Conquer Club

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 don't know about it being crap woody. They are hired and working and being reimbursed the difference.

Looks like they are getting what they would have gotten if they were doing and earning what they were before this mess.

They should not lose from it but they should not profit from it either. Just being greedy.

In the long run the quicker it gets cleaned up the better. Isn't that what really matters?

why? i think its legit why should bp pay out to you twice when they found a job for you to do? when you lose your job and you collect unemployment you collect until you get a job then its gone! it does not matter if its for less money. it's perfectly logical and only fair.

jefjef wrote:I don't know about it being crap woody. They are hired and working and being reimbursed the difference.

Looks like they are getting what they would have gotten if they were doing and earning what they were before this mess.

They should not lose from it but they should not profit from it either. Just being greedy.

In the long run the quicker it gets cleaned up the better. Isn't that what really matters?

apparently not to the fisherman who would rather profit and steal money from BP

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.

Obama did exactly what BP wanted. He established a "fund" to limit liability to the company. Also, BP is believed to have sprayed oil dispersants to hide the amount of oil that had really leaked into the gulf, actually causing environmental damage under the gulf's surface. Giving unemployed fishermen jobs and making it count against their liability suits is truly low, in my opinion. Nothing surprises me from BP.

CreepersWiener wrote:Obama did exactly what BP wanted. He established a "fund" to limit liability to the company. Also, BP is believed to have sprayed oil dispersants to hide the amount of oil that had really leaked into the gulf, actually causing environmental damage under the gulf's surface. Giving unemployed fishermen jobs and making it count against their liability suits is truly low, in my opinion. Nothing surprises me from BP.

BP wanted to burn the oil in the first weeks of the leak obama said NO WE HAVE TO do a 2 fucken week study on how THE FIRE WILL AFFECT THE WATER! and you still say its bp's fault all of it?

CreepersWiener wrote:Obama did exactly what BP wanted. He established a "fund" to limit liability to the company. Also, BP is believed to have sprayed oil dispersants to hide the amount of oil that had really leaked into the gulf, actually causing environmental damage under the gulf's surface. Giving unemployed fishermen jobs and making it count against their liability suits is truly low, in my opinion. Nothing surprises me from BP.

It's just asinine for any reimbursement above what they would normally have earned. You would also think they would gladly want to help to get their lively hood back on track.

I spose you think it's ok to sell water to disaster survivors for $30 a gallon and gas for $50 too.

I was under the impression that BP had no say in how the money was paid out, in which case the thread should be called something else....maybe 'more government bullshit'.

It pains me to say this and I promise its not becoming a habit, but I agree with jef(thats twice in six months for gods sake).

Night Strike wrote: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.

Oh come on. Think about this for a second.

BP isn't handing the fishermen money when they pay them for cleaning up. It is a trade: services in exchange for money. It is not a favor. BP needs the fishermen to do these jobs, or they wouldn't be paying them.

The fishermen, however, still have damages, which go beyond just the money they'd have been earning during the spill, but also the incalculable number of dollars lost in the future because of the spill.

So basically, BP has two costs as a result of this spill which they caused: the damages to the fishermen, and wages earned by these fishermen in working for them. These things are separate. The wages are a trade for the work the fishermen do. They are not an advance on the damages - if they were, the fishermen right now would be in effect working for no pay at all.

tl;dr - If the fishermen are entitled to a certain amount of money from BP, why should they take these jobs at all if they are going to end up with the same amount anyway?

InkL0sed wrote: fishermen are entitled

Yes! You fell for it!

Now it's about those damn fishermen and their entitlements!
Argument over, I've played the entitlement card.

Unless the fishermens boats are powered by wind or oars, they can shut the f*ck up.

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.

Pedronicus wrote:Unless the fishermens boats are powered by wind or oars, they can shut the f*ck up.

Also, if they own any products made out of or containing plastic, then they might as well just slit their own throats now and leave all of their money/assets to anti-hypocrisy charities.

Liberal Fisherman Hippies make me fucking sick. Corporations are the real victims here.

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.

What part about "Never let a crisis go to waste," don't you understand?

This is all out war against the most dangerous opponent of the Obama administration ... his power base must be decimated and forced to a perpetual welfare state where they will obviously vote Democratic. He must never be allowed to threaten the president in any political manner. Bobby Jindal must be destroyed and if doing so destroys the entire gulf coast so much the better. Florida isn't exactly a "democratic" state anyway.

Pedronicus wrote:Unless the fishermens boats are powered by wind or oars, they can shut the f*ck up.

thats great!

InkL0sed wrote:

Night Strike wrote: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.

Oh come on. Think about this for a second.

BP isn't handing the fishermen money when they pay them for cleaning up. It is a trade: services in exchange for money. It is not a favor. BP needs the fishermen to do these jobs, or they wouldn't be paying them.

The fishermen, however, still have damages, which go beyond just the money they'd have been earning during the spill, but also the incalculable number of dollars lost in the future because of the spill.

So basically, BP has two costs as a result of this spill which they caused: the damages to the fishermen, and wages earned by these fishermen in working for them. These things are separate. The wages are a trade for the work the fishermen do. They are not an advance on the damages - if they were, the fishermen right now would be in effect working for no pay at all.

tl;dr - If the fishermen are entitled to a certain amount of money from BP, why should they take these jobs at all if they are going to end up with the same amount anyway?

That is not true if you put some one back to work and pay them you have fond the fisherman a job and since you did that you are no longer entitled to pay them damages why should you collect twice?

Gypsys Kiss wrote:I was under the impression that BP had no say in how the money was paid out, in which case the thread should be called something else....maybe 'more government bullshit'.

It pains me to say this and I promise its not becoming a habit, but I agree with jef(thats twice in six months for gods sake).

its not it is done by a third party separate from the government and bp!

jefjef wrote:I don't know about it being crap woody. They are hired and working and being reimbursed the difference.

Looks like they are getting what they would have gotten if they were doing and earning what they were before this mess.

BULL.

jefjef wrote:They should not lose from it but they should not profit from it either. Just being greedy.

NO. They will NOT be fully compensated any more than fishermen in Alaska were compensated. Furthermore, when you directly cause someone else harm due to your negligence, then you generally have to pay more than just the barest minimum.

jefjef wrote:In the long run the quicker it gets cleaned up the better. Isn't that what really matters?

Arsonists often like to go and help put out, even rescue people from fires they cause. So, is that all that matters? Not even close!

Not to mention the fact that BP has not just caused expenses and cut incomes. BP has destroyed an entire system of life and living for the next generation, at least.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Not to mention the fact that BP has not just caused expenses and cut incomes. BP has destroyed an entire system of life and living for the next generation, at least.

Even not taking that into account though, this is ridiculous. If the fishermen's pay is deducted from the money they get, they are literally working for free. We have another name for that - slavery (or internships). I'm pretty sure becoming a serf wasn't what the fishermen had in mind when they took the jobs.

tzor wrote:

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.

What part about "Never let a crisis go to waste," don't you understand?
This is all out war against the most dangerous opponent of the Obama administration ... his power base must be decimated and forced to a perpetual welfare state where they will obviously vote Democratic. He must never be allowed to threaten the president in any political manner. Bobby Jindal must be destroyed and if doing so destroys the entire gulf coast so much the better. Florida isn't exactly a "democratic" state anyway.

Uh...what?

Conspiracy Theory says what?

Woodruff wrote: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.

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

Aside from the fact that we've established that this isn't BP's decision...

This is totally fine. BP's liability in the immediate future is to provide replacement income in proportion to the amount lost due to the oil spill. If they can replace this income by providing alternate employment, so much the better. Why just hand people money to sit and do nothing, when you could hand them money for contributing to a solution? Heads up: they've stopped fishing. They're not doing anything all day. No one is entitled to be paid for nothing, so long as employment is available. And don't forget, they're being paid far above minimum wage for a job any kid could do.

If, as Player suggests, there proves to be lasting damage to the Gulf fishing industry, then BP should be held liable for the continued lost income, in proportion to the amount of that lost income. No one can determine what that amount will be, because no one has tried to fish yet and compared the yield to previous trends. At that point, the money will have to come in the form of a straight subsidy, because the fishermen will be back to spending their days on the water, fishing. Until such time as they begin to re-start the industry, they can get up in the morning and go to work, just like I do.

rockfist wrote:

Woodruff wrote: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.

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

And that's exactly what I've been saying.