Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
The government has grown larger balls (and more of them), but they are not necessarily interested in exerting authority in the direction of big business. There are other enclosures they want to lock down first.
-
We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!
BP Whinying Like Little Girly-Men Over Gulf Spill Settlement
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
The government has grown larger balls (and more of them), but they are not necessarily interested in exerting authority in the direction of big business. There are other enclosures they want to lock down first.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Carelessness is a fact of life.
You never accidentally dropped something or made a mistake.
And then do you say, oh I chose to be careless. I will never ever be careless again.
The only way not to have car accidents is not to have cars.
The only way not to have deep water blowouts is not to have deep water drilling.
And what is the priority for the oil consumer.
"I want a thorough scientifically tested risk management system rigorously enforced by onsite government officials and am prepared to pay more for it because I really really care about coral and dolphins" OR
"I just want affordable gas for my tank now"!
Not saying BP don't have responsibility, but they are not the only party.
Not the only party, no. Haliburton and other companies were involved. But this case is closer to a case of drunk driving than it is a case of slippery roads. They knew they were acting reckless, but just figured the odds would not catch up with them.
That is a terrible comparison. The mistakes I make as an individual don't have nearly the impact on society that the mistakes a massive multi-national corporation does.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
People dying is also a fact of life.
Sure you might die from something careless and not your fault but someone elses fault but hey, thats going to happen so why bother putting in regulations, safety requirements and checks. Why even hold anyone accountable or investigate or have fines.
Why even have negligence, or criminal negligence, accidents happen.
The free market is never wrong !
Seriously though, its not like BP didnt decide to move an oil rig during a storm and then spill huge amounts of oil into the oceans just to avoid new taxes and new safety regulations. Or during the Bush administration send prostitutes and lavish gift to regulators.
Not saying that BP arent the only ones responsible but they certain try very hard.
The only way to keep BP's CEO from getting punched in the face is to keep his face out of reach of my fist.
mangxema
I
Well, anecdotically, this does happen to some extent. It's difficult to separate the effects of the spill and the effects of the more sluggish than usual economy at the time, and pretty much anyone who was suffering from either tried to get money for it.
How is it 'making things right' to allow the fund to be drained by people who weren't affected?
Because they can't point to any specific cases of abuse or fraud. Nor can they seem to define what they feel abusing the fund really is. That makes it seem like they are trying to make up an excuse to weasel their way out of paying what they owe.
Both of these statements are false, as this article - which could hardly be said to go easy on BP - makes abundantly clear.
This isn't just a matter of an evil multinational getting its just deserts (though that is certainly part of the story), it's also about the setting of precedents for corporate behaviour in the wake of future disasters. If open-ended compensation agreements are going to get abused as this one seems to have been, and end up costing the offenders far more than is required for genuine compensation, then it's going to be much harder to persuade them to cough up, and they're more likely to follow the examples of other notable villains, using their own legal trickery to dodge and defer responsibility for as long as possible.
Well if they didn't want people taking advantage of the recovery fund, then maybe they should have been a little more careful in their operation so a recovery fund wouldn't have been needed in the first place.
I have no sympathy for a corporation that doesn't live up to their social responsibility (and yes, massive multi-nationals do have social responsibility, contrary to popular belief). So forgive me if I'm just a tad uncaring of BP's plight. I also don't really have a problem with people taking advantage of the recovery fund and causing BP more financial harm because I see that as being within the realm of acceptable punishment for what they did.
So you didn't read my post (or the linked article) at all, then.
No I did. When I talk about social responsibility though, I'm talking about the responsibility to not cut costs at every turn to increase profits at safety's expense.
That is what BP did, and that is why I do not have a problem with people taking advantage of this recovery fund. Quite frankly, both BP and Haliburton should gladly pay that money out and be grateful that is all they have to do. The government could have come down a lot harder on BP.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Claiming for losses one knows one has not incurred
is fraud, a criminal offense in most jurisdictions.
It is no different from claiming for unemployment benefit when
one is working or lying about one's income to evade taxes.
Perhaps some people think that it is like negotiating the price of a car.
Fraud can also be pursued in civil court. BP has a remedy if it has the proof.
You're right, that is fraud. And just like JR stated, BP has legal recourse they can pursue if they actually have proof of the alleged fraud. However, BP is trying to use fraud cases to wiggle out of the recovery fund altogether, which is an absolutely disgusting move for them to make.
I'm also not saying the people doing this aren't committing a crime, I'm just saying I don't really care they are doing it. Don't ask me to weep for BP because they are getting taken to the cleaners as a result of a disaster caused by their negligence and carelessness.
aelf
Ashen One
Um, there will always be people taking advantage of such an arrangement. People are not all ethically-inclined (which, incidentally, is also the reason why companies like BP are responsible for disasters like this). That should, however, not be a reason companies are allowed to weasel their way out in the future by citing the abuse of compensation claims.
You have it ass-backwards if you think that this issue is bigger than the fact that companies can weasel their way out for whatever reason. Or that companies are allowed to cause disasters like this in the first place.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Who are "affected?"
Let's say you work for me as a critical employee in my business. A third party attacks you on the street and the resulting injuries send you to the hospital. I have to close my business because I am deprived of your skills. Should I be able to sue your attacker because my business was affected by his attack on you?
What about the pizza place from which I buy pizza for all employees every Friday? Do they have a claim against the attacker because their business has gone down?
What if you were not attacked, but were instead injured when a car's tire blew out sending the vehicle careening into you? Would I, or the pizza place, have a claim against the driver or owner of the car?
In these situations, both myself and the pizza place would be indisputably affected by your injuries.
In general, recover for tort law extends a limited way. The pizza place wouldn't have a claim in most cases because of this limited extension.
However, in the case of BP they agreed to pay out to parties whose stance was more attenuated than normally would be permitted in court. In return, BP's liability to those who signed on was limited.
BP's ad isn't about fraud. The ad was saying that the plain language of the settlement is being interpreted in a manner that is not consistent with the present philosophy of BP. The ad is saying "more people are getting money then we thought would" not "people are defrauding us."
To which I say: suck it, BP. You had your lawyers comb over the settlement. It was subject to numerous board meetings. In the end you made the determination that it was in your best interest to expand the class of parties who could initiate claims beyond what would normally be permitted in court in return for limited liability. I refuse to believe that such a decision was made without contemplating its broad consequences. If you failed in your ability to make an accurate determination as to what you would have to pay out then on your head be it.
If BP genuinely thinks it is getting taken advantage of then the proper means is to challenge the recipients of the funds using the systems laid out in the settlement or to challenge the settlement itself. Resorting instead to an absurd piece of demagoguery by buying ad space in the Times is simply demonstrative of a childish inability to confront their problems head on.
If BP can't control oil, how does it expect a fund to control money?
