Posted on 07/18/2010 3:21:11 PM PDT by Qbert
NEW ORLEANS -- The federal administrator of a $20 billion Gulf oil spill compensation fund says the wages earned by people working on BP's cleanup will be deducted from their claims against the company.
Kenneth Feinberg told The Associated Press on Sunday the fund is designed to compensate fishermen and others for their lost income. If BP PLC is already paying someone to help skim oil and perform other cleanup work, those wages will be subtracted from the amount they're eligible to claim from the fund.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.al.com ...
Make the clean-up income tax free.
Isn’t that backwards. Shouldn’t they pay them AND compensate?
Bummer’s folks sticking their foot in it, as usual. Those should be independent issues, but why get the courts involved, that’s so old fashioned when you have an Emperor?
Backwards to a logical thinking person ain’t necessarily logical to an Obummerite.
It is called mitigating damages. These people are not entitled to a double recovery. In order to qualify for lost wages you must make some effort to earn something and if you are offered work and refuse it, you should not be entitled to make a claim for lost wages.
I don't see why this is an issue.
They know nothing about everything.
Guess we know why BP didn’t complain too much.
That must be that crazy math. Adding insult to injury.
Goldman Sachs execs get a bailout AND bonuses. Louisiana fisherman get a bailout OR wages.
OK, I see how it works now.
I agree. If you made $200 a day as a fisherman and BP paid you $500 a day, then you have no claim.
So duh....That’s how welfare works...
Sorry for the crappy presentation, but you get the idea.
I’m sorry Packrat, but I detect a flaw in your reasoning. Most fisherman work on a share basis - a share of the catch. Big catch, big share. No catch, no share. So they’re not making wages, and there’s no way of predicting how much money you’ll make before you drop your nets or whatever. In short, these guys could be losing a lot more than $200 a day when the fish are biting. That’s what an oil spill wiping out their season means.
Another example of I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you.
I'm sure BP will claim that you are able and employable, so you will find a future job, but the point is that you would never have been put into that position if not for BP.
-PJ
Paying people NOT to work—the obama credo
We are losing our country.
The appointed director of a clean up fund can’t reduce people’s claims. Only a judge can based upon a law congress passed and the president didn’t veto.
This is a basic constitutional issue.
>>>>>>>I agree. If you made $200 a day as a fisherman and BP paid you $500 a day, then you have no claim.<<<<<<<<
I have no problem with that as long as if you were making $500 a day fishing , you are making $500 a day cleaning up.
If there is a difference in pay that difference should be made up.
Of course those getting paid $500 a day for their loss as fishermen and not cleaning up are the smart ones here.
It is a bit like a penalty for working.
That's not going to stop them from filing. I'm sure that most of the claims will be fraudulent.
Since these claims are being handled outside of a judicial setting, I would anticipate that most of the claims will be by people who not only didn't lose any wages, but who were collecting government benefits for not working at the time the spill happened.
I also suspect that much of this fund is going to go to fund service unions like SEIU and ACORN and will be used to promote fraud in the next election.
I hope that the Cajuns and Crackers remember this treatment by the OBAMA government come November 2.
“It is called mitigating damages. These people are not entitled to a double recovery. In order to qualify for lost wages you must make some effort to earn something and if you are offered work and refuse it, you should not be entitled to make a claim for lost wages.
I don’t see why this is an issue.”
It would have made a lot more sense for them to provide some clarification as to this issue at the outset, as with many other aspects of the claims process. Part of mitigating damages involves searching for employment in a comparable field- it’s one thing for those with experience in the specialized process (especially offshore) of oil cleanup to seek/gain employment in spill cleanup to mitigate damages, but this may not be true for drillers, fishermen, and other businessmen. It’s hard to tell from the brief article how far the administration views this as extending- that’s my basic concern.
And whether it is valid, or not, some 85 people have already been sent to the hospital for cleanup-related injuries. It is very well possible that quite a few people simply did not want to be employed with the cleanup if they felt there was a health risk that the government was not adequately addressing.
How hard is that?
Keep in mind that most people would rather work and get paid for it than get a handout for nothing.
Yeah, but keep in mind that a lot of people who voted for Obama and have never worked a day in their lives are going to be making claims for this money and because the fund is being handled by an Obama crony, you can bet they are going to be getting a big chunk of it.
Very true.
“If you can prove that because of the spill you lost fishing earnings of $50,000 but you also worked for BP on the cleanup and earned $30,000, what are your damages and how much extra should BP be required to pay you for your loss?
How hard is that?”
The problem is, the uncertainty of the whole claims process has created two sets of unequal classes- one that gets a reduction in payment amount for doing work, and the other which gets the full amount for not doing the work.
If this were being handled properly (through the courts rather than through Obama's cronies) then each claimant would have to show both loss of earnings and attempts at mitigation. Failure to mitigate damages would normally result in a denial of any claim for lost wages. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.
Unless one absolutely needs immediate cash flow, why would one work for less cleaning up PB's mess?
Because the job is being offered and you have an obligation to mitigate your damages. If you refuse offered work, then the wages you could have earned should be subtracted from your claim.
If you want to sit on your butt and expect to get paid for not working when work is available, then you should not be getting the same recovery as those who worked to mitigate their damages.
These people are making claims for lost wages and lost earnings. When you refuse to work and work is available, your wage loss is because of your refusal to work and not because you were unable to find work.
Are you a democrat?
“If this were being handled properly (through the courts rather than through Obama’s cronies) then each claimant would have to show both loss of earnings and attempts at mitigation. Failure to mitigate damages would normally result in a denial of any claim for lost wages. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.”
Agree- And that’s part of what has been my problem all along with this. It was one thing to have this guy working on the 9/11 claims for wrongful deaths, etc. resulting because of the terrorist attacks, but this whole claims process has demonstrated how inapplicable a Czar is for things like this that the courts should be handling.
I would just add, as I noted briefly before, mitigating damages usually involves seeking comparable employment- i.e., the big time executive who gets wrongfully terminated doesn’t have to go so far as to fry burgers at the local McDonald’s in order to mitigate. But I don’t know what Czar Feinberg, and he alone, deems as “comparable”, or if that part of the law even applies anymore as he so deems it.
That's not true. He either has to show that he was actively looking for a comparable job or that he had to take a job at a lower pay scale. If he does neither, then he is not going to be entitled to lost earnings. Mitigation of damages is part and parcel to a claim for damages in wrongful termination. (Of course Punitive Damages do not require any mitigation on the plaintiff's part and that's where the big bucks lie).
Also in the case of executives, there are written contractual promises that have been breached and there is no duty to mitigate on a breach of contract claim. I suspect that most of the executive claims for wrongful termination are based in contract law and not in EEOC or other discrimination claims.
Sounds like BP made a Chicago type deal with someone... wonder what that would cost?
I don’t think it’s fisherman who are doing the clean up...
Says who?
There are many fisherman boats being used in the cleanup but it was just an example. If you are now being paid MORE than you would have made, then there is no claim.
“That’s not true. He either has to show that he was actively looking for a comparable job...”
That was implicit in what I was saying. In most cases, as long as s/he actively sought a “comparable” position, the law will not force such an individual to take a significantly lower position in order to mitigate.
Let's say the going rate for clean-up is $18 an hour - $160 per diem, plus free snacks, fresh fruit, and drinks. Some fisherman get a job with BP - and some don't... those fisherman working get paid about the same amount as those who didn't get jobs with BP? What should we make of that?
Are you stoopid?
Lets say I lose my job and get $400 a week unemployment. I am offered a job paying the same thing. Why should I take it?
People here on FR mostly would call me a bum and say my unemployment should be cut off. Why should those affected by the oil spill be any more special?
BP’s Vessel of Opportunity program pays some boat owners as much as $3,000 a day.
The owners of boats would be paid according to the size of the boat, with 65 feet and longer getting the highest pay at $3,000 per day. Boats between 45 and 65 feet would net $2,000 per day for the owners, while those between 30 and 45 feet would be given $1,500 per day. Those under 30 feet would get $1,200 per day. Any equipment required by BP will be fully reimbursed, plus an extra 10 percent of the cost.
The crew members of the boats would be paid $200 each per eight-hour day, but the meals are to be provided by the vessel owner.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/08/95514/gul-oil-skimmers-can-get-up-to.html#ixzz0u5eeYsvx
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.