Tuesday, September 14, 2010

BP's (NYSE:BP) Bizarre Claims Czar Going to Cave in to Criticism?

It's one thing to attempt to improve the process to pay out claims to alleged victims of the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, it's another thing to pay compensation to people for money they've already received, which is what government claims czar Kenneth Feinberg is taking "under advisement."

This is the problem when someone from the government is appointed to oversee money.

The problem centers around claimants who say the money they were paid while working cleaning up the Gulf for BP shouldn't be subtracted from the claims they are seeking.

Feinberg responded, "I'm taking it under advisement. The last time I said, no way, I'm deducting it. Now, it's open for discussion."

It doesn't matter what the actual damage was to the claimants, since when do people get paid for work by a company and then not have it subtracted from claims? It's outrageous.

In other words, when they were getting paid to work, they weren't suffering from being victims of the situation. why would BP have to pay them, or why would Feinberg even say he's going to take it under advisement.

This isn't his money. And while he has authority to pay out legitimate claims, it's improbable he has a right to make these types of decisions, even though he seems to say he does.

Problems with the BP compensation fund aren't whether or not BP is going to have to pay without subtracting money they've already paid, the problem is the process is taking too slow, and alleged discrepancies in what is perceived as similar circumstances are what are making people the most angry.

What about the victims who didn't work for BP and are going to receive the same as those who did work for BP under similar circumstances. How could Feinberg justify paying more to those who already got paid and received compensation?

Hopefully Feinberg won't cave on this, and will hold to his guns. People aren't victims while they were getting paid. Any payment already made should be subtracted from the claims being made.

If they aren't, it's doubtful it would be even legal. That would be like someone getting paid to work, but then collecting unemployment at the same time, while others on unemployment only get the unemployment. This doesn't make any sense, and doing it to placate those attempting to game the system shouldn't be allowed, no matter how hard they scream.

They're playing the victim card too far here, as they weren't victims while they were getting paid to work. How hard is that to understand?

No comments:

Post a Comment