companies involved, but that BP is at fault, at least in part, is not a question, even by them.

I didn't disagree with you. I was trying to empathize with you. I'm not claiming that they're not partially responsible.

In fact, that WILL happen and IS happening. In a lot of smaller claims cases, that might be how it would work. In this case the damage BP caused was so widespread, had such a profound economic impact that had they not begun to pay some things immediately, it could well have spiraled that whole area and perhaps our whole US economy. That not an exaggeration, but it was only a possibility, could still happen. Even so, BP has NOT paid all these fishermen anything close to what they would have earned. Nor have they paid all the various "support" people who also lost income directly due to BP's negligence.

Good, if that's happening, start a thread about it and discuss it there. The issue of damages is not relevant here in this discussion.

The wages ARE compensation for damages. It is just that this one part of the damages is being paid out now, prior to the actual lawsuits, becauset this part is more straightforward AND more needed by the people of the Gulf. It is definitely an unusual step to make a guilty party pay out prior to a lawsuit, but that is what has and is happening here. This is happening because if BP did not pay some now, the damages in terms of economic spiraling would be far, far greater. So, it benefits them as well as the fishermen to pay out wages. (and in this case, there might be something other than traditional lawsuits, it might be the government dictating certain payments, simply because the issue is so very vast).

[PLAYER57832]

The Sandman doth claim us all

Why should the wages for cleanup not be deducted from the final settlement?

Because if you burn down my house, you pay to rebuild the house. The fact that I might have a contracting company, and might wind up being the one doing the actual work is utterly irrelevant. The first is damages. The second is wages.

[gatoraubrey2]

There are two parts of the overall settlement. The one part is damages. This is where the fishermen claim that the disaster caused them stress, that the job change caused them stress, that the families were impacted by the stress, and that BP should be punished for causing all of that stress. The jury deliberates and comes up with a figure. Voila, one million dollars to each family. Fine.

The second part is compensation for lost wages. The fishermen show data on how many fish they would have caught if BP hadn't coated the Gulf in oil, and how much money those fish would have netted (no pun intended) when sold. Then they show projections of future lost wages, based on damage to the ecosystem, etc. The jury deliberates and approves the figures provided by the plaintiffs. Voila, $500,000 for each family. Great. Except for one thing. During six months of time when Bob the Fisherman claims that he lost $25,000 (the value of the fish he would have caught had the Gulf not been coated in oil), Bob earned $30,000 doing another job. Bob couldn't have earned that $30,000 had he been fishing. He's not entitled to claim lost wages for a time that he was working. Instead of $1.5 million, Bob will get $1,470,000.

Maybe Bob only earned $15,000 during those six months when he would have earned $25,000. Fine, BP covers that $10,000, and he gets $1,485,000. Maybe Bob takes the Gulf oil spill as a hint that his lifelong dream of settling in Minnetonka should finally come to pass, and he leaves the Gulf shore to teach Karate up North. Bob gets $1,000,000, because he's not losing wages any more. He's moved away and found a new job.

There's nothing immoral about this. It's how unemployment compensation works. Notice that the "damages" portion remains unchanged. If a jury decides on a number for recouping pain and suffering or punishing BP, fine. Everyone gets that dollar amount. However, the portion of the claim for lost wages can only be justly granted if the party actually lost wages. If they were able to gain employment somewhere else, disaster-related or not, then they haven't lost wages.

[Woodruff]

This is exactly how unemployment works (at least in my state). If you become unemployed through no fault of your own, unemployment benefits cover your lost wages. When you gain new employment, you no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, so long as the new employment provides a level of income that is at least x% of your original income.

Now let me ask you this...if a person's "potential job" pays only precisely what they make on unemployment, what is their motivation for taking the job other than personal pride? Is there any? That is precisely the problem I see with this ruling...it is designed to push the people who could be quite a good help NOT to assist. The fisherman WANT to help clean up, but if they do they are essentially required to do so without any pay for doing it. The only thing that could motivate them is their own personal pride. That is a broken setup.

[Woodruff]

If this is indeed true, this is an absolute load of crap. I would even suggest it might be illegal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg

I may be tired, but it could be I am changing my position on this, in part, but here is why:

These "lost wage" payments are only a small part of the ultimate payout these fishermen should recieve. In effect, it is a "pre trial judgement" already being demanded of BP.

Do we know this as factual? I can easily foresee the argument from BP that "hey, we already paid them and THEY ACCEPTED THAT PAYMENT thus they agreed that it is sufficient". In which case, they're off the hook. If you think that's far-fetched, it's definitely not as this sort of thing is fairly standard practice in the business world (you opened that software package containing the terms of the agreement, which means you accepted the agreement).

[PLAYER57832]

There are two parts of the overall settlement. The one part is damages. This is where the fishermen claim that the disaster caused them stress, that the job change caused them stress, that the families were impacted by the stress, and that BP should be punished for causing all of that stress. The jury deliberates and comes up with a figure. Voila, one million dollars to each family. Fine.

Wrong. In this type of claim, they are one and the same. Lost wages is not a seperate issue, it is central to the damages caused these fishermen and many others who work in the industry's tangents.

The second part is compensation for lost wages. The fishermen show data on how many fish they would have caught if BP hadn't coated the Gulf in oil, and how much money those fish would have netted (no pun intended) when sold. Then they show projections of future lost wages, based on damage to the ecosystem, etc. The jury deliberates and approves the figures provided by the plaintiffs. Voila, $500,000 for each family. Great. Except for one thing. During six months of time when Bob the Fisherman claims that he lost $25,000 (the value of the fish he would have caught had the Gulf not been coated in oil), Bob earned $30,000 doing another job. Bob couldn't have earned that $30,000 had he been fishing. He's not entitled to claim lost wages for a time that he was working. Instead of $1.5 million, Bob will get $1,470,000.

Maybe Bob only earned $15,000 during those six months when he would have earned $25,000. Fine, BP covers that $10,000, and he gets $1,485,000. Maybe Bob takes the Gulf oil spill as a hint that his lifelong dream of settling in Minnetonka should finally come to pass, and he leaves the Gulf shore to teach Karate up North. Bob gets $1,000,000, because he's not losing wages any more. He's moved away and found a new job.

There's nothing immoral about this. It's how unemployment compensation works. Notice that the "damages" portion remains unchanged. If a jury decides on a number for recouping pain and suffering or punishing BP, fine. Everyone gets that dollar amount. However, the portion of the claim for lost wages can only be justly granted if the party actually lost wages. If they were able to gain employment somewhere else, disaster-related or not, then they haven't lost wages.

You are getting hung up on the terms and ignoring the reality of what these payments represent. This is NOT unemployement compensation. Unemployment compensation is an insurance program (essentially) run by states. When you work for a wage, you pay into a fund that, in turn, is then available to pay you a portion of your previous earned wages. It is insurance and the unemployment compensation is the insurance payout. So, yes, when you get a new job, it ends.

THIS, by contrast is nothing to do with insurance (except, perhaps from BP's liability end). In fact, fishermen, being mostly independent businessfolkd don't pay into the state unemployment claims.

You are correct that normally ANY payout would have to go through a jury. In this case, because BP is admitting guilt, because the situation is so dire and because, the potential for increased damage is so great were some monies not paid upfront, BP is not waiting for the judgement. They are putting forward a small percentage of what they will owe (no doubt with a fair amount of pressure from goverments), but specifically designating it for unemployment losses, to keep things simple. In essence, BP has said "OK, we know we are going to owe this part without a question and we can pretty well assess at least a good part of what the claim will entail, so we are going to go ahead and agree to pay this portion in advance of the judgement".

That they call it "unemployment payment" or whatever is irrelevant. It IS part of the liability claim

[PLAYER57832]

If this is indeed true, this is an absolute load of crap. I would even suggest it might be illegal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg

I may be tired, but it could be I am changing my position on this, in part, but here is why:

These "lost wage" payments are only a small part of the ultimate payout these fishermen should recieve. In effect, it is a "pre trial judgement" already being demanded of BP.

Do we know this as factual?

In part I am guessing. That is, I do know that this is not true unemployment compensation, it is part of a future settlement. However, the reasons for withholding the amounts paid in wages, etc.. I am guessing about that.

I can easily foresee the argument from BP that "hey, we already paid them and THEY ACCEPTED THAT PAYMENT thus they agreed that it is sufficient". In which case, they're off the hook. If you think that's far-fetched, it's definitely not as this sort of thing is fairly standard practice in the business world (you opened that software package containing the terms of the agreement, which means you accepted the agreement).

I definitely do NOT think that scenerio is far-fetched. Companies do that all the time. BP has allegedly already done that to its workers.

I have to look into this more, but I would suspect that this might be part of why the payments for clean-up is being deducted, because this is just a preliminary payment of the portion to cover "emergency" expenses. Anything over that might be contested and therefore must wait for a true judgement. HOWEVER, that is just a guess on my part.

[tzor]

By what possible logic do you excuse them from having to clean up the mess THEY CAUSED!

OK, that is all I can stand; I can’t stands no more. I’m going into my garden and making me a spinach salad. (Unlike Popeye, I likes me spinach fresh!) I am complete fed up with this hand washing bullshit that the disaster in the gulf is the result of one single entity. This is no murder mystery with a single who done it (well perhaps it is, but it’s “Murder on the Orient Express” and they all did it together).

This is a classic case of “for whom the bell tolls.” While there is still a committee investigating the causes of the disaster, (and how in hell can you determine liability when you don’t know the causes to be liable for,) we can easily look at the various levels of the responsibility chain.

• The absentee landlord (the Federal Government) who ironically is also the regulatory agency
• The maker of various pieces of equipment whose failure may have contributed to the disaster
• The general contractor – BP
• The sub-contractors

Now clearly, to some extent, BP is liable. But are they liable for …

• The prevention of early international assistance by the Federal Government
• The prevention through procrastination of timely mitigation and shore contamination measures by the Federal Government
• The attempt by the Federal Government recently to undo the only successful attempt at stopping the flow
• The environmental damage that will be cause by the preventative measures required by the Federal Government including, but not limited to, chemical disbursements

It’s easy when you can find someone who you can point your finger at, but it doesn’t do a damn bit of good. In my own neck of the woods, I have got local lobstermen who are going to be exterminated because there is now going to be a five year moratorium on lobster fishing in the sound. By the time that is lifted they will be gone and the void will be filled by the mega corps once the ban is lifted. Unfortunately, that disaster can’t be easily traced to one event, thus no easy finger pointing of blame, but they are forever out of their family line of work (for generations) none the less.

[PLAYER57832]

By what possible logic do you excuse them from having to clean up the mess THEY CAUSED!

OK, that is all I can stand; I can’t stands no more. I’m going into my garden and making me a spinach salad. (Unlike Popeye, I likes me spinach fresh!) I am complete fed up with this hand washing bullshit that the disaster in the gulf is the result of one single entity. This is no murder mystery with a single who done it (well perhaps it is, but it’s “Murder on the Orient Express” and they all did it together).

I agree that more people/groups than BP led to this disaster, but in the end, it was BP that caused this. They ARE responsible. Perhaps not for every last bit of damage, no. However, the amounts they are paying out right now for lost income are a piddly portion of what will be their whole liability.

This is a classic case of “for whom the bell tolls.” While there is still a committee investigating the causes of the disaster, (and how in hell can you determine liability when you don’t know the causes to be liable for,) we can easily look at the various levels of the responsibility chain.

• The absentee landlord (the Federal Government) who ironically is also the regulatory agency
• The maker of various pieces of equipment whose failure may have contributed to the disaster
• The general contractor – BP
• The sub-contractors

Now clearly, to some extent, BP is liable. But are they liable for …

• The prevention of early international assistance by the Federal Government
• The prevention through procrastination of timely mitigation and shore contamination measures by the Federal Government
• The attempt by the Federal Government recently to undo the only successful attempt at stopping the flow
• The environmental damage that will be cause by the preventative measures required by the Federal Government including, but not limited to, chemical disbursements

It’s easy when you can find someone who you can point your finger at, but it doesn’t do a damn bit of good. In my own neck of the woods, I have got local lobstermen who are going to be exterminated because there is now going to be a five year moratorium on lobster fishing in the sound. By the time that is lifted they will be gone and the void will be filled by the mega corps once the ban is lifted. Unfortunately, that disaster can’t be easily traced to one event, thus no easy finger pointing of blame, but they are forever out of their family line of work (for generations) none the less.

None of that removes the fact that it was BP's well, that they absolutely goofed and caused this damage. They are liable. Those factors might mitigate their responsibility to a point, but only to a point. Exactly how much, yes, is yet to be determined. However, the amounts they have paid out and are in the process of paying out are piddly compared to that overall liability.

Second, if your argument holds, then there is even MORE reason for the fishermen to paid for helping this entity clean up the mess, not less.