Gulf coast fishermen angry over oil claims ruling

[The Straight Story]

Gulf coast fishermen angry over oil claims ruling

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.

....

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_feinberg

[mod mom]

1. It makes sense financially until you factor the dangerous risk from toxins.

I wouldn't want my family around life threatening toxins! Neither should they be expected to do BP's dirty work.

[mike_c]

2. they damned well should be "paid twice" because the two payments...

...are for DIFFERENT THINGS. The claims against BP are for loss of livelihood in their regular professions, damages to assets, etc. Work they perform for BP should be paid with wages. Those wages are for the work performed, not for any prior loss of income. THAT should still be compensated separately!

[dsc]

3. the problem is that you have to subtract wages made from wages lost

Now I don't think the wages should enter into any other kinds of damages. Thus if the wages paid by BP are more than the wages that were lost by the fisherman, the fisherman should keep the difference.

[mike_c]

4. I consider their livelihood an asset that they lost due to BP's negligence...

...and any subsequent work they obtain is not the same asset. They should be compensated for their clean-up labor because they performed it under contract-- they are due their wages for that work. It has no bearing on their prior livelihood, which is an asset they have been deprived of through BP's behavior. I think they should be compensated for that independently.

If BP burned down their homes, then paid them wages for cleaning up the ashes, should BP's wages for ash cleaning be subtracted from the insurance settlement for the destroyed home? Or stated another way, should they be required to repay those wages to BP once they obtain their settlement? Of course not, because they are two different assets obtained under entirely different circumstances.

[dsc]

12. not the same thing

To take an example. Say I get fired from my job for an illegal reason from a job making 150k a year. If I sue three years later my damages would be 450k. But say in the meantime I get a job that pays 80k a year after one year. The court would subtract the 160k from the 450k leaving me with 290k since I couldn't work both jobs and thus wouldn't have earned the 160k but for losing my job.

[jody]

5. Not to worry, Gulf coast fishermen know Obama will save them, won't he? n/t

[jody]

11. Obama "We’ve also ordered BP to pay economic injury claims, and we will make sure they pay every

dime owed to the people along the Gulf Coast." Video clip
http://uptake-editorial.groups.theuptake.org/rss/videogalleryView/id/3113/

[jp11]

6. BP needs more ads showing that they care, will be there, and are going to do the right thing.

Cause everything they do and say just keeps working against their public relations machine.

The people should be paid for the work they are doing and it should not be used against the legitimate claims they have against BP. If it wasn't for BP they wouldn't need to file a claim or work for BP to makeup the difference from what they would have been making vs what the reduced money BP/Feinberg actually give them. Nor would they be in the dark about what their future holds for the environment, economy or their way of life for the future, who knows, years, decades etc. BP has stolen that from them and when Feinberg says they must accept the final settlement and cannot sue all those affected may not have any way to make money as they look at going to court for years/decades or giving up and taking whatever pittance Feinberg offers them and waiving their rights to sue.


I'd like to see BP try and deduct the wages they make doing some other work, not for BP, from their claims cause 'they shouldn't get paid twice'. If BP contracts out the cleanup then the contractor hires fisherman, will BP try to deduct what the contractor pays them from any claim(s) those employed by the contractor might have?

[Yo_Mama]

9. BP isn't making this decision

It's the federal government that's making this decision.

[SoCalDem]

7. The fund is to replace lost wages. If they are employed & earning a wage

they cannot expect to be compensated fully.. It's like unemployment,,if you take a job, you don't get it anymore..

[jp11]

10. He's making it like that but this isn't unemployment

BP isn't the government, they are supposed to pay period. The fund was supposed to be to compensate people who have lost income as a result of BP's disaster. Not to pay people what BP/Feinberg decide is 'right' then deduct any money they make in addition to that because they worked for BP, maybe we'll find at all, like unemployment which again this isn't.

I highly doubt the jobs people took stipulated they'd be penalized their 'pay' from any compensation they were awarded as part of the claims process.

[SoCalDem]

13. It's still a finite amount of money, and if people who are working for wages

get full measure of what their "previous" job would have paid (plus their BP pay), it's very likely that down the line, the fund will run out & some will end up with NO compensation, or will have a harder time collecting anything. Watch the hoteliers & large entities stepping to the front of the line & pushing aside the "lowly" people:(..Once the fund starts paying out large amounts, they will become more & more "careful" about depleting the fund , and they may start applying more & more restrictions.

[JHB]

17. But the $20B isn't the limit, it's an escrow account so that payments are not held up...

...in litigation. And an important factor here is just how much money are we talking about here?

[SoCalDem]

18. no one knows the amount..except for BP

I fear that once the crisis passes, they will either sell out or just say.. "no mas"

and then we go to court, where it will drag on for decades and the only "winners" will be the lawyers:(

[jberryhill]

15. "lost income" is "lost income"

If I earned X last year, and I earn Y this year, then my lost income is X-Y. How in heck are you defining "lost income"?

[SoCalDem]

22. since BOTH pools of money are from BP, the disctinction is probably a factor

BP fund we'll call "A"
BP wages for cleanup we'll call "B"

Fisherman ..we'll call JOE..

Joe's INCOME for 2008-2009 (according to IRS reported income) was $50K..divided by 12 months = $4166.67 per month

after the spill Joe's EXPECTED income would be $33,333.32 (50K minus 4 months prior to the catastrophe)


Joe could expect to "be made whole" if he collects $33,333.32 between now and the end of 2009. If he has been PAID $10K by BP fund "B" , he vcould expect to be paid no more than $23,333.32 by BP fund "A".

The goal was NOT for people to make EXTRA money..It's to allow for people to be guaranteed that they would not make LESS..

The punitive damages will come later, in the form of neverending lawsuits, but for NOW the idea is to pay as MANY people as possible, the amount they stand to have lost in family income..not to benefit people who doubledipped, by working for the very people who destroyed their income-stream, and at the same time, expecting to collect their potential lost income, in full..

Unless they have written guarantees somewhere that allows for full payment of anticipated/lost wages in ADDITION to any new wages earned, they will probably not get more.

[jberryhill]

23. I think you replied to the wrong post

I understand what lost income is. Others in the thread don't.

[SoCalDem]

24. oops..mea culpa

:spank:

[jp11]

25. Which has nothing to do with work done for extra money, just as if they went to work

at a mcdonalds that pay is for the work they are/did do not to be taken from their lost income claim which are what the fund and claims are about. BP is mixing the two, why because they can and it is convenient, it also makes a point of showing that when given the choice to work for their 'compensation' or sit back and collect it by doing nothing people will probably choose to do nothing if the amount will be the same. Sounds like a good argument to stop extending unemployment benefits in the US doesn't it? The lost income is what they could/would have made doing their jobs in their industry but CANNOT because of BP, the closed seas, the dead fish, the lost tourism etc it can't be done. That they find other work Job B doesn't affect that they can't do job A because of BP, the claims are about job A regarding that income.

I don't know what contracts/agreements paperwork was signed when taking jobs from BP but I doubt they were worded so as to say your pay will be deducted from any claims awarded and distributed to you. BP gets a service, equipment, and could have looked like they had half a brain, all evidence to the contrary, by employing local people in the cleanup but now they want to get out of actually paying those people for the work they've done.

If we are going to look at it like they made x last year and they make y this year then none of the people filing claims should do any work, just sit back and accept x-y which is what BP claims will pay, to hell with them for trying to get ahead of the disaster by working when we don't know what the future will hold in the way of work and their industries/economy etc.

[Yo_Mama]

8. Don't Know If It's Right Or Wrong

But Feinberg probably made this decision because there isn't enough money to deal with all claims, and he wants to try and recompense as many people as possible, i.e., spread out the injustice.

I think this is definitely a bad decision if they deduct payments without accounting for costs incurred, though. That would mean that these people had paid to participate in the cleanup. No matter what else is just, that just can't be.

[Urban Prairie]

14. Cleaning up the spill is MUCH more unhealthy and dangerous than fishing was

I don't know how much these "former" fishermen are getting paid for doing cleanup work in the GOM, but having lifelong good health is priceless, IMO.

[spanone]

16. EVERYONE will end up getting screwed except bp

[w4rma]

19. So BP and the Federal government want these folks to work to clean up BP's mess for free? Sick. (nt)

[lunatica]

20. Them corporations are always alert to any funny biznezz the

workers might pull with salaries and compensations. Gotta keep a keen eye on em or they'll take all yer profits.

[jimmie]

21. I hope they get what they deserve.

and I hope there's very little cheating.