Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Do you agree with the Fisherman or BP?

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.

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.


Asked by sweet-a-kins at 12:23 PM on Jul. 17, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 34 (67,502 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (27)
  • Mixed emotions. But it boils down to this: For xxx amount of days, they could not fish. Instead of fishing, they worked clean up. It's similar to being in a business structure where you can't do your regular job but were assigned something else instead. You are still working, you still get paid.

    They should be paid for the days they couldn't fish and didn't work clean-up. They should be paid for the difference between clean-up pay and fishing pay. They should not be paid twice for the same hours.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 12:45 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Nobody needs to double dip for any reason from any pot. And yes, they do not need to get greedy over the idea that 20B is waiting for them to just have it. Money is money regardless of where it came from or what work they produced to earn it. Just like the issue with fishermen who aren't being paid because they have no records of previous years incomes. No taxes paid=No benefits from BP. You mean to tell me everyone in LA that had a boat was suddenly commercial fishermen? BS, AND if they were doing it under the table and not paying taxes on the seafood for 15-20 years--well now they are just breaking even with all the citizens in the US that PAID taxes on their incomes in the past.
    I think compensation should be paid, but the greedy and unscroupulous need to be weeded out ASAP.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 12:29 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I think that BP should pay them and the fund should make up the difference between what they are being paid and what they usually make. That isn't being paid twice. That is income replacement.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 1:57 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • SHOULD be TWO separate things!

    1st) is getting paid for WORK they are CURRENTLY doing.

    2nd) is being paid for the livelihood that was destroyed because of these idiots and their mistakes.

    Its NOT dsouble dipping. It SHOULD be TWO seperate issues!


    Answer by momof030404 at 12:40 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • There has been little discussion of compensation for damages to human health, which is in keeping with BP’s and the Obama administration’s shared posture that the massive spill poses no serious health risk to either cleanup workers or to the region’s population.
    Here, call Obama what you want with this decision of his.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 1:23 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Barry and Michelle want to keep your BMI down and control what you eat, but you can have all the chemicals in the world and it's NOT a problem.
    Still love Obama? Anyone?

    Answer by jewjewbee at 1:25 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Secondly...If a landowner had property damage=a way of life,...then they can take BP to court and prove that their negligence caused them financial loss. THAT is a totally different issue and compensation then comes from a totally different source. The damage done from the oil spill did not cause anyone to never be able to work again, unless they were an oil rig worker hurt during the explosion and injuries cause a disability preventing employment. Completely different reasons to seek compensation from BP or a negligent body.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 1:03 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I am arguing with the hubby over this one! LOL I just see it as two separate issues and I dont think they should be ably to mix the two. I think the fisherman have a claim against BP for the initial problem (not a weekly payment like unemployment). And then they deserve to be paid for this TEMPORARY work. Once it's gone they will not be able to go back to their livelihoods like before BECAUSE of BP. They will have to find completely new lines of work when this is all they have known for generations. BP owes them for that! Above and beyond any work they are doing to stay afloat now! I mean, would you expect BP not to payt them if they worked in ANOTHER field? Say they all go get jobs at McDonald's. Should THAT be subtracted from what they get from BP...because I mean TECHNICALLY they ARE working...I dont think so...


    Answer by momof030404 at 1:04 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Our office is currently working a similar case where an employee was fired, she is suing her employer one of our clients. And will lose. Mostly because she has no case/proof to show where her termination will prevent her from ever working again that He is responsible for.Her responsibility in getting fired is an entirely different issue and that will be the reason future employment will be difficult. A defendant has to be able to prove that negligence was present AND that it is a direct cause of all future financial loss in the employment sector to be able to win compensation for a lost way of life or means of income.

    Answer by jewjewbee at 1:09 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • From what I'm reading, it sounds like the Feds decision, not BP's.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 1:12 PM on Jul. 17, 2010