BP tried making fisherman sign waivers?
by CmdrFenix on May.04, 2010, under General
Well been suffering a bit of writers block. I have read the stories of Obama’s “mistress”. I’m just watching that to see what happens with that before I throw my $0.02 in.
One interesting thing that I did come across this interesting article yesterday. Most fisherman are pretty much out of business right now due to the oil slick in the Gulf. BP has been putting them to work in the cleanup operation in order to help them out. Now such a kind act on its part had to have a catch right? There is always a catch… (pun intended) They were making the fisherman (some of which can’t read) sign waivers that prevent them from suing BP in a future date.
No one wanted to waive the right to sue BP, but some fishermen, desperate for cash, signed the waiver anyway.
It took a large amount of public outcry, but as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated once, “Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant”. Once this story got out, it was so unpopular, BP voided all of the waivers and apologized. Have to wonder what they would have done if it hadn’t gone out. We need corporations and businesses to drive the economy, but this level of corporate greed completely turns my stomach.
Come on people! Back to work now! 
May 4th, 2010 on 6:42 pm
But didn’t you hear? If you just gut regulations, and leave the “free market” to sort itself out, everything will be fine. We can totally trust BP to do what’s right without some “government beurocrat” handcuffing BP’s freedom, and without some “activist judge” deciding that the salt water southern river trout is more important then a bonus for BP’s executives next month….
As for the cleanup, all I can say is that I smell a lot of hypocrisy coming. Expect talking points blaming the President for malfeasance on the part of business executives at halliburton and KBR (who built the damned rig) and for slow reaction on the part of BP, mainly in not reporting the trouble quick enough, and for not accepting aid from the government fast enough. That’s all clearly going to be Obama’s fault in a a few weeks. Also expect to hear about how if we would just de-regulate oil&gas, and get rid of those pesky safety regulations, they would have been free to spend more time/money on safety inspections out of the goodness of their own hearts….
May 5th, 2010 on 7:07 am
I think everyone will agree *some* regulations are needed, but to the extent some of the Dems want? No, sorry man, can’t see that.
I did a fair amount of research on the construction of that rig and I found *no* tie in to Haliburton. I will ask for some sources please. I’m all for blaming corporate greed where evident, but there will be no blaming the ghost of Cheney without some kind of evidence.
The only criticism for Obama that I have heard has been that the Whitehouse reported a little while back that the President had no intentions of going down there and observing the damage first hand, (Same complaint for Bush) and when enough people raised an eye brow at that, he suddenly had it on his itinerary. In Katerina’s case, I will agree that FEMA failed big time, but it’s too soon here to assign blame.
May 5th, 2010 on 12:16 pm
I can’t find a “dont have to sign up and pay to read” online link to the article, but pick up a WSJ from over the weekend, they had a good writeup that followed the money. You -can- find references to halliburton’s stock price collapsing in response to the WSJ article however. If you did a “fair amount of research” I’m quite surprised you didn’t stumble on that … ?
As for the regulation that “some of the Dems want” … this is a classic problem. No offense intended, but I’m somewhat confident that you don’t know off hand what the Democrats have actually proposed for regulation over oil&gas, and I’m about 100% confident that you don’t have any real rationale for why it’s a bad idea. By all means, cite policy from democrats.org and explain why it’s “too much”. Then find something on gop.org and explain why it’s the “sweet spot”.
(Hint, you are unlikely find any on gop.org because they want to gut basically all regulation on oil&gas…)
Not that I have special love for the Democrats, but I strongly suspect if you actually read what’s been proposed (over the last year or so, even before the recent panic) about oil&gas regulation, and energy policy in general, that you would be quite surprised that it’s mostly minimal “oversight” level regulation. Conservatives in this country seem to have some idea that the Democrats are Stalinist totalitarians or something like that … turn off fox news, and see what they are actually advocating. Get it from the source directly and make up your own mind, not an interpretation from a pundit whos mind is already made up.
May 5th, 2010 on 4:28 pm
I did find an article that discussed their hand supplying the cement for the well itself, but THEY DID NOT BUILD THE RIG. I am sure you mean this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575214593564769072.html
The Dems have been hell bent against any additional drilling here off shore. Ironically the first bans on offshore drilling were put in place by Reagan and then renewed under HW Bush, but ever since then there has been a steady fight from the left against offshore drilling at all. You didn’t like my use of Dems there, check this out:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/90049-obamas-drilling-proposal-sparks-battle-among-senate-democrats
Love his statement of, “Giving Big Oil more access to our nation’s waters is really a Kill, Baby, Kill policy: it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars,” he added.” For the most part they are against any major business endeavor. I agree the GOP tries to dismantle regulations too far, but on the other hand, from my own reading (and no, not from Fox News) the Dems have taken it WAY to far in many cases when it comes to both punishing large companies and regulating industries. There has to be some middle ground and no the GOP is *not* the answer.
… I also have made up my own mind on the issue. Until electric and/or alternate vehicles are on the road, having the US import 70% of it’s Oil from the middle east is stupid. Drilling more here in the US until that happens makes sense. I am guessing that is why the Lightbringer has also advocated it.
May 5th, 2010 on 5:17 pm
No, that isnt the article I meant. The one I read focused on ownership over the subcontractors who performed the actual physical construction, though the one you linked is pretty damning in and of itself, albeit for different reasons. I’m sure you still trust them to do whats right.
I still contend that what the democrats have proposed is -very- moderate minimal oversight-level regulation. You’re free to disagree, and I know you do, but using the paradigm you’re suggesting you’re essentially advocating less then even the GOP is.
What “level” of regulation DO you feel is “appropriate” ? Can you give some specifics?
Should it be ok for a company to knowingly throw wounded workers into slag pits of molten steel? Should it be ok for a company to knowingly expose workers to toxic chemicals without telling them? Should it be ok for a company to knowingly issue/require equipment known to cause repetitive strain injuries?
See my first reply. You folks think the democrats are on some stalinistic totalitarian crusade, when you look objectively at what they are advocating (again, using a scale that’s inclusive of international political standards, not just what talk about here) it’s incredibly moderate.
If you want “too much” regulation, I’d be happy to point you at a vacation to Italy or Japan sometime. But then again, neither of those are third-world slumholes are they?
May 5th, 2010 on 5:22 pm
The other thing you have to stop by the way is using the term “punishing”.
Nobody is “punishing” anything. Failing to give megacorp’s a free ride and making them pay their dues to a society that afforded them gargantuan amounts of success is NOT “punishing”.
Ditch the agitprop please.