Reply With Quote
I am not so sure I have a problem with this (your phrasing of the situation aside). Why pay them to sit on their ass when there are jobs readily available that they are being offered that they can work at and still be paid the same.
"BP will deduct money from individual payments on claims for lost income if the claimant refuses to work in assisting the spill response"
"BP will continue its efforts to pay legitimate claims for losses incurred due to the Deepwater Horizon incident. However, federal law clearly provides for adjustments for all income resulting from the incident, all income from alternative employment or businesses undertaken [...] and potential income from alternative employment or businesses not undertaken but reasonably available."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0706/whi...-gulf-cleanup/
Corps are ing Americans, America is ed.
I am not so sure I have a problem with this (your phrasing of the situation aside). Why pay them to sit on their ass when there are jobs readily available that they are being offered that they can work at and still be paid the same.
"Why pay them to sit on their ass"
Before paying them anything, why not test them for drugs, or if they beat their wives and kids, also?
These people should be receiving UNQUALIFED compensation for loss of income AND suffering due to BP's up.
They shouldn't have to WORK for BP, esp with HAZMAT but without HAZMAT personal protection, to be compensated.
They are not losing compensation if jobs are being offered to them where they are working and being compensated for it.
I feel the same way about welfare, and unemployment (past a certain time period . . say 18 mos). Make the people work 20 hour weeks in order to receive their checks.
I recognize that these aren't the exact same things, but if you claim that you don't have a job because BP spilt oil, and BP offers you a job, and compensates you in the same manner. What is the problem?
LOL...
No kidding.
Work is a four letter word for a reason. How many of us really want to. If you don't take a job offered, you can be cut from unemployment benefits. Why not things like this too?
I think that forcing BP to pay people to sit on their butts is just being punitive for punishment's sake with no clear meaning behind punishment.
I get the idea of asking those who've been affected by the spill to mitigate their losses -- to an extent, at least -- by seeking alternate employment. That's a fairly straight forward legal concept and it has clear applicability in this context, whether BP's obligations are legal or not.
But if BP is demanding that these people work for BP as a prerequisite to obtaining full compensation for their spill-caused losses, that seems fairly outrageous to me.
"don't have a job because BP spilt oil, and BP offers you a job"
cleaning up BP off beaches isn't a "job" people should be forced to take in order for BP to compensate them for BP's criminal incompetence/corner-cutting killing their real jobs.
Shouldn't they be interested in seeing their affected job areas restored?
should they lose compensation if they choose, instead, to drive trucks or work construction?
Hmmmm...
I'll bet the compensation does not require that they work for BP. I'll bet it only does so for those not working. Care to show me wrong?
Will BP deny these people BP money if they find (non-BP) jobs elsewhere while waiting to get back their original jobs? Will that "delegitimize" their BP claims?
It should. We are talking damages. If they made $30,000 a year fishing and end up making $30,000 a year somewhere else they haven't been damaged.
I don't know.
How about showing evidence it does rather than just make the accusation?
Back in 1776, Americans were fighting to escape British rule, these days we're fighting to escape British oil...
Yes, and they shouldn't have to do it themselves. It's always the people who don't have to clean up oil in hazmat suits that never see a problem with this.
I'm only going on what the cited piece says. I'm not saying it's right; I'm saying that if it's right, I think the policy goes too far.
One can maintain his income and still be damaged by something like this. If he takes a temporary job that will pay him now but the spill can be proven to have cost him income in the future that he would have otherwise earned via fishing, he's been damaged. If he was unable to fish for a period of time and unable to immediately find employment, he's got damages for that lapse of time, no matter how short it might be or how insignificant his damages might be. Damages are more than lost income, but any lost income proximately caused by the spill is damages.
"If they made $30,000 a year fishing and end up making $30,000 a year somewhere else they haven't been damaged."
once an asshole, always an asshole.
If you've listened to these people, working the water and boats is all they know, and for the older ones, it's all they want to do.
There really nothing along coastal LA but oil/gas and working the water
What I am getting from this is that it doesn't delegitimize their non-lost-wage claims. It just makes them work for what would be their lost wage money (which is now no longer lost wage, because they are getting their wage). It would be the same for someone who decides to drive trucks, or greet at walmart because it is an adjustment to their claim not a denial (they make 30k a year fishing and 10k a year greeting, there will be an adjustment to their claim since they are only losing 20k in wages). These jobs are reasonably available, in fact they are being offered directly to them. If they choose not to work, then it seems federal law allows for adjustments to their claims.
I don't understand this. If I had a whole bunch of time (i.e. no job), I would already be doing this for free.Yes, and they shouldn't have to do it themselves. It's always the people who don't have to clean up oil in hazmat suits that never see a problem with this.
Well, if they can't get another job then they have been damaged. If BP or anyone else offers them a job that pays the same as the one they had then they haven't been financially damaged. Pretty simple concept.
You're never going to convince a liberal that free rides are wrong. Why do you try?
There is an insurance term for this which evades me…For instance, if a person takes out a disability policy & suffers a medical condition which won't allow him/ her to work in their chosen field…The insurer has to pay the claim & cannot claim that the insured party is still capable of digging ditches or flipping burgers…
Are fisherman put out of work by a nasty oil spill now asked to clean up oil & pollution to be compensated? I am on the side with the fisherman...They clean fish not oil spills...
These people aren't being lazy, they HAD jobs until BP screwed them over.
Forcing them to work as BP garbagemen to get their money is really unjust (unless you're a Repug or conservative).
How about sending BP employees, there must be a few 100K to spare, to cleanup the mess?
What, they'll refuse? I wonder why?
I like the analogy, but it seems that it is not applicable here as your policy which you purchase would have, included within it, language which reflects chosen field. If the quotes given by the OP are correct, the federal law guarantees no such protection.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
